Consumers in the ANZ market have long been vocal about fairness, transparency, and accountability. But what was once primarily a legal or customer service issue has increasingly become a reputational one, playing out in real time on social platforms, review sites, and public forums. With heightened awareness of consumer rights, social media amplification, and more vocal consumers, a single misstep can escalate into a reputational challenge for organisations.
To explore this shift, Telum Media spoke with Cassie Arauzo, Corporate Affairs Lead at Spark New Zealand. She discussed the evolving role of communicators in handling customer complaints, how teams work across departments to resolve issues, and how organisations can prepare for situations where customer concerns escalate into potential crises.
What role do communications teams play today in triaging public consumer complaints, and how do you decide whether an organisation should respond publicly or take an issue offline?
Complaints may surface through customer care teams, social channels, or occasionally via traditional media. At organisations like Spark, customer care and social teams are trained to resolve issues directly wherever possible and have frameworks that help them assess when to escalate to corporate affairs and legal teams for additional guidance.
Once matters are escalated, the approach we take is to proceed with legal obligations. From there, corporate affairs will work closely with care teams to understand the broader customer experience and consider whether there are ways to support the customer beyond the legal requirement.
If the complaint was made through social media, our team will generally acknowledge public complaints to show engagement, then shift to direct contact to verify the customer's identity and investigate further. For complaints that surface on traditional media platforms, we follow a similar process - investigate first, connect with the customer directly where possible, then respond to the media. It's important that the customer hears from the company directly before they see it in a news story.
How do communications, legal, and marketing teams work together during consumer-related issues, and how do organisations balance reputational risk, legal compliance, and commercial priorities when those functions have conflicting views?
While legal, marketing, and corporate affairs are distinct functions, we work collaboratively across most things. Decisions, especially on consumer issues, rarely sit neatly within one function. Commercial considerations, legal interpretation, and reputation risk all play a part in the broader decisions and communications approach.
As mentioned, starting with legal obligations is a non-negotiable. The discussion then moves to how we can show up better: How will this land with the customer? What are the reputational considerations? Can we do more? And of course, what are the commercial realities we are operating within?
For example, if we're implementing a change that impacts customers, we’ll ensure we meet legal requirements but also consider how we can make the change easier. This could include longer notice periods or setting up practical assistance in the community.
It's critical to recognise that there's an interdependence across the separate functions. Only focusing on short-term commercial outcomes can create longer-term reputational or legal challenges. Equally, being overly risk-averse can slow progress and delay speed to market.
The key is taking a holistic view and recognising that legal, reputation, and commercial considerations are interconnected rather than competing priorities. This approach encourages all teams to step beyond functional silos and consider the broader organisational impact of any decision, not just the immediate objective of one team.
Despite legal compliance, brands are still at risk of reputational backlash. How wide is the gap between what is legally permissible and what consumers perceive as fair, and how can comms navigate and plan for potential fallouts?
The gap can vary significantly depending on the issue. In some cases, meeting the legal threshold is sufficient. In others - particularly where vulnerable customers may be affected - the legal minimum may not align with community expectations.
That's where corporate affairs plays an important advisory role. Being compliant is essential, but it's not always the full answer. It's important to look at the broader context: who is impacted, how complex the change is, how much notice is reasonable, and what additional support might reduce friction or confusion.
Mitigating fallout starts early. Involving corporate affairs at the outset of customer-impacting programs allows us to shape messaging, anticipate likely concerns, and stress-test the approach.
It can also involve proactive stakeholder engagement - ensuring community groups, advocacy organisations, or elected representatives understand the changes and support available. When stakeholders already understand the rationale and support available to customers, they're better equipped to respond constructively when approached by their communities. This reduces the risk of misunderstanding or public criticism.
In an era of call-outs and boycotts, what are the challenges to rebuilding consumer trust after a public controversy, and how do traditional and social media amplification change the trajectory of these issues?
Public consumer complaints aren't entirely new. For well over a decade, social media and online platforms have given customers a direct way to "call out" organisations, and businesses are generally well equipped to manage this.
What has evolved, however, is the nature of complaints. They are increasingly about broader ethical or societal concerns rather than individual dissatisfaction with a service, and these can escalate much more quickly and far-reaching than when issues were contained between a customer and an organisation.
Traditional media can legitimise or amplify complaints that begin online, while social media accelerates both the pace and scale of scrutiny.
These complaints are also harder to take "offline," because they often seek public statements or stances on certain issues. Matters like these are then escalated to corporate affairs, as they move beyond resolving an individual customer complaint to managing a public conversation.
Because these complaints often relate to ethical or societal issues and attract public attention, corporate affairs' approach must account for a wider audience from the outset. The goal is to address the issue effectively for the individual customer, while also maintaining trust and credibility with the wider community who may be observing or impacted by the conversation.
