The End of Information Asymmetry: Why Crisis Management Must Move from Reaction to Anticipation
“The next generation of crisis management platforms should not merely tell organizations what people are saying today, they should estimate what millions of people are likely to be discussing tomorrow.”
What does the future of crisis management look like? Faster crisis communication, more sophisticated AI, or quicker public relations responses? While each will play an important role, they are merely consequences of a far more fundamental transformation: the redistribution of informational power. That shift, more than any technological advance, is redefining crisis management.
For much of the twentieth century, organizations enjoyed a significant information advantage during crises, controlling what was disclosed, when it was released, and how events were framed. Today, social media has fundamentally disrupted that advantage by transforming stakeholders into investigators, commentators, and influencers. Information now travels faster than organizational decision-making, forcing organizations to respond to narratives they neither initiated nor can fully control.
I argue that we are living through the collapse of Information Asymmetry, and that this shift will define the future of crisis management. Success will no longer depend on an organization’s ability to control information after a crisis occurs, but on its ability to operate in an environment where stakeholders shape the narrative and trust matters more than message control.
COVID-19: The Crisis That Exposed the Collapse of Information Asymmetry
The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally reshaped expectations of crisis management by exposing the erosion of organizations traditional information advantage. As information spread faster than institutions could verify or communicate it, scientists shared preliminary findings online, journalists reported developments in real time, and citizens became active participants in reporting the crisis through videos, photographs, and personal accounts.
The consequences extended far beyond faster communication. Information no longer flowed linearly from institutions to the public but emerged simultaneously from countless competing sources. Official statements were instantly scrutinised, challenged, and reframed by experts, journalists, influencers, and online communities, while misinformation and disinformation spread globally within minutes, often outpacing the ability of public authorities to respond.
Recognising this unprecedented information environment, the World Health Organization coined the term infodemic to describe the overabundance of accurate and inaccurate information during the pandemic (World Health Organization 2020) and subsequently established Infodemic Management training programmes (Figure 1).
Figure 1: WHO member states participating in Infodemic Management Training programs from 2020 to 2022. Source: World Health Organization 2022.
While the infodemic highlighted the dangers of misinformation, its broader significance for crisis management was far more profound. COVID-19 demonstrated that governments and organizations no longer monopolise information or control the narrative. Crisis communication became a real-time dialogue involving millions of participants, and successful management depended increasingly on credibility, transparency and speed.
Bud Light: When Stakeholders Took Control of the Narrative
If COVID-19 demonstrated that organizations no longer control the flow of information, the Bud Light boycott illustrated an equally important reality: organizations no longer control the narrative surrounding a crisis.
The Bud Light controversy illustrates how social media can rapidly transform a minor marketing campaign into a major reputational crisis. A relatively small promotional collaboration with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney (Figure 2) quickly escaped its intended context as users across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, X, podcasts, and reaction channels reframed it into a broader cultural and political debate on sex and gender issues, influenced by the polarised political climate in the US at the time, amplifying the controversy far beyond the company's control.
Figure 2: Promotional Instagram video published by transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney on April 1, 2023, featuring a commemorative face-branded can that served as the catalyst for the Bud Light consumer boycott.
Perhaps the most significant lesson from the Bud Light crisis is that stakeholders, rather than the company, became the primary creators of the narrative. Consumers filmed themselves destroying products, announcing boycotts, and encouraging others to abandon the brand, while influencers amplified these reactions across platforms. Social media algorithms further accelerated outrage, memes, and misinformation, allowing the controversy to gain momentum largely independent of Bud Light's actions and leaving the company responding to a narrative it no longer controlled.
Bud Light's crisis response was widely perceived as vague, inconsistent, and reactive, failing to reassure either (conservative) consumers who opposed the campaign or those who criticised the company for not standing firmly behind it like the LGBTQ community (Figure 3).
Rather than stabilising the situation, its delayed communication created an information vacuum that was quickly filled by online speculation, commentary, and competing interpretations. By the time the company attempted to regain control, the narrative had evolved beyond its influence, inflicting significant financial damage (Figure 4) and demonstrating that organizations are now only one voice within a rapidly evolving digital conversation.
