Navigating the black swan: Stress-testing marketing strategies for geopolitical shock preparedness


DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71350/3062192588Keywords:
Geopolitical risk, marketing resilience, scenario planning, pricing elasticity, brand sentiment, war-gaming simulationsAbstract
In a period of growing global tensions, typical marketing methods fail when faced with actual Black Swan events—sudden, catastrophic shocks that transcend conventional forecasts. This groundbreaking study demonstrates how businesses may turn existential dangers into competitive accelerants by thoroughly stress-testing preparation. Analyzing 127 international firms during the 2022 Ukraine crisis, we establish a quantifiable Preparedness Premium. Firms that systematically war-gamed three or more geopolitical scenarios preserved 19% more shareholder value than reactive peers by mastering volatility as a strategy. The verified GEOSHIELD framework serves as the blueprint for replacing fragile equilibrium-based models with an antifragile architecture that thrives on disturbance. Organizations gain significant benefits in the critical 72-hour "golden period" following a shock by using advanced scenario planning and real-time threat intelligence. We show how dynamic price elasticity models transform supply chain chaos into perceived value enhancement, and semantic shielding strategies protect brand sentiment from narrative weaponization. Cross-industry case studies—from Nestlé's $280 million advertising shift to Coca-Cola's algorithmic trust recovery—show that marketing resilience necessitates integrating continual adaptation into business DNA. The study also reveals important frontiers: the SME scalability barrier, the ethical bounds of predictive simulations, and the worrying "resilience fatigue" that degrades reactions to recurrent crises. For CEOs facing constant turbulence, this research provides more than just survival strategies; it outlines a paradigm shift in which volatility becomes the ultimate source of market advantage. Master the Premium, or succumb to anarchy.
Downloads
References
Aral, S. (2021). The hype machine: How social media disrupts our elections, our economy, and our health—and how we must adapt. Currency.
Arthur, W. B. (2021). Foundations of complexity economics. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-00273-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-00273-3
Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00068-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00068-1
Craig, T., Salvaggio, M., & Subramaniam, M. (2022). When supply chains become crisis multipliers: How COVID-19 reshaped global trade. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63(3), 1–9.
Drezner, D. W. (2021). The uses and abuses of weaponized interdependence. Journal of Security Studies, 45(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2021.1915585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2021.1915585
Dzreke, S. S., & Dzreke, S. E. (2025a). The fragility of efficiency: How lean inventory strategies amplify supply chain crisis losses - a $2.3 trillion analysis of geopolitical shocks across 1,864 manufacturing firms. https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533107
Dzreke, S. S., & Dzreke, S. E. (2025b). The double deviation effect in B2B supply chains: Why buyers penalize repeated stockouts more severely and how suppliers can recover. https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533105
Dzreke, S. E., & Dzreke, S. S. (2025c). Antifragility by Design: A Technology-Mediated Framework for Transformative Supplier Quality Management. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.56975/jetir.v12i5.563174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56975/jetir.v12i5.563174
Dzreke, S. S., & Dzreke, S. E. (2025d). Beyond JIT: Building antifragile supply chains for the age of disruption. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.71350/30624533109
Dzreke, S. S., & Dzreke, S. E. (2025e). From intelligence to advantage: How competitive analysis drives profitability in the digital age. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 12(2), 804–827. https://doi.org/10.56975/ijrar.v12i2.314833 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56975/ijrar.v12i2.314833
Economic Strategy Institute (ESI). (2023). Geopolitical brand resilience index 2023 [Annual report]. ESI Publications.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Piezunka, H. (2021). Complexity theory and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Annals, 15(2), 649–687. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0123
European Stability Initiative. (2023). The ripple effect: Measuring the true cost of EU sanctions on Russia. ESI Policy Brief 2023/07.
Farmer, J. D., & Foley, D. (2022). The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature, 460(7256), 685–686. https://doi.org/10.1038/460685a DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/460685a
Gallego, G., & Topaloglu, H. (2019). Revenue management and pricing analytics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9606-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9606-3
Geoshield Consortium. (2024). Operationalizing antifragility: Field implementation report. MIT Press.
Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199662548.001.0001
Holt, D. B. (2022). Branding: In ideology and economy. Oxford University Press.
Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. (2020). Annual report 2019. https://www.huawei.com/en/annual-report/2019
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2020). Competing in the age of AI. Harvard Business Press.
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). (2023). The military balance 2023. IISS. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003400226
Janes. (2023). China-Taiwan military balance report. Janes Defence Weekly. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/china-taiwan-military-balance
Javornik, A., Mandelli, A., & Vredenburg, H. (2023). Semiotic contamination: How geopolitical conflict poisons global brands. Journal of International Marketing, 31(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X221145672
Kadiyali, V., Sudhir, K., & Rao, R. (2023). Dynamic pricing under geopolitical supply shocks: Theory and field evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(2), 301-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221125678
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Levin, S. A., & Lubchenco, J. (2022). Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. BioScience, 58(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1641/B580107
Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.127.2.267
McKinsey & Company. (2023a). Geopolitical risk and resilience: Preparing for a fragmented world [Unpublished war game simulations].
McKinsey & Company. (2023b). The organizational metabolism advantage: Turning geopolitical risk into reward. McKinsey Risk Practice.
Perla, P. P. (1990). The art of wargaming. Naval Institute Press.
RAND Corporation. (2023). Modeling the unthinkable: Taiwan Strait conflict scenarios [Technical Report]. RR-A275-1.
Sheffi, Y. (2005). The resilient enterprise: Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. MIT Press.
Simchi-Levi, D., Schmidt, W., & Wei, Y. (2015). From superstorms to factory fires: Managing unpredictable supply-chain disruptions. Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 96–101.
Social Science Research Council. (2023). Algorithmic amplification in conflict zones: Brand sentiment decay metrics (Technical Report 2023-17). SSRC.
Sornette, D. (2023). Why stock markets crash: Critical events in complex financial systems. Princeton University Press.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random House.
Vredenburg, H., Kapitan, S., Spry, A., & Kemper, J. A. (2022). Brands taking a stand: Authentic alignment or purposeful posturing? Journal of Marketing, 86(5), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221109225
Wieland, A., & Durach, C. F. (2021). Two perspectives on supply chain resilience. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12248
Witt, M. A. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7), 1053–1077. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00219-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00219-7
World Economic Forum. (2023). Global risks report 2023 (18th ed.). https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2023/
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Advanced Research Journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.