In this opinion piece, Damilola Bright-Ukwenga, Brand & Marketing Comms Professional, examines the distinct roles of marketing, organisational communication and operations in shaping stakeholder experiences and protecting reputation, drawing on public complaints about inDrive, Bolt and other service platforms.
I have been following the growing number of complaints about ride-hailing and delivery platforms in Nigeria, particularly inDrive and Bolt, and I think there is a bigger conversation we need to have about the role of communication in organisations.
Not just marketing communication. Not just campaigns, advertising, influencer partnerships, media visibility or how many people saw a brand’s latest advertisement.
I am talking about communication as a strategic organisational function: one that helps an organisation understand its stakeholders, build and maintain relationships, identify emerging issues, manage expectations, inform decisions and protect the trust it has built.
And perhaps the experiences being shared by users of these platforms offer a useful place to start.
The problem is bigger than the complaint
In June 2025, TechCabal published an investigation titled Left on Read: What Happens to Your Complaints on Bolt, inDrive, and Uber? The report documented accounts from passengers and drivers who described experiences ranging from verbal abuse and threats to concerns about how complaints were handled after incidents.
One account involved an inDrive passenger who reportedly received threatening calls after rating a driver poorly. She said she contacted the company but was not given sufficient information about what action had been taken or whether the matter had been fully investigated.
The report also included responses from the platforms, which described their internal complaint processes, escalation procedures, and safety teams. This is an important distinction. It would be unfair to suggest that these companies have no processes or have never taken action. The more important question is whether those processes are consistently effective, and whether the people who raise concerns feel informed, supported, and confident that their complaints are being addressed.
There have also been other public complaints. In September 2024, actress Adunni Ade accused an inDrive driver of absconding with a package. She eventually announced that the package had been returned to the sender after the incident attracted public attention.
In September 2025, PUNCH reported the allegation of a Bolt rider who allegedly disappeared with a customer’s beef delivery, reportedly worth over ₦40,000, after marking the trip as completed and blocking further communication.
More recently, users have continued to share complaints and suggestions about delivery experiences, rider behaviour, cancellations, tracking and the processes for resolving disputes.
These accounts are not, by themselves, proof of systemic wrongdoing by either platform. Nor should every complaint be treated as an established fact. But when similar concerns keep appearing in public conversations, organisations should pay attention.
The issue is not whether a platform can guarantee that every ride or delivery will be perfect. No organisation can promise that. The issue is what happens when something goes wrong.
How quickly does the organisation respond? Does it investigate? Does it communicate clearly with the affected people? Does it provide updates? Does it explain what can be done, what cannot be done and why? And, perhaps most importantly, does it use recurring complaints to identify and address problems within its operations?
This is where communication becomes much bigger than publicity.
We have reduced communication to marketing
I think one of the challenges in many organisations is that communication is still largely understood through the lens of marketing.
When businesses think about communication, the immediate priorities are often advertising, brand campaigns, social media content, influencer partnerships, media placements, product launches and visibility.
These are important. Marketing communications is a strategic discipline in its own right. It helps organisations communicate their value, build brand awareness, shape market perceptions, influence purchasing decisions and develop relationships with customers.
But marketing communications is not the entirety of organisational communication.
Strategic communication has a broader organisational remit. It considers how communication is deliberately planned, coordinated and managed to support organisational objectives and relationships with different stakeholder groups. It looks beyond how an organisation communicates its products and services to how it communicates its decisions, manages relationships, responds to concerns and builds trust.
This includes corporate communication, internal communication, stakeholder engagement, public relations, issues management, crisis communication and reputation management, alongside marketing communications.
The functions are distinct, but they are connected. They should not operate as isolated activities that only become relevant when there is a problem.
A company can run an excellent advertising campaign, secure positive media coverage and work with influential personalities, yet still struggle with public trust if customers consistently feel ignored or poorly treated.
Visibility may attract attention. It does not automatically build confidence.
The problem, therefore, is not that organisations invest in marketing communications. It is that some appear to prioritise it while neglecting the wider communication responsibilities that sustain stakeholder relationships and organisational reputation.
Reputation is shaped by what happens after the campaign
Consider the experience of a customer whose delivery does not arrive. The person is frustrated, perhaps financially inconvenienced, and needs an explanation. They contact customer support and receive no meaningful response, or they are repeatedly asked to wait without any clear update.
Eventually, they take the complaint to social media.
At that point, the organisation is no longer dealing with only one dissatisfied customer. Other users may begin sharing similar experiences. Potential customers are watching. Existing customers are reconsidering their relationship with the brand. The conversation may also attract media attention.