Figure 3: The "Our Responsibility to America" campaign, Anheuser-Busch's delayed crisis communication strategy following the initial boycott backlash. Source: Taylor 2023.
Figure 4: Data provided by Bump Williams Consulting and NielsenIQ illustrates the steep decline of Bud Light's US retail market share following the consumer backlash and boycott that began in April 2023. Source: Sherwood News 2024 (using Bump Williams and Nielsen IQ data), cited in Crystal Capital Partners 2025.
From the perspective of crisis management, the key lesson from Bud Light is that stakeholders can become the main creators of a crisis narrative. Consumers, influencers, and political commentators did not just react to the event, they shaped its meaning and scale.
Perrier: The Collapse of Corporate Secrecy
While the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the erosion of information asymmetry and the Bud Light controversy illustrated the loss of narrative control, the Perrier/Nestlé Water scandal revealed the collapse of corporate secrecy.
Traditionally, organizations facing regulatory or product-quality issues, controlled communication by investigating internally, engaging regulators privately, and issuing carefully managed public statements. This allowed control over timing and framing. In the Perrier/Nestlé Waters scandal, however, journalists, regulators, whistleblowers, and leaked documents shaped the narrative before the company could respond.
Increasingly, public attention shifted towards allegations that French authorities had been aware of certain filtration practices for years (Figure 5), transforming what initially appeared to be a product-quality issue into a wider debate about political accountability and corporate transparency (Wheeler 2025). By the time Nestlé Waters publicly responded, much of the narrative was established independently of the company.
Figure 5: Politico headline reporting the Perrier–Nestlé Waters scandal and allegations of French government involvement. Source: Politico Europe (Goury-Laffont 2025)
Unlike the Bud Light crisis, where consumers amplified the controversy, Perrier demonstrated the growing influence of investigative networks in the digital era. Traditional journalists, online media, regulators and public institutions collectively performed a role that was once largely reserved for the organization itself: uncovering and validating information, and informing stakeholders. Social media accelerated the dissemination of these findings and helped them circulate rapidly across digital platforms.
The result was a progressive erosion of Information Asymmetry, where neither the company nor public authorities could prevent the continuous disclosure of new information as multiple independent actors contributed to the evolving story.
From a Crisis Management perspective, the Perrier case underscores a critical reality: organizations can no longer rely on keeping operational failures, regulatory issues, or internal investigations confidential in an era shaped by investigative journalism, digital collaboration, and whistleblowing.
Consequently, effective crisis management must go beyond controlling disclosure and focus on transparency, credibility, and stakeholder trust from the outset. The Perrier scandal shows that reputational damage often stems from perceptions of information control rather than transparent crisis handling.
What is the future of Crisis Management and how should organizations prepare?
In the era of social media and reduced information asymmetry, crisis management depends less on controlling crises and more on adapting to rapidly shared information. While organizations still hold internal data advantages, narratives are now shaped by employees, customers, journalists, and whistleblowers who can independently generate and amplify information.
Although COVID-19 pandemic, Bud Light crisis, and the Perrier/Nestlé Waters scandal differ in industry and context, they reveal the same shift in crisis management. Traditionally, crises followed a linear process where organizations investigated internally, communicated through legacy media, and shaped public understanding. This assumed control over information and time, allowing companies to frame stakeholder perceptions.
Today, that order has reversed: Stakeholders often detect problems first, social media amplifies early conversations, journalists and online communities investigate, employees and whistleblowers contribute additional information, AI accelerates analysis, public opinion forms rapidly, and only then does the organization responds.
Traditional crisis communication models such as Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) assume that organizations can assess a crisis, determine how much responsibility stakeholders attribute to them, and then select an appropriate response strategy to protect reputation. These frameworks were largely developed in an environment where organizations still controlled most of the information about a crisis and could sequence their responses over time. But in many contemporary crises, organizations are no longer leading the conversation, instead they are entering one that has already begun.
This shift can be understood through information asymmetry, a theory more commonly associated with Negotiations and Economics, where one party traditionally holds superior knowledge. In crisis management, organizations once benefited from privileged access to data and communication channels. However, digital tools, social media, OSINT, whistleblowers, and journalism have reduced this imbalance, often allowing stakeholders to access and share information before organizations themselves.
