At the end of September, Almaty hosted the BeWoman Forum, positioned as an event aimed at promoting women in all spheres of life — from business to social and cultural initiatives.
This year, the forum brought together hundreds of participants and prominent guests, including Minister of Culture and Information Aida Balayeva, business coach Brian Tracy, Irina Khakamada, and others. The project’s founder is Zhanna Kan, wife of entrepreneur Sergey Kan.
However, the public’s attention was drawn not to the leadership sessions but to several controversial episodes. In one interview, Zhanna Kan stated that “Kazakhstani citizens are not used to paying taxes” and referenced the events of Qantar as an example of instability. During the forum, Russian coach Alexey Sitnikov called Vladimir Putin “a passionate leader capable of changing the world,” sparking outrage across social media. The video of his speech quickly went viral, and users demanded a response from the organizers. In an official comment, BeWoman Asia noted that speeches are usually pre-approved, but “one of the speaker’s remarks went beyond the live broadcast regulations.”
Kazakhstani media, as well as Facebook and Threads users, launched an extensive campaign criticizing the forum and its founder. The scandal began to subside until TV host Dinara Satzhan publicly defended Zhanna Kan, reigniting the discussion. Her Facebook post received about 1,200 comments, most of them negative. Without delving into further details of the crisis, let’s analyze what lessons Kazakhstani PR professionals can draw from this case.
Lesson 1. As many have already noted, a careful selection of speakers and strict control over their content is crucial. Each speaker must be thoroughly briefed to avoid sensitive topics that may trigger public outrage. Apparently, Sitnikov was not briefed properly, which allowed him to make such statements. Speaker selection is a key element of any event’s image.
Lesson 2. The organizers’ behavior during a crisis is critical. When Sitnikov made his remarks, the host did not interrupt or remind him of the event’s boundaries. After the backlash, the BeWoman team did not issue a clear response — there were no apologies or press conferences. Essentially, the organizers chose a strategy of “strategic silence.” However, this tactic only works when a crisis does not go viral. In a situation that attracts mass attention, active communication, apologies, explanations, and corrective actions are essential.
Lesson 3. Apologies and explanations are necessary not only to protect reputation now but also to safeguard it for the future. Renowned crisis communication theorist Timothy Coombs emphasized that a company’s behavior during a crisis shapes how it will be perceived in future ones. Simply put, if an organization handles a crisis poorly, the audience will remember it next time. This applies equally to companies and public figures. Thus, if BeWoman is held again, the audience will likely recall this episode.
Lesson 4. This lesson concerns influencers and public figures. A person must emerge from a crisis on their own. Attempts by bloggers or influencers to “save” someone else’s reputation rarely succeed. They can offer support if the person acknowledges the mistake but should not do it on their behalf. A telling example is Alisher Yelikbayev, who tried to “rehabilitate” Sharip Serik but ended up facing backlash himself and had to explain his actions on Vadim Boreiko’s YouTube show. Similarly, Dinara Satzhan, while defending Zhanna Kan, also faced a negative reaction — albeit less severe.
Lesson 5. The illusion of influence over the audience. Influencers often believe they can shift public opinion through supportive posts. However, the cases of Yelikbayev and Satzhan proved otherwise: the audience can easily distinguish sincerity from manipulation. Public opinion cannot be managed through social posts if the person at the center of the crisis has not taken responsibility.
Lesson 6. A communication crisis is not only a test of a company’s crisis communication plan or procedures — it is, above all, a test of the organization’s values and integrity. If a company mistreats its employees, ignores standards, laws, or local culture, it may survive one or two crises, but eventually, it will find itself at the center of a major scandal.