Customer-facing staff communicate with consumers every day, often on sensitive issues. How much oversight should communications teams have over customer service messaging and training, and where should that responsibility sit within an organisation?
Oversight from corporate affairs should be proportionate to the issue. Our customer care teams are well trained in day-to-day customer interactions and are empowered to resolve most matters directly. Communications doesn’t need to script every interaction, but we do have a role in shaping the approach when issues are sensitive, complex, or high-profile.
Spark’s customer care teams have access to an internal intranet full of information to support them in a range of scenarios and questions. For particularly delicate topics, corporate affairs works with channel leads and legal to develop key messages, FAQs, and anticipated scenarios.
Responsibility typically sits with the project or business lead driving the change, supported by channels to operationalise it. Corporate affairs and legal will then review for reputational and legal considerations, but we don’t ‘hold the pen’ on frontline communications.
Ultimately, whether through the customer care team, social media, or a media statement, customers should receive clear, consistent information.
As consumer awareness grows across markets, what will transparent, clear, and proactive communications processes and training look like for organisations, and how should emerging markets prepare frontline teams as consumers become more informed and outspoken about their rights?
Corporate affairs will increasingly play an advisory role, keeping our finger on the pulse and having a good gauge of the "mood of the nation" as we support teams in developing material for our customer care teams, especially for complex or sensitive issues.
When communicating across social, traditional media, and customer care channels, we align key messages and responses that might be particularly sensitive. Corporate affairs often holds the pen on initial messaging and FAQs, which social and customer care teams then adapt for their audiences. This ensures consistent information while allowing flexibility for different audiences.
Clear and transparent communications aren't the responsibility of a single function. It relies on a shared understanding the expertise each team brings, clear guidelines on when and how to engage, and strong collaboration in developing messaging and processes to support consumers.
Interview: Cassie Arauzo from Spark New Zealand
Telum Media creating connections
Get in touch to learn more
talabat brings in regional comms manager
You might also enjoy
On 14th October 2026, Telum Media hosted an exclusive in-person discussion in Kuala Lumpur featuring Himanshu Bhatt, Acting Managing Editor of The Sun Malaysia. The session was also joined by Irene Tan, the publication's General Manager of Advertising and Marketing.
Moderated by Mary-Jane Tan from Telum Media, the discussion explored The Sun Malaysia’s core audience across its print and digital platforms, alongside its editorial priorities and the evolving trends shaping news consumption. More than 100 PR and communications professionals in attendance also gained insights into identifying stories that resonate with everyday readers.
During the session, Irene urged communicators to move beyond hard-sell approaches by offering relevant knowledge, timely insights and valuable information that reflect current trends and wider public interests.
The discussion also covered how communicators can develop compelling story angles to improve their chances of securing mainstream media coverage. Tips included demonstrating a direct impact on consumers, addressing wider industry issues and offering solutions to societal challenges.
In the audience Q&A segment, communicators representing different sectors shared their respective concerns and sought editorial suggestions. The segment also addressed questions about pitching and the current media landscape.
Stay tuned for more Telum Media events by subscribing to our News Alerts for the latest updates.
Umesh Ratnagobal has joined Australian construction company, Kapitol, as Head of Corporate Affairs. He was previously at Laing O'Rourke as Head of Government and Client Relations. Prior to this, Umesh held comms roles within the government, tech, and oil and gas sectors.
Historical data breaches are resurfacing in AI-generated answers when consumers evaluate whether to trust or purchase from an organisation, potentially extending their reputational impact long after the incidents have been resolved, according to a new report by Sefiani, part of Clarity Global.
The research, Cyber Breaches and Reputation Response in the AI Era, combined a nationally representative YouGov survey of 1,019 Australian adults, conducted between 19 and 24 August 2026, with an analysis of how three AI search tools reference historical cyber incidents across different stages of the customer journey.
Using its Surfacd AI visibility tool, Sefiani examined three organisations that had experienced significant data breaches: a global law firm, a global logistics company, and an Australian private health insurer. The analysis tested 30 prompts per organisation across ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overviews.
The findings suggest that while consumers may be willing to remain with organisations following a data breach, the way a company communicates its response and subsequent improvements can have lasting reputational implications.
Breach visibility increases closer to purchase decisions
The study found that historical data breaches were rarely mentioned in AI-generated responses during the initial stages of customer research but became increasingly visible as queries shifted towards evaluating specific organisations.
During the category discovery stage, past breaches appeared in an average of 2.7 per cent of AI responses across the three organisations. This increased to 13.1 per cent during brand validation and 42.2 per cent at the decision stage, when users asked more directly about an organisation's trustworthiness.