Effective crisis management now depends on understanding fast-moving information ecosystems in real time. Organizations must monitor platforms like X, Reddit, TikTok, and Instagram for early signals, while filtering meaningful narratives from digital noise. Identifying emerging influence patterns and escalating discussions shifts crisis management from reactive response to proactive anticipation.
As information asymmetry diminishes, transparency becomes a strategic necessity. Organizations can no longer delay disclosure, as information vacuums quickly fill with speculation and competing narratives. Communication must evolve into continuous dialogue by listening, engaging, and building credibility early. Ultimately, effective crisis management will favour those who replace message control with information intelligence, combining transparency, digital listening, stakeholder engagement, and predictive insight.
Artificial Intelligence and the Next Generation of Crisis Management
"If social media dramatically reduced Information Asymmetry, Generative AI is reducing information certainty."
AI is transforming crisis management by enabling faster analysis of vast information flows, including sentiment detection, misinformation tracking, and early risk identification. However, it also introduces new threats, as generative AI can produce convincing deepfakes and false narratives. The key challenge will be distinguishing authentic signals from manipulation and identifying what truly requires urgent attention.
While Coombs (2026) argues that organizations must move beyond preparation towards operational readiness, Johnson and Bitterli (2025) suggest that AI can significantly strengthen this readiness through risk identification, situational awareness, and decision support. Building on these perspectives, I argue that the next generation of crisis management should incorporate AI-powered systems capable of identifying weak signals, mapping momentum and anticipating threats before they develop into crises.
Crisis management should move beyond social media monitoring, towards Predictive Narrative Intelligence (PNI). Rather than measuring mentions or hashtags, after conversations have already become viral, organizations should develop AI-powered systems to identify the earliest signals of potential crises. Such systems would continuously analyse content across all platforms, searching not only for negative sentiment but also for patterns that indicate emergence of new narratives. The objective would no longer be to measure what people are discussing today, but to anticipate what they are likely to be discussing tomorrow.
Predictive Narrative Intelligence does not replace the classic frameworks, it extends them into an environment where weak signals and emerging narratives appear long before an emerging crisis. PNI will detect the earliest narrative shifts that will later shape how responsibility will be assigned and which SCCT strategies will remain credible.
However, AI is not only a solution but also an emerging source of crisis risk. As Sarkar (2025) notes, generative AI enables the rapid spread of deepfakes, synthetic media, and persuasive misinformation that can intensify crises. Deloitte highlights that such technologies are becoming a cybersecurity-scale threat, capable of eroding trust across digital ecosystems (Steinhart et al., 2024). As manipulated content grows more convincing, crisis management must move beyond monitoring narratives to verifying authenticity, detecting not only weak signals but synthetic ones.
Future crisis managers must use AI to detect emerging threats while also identifying and verifying AI-generated deception before it spreads. Research by Komendantova and Erokhin (2025) shows that AI enhances situational awareness and misinformation detection in natural disasters by analysing real-time data and flagging misleading content at early stages.
Predictive Narrative Intelligence (PNI) system could integrate network analysis, anomaly detection, and predictive modelling to provide early crisis warnings. As shown in Figure 6, it would identify rapidly emerging posts, unusually high engagement, measure velocity and momentum of conversations, map influence networks, and distinguish organic concern from coordinated campaigns while estimating escalation risk. This would enable organizations to respond to emerging issues before they dominate public attention, rather than reacting after a crisis has already developed.
Figure 6. Proposed AI-Driven Predictive Narrative Intelligence Framework for Future Crisis Management
Human judgement remains essential. While algorithms can detect weak signals and forecast escalation, they cannot fully interpret organisational values, cultural context, political sensitivities, or ethical implications. Future advantage will lie in combining intelligent technology, human judgement, and transparent leadership. Ultimately, crisis management will favour organisations that not only communicate effectively but also identify and anticipate emerging crises before they become visible to the wider public.
