Is the era of the public apology truly over?
I have my doubts. Just earlier this month, Adidas decided it needed to apologize in response to accusations of cultural misappropriation.
To be sure, there is a growing appreciation that apologizing needlessly can be counterproductive. Too often, the court of public opinion is quick to judgment, and leaders fall into the trap of apologizing for an issue that’s not truly theirs.
Today, brands and leaders facing a crisis need to:
- Weigh all the options. Ask: Is there an action that can be taken, instead of or in addition to apologizing, that will make the response more impactful? What’s the likelihood the crisis blows over?
- Be thoughtful of the historical context. Is there anything in the leader or organization’s past that will impact if and how an apology is made?
- Do a cost/benefit analysis. Work with a diverse team to assess the potential ramifications of not apologizing or apologizing later after the initial backlash subsides.
- Avoid unintentional liability. Don’t rush to apologize before understanding the potential legal ramifications of doing so. Have a strong legal team in your corner and trust their guidance when it comes to the unintended consequences of apologizing publicly.
That said, I believe public apologies will still be an important reputation management tool to earn trust—even in our highly polarized culture. But they need to be done thoughtfully, at the right time, and through the appropriate channels. A delayed or inauthentic apology can make a bad situation worse.
A few hallmarks of good apologies:
Timeliness. When a scandal breaks, leaders must be visible and accessible. Generally, the longer a leader stays silent, the more cynical and skeptical the public, staff or other internal stakeholders, and media become. Remember when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg
waited five days before commenting on the Cambridge Analytica scandal? It made him look defensive and more concerned about PR than customers. That’s bad.
Jargon-free. Apologies need to feel personal and heartfelt. Yes, it’s deadly obvious, but just one ill-chosen word can cast a shadow over it. When United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz first responded to a customer being dragged from an oversold flight in 2017, he apologized for having to
“re-accommodate” the passenger. That kind of corporate-speak may be fine for fine print or legally accurate, but not for public apologies.
Victim-centered. Apologies need to put the victims at the forefront. But there must be an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and responsibility. Remember to avoid the passive voice (“mistakes were made”) or attempt at deflection or misdirection. Those efforts often end up making things worse.
Accompanied by action. An apology needs to be backed up with action. Johnson & Johnson’s
legendary Tylenol recall decades ago established the gold standard for regaining trust. In addition to apologizing for deaths caused by cyanide-laced capsules, it recalled 31 million bottles nationwide and introduced new safety measures. Without that action, the apology would have been easily dismissed as simply a PR ploy.
There’s no disputing the fact that some brands and leaders are taking a more combative public persona, less inclined to apologize for anything. But I have my doubts that a new grand paradigm is emerging. Public apologies have long been key to restoring trust—and that never goes out of style.
