There are two ways: One, you can say, what just happened, then try to reduce the issue at hand, blame external factors, and offer vague assurances. Or you can say we goofed and this is how we’ll make good.
In other words, be like a Pepsi which in 2017 defended an ad — in which American model Kendall Jenner was seen diffusing a protest by handing a police officer a Pepsi — stating it was about “unity, peace, and understanding” and move on.
Or, follow Domino’s which in 2009 responded to a viral employee misconduct video with a video apology by the CEO, followed by a “pizza turnaround” campaign, admitting flaws and improving the product.
Then there is the Lenskart way. First dilly-dally, hoping that the social media backlash over an alleged “anti-Hindu”internal grooming policy will die down before a 5-6% stock plunge (around Rs 4,500 crore valuation drop) forces you to issue a public apology and release a standardised ‘In-Store Style Guide’.
It all began when an internal policy document advising employees to not wear visible religious symbols like bindis and tilaks in its stores went viral. A social media storm followed with accusations of religious bias, since the document allowed certain other religious symbols.
CEO & co-founder Peyush Bansal, in an effort to deal with the outrage, initially termed the document as “inaccurate” and “outdated” but was left fielding further outrage from consumers who accused him of deflecting.
The controversy underscores the challenges that organisations face in framing standard workplace policy, while managing expressions of cultural identity with sensitivity, says Nisha Sampath, managing partner, Bright Angles Consulting. “Bindi, hijab and mangalsutra are not merely dress choices but visible identity markers.
The episode stresses the need to draft guidelines with sensitivity and explain them adequately before rollout to avoid backlash,” she remarks, noting that in today’s times, internal documents that are carelessly drafted and circulated can become serious reputational liabilities for businesses.
Sampath on how to accurately minimise damage from backlash
Brands that respond to outrage with authenticity and empathy usually succeed in minimising the damage, says Sampath, adding Lenskart leadership fell short on both counts.
Karthik Srinivasan, brand and communications strategy consultant, points out that the CEO’s voice always carries weight and there is no hiding behind a company “spokesperson” when it comes to handling a sensitive issue.
“Peyush Bansal is also a public figure, considering he has featured in the brand’s ads and also because of his association with Shark Tank India. That public-facing appeal and directness can be powerful, but it also means the tone and sequencing of his statements are scrutinised closely,”he says.
He credits Bansal’s eventual statement — that “Lenskart was built in Bharat, by Indians, for Indians” — as emotionally resonant, but adds that it came too late. Instead of taking a defensive tone, the company should have fact-checked before putting out a response. “The drip-feeding of clarifications was a corporate communications failure,” he says.
Damage control
According to Shekhar Suman, co-founder of Brandshark, the biggest learning from the controversy is that financial markets now price-in culture risk. This is evident from the 5% drop in its shares this week.
“That should alarm every consumer-facing founder. For any listed or pre-IPO brand, a misstep in values is no longer just a social media storm, it becomes a balance sheet event. Your internal documents are your brand now,” he says.
He lauds Lenskart for eventually sharing its new style guide for employees, even if it came late in the day. “That’s hard to argue with because it’s specific, public, and comparable to the old version. Vague assurances don’t survive a news cycle. Specificity does,” adds Suman.
The resurfacing and public criticism of Lenskart’s Pongal ad that was released in January and also goes to show that once a brand is embroiled in a religious or cultural controversy, everything comes under the scanner. “Assume that everything in your archives will be scrutinised.
Brands in such scenarios should proactively review recent campaigns that could be pulled into the conversation, and prepare responses in advance,”says Srinivasan.
There are some, however, who offer a different take. Sandeep Goyal, managing director, Rediffusion, believes Bansal caved in to social media pressure quickly when he should have stood by his employee grooming guide.
“Several companies, especially airlines and hospitality firms, have clear rules about religious symbols. Bansal should have stood his ground, while promising to review anything that is problematic or discriminatory,” he argues.