Navigating disruption

Adapting when it goes wrong

When things go wrong inside an organisation, the instinct is often to explain the problem, control the narrative and move quickly past the damage. But internal crises rarely land that neatly. Whether it is a supply failure, a product recall or a controversy that pulls a brand into the spotlight, buyers are not just reacting to the issue itself. They are reacting to what it means for them.

Brands who navigate these issues well are those that do not start with the problem. They start with the people affected by it.

Where external crises and trends often feel easier to frame because the threat is happening to the market, the category or the world around the brand, internal crises are more uncomfortable because the brand is the source of the disruption. There is nowhere to hide. These moments are a test of whether a brand really understands its buyers.

The best responses are built on buyer truth, brand voice and human response. First, identify what people are actually feeling: frustration, disappointment, scepticism, humour, anxiety or even relief if the brand has responded quickly enough. Then decide how the brand should sound in that moment. Finally, respond in a way that shows the audience their experience has been understood, not dismissed.

KFC’s infamous chicken shortage is a useful example. The issue was operational, but the public reaction was emotional. People were annoyed. KFC’s response worked because it acknowledged the absurdity of the situation rather than hiding behind corporate language. It spoke to the public mood, not just the logistics, and did so in a way that was true to its brand and that anchored its distinctive brand assets.

KitKat took a lighter route when a truckload of products was stolen, turning a supply-chain problem into a story people wanted to follow. Again, the point is not that every internal crisis should be treated as entertainment. The point is that the brand understood the audience’s response and used its personality to meet it. The crisis became a moment of connection rather than pure damage control.

Oatly faced a different kind of pressure: criticism and controversy that raised questions about trust. In moments like that, it is tempting for brands to say less and hope the noise fades. Oatly’s approach, however, was to gather criticism in one place and confront it more directly. That matters because sceptical audiences are rarely reassured by defensiveness. They are reassured by transparency and a willingness to engage.

That is the deeper lesson for marketers. People do not care about your crisis in the abstract. They care about how it affects their experience, their trust and their relationship with the brand. If a problem disrupts a purchase, a service or a belief, the response has to speak to that emotion first.

In moments of uncertainty, people look for cues: is this brand honest, competent, human, calm or evasive? Those cues shape whether the audience gives the brand the benefit of the doubt. The wrong message can make a bad situation feel worse. The right one can reduce friction, preserve trust and, in some cases, strengthen loyalty.

Internal crises expose how well a brand really knows itself and its buyers. They reveal whether marketing is just a layer of messaging or a genuine understanding of what people need when pressure hits. The brands that recover best are not the ones that explain themselves most evasively. They are the ones that understand the emotional reality of the moment and respond like they mean it.

In disruption, that distinction makes all the difference.