Moldir Mukanova's scandalous interview about her divorce from actor Tursynbek Kabatov not only overshadowed all the news reports of the past week, but also contributed to the promotion of Mukanova's new film. The premiere of the film, which happened shortly after the interview, made Moldir a notable media personality, almost eclipsing the public's interest in her ex-husband. In this regard, Remark subscribers are interested in whether the marketing benefits outweigh the reputational risks in this case. Let's get this straight.
Who will win and who will lose
Well, the release of the film against the backdrop of a scandalous interview with millions of views and an army of sympathizers will certainly help raise the box office - the film has received such media support that no amount of money can buy. The name of Mukanova and Kabatov is on everyone's lips, and the algorithms of social networks have clearly promoted content with their mention. In terms of product awareness this is a one hundred percent success.
However, if the purpose of the interview was not only to get a good box office, but to develop Moldir Mukanova's long-term career as a producer and public figure, then everything is much more complicated here. The sincere support of millions of people who saw Moldir as a victim who gathered her strength in the "fight for the truth" risks instantly evaporating. Judging by the comments on social media, some of the audience already feels fooled and used. Mukanova's credibility as a producer could be seriously undermined.
In addition, all kinds of manipulations with the help of media tools discredit the very idea of the struggle for female subjectivity. Using serious social problems for PR and profit would be a blow to the entire feminist movement in the country, and such actions are not forgiven, especially by advanced youth.
As for the reputational consequences for Tursynbek Kabatov, paradoxically, his reputation may get a chance for speedy rehabilitation. If it becomes clear that he was used as a "villain" in a planned PR campaign, some of the public anger may shift to Mukanova. His modest position may be interpreted as an inability to resist a staged scenario.
If what happened is a PR stunt, then it is certainly brilliant in its audacity and effectiveness in terms of coverage, but catastrophically dangerous in terms of building a long-term reputation. Reputation management is based on three pillars: truth, transparency, and consistency. If it turns out that a deeply personal tragedy presented to the public as a sincere confession was just a bargaining chip in a marketing strategy, it would violate all three principles. The audience forgives mistakes, but does not forgive deception, especially when playing on the most sincere and deep feelings.
Does this mean that a scandal always and under any circumstances leads to a reputational failure? History shows that in rare cases this is not so. However, these examples are not the rule, but exceptions that work only under specific circumstances. Let's look at these conditions to better understand the risks of Mukanova's case.
When can you build a reputation on a scandal?
A lot depends on who you are, what kind of story you are telling, and whether you are able to manage the context. The paradox is that a scandal only works when it doesn't contradict the essence of a person or a brand. If the behavior that caused the scandal fits seamlessly into an existing image, the public perceives it as a manifestation of character. A rebellious artist can afford to be bold, a politician can afford to be tough, an innovator can afford to take risks - everything looks absolutely organic here.
Sometimes a scandal helps to restart a career, especially if the audience is tired of the old image. This happened to Monica Lewinsky, who, after one of the most high-profile stories of the end of the 20th century, was able to turn a personal tragedy into a public mission - to become a symbol of opposition to public humiliation.
A scandal can also strengthen a reputation when a conflict affects public issues such as corruption, injustice, and inequality. Then the main character steps in as a whistleblower, and the scandal itself becomes an instrument of transformation. The main thing is that there should be a sincere position behind a sharp gesture, but not calculation.
The key condition for success is the presence of a second act. Any scandal without a consistent continuation is worthless. Reputational benefits are given to those who are able to explain why all this was from the point of view of social benefit. First, it recognizes the fact, then it shows the context and values (in the form of reflection) and, finally, it offers an action - a specific mission.
If a scandal undermines trust, contradicts stated principles, or is based on deception, manipulation, or innuendo, the point of no return is inevitable. You've already figured that out.
Who will win and who will lose
Well, the release of the film against the backdrop of a scandalous interview with millions of views and an army of sympathizers will certainly help raise the box office - the film has received such media support that no amount of money can buy. The name of Mukanova and Kabatov is on everyone's lips, and the algorithms of social networks have clearly promoted content with their mention. In terms of product awareness this is a one hundred percent success.
However, if the purpose of the interview was not only to get a good box office, but to develop Moldir Mukanova's long-term career as a producer and public figure, then everything is much more complicated here. The sincere support of millions of people who saw Moldir as a victim who gathered her strength in the "fight for the truth" risks instantly evaporating. Judging by the comments on social media, some of the audience already feels fooled and used. Mukanova's credibility as a producer could be seriously undermined.
In addition, all kinds of manipulations with the help of media tools discredit the very idea of the struggle for female subjectivity. Using serious social problems for PR and profit would be a blow to the entire feminist movement in the country, and such actions are not forgiven, especially by advanced youth.
As for the reputational consequences for Tursynbek Kabatov, paradoxically, his reputation may get a chance for speedy rehabilitation. If it becomes clear that he was used as a "villain" in a planned PR campaign, some of the public anger may shift to Mukanova. His modest position may be interpreted as an inability to resist a staged scenario.
If what happened is a PR stunt, then it is certainly brilliant in its audacity and effectiveness in terms of coverage, but catastrophically dangerous in terms of building a long-term reputation. Reputation management is based on three pillars: truth, transparency, and consistency. If it turns out that a deeply personal tragedy presented to the public as a sincere confession was just a bargaining chip in a marketing strategy, it would violate all three principles. The audience forgives mistakes, but does not forgive deception, especially when playing on the most sincere and deep feelings.
Does this mean that a scandal always and under any circumstances leads to a reputational failure? History shows that in rare cases this is not so. However, these examples are not the rule, but exceptions that work only under specific circumstances. Let's look at these conditions to better understand the risks of Mukanova's case.
When can you build a reputation on a scandal?
A lot depends on who you are, what kind of story you are telling, and whether you are able to manage the context. The paradox is that a scandal only works when it doesn't contradict the essence of a person or a brand. If the behavior that caused the scandal fits seamlessly into an existing image, the public perceives it as a manifestation of character. A rebellious artist can afford to be bold, a politician can afford to be tough, an innovator can afford to take risks - everything looks absolutely organic here.
Sometimes a scandal helps to restart a career, especially if the audience is tired of the old image. This happened to Monica Lewinsky, who, after one of the most high-profile stories of the end of the 20th century, was able to turn a personal tragedy into a public mission - to become a symbol of opposition to public humiliation.
A scandal can also strengthen a reputation when a conflict affects public issues such as corruption, injustice, and inequality. Then the main character steps in as a whistleblower, and the scandal itself becomes an instrument of transformation. The main thing is that there should be a sincere position behind a sharp gesture, but not calculation.
The key condition for success is the presence of a second act. Any scandal without a consistent continuation is worthless. Reputational benefits are given to those who are able to explain why all this was from the point of view of social benefit. First, it recognizes the fact, then it shows the context and values (in the form of reflection) and, finally, it offers an action - a specific mission.
If a scandal undermines trust, contradicts stated principles, or is based on deception, manipulation, or innuendo, the point of no return is inevitable. You've already figured that out.