East of Truth

The British and Dutch East India Companies Through the Lens of PR, Propaganda, and Perception

For marketers and PR professionals, reputation is currency.

But what happens when history rewrites your press release?

The British and Dutch East India Companies – two of the most powerful corporations the world has ever known – helped shape global trade, colonial empires, and arguably modern capitalism. Yet today, their names are associated not just with spices and silks, but also with exploitation, war, and human rights abuses.

Were these companies masters of 17th-century propaganda?

Or were they simply products of an age so radically different from our own that judging them by today’s moral compass is futile?

This article explores the origin stories, public portrayals, and eventual reputational collapse of the VOC and the EIC – through a marketer’s lens.

The Marketing Made Clear Podcast

Check out the Marketing Made Clear Podcast on all good streaming platforms including Spotify:

A Tale of Two Companies: Power, Trade, and Monopolies

The Dutch East India Company (VOC)

Founded in 1602, the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) is widely regarded as the world’s first multinational corporation. The Dutch government granted it exclusive trading rights across Asia, essentially handing it a corporate monopoly backed by military power.

The VOC’s main exports were spices from Indonesia, India, and Ceylon (modern-day Sri Lanka), which were sold at massive markups in European markets. It established trading posts, built forts, minted its own coins, and could even wage war.

At its peak, the VOC employed over 70,000 people and paid out dividends that would make today’s shareholders weep with envy. It’s been estimated that if you adjusted for inflation and GDP, the VOC was worth $7.9 trillion – more than Apple, Amazon, and Google combined.

The British East India Company (EIC)

The EIC was founded just two years earlier in 1600. Unlike the VOC’s tight state control and centralisation, the EIC started more loosely as a collection of English merchants granted a royal charter.

But it didn’t stay small for long.

While the Dutch were initially stronger in the spice trade, the British shifted focus to India – textiles, opium, salt, and tea became the lifeblood of its empire. By the 18th century, the EIC was not just trading – it was ruling. Following the Battle of Plassey (1757), it effectively became the governing authority over large parts of India.

It collected taxes, controlled courts, and maintained its own army of over 260,000 men – twice the size of the British Army at the time.

How Were They Portrayed at the Time?

This is where things get interesting for marketers. Despite their often-brutal tactics, both companies enjoyed a largely positive reputation at home for much of their existence.

Narrative Control in the Pre-Media Age

There was no 24-hour news cycle in the 1600s. No investigative journalism. No viral tweets from disenfranchised populations. Instead, reputations were shaped by:

• Royal backing and national pride – Both companies were extensions of state ambition. They flew national flags, funded wars, and brought wealth and goods into the country. Criticising them was, in effect, unpatriotic.

• Control of information – News from Asia took months to arrive. Events were filtered through company reports, pamphlets, and carefully curated letters. These were the press releases of the era.

• Art and literature – Exotic engravings, paintings, and operas showcased a romanticised East full of wealth and wonder. Violence and exploitation were either downplayed or justified as the “cost of civilisation.”

The VOC, for instance, promoted itself as a bringer of order and commerce to chaotic lands. Meanwhile, the EIC positioned its conquests as the natural extension of British progress – a handy narrative to sell to shareholders and Parliament alike.

So… Was It PR Spin or Just a Different Time?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: it was both.

PR Before PR Had a Name

The East India Companies may not have had formal marketing departments, but they understood the fundamentals of brand management:

• National alignment: Their fortunes were tied to their home country’s interests. The EIC’s “Brand Britain” was one of modernisation, Christian morality, and trade superiority. That rubbed off on the company.

• Exclusive storytelling: With few competing narratives, the companies told their own story. Their self-authored reports were picked up in newspapers, policy meetings, and even art galleries.

• Symbolic branding: Both companies had official coats of arms, flags, mottos, and seals. Their identities were as cohesive and visual as any modern brand.

In short, they shaped their own legacy – until they couldn’t.

Context: The Cruelty Was Normalised

It’s easy – and right – to be horrified by the forced labour, monopolistic price fixing, and military crackdowns. But in the 17th and 18th centuries, these weren’t seen as crimes. They were seen as the cost of empire-building.

A merchant who exploited native labour wasn’t a villain – he was a “man of industry.” Soldiers didn’t colonise; they “secured trade routes.” This moral lens protected both the companies and the governments backing them.

But not forever.

The Beginning of the End (and the PR Cracks)

By the late 18th century, the cracks began to show – especially for the EIC.

Public Scandals and Reputational Collapse

• The 1770 Bengal Famine, which killed millions, was exacerbated by EIC policies. Instead of offering aid, the company maintained tax collection.

• The 1788 impeachment trial of Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India, shone a light on corruption and brutality. Although acquitted, public opinion was turning.

• Tea exports and monopolistic policies directly led to the Boston Tea Party – and, indirectly, to the American War of Independence.

Parliament took notice. In 1858, after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British Crown dissolved the EIC and brought India under direct rule. The company that once ruled a continent was gone.

The VOC had already collapsed by 1799 – plagued by corruption, mismanagement, and waning profitability.

Reframing the Legacy in the Modern Era

Today, both companies are increasingly discussed in terms of:

• Colonial violence

• Cultural erasure

• Corporate overreach

• Early capitalism’s moral blindness

This isn’t “cancel culture” – it’s historical rebalancing. The marketing and PR that once polished these brands no longer holds up under modern scrutiny.

It’s telling that neither the Dutch nor British governments have resurrected these companies as icons. No “EIC heritage brand” has emerged, despite the trend of nostalgia marketing.

Why?

Because the reputational damage is too deep.

Lessons for Marketers: Managing Legacy in a Transparent Age

What can modern marketers learn from this?

1. You Can’t Outsource Morality to the Era You’re In

Just because something is “normal” today doesn’t mean it will be seen as ethical tomorrow. Marketers working in industries like fast fashion, AI surveillance, or ultra-processed food should take note.

2. Control of Narrative is Temporary

The VOC and EIC controlled their reputations for centuries. But eventually, broader access to education, media, and alternative histories reframed their actions. Today, anyone with Wi-Fi can expose a company’s bad behaviour.

3. Aligning With Power is a Risky PR Strategy

Being close to government or military might feel safe – but it can backfire if public sentiment shifts. Brands that align too heavily with nationalistic politics often struggle to pivot when the wind changes.

4. True Legacy is Built on Substance, Not Spin

No amount of branding can override actions. The EIC and VOC were giants – but they fell, not because of bad marketing, but because their conduct couldn’t be justified indefinitely.

Conclusion: From Commodities to Cautionary Tales

The British and Dutch East India Companies weren’t just businesses — they were state-backed superpowers with logos, ledgers, and legal impunity. Their stories are reminders that reputations can be built on violence and upheld by narrative, for a time.

As marketers, we often focus on crafting the message — but history reminds us that the message eventually meets the moment. The VOC and EIC managed to control perception not through modern PR strategies, but by dominating information itself. That luxury no longer exists.

In today’s era of radical transparency, digital accountability, and social consciousness, no brand — no matter how powerful — is above scrutiny. Consumers are historians in real-time. Shareholders now read ethics statements as closely as they read annual reports.

The lesson isn’t to fear reputation collapse, but to build one on truth, transparency, and integrity from the outset.

The VOC and EIC may have shaped the world — but they also serve as two of marketing’s oldest warnings: if you ignore the human cost, the story will eventually write itself, and you won’t get to be the narrator.