What started as an operational issue can become a reputational issue. However, it is important to distinguish the responsibilities involved here.
Operations is responsible for examining what happened, identifying process failures and addressing the underlying problem. Customer service receives complaints, supports customers and coordinates the resolution process. Communication ensures that stakeholders are acknowledged, kept informed, given appropriate explanations and treated with respect throughout the process.
Strategic communication and reputation management take the wider view. They consider what the incident, particularly when similar concerns recur, means for stakeholder confidence and the organisation’s reputation. They also ensure that relevant concerns are escalated and that leadership understands the potential implications.
These responsibilities overlap, but they are not interchangeable. Communication professionals should not be expected to resolve operational failures they do not control, or to replace the customer service function. However, they should ensure that communication is an integral part of how the organisation responds.
A customer may be more willing to understand that an investigation takes time than to accept complete silence. They may understand that a company cannot immediately provide a resolution, but they should not have to keep chasing the organisation for basic information.
There is a difference between telling someone that their complaint has been received and actually keeping them informed about what is happening. There is also a difference between issuing a public statement and communicating meaningfully with the people directly affected.
Organisations need to understand that stakeholders do not experience a brand only through its advertisements. They experience it through every interaction, including the moments when the organisation inconveniences them, disappoints them or asks them to trust its processes.
Social listening should inform business decisions
Another important part of strategic communication is social listening.
It is not enough to monitor mentions, count comments or report engagement figures. Organisations need to understand what people are saying, identify patterns, recognise emerging concerns and interpret what those conversations could mean for the business.
Are customers repeatedly complaining about the same service issue? Are there recurring concerns about the conduct of service providers? Are people struggling to reach customer support? Are complaints about a particular product or process becoming more frequent? Is a conversation beginning to affect how people perceive the organisation?
These are not simply content observations. They are potential business and reputational intelligence.
Of course, social media is only one source of insight. Organisations should also be paying attention to customer feedback, complaint records, employee experiences, media coverage and other stakeholder conversations. Not every customer concern will appear online, and a social media conversation does not always represent the experience of the entire customer base.
But when different sources begin to point to the same issue, that should prompt further investigation. For platforms such as inDrive and Bolt, social listening should be connected to customer experience, operations, safety and leadership. If people are repeatedly raising concerns about delivery verification, rider conduct or complaint resolution, those conversations should not end with a weekly social media report. They should be escalated to the relevant teams, examined and, where necessary, used to inform operational improvements.
Communication professionals must also be willing to ask difficult questions. It is not enough to report that a campaign generated millions of impressions while conversations about the customer experience continue to deteriorate.
The organisation needs to know what those conversations mean and what it intends to do about them.
The responsibility of agencies and communication partners
This conversation also extends to the agencies and external communication partners managing these brands.
I think we need to have an honest conversation about the role of agencies beyond executing briefs.
When an agency is responsible for a brand’s communications, it should not be concerned only with the content calendar, campaign performance, media placements, influencer deliverables and engagement reports. It should also be paying attention to the environment in which the brand is communicating.
What are people saying about the brand? What concerns are emerging? Are there recurring complaints that could affect the success of an upcoming campaign? Is the brand’s public sentiment consistent with the message it wants to communicate?
An agency may not be contracted to manage customer service, investigate operational failures or lead crisis communication. That is understandable. Scope, responsibilities and deliverables matter. But the absence of a crisis management brief should not mean the absence of professional judgement.
If an agency notices a pattern of complaints that could become a reputational issue, it should raise the concern with the client. It should document what it is observing, provide context and recommend that the relevant internal teams investigate. It should not simply proceed with a campaign as though nothing is happening.
In fact, there are moments when the most valuable thing an agency can do for a client is not to recommend another campaign, but to advise the client to pause, listen and address an issue that could undermine the very message it is trying to communicate.
This does not mean agencies should assume responsibility for every aspect of a client’s reputation. It means they should understand the broader implications of the work they are doing and be prepared to provide counsel when something relevant emerges.
Communication partners should be strategic advisers, not just execution partners.
Influencers also have a stake in the conversation
There is another group worth considering: influencers and brand ambassadors.
Influencer marketing has become a significant part of how organisations build awareness and connect with audiences. But there is a responsibility that comes with lending one’s credibility to a brand.
An influencer is not necessarily a communication adviser to the organisation they endorse. Their contractual responsibility may be limited to producing and publishing agreed content. They are also not expected to become the company’s customer service representative or independently investigate every allegation against a brand.
However, where there are serious, credible and recurring public concerns about a brand, it is reasonable to expect influencers to exercise judgement and ask questions before participating in campaigns that require them to publicly endorse that brand.
