Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

The Optus brand is in tatters. How can it even begin to rebuild customers’ trust?

Published

on

The Optus brand is in tatters. How can it even begin to rebuild customers’ trust?

Cassandra France, The University of Queensland and Amanda Spry, RMIT University

Optus finds itself in a perilous situation once again. Last week’s 13-hour Triple Zero network outage left about 480 customers unable to call for emergency help. Three deaths linked to the outage are being investigated.

That outage wasn’t an isolated incident for Optus. Just this week, the Federal Court imposed a A$100 million penalty on the telco for “unconscionable conduct” involving predatory sales tactics toward customers in vulnerable situations, which went on for years.

Both those crises come on the back of a 2022 data breach and a 2023 major network outage, which also affected Triple Zero calls. Optus vowed then to “ensure it will not happen again”.

These repeated failures signal serious problems within, and for, Optus. As its chief executive Stephen Rue was repeatedly asked this week – how can Optus regain customers’ trust?

Building trust before the crisis

To shore up a brand against damage from potential crises, companies should proactively build a reservoir of goodwill with their customers and the wider public.

By engaging consumers in positive brand actions, such as genuine corporate social responsibility, brands can build a halo that buffers the brand during times of crisis.

Indeed, Optus spent decades cultivating a strong identity as a trusted, community-minded brand. This is exemplified by its long-running “Yes” tagline, which has been central to shaping an approachable and people-centred image, making it more than a faceless utilities provider.

An aerial view of Perth's Optus Stadium.
There have been calls to strip Optus of its naming rights to the Perth stadium.
Harrison Reilly/Unsplash, CC BY-NC

Optus has embedded its brand into Australia’s cultural life through sponsorship of major sporting events, from the Australian Open tennis to the naming rights to Perth’s Optus Stadium.

Yet, this image has been chipped away over recent years. In 2022, Optus experienced what has been deemed a “preventable” data hack, which leaked 9.5 million consumers’ private information. In 2024, Optus was the most distrusted brand in Australia, according to Roy Morgan. But it managed some improvement in 2025, moving to the 4th most distrusted brand – though that was before this latest outage.

The recurrence of crises for Optus, year after year, dismantles the accumulated brand image and intensifies negative responses from a range of stakeholders.

How to respond during a crisis

Effective brand response to a crisis is dependent on the nature of the crisis itself, meaning that there is no one single strategy suited to all circumstances. In the case of Optus, we see an incredibly severe case of harm arising from failures to deliver on a telecommunications company’s key purpose: making phone calls.

Previously, Optus has proudly shared stories of how they keep “the community connected” and provide “the backing of a strong network”.

Yet these recent events undermine these claims and demonstrate process and performance deficiencies which can be incredibly difficult to recover from, especially in light of the severity of consequences for some customers.

So far, Optus’ crisis response has shown it understands the importance of owning their accountability and expressing remorse for what happened as a consequence of its mistakes. (Though some have questioned why it took Singapore-based parent company Singtel nearly a week to issue its own “deeply sorry” statement.)

But taking responsibility is the only first step in the process. It also requires real commitment and action to effect change and avoid recurrence.

Optus are taking steps, announcing an independent review, which it says will be made public. But as governance expert Helen Bird pointed out this week, the company promised the same thing about its November 2023 Triple Zero outage – but didn’t follow through.

Even if it’s different this time, with experienced business and government leader Kerry Schott conducting the new investigation, Optus still needs to follow through with clear actions and real evidence of change.

How can Optus start to rebuild?

Brands can take many years to recover from major crises. The ongoing nature of crises at Optus make that road to recovery even more challenging. Yet, if Optus and its parent company Singtel are committed, there are certainly many actions they can pursue.

For Optus, transparency in action will be critical.

Optus needs to show not just accountability for failure but corrective action for resolution.

It cannot correct the dire consequences of its multiple previous missteps. But the company can seek to avoid repeating those mistakes again.

As others have pointed out, there are measurable ways to judge Optus’ ongoing response – which could involve the federal communications minister imposing new conditions on Optus’ licence to operate.

Beyond the immediate investigations and responses to the latest Triple Zero outage, Optus could also reinvest in winning back public goodwill, such as potentially exploring opportunities to donate and support emergency services and local communities.

Importantly, these cannot be simple, short-term fixes, but must involve long-term commitments.

Through frequent, public progress updates and evidence of investment in action which leads to substantiated outcomes, the brand may be able to rebuild some of the damage done to Australians’ trust – especially its customers’.The Conversation

Cassandra France, Lecturer in Marketing, The University of Queensland and Amanda Spry, Senior Lecturer of Marketing, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Lunar Gateway faces delays and funding debate amid Artemis ambitions

Published

on

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Berna Akcali Gur, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

South Korea introduces AI job protection legislation

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.

Published

on

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.


South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.

Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.

With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIJobs #SouthKorea #FutureOfWork #Automation #TechPolicy #LaborRights #WorkforceInnovation #Ticker


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. ambassador responds to NATO criticism at Munich Security Conference

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.

Published

on

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.


At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.

The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.

Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MunichSecurityConference #NATO #GlobalSecurity #DefenseAutonomy #Geopolitics #TransatlanticAlliance #HybridWarfare #USForeignPolicy


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now