min read

Reputation as Leverage: Key Lessons from the Expo 2025 Malaysia Pavilion Public Dispute

Published

May 2, 2025

Contributors

Evidence First: The strategy relied heavily on presenting documented proof (emails, comparisons, screenshots) via Instagram, making the claims appear credible.
Clear Story: A simple narrative of being wronged ("plagiarism by adaptation," broken trust) was used, framing it as a small company versus a large ministry.
Visual Impact: Side-by-side comparisons made the alleged copying easy for the public to see and understand.
Principled Stand: The tone mixed frustration with appeals to fairness and dignity, making the issue about more than just money.
Effective Result: The approach gained significant public support and media attention, forcing MITI to publicly acknowledge the issue and investigate.
Built-in Defense: Presenting evidence publicly also served as a potential defense against legal risks like defamation.

SMEs/Creatives: Shows a high-risk way to challenge powerful clients using public platforms, highlighting the need for thorough documentation.
Large Organisations/Government agencies: Demonstrates vulnerability to well-documented public grievances, stressing the need for fair processes and effective internal complaint handling.
PR/Crisis Communication Managers: Offers lessons in managing evidence-based online attacks and defenses.
Lawyers: Illustrates the link between public communication, IP disputes, and defamation law.

We look at both sides of the issue, on why it's important for the sender and recipient of such content:

Shifting Power: Shows how social media offers platforms for smaller players to challenge bigger ones by using reputational risk as leverage.
Credibility is Key: Proves that in the online world, documented evidence is crucial for making a grievance believable and impactful.
Demands Accountability: Public disputes force transparency and put pressure on organisations to be accountable for their actions.
Simplifying Complexity: Shows complex business issues can be made understandable to the public through clear narratives and visuals.
Misinformation or disinformation risks: Initial allegations might be a result of a misunderstanding of fair use, adaptation practices, or even a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. This constitutes misinformation if spread unintentionally. Practising transparency around creative content is essential.
Difficulty in rebranding: Once a negative narrative takes root, it can be a long and arduous process to rebuild trust and correct misinformation.

Evidence-Based Advocacy: Fits a trend of using social media to present documented cases, not just opinions.
Reputation Management: Highlights the growing importance of managing online reputation against evidence-based claims.
Personal Voice: Shows individuals using personal platforms for business disputes.
Industry Scrutiny: May lead to more scrutiny of government procurement and IP handling in creative fields.

More Copycats (Use Carefully): Others might try this evidence-based public approach, but success isn't guaranteed and risks are high.
Better Defenses: Targeted organisations will likely improve their counter-strategies against such public claims and heightened alerts for fake claims to combat misinformation or disinformation.
Need for Internal Solutions: Reinforces the value for organisations to have good internal ways to handle complaints before they go public.
Lessons for Others: Key takeaways for anyone considering this approach include: document everything meticulously, frame the story clearly and ethically, choose the right platform, assess all risks (legal, professional), be prepared for a long fight, and know what you want to achieve.

‍