A series of recent incidents has brought into focus how closely founders and their brands are now tied in public perception. When Namita Thapar shared a video discussing the health benefits of namaz, it triggered widespread online backlash, including trolling and criticism that extended beyond the content itself. The conversation quickly moved from the video to larger questions around personal belief, corporate responsibility, and what a business leader should or should not say in public. Thapar responded saying she remained unfazed, but the reactions continued to build, reflecting how personal expression can quickly become a brand conversation.
Around the same time, Peyush Bansal faced scrutiny after an internal Lenskart ‘style guide’ document surfaced online. The document appeared to restrict certain religious symbols while allowing others, leading to allegations of bias and calls for boycott. Bansal later clarified that the document was outdated and did not reflect current company policy.
But by then, the conversation had already moved beyond the document itself into how leadership decisions are perceived and judged in the public eye. In both cases, the aftermath followed a similar pattern: online discourse, public clarification, and a blurring of where the individual ends and the brand begins.
This is part of a wider shift. Founders such as Deepinder Goyal of Zomato, Kunal Shah of CRED, and Harsh Goenka of RPG Group have increasingly built visible public personas, sharing opinions, engaging with culture, and becoming active voices beyond their businesses. Today, a founder’s presence is not limited to boardrooms or product announcements—it is constant, visible, and closely watched.
Against this backdrop, a larger question begins to take shape. Founders today have become more visible; can they still express personal opinions freely, or has their identity become inseparable from the brands they lead?
For some founders, this overlap is both inevitable and something they actively navigate. Shankar Prasad, Founder and CEO, Plum Goodness, says, “It is difficult to separate founder and brand voices today, so I am careful about what I say, when and where.” That awareness, he suggests, comes from how quickly things move online now. A single comment, even if personal, is instantly read as a reflection of the brand.
He adds that social media works like a ‘noisy continuum,’ where distinctions between individual and organisation collapse almost instantly. Because of that, his approach is to be selective. Choosing when to speak and what to say, while knowing that how it might be interpreted is no longer fully in his control.
However, at the same time, he points out that this visibility is not without its advantages. The authenticity and approachability or simply the ‘vibe’ that founders bring go a long way in shaping brand personality in the minds of people. Yet, he also recognises that ‘there’s an upside and a downside,’ and that founders cannot play only for the upside when their voice is constantly read as the brand’s voice.
This tension between authenticity and perception shows up in how audiences judge consistency. Abhik Santara, Founder, atom puts it simply, “The world doesn't demand perfection. It craves consistency in values.”
That idea becomes important in a space where audiences are constantly watching. When what a founder says publicly does not match what they stand for in practice, the gap becomes visible very quickly. He further points out that many founders build curated online personas, but the disconnect is called out when it doesn’t match reality making authenticity less about performance and more about alignment over time.
This pattern has played out globally as well. For instance, Elon Musk’s personal posts on politics and free speech have repeatedly triggered advertiser concerns, with reactions spilling over to Tesla and X, showing how individual views can directly impact brand trust.
From a communications lens, this shift has been building for a while. Vikram Kharvi, CEO, Bloomingdale PR, says, “The line exists only in theory. In practice, it dissolved the moment founders became the marketing engine.” In other words, once founders start building visibility through their opinions and personality, audiences don’t switch that association off depending on the topic.
He explains that the same followers who engage with business views will also react to personal opinions, whether it’s about culture, politics, or internal decisions. This is visible in cases where founders like Kunal Shah often see their social commentary on wealth and success shaping how audiences perceive CRED itself, sometimes drawing criticism around elitism. It makes it difficult for founders to draw boundaries selectively. At the same time, he points out that many companies still treat founder communication as a personal space, until something goes wrong, highlighting a governance gap.
Sahana Rai, Founder and CEO, Glocal Brand Solutions, echoes this shift. “The conflation of founder and brand is no longer an accident, it is the default in today’s consumer landscape.” She explains that people nowadays don’t just buy products, they buy into the people behind them. That makes founder visibility not just a communication choice, but a strategic one.
Companies are now beginning to treat founder communication as an asset that needs planning. This includes setting clear boundaries, defining what founders can speak about, and creating internal processes like pre-communication reviews and crisis frameworks, she adds. Without this, even a spontaneous comment can turn into a reputational challenge, especially in an environment where reactions are immediate and amplified.
Even relatively neutral or well-intended communication can invite scrutiny. Leaders like Anand Mahindra, despite his largely positive engagement online, have seen certain posts spark debate, with responses often extending beyond the individual to the Mahindra Group’s positioning.
If this is the reality, where visibility brings both value and risk—then how can brands plan for it? How can founder communication be managed without losing authenticity? Part of the answer lies in understanding how the digital environment works today. Online behaviour, especially among younger audiences, is fast, reactive, and often driven by moments. Conversations escalate quickly, narratives shift within hours, and context is not always preserved. This constant attention and participation make every statement more exposed than ever before.
Explaining this further, Chandan Bagwe, Founder and Director, C Com Digital, says, “Once you become the face of the company, there is really no off switch for your personal identity." In such a space, he suggests, founders are no longer just spokespersons but 'brand protagonists,' where every statement reflects what the brand stands for.
He adds that communication needs to pass through a clear values filter, if something does not align with the company’s core positioning, it is better left unsaid. At the same time, he emphasises that the goal is not to restrict founders, but to build simple guardrails.
This becomes even more critical during moments of backlash. Standard corporate responses often fall flat because they feel impersonal. Instead, founders should address situations directly, in their own voice, taking responsibility and being clear about intent. According to him, authenticity during a crisis is not about perfection, but about how honestly and quickly the situation is handled.
Kharvi and Rai both echo a similar sentiment. While structures and frameworks are important, control does not mean silence. Founders are expected to have opinions and engage with the world around them. The challenge is not in speaking but in knowing how, when, and where to do so.
What this moment signals is not just a shift in visibility, but a shift in responsibility. As founders like Thapar and Bansal face public scrutiny, such instances are becoming part of the founder journey, not exceptions.
Going forward, the role of a founder may evolve into something more layered. Part operator, part communicator, and a custodian of public trust. The focus may shift from avoiding backlash to building credibility that can withstand the backlash.
