The quick version: BrewDog co-founder James Watt has launched a bid to buy back the craft brewer he sold into administration earlier this year, claiming the backing of 43,000 former “Equity for Punk” investors. Within days, he was facing complaints to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) after shareholders said they didn’t know how he’d obtained their contact details. Tilray, BrewDog’s current owner, has publicly and firmly distanced itself from the situation. It calls into question whether trust can be truly rebuilt, or whether Watt’s previous leadership antics will forever undermine his current actions, regardless of how well-intentioned they may well have been.  

The background

Watt co-founded BrewDog in 2007 and stepped back from the CEO role in 2024. The company later collapsed with debts of over £500m – 36 bars closed, hundreds of jobs lost, and roughly 200,000 crowdfunding investors left with worthless shares. Tilray then acquired the brand, IP and breweries for around £33m. 

This week, Watt tabled a buyback bid through his new venture, Second Best, saying tens of thousands of former investors had joined him. But shareholders contacted as part of the campaign said they didn’t understand how he’d obtained their details, and the ICO has confirmed it’s assessing complaints. Tilray says it never acquired the “Equity for Punks” shareholder database and has “no involvement in, affiliation with, or responsibility for” Watt’s activities. 

Why intent stops mattering once trust is gone

Once trust is broken, motives aren’t taken at face value, they’re interrogated rigourously. Watt may genuinely believe he’s handing power back to the community that built BrewDog, but that’s exactly the kind of narrative that invites the most scrutiny, because it asks people to extend goodwill to someone who, in their eyes, still owes them something and who perhaps isn’t all that trustworthy. 

That’s the honest answer to “can you ever just do something nice for people?” once a reputation is damaged. Unless the how is being examined as closely as the why, it can be tough to come back from, regardless of how well intentioned or ‘kind’ the action may well be. 

The comms lesson

In any reputation recovery campaign, stakeholder re-engagement lives or dies on trust, and trust starts with data transparency. 

The moment you can’t clearly account for where contact data came from, the narrative shifts and you’ll end up with a legal and a communications issue. What should be a recovery story becomes a credibility crisis, and that will dominate coverage every time, and undermine any recovery efforts.  

In this case, Watt hasn’t just faced a data question, he’s weakened the very credibility he’s trying to rebuild. 

Tilray’s response is the other lesson here. It was fast, specific, and unambiguous, naming exactly what happened and what was not acquired, immediately distancing himself from Watt’s new venture and slip up. That’s how you stop someone else’s story becoming yours. 

The brand angle

BrewDog built its identity on closeness to its customers. “Equity for Punks” turned drinkers into shareholders and evangelists. That’s a powerful asset when things go well, and a liability the moment trust breaks. The same community that felt ownership over the brand also feels the collapse personally. There’s no quiet comeback available to a brand that made closeness its whole proposition. 

Three principles for rebuilding trust 

• Transparency has to lead, not follow. Explain your process before you’re asked as reactive explanations always look defensive, even when true. 

• Silence gets filled by someone else’s version of events. If a brand doesn’t proactively account for its own actions, journalists, regulators, the public or critics will do it instead, and rarely in your favour. 

• Staying out of the headlines isn’t the same as being trusted. Time alone won’t rebuild confidence, only consistent and genuine action will. 

The bottom line

Doing something nice for people you’ve previously let down isn’t disqualified by good intentions, but it’s judged by a harsher standard than a first impression would be. That’s the accurate cost of having lost trust once already. 

We always say, businesses are rarely judged for having a crisis, but they are judged by how they respond, and this extends even more so when a single person is at the centre of the issue.  

For more PR, comms and business insights,  follow Alia Al-Doori on LinkedIn here.