As children growing up in the trenches, we had the opportunity to participate in various games and competitions. One of such games that comes to mind during the Christmas period is the balloon game of luck, also known as ‘Try Your Luck’. The local hawkers would bring around a colourful carton board with well-arranged and numbered balloons of different shapes, sizes, and forms. We were always eager to empty our clay banks (kolo) to participate in the balloon game of luck. Less for the hawkers manipulative tendencies to retain the biggest balloons as a marketing strategy, we were always looking forward to the moment. If you were lucky to win a big balloon, of course, you are the king of boys and automatic rave of the moment. All the less privileged; gather around the lucky winner to inflate and toss the balloon around in high ecstasy. God help you, the balloon gets punctured by accident or hater, the immediate noticeable effect has always been premium tears. Nevertheless, you still try to mend the punctured balloon by amending the holes or tying the leaking portion(s), the worth, shape, and look of the balloon are better imagined.
Notably, well-wishers who were earlier hailing and patronising the “star boy” tactically withdraw to their normal lives. Second, the once-admired balloon becomes a liability to the real owner. Third, the owner of the balloon becomes a former champion and candidate of isolation, while another person takes his shine. Just imagine the sacrifice of savings, the mastery of the game, the uncertainty of expectations, the worries of manipulation, the beauty of winning, the joy of celebration, the camaraderie of followership, and the agony of desolation- a punctured balloon is as valuable as its owner. This trench’s anecdote forms the framework of brand transgression and damage control. Be it an individual or corporate brand, a lot is put into a brand to build its assets, equity, sustainability, and maintenance. It is always worrisome when a brand, after years of resilience, is maligned and destroyed without any form of concern.
A case in mind is the brand LASUSTECH and the constant attack by its critical stakeholders and their recruits. Sometimes in April 2025, the university community received with mixed feelings the story of three dismissed staff members said to have allegedly discounted their integrity in dealing with female students. Poof, like a wildfire during the harmattan, the story started spreading in the digital and traditional media. Without regard to the provisions of law as contained in the university’s law book in Section 5.7, Subsections 1 and 2, which allow the accused to appeal any punishment considered unfair, the news item referenced Section 5.5.2(v) of the University Senior Staff Conditions of Service. Since the extant law allows an appeal, I think it is more than a misnomer to have the names in print until the last is heard of the case and total closure is achieved. It continues to tickle my brain how the University will manage the; punctured balloon; in both ways should any of these dismissed staff be exonerated and reinstated, having presented fresh and unprecedented evidence within an eight-week window as expressly stated in the university’s conditions of service. As much as I am not a promoter of ‘sextortionists,’ I think the university should be more circumspect in handling sensitive matters that bother on image, especially in the internet age. The Internet does not forget!
In the same worrisome development is the sensational media trial and persecution of the Vice Chancellor – Prof Olumuyiwa Odusanya, who was alleged to have compromised the procurement process in the October/November 2024 National Universities Commission’s accreditation exercise, which recorded 100 per cent success. One would have thought reporting the alleged infractions to the appropriate quarters through the whistleblowers route, the petitioners ought to have waited for the wheel of justice to grind exceedingly right, but they threw caution to the wind and became judges in their case. Two inferences to be drawn here: the petitioners were out to settle a score with the Vice Chancellor, and they equally didn’t believe in Nigeria’s criminal justice system, hence, they resolved to self-help. These ideas of throwing out the baby with the bathwater are antithetical to academia and retrogressive in all forms.
When an individual’s image is tarnished, whether it’s a university head, a prominent academic staff member, or even a student, it can ripple through the institution like a stone tossed into a calm pond. The fallout isn’t just personal; it can bruise the university’s brand, which is built on trust, credibility, and a shared sense of purpose. If a vice-chancellor or staff member is dragged through the mud, whether by internal factions or external critics, the university’s reputation takes a hit. People start questioning the institution’s stability, governance, and even its academic integrity. This is especially true for a young university like LASUSTECH, still carving out its identity. A tarnished institution’s image can make stakeholders- students, parents, alumni, and donors- second-guess their association with the brand. Top universities like Harvard or Oxford know this well. They invest heavily in consistent messaging, showcasing their lecturers’ achievements and their leaders’ vision to build a global brand that screams excellence. When their people shine, the institution shines. But when one person’s reputation crumbles, it can cast as a shadow over the whole enterprise, if not well managed.
If LASUSTECH’s leadership is embroiled in public spats or different factions within the university start airing their grievances on social or traditional media, the brand splinters. Instead of a unified image of innovation and progress, you get competing narratives: one group says the leadership is corrupt, another defends them, and a third just wants to stay out of it. This kind of division is deadly for brand building. A university’s brand thrives on cohesion, where everyone (leaders, lecturers, administrators, students) tells the same story about what the institution stands for. MIT, for example, has a rock-solid brand as a tech powerhouse because its community rallies around that identity. At LASUSTECH, recent happenings, like the public disputes over leadership decisions, risk creating a patchwork of conflicting stories. This avoidable drama doesn’t just confuse outsiders; it erodes internal morale. Staff members and students lose pride in their institution, and that’s a slow poison for any university hoping to compete for grants, collaborations, or top talent. Nobody wants to partner with a brand that is at war with itself.
Dragging a university into a media trial or sensationalist frenzy is like pouring fuel on an already smouldering fire. In LASUSTECH’s case, allegations and counter-allegations have made headlines, with blogs, human rights activists, and social media amplifying the drama. This kind of public spectacle can be catastrophic. It is not just about the individuals involved; the university itself becomes the story, and not in a good way. Sensationalism paints the institution as chaotic, which scares off potential donors, grant makers, and academic partners. Universities like Stanford or Cambridge guard their reputations fiercely, using proactive PR strategies to control narratives before they spiral out of control. They know that a single negative news cycle can cost millions in lost funding or partnerships. For LASUSTECH, the media trials risk cementing a perception of instability, which could linger for years. And let’s be real: those fanning the flames, whether disgruntled staff or external commentators, are shooting themselves in the foot. They’re undermining the very system that sustains them—call it brand terrorism if you want. By tearing down LASUSTECH’s image to score points against an individual, they’re scaring away the donations, grants, and collaborations the university needs to thrive. It’s like burning down your own house to spite your roommate.
In sum, crisis management in a university like LASUSTECH needs to be proactive, transparent, and community-driven. The university needs a distinct, people-driven corporate culture. We cannot and will not manage our brand like a patchwork of mismatched ideas. Also, instead of deodorising religious colouration and letting disputes fester until they hit the headlines, leadership should create open channels for dialogue- town halls, mediation committees, or even anonymous feedback systems. Top universities like the Universiti Malaya, Rhodes University, the University of Toronto, or Melbourne use these tools to nip conflicts in the bud, keeping their brands intact. LASUSTECH could also invest in a robust communication strategy, training its leaders and staff to weave the university’s mission into every public statement, even during tough times. Another smart move is to build a culture of shared pride. Engage students, alumni, and lecturers in showcasing LASUSTECH’s successes (research breakthroughs, student achievements, or community impact). This drowns out negative noise and reinforces a unified brand. Finally, by fostering internal unity, LASUSTECH can turn crises into opportunities to show resilience, proving it’s a brand worth believing in, no matter what storms come its way. Let’s keep this balloon soaring. If it’s punctured, we all fall.
Steven Anu’ Adesemoye, PhD., writes from LASUSTECH, Ikorodu.