For one organisation, breach history appeared in 59.1 per cent of decision-stage responses.
The research also found that AI responses did not exclusively frame historical breaches negatively. Some answers referenced how organisations restored services, improved security, or responded to incidents.
According to Sefiani, this means organisations need to consider how their handling of an incident continues to be represented publicly, even after the immediate crisis has been resolved.
Customer loyalty depends on the response
The YouGov survey found that 31 per cent of Australian respondents said they would stop using an organisation following a data breach, while 53 per cent said they might stop.
However, the research identified a gap between stated intentions and reported behaviour, suggesting that experiencing a data breach does not necessarily result in customers abandoning an organisation.
Among all respondents, 57 per cent had been customers of an organisation that experienced a breach. The report found that 13 per cent had moved to another provider, while 24 per cent considered leaving but stayed, and 20 per cent did not consider leaving.
When asked what would influence their decision to continue using a company following a breach, respondents identified measures taken to prevent another incident as the most important factor (39 per cent). This was followed by the seriousness of the breach (32 per cent), the type of customer information affected (32 per cent), transparent communications about what happened (30 per cent), and support offered to affected customers (29 per cent).
The study also tested how descriptions of an organisation's breach response in AI-generated answers could influence purchasing intentions.
When respondents were presented with a scenario in which AI reported that an organisation had been slow to notify customers and lacked transparency, 28 per cent said they would purchase from it. This increased to 57 per cent when the AI response described prompt customer notification, clear explanations, and practical support.
By comparison, 67 per cent said they would purchase from an organisation that was generally well reviewed, with no data breaches mentioned.
Where AI draws its information from
Sefiani also examined the information sources referenced by AI when generating answers about the three organisations.
Corporate content, including company websites and owned reports, appeared most frequently, referenced in 88 per cent of responses. Editorial media coverage followed at 61 per cent, while government and regulatory sources appeared in 55 per cent, and user-generated content, including social media, in 36 per cent.
The report noted that the source mix varied depending on the sector and the nature of the query.
These findings highlight the role of both owned communications and independent third-party information in shaping how AI presents an organisation's reputation.
According to Sefiani, organisations that stop communicating publicly once a breach has been resolved risk leaving AI tools to draw on historical media reports and other third-party commentary without access to an updated account of the company's response.
Sefiani's Managing Partner, Mandy Galmes, said organisations should consider what information remains publicly available after the immediate incident has passed.
"Once the incident is resolved, organisations need to publish a clear, factual account of what happened, what they did and, importantly, what they have changed, on their own channels. This means AI has your own version of the incident. If this step is missed, AI will build the story and define your reputation for you, from whatever media coverage or third party commentary appeared."
Updating the crisis communications playbook
The report argued that established cyber crisis communications practices, including timely disclosure, factual updates, and customer support, remain important but need to account for how AI tools retrieve information long after an incident.
It proposed five additional considerations for organisations managing cyber incidents:
-
Publish a factual account of the incident and response: Maintain an accessible summary on owned channels outlining what happened, how customers were supported and what has changed to reduce the risk of recurrence.
-
Engage with credible editorial media: Consider providing journalists with a factual account of the organisation's response, remediation and lessons learned to create an independent record.
-
Maintain customer support beyond the immediate incident: Recognise that customer experiences may continue to influence reviews, social media discussions and other content used by AI.
-
Share lessons with industry stakeholders: Work with industry bodies and peers to communicate relevant learnings that could support broader cyber preparedness.
-
Monitor AI-generated responses over time: Assess how AI platforms describe the organisation before and after an incident, including which sources and narratives they reference.
Co-founder and CEO of NSB Cyber, Shane Bell, highlighted the importance of communications during the initial response.
"Good and bad cyber incidents used to come down purely to technical judgement. A bad incident is now more often than not one that was poorly communicated. Technology discussions tend to dominate the first 72 hours, when communications should be front and centre. Organisations that struggle are the ones least prepared to talk to the regulators, suppliers, partners and customers," he said.
What communications professionals need to know
The research suggests that the reputational consequences of cyber incidents may extend beyond the traditional news cycle, particularly as AI tools increasingly draw on historical information when responding to questions about organisational trustworthiness.
For PR and communications professionals, the findings point to the importance of maintaining an accurate, accessible record of an organisation's response and remediation, alongside continued engagement with customers and relevant stakeholders.
For media professionals, the study highlights the potential longer-term role of editorial coverage as a source of information in AI-generated assessments of organisations.
The findings also suggest that post-crisis communications should not be measured solely by the immediate public response. Monitoring how past incidents and subsequent corrective actions are represented across AI platforms may become another consideration in long-term reputation management.