We recently ran a study to see how the PR world changed after the Middle East conflict started. In just a few weeks, search demand for reputation management in the UAE increased by 75 per cent. Queries for crisis communications rose by 66.7 per cent. Total crisis-related searches in the UAE reached 175 per month, while the wider MENA region climbed to 425.
Now compare that to the months before. Between December 2025 and January 2026, the UAE averaged only 135 monthly searches for these services. Reputation management generated just 40 searches per month, while crisis communications saw only 30.
What does this tell us? Most brands did not see trouble coming.
And I am not talking only about the recent conflict. In my experience, companies tend to think about crises only when one is already unfolding. They call or write in panic after a data breach, a damaging social media post, or a wave of negative reviews. Research supports this pattern. According to a Capterra crisis communications study, only 49 per cent of companies have a formal crisis communications plan, while fewer than 25 per cent regularly test it through exercises or simulations.
Why are so many businesses unprepared? Because crisis planning often struggles to compete with short-term commercial priorities. Many executives see it as a cost centre rather than a business asset. Yet the same research from Capterra found that 98 per cent of leaders who activated a crisis communications plan considered it effective, and 77 per cent described it as very effective.
The biggest advantage of preparation is speed. During a crisis, the first few hours often determine whether a company controls the narrative or becomes controlled by it. Organisations with predefined approval processes, spokespersons and messaging frameworks can respond immediately, while competitors spend precious time debating who should speak and what should be said. According to PwC’s Global Crisis Survey, companies with established crisis-management capabilities report faster recovery times and lower levels of operational disruption than those forced to improvise.
Preparation also protects revenue. Research of publicly traded companies showed that a reputational crisis triggers an average 68.6 per cent drop in earnings per share. Moreover, businesses spend an average of 425 to 427 days recovering their pre-crisis stock market valuations. Having a plan in place helps companies reduce these consequences.
Johnson & Johnson’s handling of the 1982 Tylenol poisoning crisis remains one of the most cited examples. The company rapidly recalled products nationwide, prioritised public safety over short-term financial considerations and maintained transparent communication throughout the response. Decades later, the case is still taught in business schools as a benchmark for crisis leadership and stakeholder trust.
The challenge for businesses today is that crises rarely fit neatly into predefined categories: a cybersecurity incident can quickly become a regulatory issue; supply-chain problem can evolve into a social media controversy. What does this mean? You have to think outside the box.I often describe this as a ‘Rubik’s Cube’ approach to crisis planning. When preparing for potential issues, companies should think through as many possible consequences as they can. A cyberattack, for example, may lead to customer complaints, media scrutiny, regulatory questions and employee concerns all at once.
Another overlooked area is narrative monitoring. Most crises begin as small conversations among customers, employees, journalists or industry observers. The smartest communications teams track Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit and other platforms continuously, looking not only at what is being said but also at who is saying it and how quickly narratives are spreading. In many cases, this approach can prevent a backlash. We have seen situations where customer complaints gained traction online for days before attracting media attention, giving brands an opportunity to address concerns directly, explain their position and resolve the issue before it developed into a full-scale reputational crisis.
What is often overlooked is internal communication. Companies frequently focus on external messaging during crises. At the same time, employees can worsen the situation by raising concerns publicly, leaking information or sharing frustrations on social media. Messages on internal chats can be a problem too. We have seen examples of this around the world. During Boeing’s 737 MAX crisis, internal employee messages later became public and generated additional scrutiny of the company’s safety culture.
And actually, one more point on transparency. I once had a client who was not fully honest about the underlying issues behind a crisis. As a result, PR efforts had limited impact. This experience led me to one key rule of effective crisis communication: entrepreneurs and C-suite executives must be as transparent with their PR advisers as they are with lawyers or doctors. Without a complete and accurate understanding of the situation, it is impossible to provide meaningful support or develop an effective response to a complex crisis.
By Evgenia Zaslavskaya, founder and CEO, Zecomms Agency
