Opportunism Sindoor? Experts warn brands: Chase value, not virality

In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, a military action that stirred both national pride and poignant reflection, several brands and influencers attempted to tap into the public sentiment through topical marketing, often under the guise of patriotism. What followed has been a wave of criticism, with multiple brands facing backlash for filing trademark applications around the term ‘Operation Sindoor,’ and influencers pushing emotionally charged, monetised content. The phenomenon has reignited a crucial debate around the ethics of moment marketing: when does timely relevance veer into exploitative territory?

“Brands must be ultra-sensitive when handling national issues, whether it’s a war-like situation, a natural disaster, or something emotionally significant,” says Lloyd Mathias. “Using such tragedies for brand mileage is a complete no-no.” He points to even indirect strategies like boosting ad spends on news channels during crises as ethically questionable. “It has to always be nation first, don’t play on public sentiment.”

Echoing this thought, N. Chandramouli states, “National tragedies are shared experiences of grief and should not be treated as levers for engagement. Real-time relevance must never come at the cost of human sensitivity.” He adds that the ethical line is crossed when marketing ceases to be empathetic and becomes exploitative. “This is discernible by the audience too. In fact, they can have quite a contrarian effect on the brand than the one intended.”

Dr. Sandeep Goyal calls it a symptom of the larger FOMO culture in marketing. “Moment marketing has become a compulsion. FOMO. Everyone wants to be visible, and since time available for creative thinking and output is always under pressure, issues like ethics, appropriateness and consequences almost always get overlooked.”

The news that over 20 brands, including legacy players, filed for a trademark on the term ‘Operation Sindoor’ has further fuelled the debate. “Trying to trademark something as sensitive as ‘Operation Sindoor’ is in extremely poor taste. It signals a worrying erosion of marketing ethics,” Mathias comments. “It’s improper and reflects poorly on brand values and chips away at consumer trust.” Chandramouli adds, “Trademarks are meant to protect identity, not appropriate symbols of collective trauma. This attempt reflects the commodification of public sentiment. It’s time for the industry to introspect.”

As brands rely more heavily on influencers for real-time campaigns, the question of accountability has grown more complex. But Mathias is clear: “The buck stops with the brand. Influencers leveraging tragedies is bad enough, but when brands enable it, they can’t pass the buck.”

Chandramouli concurs, “Responsibility is shared, but ultimately, it lies with the brand. The creator executes, and the agency advises, but the brand endorses, pays, and owns. In moments that affect the national psyche, silence or solidarity often communicates more powerfully than any campaign.” Goyal adds, “For influencers, every moment is a monetisation opportunity. So they lap it up with gusto. Brands need to show more restraint and more dignity.”

To prevent future missteps, experts suggest codifying internal decision frameworks. Chandramouli proposes a three-filter system: empathy, relevance, and respect. “Does this message demonstrate genuine understanding and care? Is there a meaningful and organic connection to the moment? Is the communication dignified and appropriate?” Mathias keeps it simple, “Use common sense. If there's even a sliver of doubt, don’t do it. Avoid controversy. Be humane and helpful.”

While moment marketing is often synonymous with quick-witted brand creativity, not all impactful messaging needs to be loud. “During COVID, Uber offered free rides for people going for tests,” recalls Mathias. “Food delivery services set up contactless drop-offs. These actions were helpful, aligned with the brand’s purpose, and didn’t feel opportunistic.”

Chandramouli points to Amul as a notable example. “While the brand speaks poignantly on various current events across the world, during deeply sensitive national events, the brand has occasionally opted to withhold its typically topical advertisements. This restraint communicates a powerful message: sometimes, the highest form of engagement is respectful silence. Empathy is not only about what is said, but also about what is deliberately left unsaid.”

The Operation Sindoor controversy serves as a flashpoint, one that reveals the fragile boundary between relevance and opportunism in the digital age. While brands rush to participate in every trending moment, these expert voices serve as a powerful reminder: not every moment is meant to be monetised. Instead, perhaps the most enduring form of brand equity lies not in virality but in values. And in the choice to do the right thing, especially when no one is watching.