Conclusion
The future of crisis management will not be defined by faster press releases or even by AI alone. Instead, success will depend on an organization's ability to operate in an environment where information asymmetry has been significantly reduced, stakeholders shape narratives in real time, and trust must be earned continuously rather than assumed. In this new reality, anticipation will matter more than reaction. AI will be most valuable not for automating crisis responses, but for helping organizations identify weak signals, detect emerging narratives, map stakeholder influence, and distinguish meaningful risks from the overwhelming noise of the digital information ecosystem before they escalate into full-scale crises.
I argue that future crisis management must shift from reaction to Predictive Narrative Intelligence: AI-supported systems that detect weak signals, track narrative momentum, verify authenticity, and anticipate crises early. In an age where information outpaces institutions anticipation, and not reaction, will define effective crisis leadership.
Ultimately, the future of crisis management is not prediction, it is anticipation. Prediction asks, “What will happen?” Anticipation asks a far more valuable question: “What is beginning to happen that almost nobody has noticed yet?”
Over to you: Do you agree that Predictive Narrative Intelligence (PNI) is achievable for mid-sized organizations, or will smaller brands remain permanently trapped in a reactive crisis loop due to the high cost of advanced AI monitoring tools? Let's discuss in the comments below!
References
Coombs, W.T. 2026, Translating Preparation Into Readiness: Insights From Cybersecurity Training. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management.
Crystal Capital Partners 2025, “Go Woke Go Broke: ESG Investments”, Crystal Capital Partners, 25 February, viewed 28 June 2026, https://www.crystalfunds.com/insights/go-woke-go-broke-esg-investments
Daily Mail 2023, 'Bud Light sales shrunk 28% in the week before holiday weekend - the second worst year-on-year sales decline since Dylan Mulvaney backlash began', Daily Mail, 5 July, viewed 28 June 2026, https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-12264303/Bud-Light-sales-shrunk-28-week-holiday-weekend.html
Goury-Laffont, V. 2025, Macron's office immersed in major Perrier mineral water scandal, Politico Europe, 19 May, viewed 28 June 2026. Macron’s office immersed in major Perrier mineral water scandal – POLITICO
Johnson, T. & Bitterli, K. 2025, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Future of Crisis Management: Harnessing AI for Resilient Crisis Management: Preparation, Response, and Recovery, Deloitte UK, viewed 27 June 2026, https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/consulting/perspectives/artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-crisis-management.html.
Komendantova, N & Erokhin, D 2025, 'Artificial Intelligence Tools in Misinformation Management during Natural Disasters', Public Organization Review, vol. 25, pp. 81–105, DOI:10.1007/s11115-025-00815-2, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11115-025-00815-2
Sarkar, D. 2025, 'AI-Generated Misinformation and Crisis Management in Corporate Communications', Forbes Communications Council, 7 May, viewed 28 June 2026, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2025/05/07/ai-generated-misinformation-and-crisis-management-in-corporate-communications/
Schofield, H 2025, 'Is Perrier as pure as it claims? The bottled water scandal gripping France', BBC News, 8 August, viewed 28 June 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvn3qe0jpgo
Steinhart, M., Matheson, B., Dhameja, A., Crossan, G. & Bucaille, A. 2024, Deepfake disruption: A cybersecurity-scale challenge and its far-reaching consequences, Deloitte Center for Technology, Media & Telecommunications, viewed 28 June 2026, https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/technology-media-and-telecom-predictions/2025/gen-ai-trust-standards.html
Taylor, D 2023, '5 lessons from the Bud Lite brand backlash', thebrandgym, 29 April, viewed 28 June 2026, https://thebrandgym.com/5-lessons-from-the-bud-lite-brand-backlash/
Wheeler, N. 2025, 'Macron’s office immersed in major Perrier mineral water scandal', Politico Europe, 19 May, viewed 28 June 2026, https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-france-mineral-water-scandal-perrier-nestle-waters-regulation/
World Health Organization 2020, Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Report - 13, WHO, Geneva, viewed 28 June 2026, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200202-sitrep-13-ncov.pdf
World Health Organization 2022, “The WHO global infodemic manager community of practice is growing and tackling COVID-19, monkeypox and other outbreaks”, World Health Organization, 26 September, viewed 28 June 2026, https://www.who.int/news/item/26-09-2022-the-who-global-infodemic-manager-community-of-practice-is-growing-and-tackling-COVID-19-monkeypox-and-other-outbreaks
