Brands don’t need us to tell them how important it is to build trust. How they can’t take a single customer for granted. Or how anything that alienates a prospect will send them straight into the arms of a competitor. They know that even a single negative interaction with a brand will send 57% of customers running for the hills. As such, they put a huge effort into making a great impression.
We all know that delivering a consistently good experience is the best way to build brand loyalty. But let’s be realistic. Consistently good is not the same as unfailingly good. We all make mistakes. We all have bad days. That’s as true for brands as it is for the individuals behind them.
And what do we do when we’ve done something wrong?
First and foremost, we say sorry.
Historically, however, brands have struggled to articulate their apologies meaningfully. They can come across as insincere or (worse still) evasive. We got together with an expert in the art of the corporate apology to look at how to do it right.
Sean O’Meara, co-author of “The Apology Impulse” identifies several reasons why a corporate apology may be necessary. Some stem from self-interest – born of a desire to project competence, mitigate reputational damage and preserve share prices. Others arise from anxieties about compliance or from organisational panic and internal stresses. The latter has been exacerbated by the perpetual real-time feedback loop of social media.
Then there are instances of individuals within an organisation being genuinely sorry – a mistake was made on their watch, and they want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as Sean identifies, this type of apology is vanishingly rare. Not because the company isn’t genuinely sorry, but rather because admitting it’s at fault can have legal consequences.
As Sean’s book says:
“The most common but rarely given answer to ‘why won’t you just apologise?’ is typically ‘our lawyers won’t let us’“.
Although the Compensation Act 2006 makes clear that a public apology is not necessarily an admission of negligence, the spectre of litigation is forever spooking board rooms. Moreover, companies are sometimes genuinely unsure whether or not they are at fault.
“Organisations struggle to articulate apologies for a few reasons, including poorly organised communication channels and an absence of a crisis management plan,” Sean told us. “But one of the most common reasons is the fear of that apology inviting litigation. Studies in healthcare settings have demonstrated that apologies can actually reduce the likelihood of litigation.
“On the other side of the coin, the research that organisational psychologist Professor Sir Cary Cooper and I conducted when writing the book shows that lots of companies apologise when they needn’t have. This is common when brands are facing criticism on social media. Some brands say sorry in the hope that doing so will make the criticism go away. It rarely does.”
“It’s really important for organisations to understand that an apology isn’t a magic bullet. In some scenarios, it can actually do more harm than good. One study into airport operations conducted in the UK found that apologies can sometimes diminish perceptions of competence during a service failure. In blunt terms, the customer would rather you went and found their luggage than hear you saying sorry.”
As we can see, companies can approach the act of apologising with great apprehension. As such, the fauxpology currently enjoys a bit of a renaissance.
No doubt due to its frequent use among celebrity influencers.
In 2022 Kim Kardashian – a billionaire – complained that “nobody wants to work these days”. The comment, understandably, sparked some outrage.
Her response?
To declare that her comment was “a soundbite really with no context”. She went on to apologise for how the remark was received, but not for its intrinsic insensitivity and economic illiteracy.
While the fauxpology leads the field in how not to apologise, it has some serious competitors.
Let’s look at a few.
Like the physicist’s cat, some apologies are elevated to a quantum superposition. They are apologies. They also are not apologies at all.
Some are even outright brags.
Schrödinger’s apologies acknowledge wrongdoing but qualify it with “having the highest standards of X” or “caring deeply about Y”. They instantly pivot towards “fell short of our usual high standards” platitudes. Some even stray into “But have you stopped to think about our problems?”.
The solid brass neck award for this goes to Thames Water. The embattled water supplier has overseen record levels of sewage discharge into waterways over the last year or so. Astonishingly, chairman Sir Adrian Montague used his apology to defend 156% executive bonuses.|
“We know the supply interruptions cause inconvenience and sometimes real hardship, and so I think the right thing to do is to start the discussion of the [company’s] turnaround plan by acknowledging we haven’t always served our customers as well as we should, and through the committee, apologising to them […] It’s true that this business, like many businesses, needs to reward its staff effectively […] People will come knocking, they’ll try to pick out of us the best staff we’ve got”
For Thames Water customers this reads as:
“Sorry about the parasites in the water, old chap. But our executives are just so damned talented, we have no choice but to increase your bills. Again.”
Won’t somebody please think of the millionaires?
Kim Kardashian was unique in apologising for “offence caused” rather than the offending comment.
Blame shifting is a commonly used rhetorical tactic. It acknowledges the transgression while also sidestepping blame. In apologising for any offence caused, it shifts focus from their wrongdoing to the reaction of those they have wronged.
“Sorry you feel that way” blame shifting implies, “But there was no offence intended. Perhaps if you weren’t so sensitive… You know, this is really your fault”.
Blame shifting may seem an appealing tactic – particularly for those worried about compliance or legal culpability.
However, it reads as insincere at best and manipulative at worst.
Fear of litigation and overzealous legal teams have shaped today’s corporate apology. You’ll often see linguistic sleight of hand used to evade culpability while appearing to apologise.
Popular ducking and weaving devices include:
A hollow or insincere apology stands out like a sore thumb.
So, what makes a good apology?
Sean has some ideas.
“A good corporate apology will have some, or preferably all, of the following characteristics: A frank admission of failure. An explanation of what went wrong. A sincere statement of regret. And a path to recovery.
A good apology will NOT contain the passive voice (“mistakes were made”) or what I would call a ‘character reference’, for example, “We take data security seriously, it’s our number one priority”. When an organisation has failed either operationally or culturally, it is not the time for self-regarding claims of competence when the contrary is clearly true.”
With that in mind, when writing and proofreading an apology, ask yourself the following questions.
Acknowledge the mistake made in its entirety. Avoid euphemisms or any language that might downplay the extent of the wrongdoing. Avoid passive voice.
Having acknowledged your mistake, acknowledge its impact.
How did your mistake affect your customers, stakeholders and the general public?
You’ve owned your mistake. You didn’t sugarcoat it. You demonstrated that you know, and care, how it affected those outside your organisation.
Still, you’re not out of the woods yet.
In order for your apology to be truly effective, it needs to be followed by decisive action.
Tell your audience:
This proves that you take the offence seriously and have taken active steps to remedy it. In “The Apology Impulse”, Sean notes that while empathy is important, people value displays of competence over empathy.
There are many reasons why sorry can be the hardest word.
Get it right and you can mend damage, build bridges and maintain your reputation.
Get it wrong and you can create more problems than you solve.
If you’re not quite sure how to say it to your target audience, let’s talk.