What exactly are they endorsing? What do they know about the organisation’s practices? Are there issues that deserve clarification? A paid partnership does not have to mean switching off one’s judgement.
Influence is built on credibility. And credibility can be affected by the brands and causes one chooses to associate with.
The same applies to public relations professionals, brand consultants and other people who help organisations shape public perception. Our work should not stop at making a brand look good. We should also be concerned about whether the organisation is doing the work required to earn the confidence it seeks.
Crisis communication should not begin when the crisis arrives
Many organisations only begin to think seriously about crisis communication when a negative story is already trending.
By then, the organisation may be responding under pressure, trying to establish the facts, determine who should speak, agree on a position and manage public expectations all at once.
This is precisely why crisis communication should be part of organisational preparedness, not an emergency activity assembled at the last minute.
Organisations need clear escalation procedures. They need to know who receives complaints, who investigates them, who communicates with affected stakeholders, who approves public responses and when leadership needs to be involved.
They also need to distinguish between issues that can be resolved at customer service level and those that require wider organisational attention.
A complaint about a delayed delivery may require a different response from an allegation involving personal safety. Both deserve attention, but the urgency, escalation pathway and level of communication will differ.
And when a serious incident occurs, communication should be timely, factual, empathetic and consistent with the actions being taken.
A statement that says the organisation takes the matter seriously is not enough on its own. Stakeholders need to see what the organisation is doing, within the limits of what can appropriately be disclosed.
Sometimes, the organisation may not yet have all the answers. It can say so. It can acknowledge the concern, explain that an investigation is ongoing and commit to providing an update. What it should avoid is leaving people to interpret silence as indifference.
It is also worth remembering that crisis communication is only one part of reputation management. Reputation management is an ongoing organisational responsibility. It involves understanding stakeholder expectations, monitoring perceptions, building trust, identifying risks and ensuring that organisational behaviour supports the reputation the organisation wants to establish.
An organisation should not have to wait until a complaint becomes a trending topic before it starts paying attention to its reputation.
Communication must have a seat at the management table
Ultimately, this is a leadership issue.
Communication cannot be effective if it is treated as a department that only becomes relevant when there is an announcement to make, a campaign to launch or a crisis to contain.
It needs to be connected to decision-making.
Communication professionals should have access to the information required to understand what is happening across the organisation. They should be able to raise concerns, challenge assumptions and advise leadership on how decisions may affect employees, customers, partners, regulators and the wider public.
They should also be involved early enough to provide input, rather than being brought in after decisions have been made and the organisation is ready to announce them.
The function should be measured beyond traditional marketing metrics.
Reach, impressions, engagement and media mentions have their place, particularly when evaluating marketing communications and campaign performance. But they do not tell the whole story of organisational communication.
Organisations should also pay attention to customer sentiment, recurring complaints, response times, complaint resolution rates, stakeholder confidence, employee understanding and the extent to which feedback leads to meaningful action.
These measures help connect communication to the actual health of the organisation.
And this is an important distinction: communication cannot compensate indefinitely for poor operations. A well-written statement cannot replace a missing package. A social media campaign cannot resolve a safety concern. An apology cannot mean much if the same problem keeps happening.
Operational teams must address operational failures. Customer service teams must support customers and manage complaints. Leadership must provide the systems, resources and accountability required to prevent recurring problems. Communication must ensure that stakeholders are heard, informed and treated with respect, while helping the organisation understand and respond to the wider implications.
The functions have different responsibilities, but they must work together.
The real work of protecting reputation
The lesson from the conversations around inDrive, Bolt and other service platforms is not that organisations should stop marketing themselves or avoid public visibility. It is that marketing cannot be the only communication priority.
A brand cannot build lasting trust solely through what it says about itself. Trust is shaped by what people experience, what they hear from others, how the organisation treats them and what happens when things go wrong.
For communication professionals, this means broadening the way we think about our work. We must be willing to look beyond the campaign brief, beyond the monthly report and beyond the immediate deliverables. We must listen, question, advise and escalate when necessary.
For agencies, it means understanding that professional responsibility does not end with execution.
For influencers, it means recognising that credibility is part of the value they bring to a partnership.
And for organisational leaders, it means recognising communication as a strategic management function, not simply a marketing support service.
Because, ultimately, reputation is not built by what an organisation says about itself when everything is going well. It is built over time through what it promises, what it delivers, how it treats its stakeholders and how it responds when things go wrong.
No amount of marketing can permanently compensate for the absence of good organisational practices. And no communication strategy can protect a reputation that the organisation’s actions continually undermine.
