In today's hyper-connected world, apologies seem to be everywhere. From corporations issuing public statements to individuals posting regrets on social media, the act of saying "sorry" has become increasingly common. But has this abundance of apologies diminished their power and meaning? In "The Apology Impulse," author Cary Cooper explores this question and offers insights into how we can reclaim the true value of apologizing.
Introduction: The Importance of Saying Sorry
Apologizing is a fundamental human ritual that plays a crucial role in our social interactions. It's a way of acknowledging wrongdoing, taking responsibility for our actions, and seeking forgiveness. Every major religion includes acts of repentance, and parents go to great lengths to teach their children the importance of saying sorry. It's a social glue that helps us maintain relationships and live together in communities.
However, in recent years, the act of apologizing has become so frequent and often so insincere that it's losing its power. Corporations issue apologies for the smallest of infractions, while carefully crafted statements from PR teams often come across as evasive rather than genuinely remorseful. This book aims to help readers understand the current state of apologies, particularly in the corporate world, and offers guidance on how to make apologies meaningful again.
The Apology Overload
Corporations and the Sorry Epidemic
One of the most striking examples of apology overload comes from the airline industry. In early 2014, American Airlines apologized to customers an astonishing 200 times per day. This wasn't during a major crisis or period of disruption – it was business as usual. These apologies were for minor issues like slight delays or meals that didn't meet expectations.
This phenomenon isn't limited to airlines. Many industries that rely heavily on customer satisfaction, such as retail and hospitality, have adopted a strategy of constant apology. The reason for this lies in the nature of these businesses. They're what we might call "low friction" industries – it's easy for customers to switch from one company to another if they're unhappy. If you have a bad experience with one airline, you can easily book your next flight with a competitor.
In contrast, "high friction" industries like banking and telecommunications don't apologize as frequently. It's much more difficult and time-consuming for customers to switch banks or phone providers, so these companies don't feel the same pressure to constantly appease their customers.
The Role of Social Media
The rise of social media has played a significant role in this apology epidemic. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook give customers a public forum to air their grievances. A complaint that might once have been made privately to customer service can now be seen by thousands or even millions of people.
This visibility has put enormous pressure on companies to respond quickly and apologetically to any criticism, no matter how minor. The fear of a complaint going viral and damaging their reputation has led many corporations to adopt a strategy of apologizing for everything, just in case.
The Problem with Over-Apologizing
While it might seem like more apologies are a good thing, this constant stream of "sorry" has actually devalued the act of apologizing. When companies apologize for every little thing, it becomes difficult to distinguish between minor inconveniences and serious wrongdoings.
For example, when a supermarket chain apologizes with the same level of intensity for mislabeling a costume as it does for dispensing the wrong medication (which could be life-threatening), it trivializes the more serious error. This lack of proportion in apologies makes it hard for consumers to take any corporate apology seriously.
The Rise of Outrage Capitalism
The Media's Role in Amplifying Complaints
The abundance of corporate apologies isn't solely due to social media and customer complaints. The media, particularly online news outlets, play a significant role in what the author calls "outrage capitalism."
Viral news sites have discovered that stories about corporate wrongdoing and customer complaints generate a lot of engagement. People love to read about David vs. Goliath scenarios where an ordinary person takes on a big corporation. As a result, these outlets are constantly on the lookout for juicy customer complaints that they can turn into news stories.
This creates a cycle where a single tweet complaining about a company can be amplified into a major news story, putting enormous pressure on the corporation to respond and apologize. When they do, it generates another headline about the company's "humiliating apology," further feeding the outrage machine.
The Dark Side of Outrage
This cycle of manufactured outrage has led to what the author calls "crisis fatigue" for corporations. They've become so wary of complaints blowing up in the media that they try to appease customers at all costs, even when they haven't actually done anything wrong.
For example, in 2018, H&M received complaints that the lettering on a child's LEGO-themed socks could look like the word "Allah" in Arabic. Despite this not being true, H&M apologized and discontinued the product line, simply because a small number of people were upset.
Even more concerning is the rise of "dark PR" strategies, where companies or individuals deliberately try to generate outrage against their competitors. This can involve posting fake complaints or paying influencers to discredit a brand. The ease with which outrage can be manufactured and amplified has turned it into a lucrative industry.
The Problem with Corporate Promises
Operational vs. Cultural Failures
Not all corporate missteps are created equal. The author distinguishes between operational failures and cultural failures.
Operational failures are straightforward mistakes in a company's day-to-day operations. A good example is when KFC in the UK ran out of chicken in 2018, forcing many of its restaurants to close temporarily. While inconvenient for customers, this type of failure is generally easy to understand and forgive. KFC's humorous apology ad ("FCK, we're sorry") was well-received, and customers quickly moved on.
Cultural failures, on the other hand, relate to a company's core values and are much more difficult to recover from. These often occur when companies make grand promises about their social commitments but fail to live up to them.
The Danger of Empty Promises
Many brands today promise not just products or services, but also commitment to social causes. Some companies, like Ben & Jerry's and Patagonia, have long histories of genuine social responsibility. They donate significant portions of their profits to causes and have transparent, ethical supply chains.
However, many other brands use social causes as a marketing ploy without making substantial commitments. When Dove claims to promote body acceptance or Pepsi positions itself as the drink of activists, they're setting themselves up for intense scrutiny. If customers spot a mismatch between these lofty promises and actual practices, it results in a cultural failure that's hard to fix with a simple apology.
The Value of Authenticity
Instead of making grandiose promises they can't keep, companies would do better to be honest about who they are: businesses that want to make money by providing goods or services. The soft drink brand Oasis has had success with this approach, promising nothing more than a refreshing drink – a promise they can consistently deliver on.
The Art of the Non-Apology
Linguistic Gymnastics in Corporate Apologies
When corporations do apologize, they often employ linguistic tricks to avoid taking full responsibility. One common tactic is the use of passive voice. For example, when PricewaterhouseCoopers bungled the envelopes at the 2017 Oscars, leading to the wrong film being announced as Best Picture winner, they said, "We apologize... for the error that was made." This phrasing subtly distances the company from the mistake.
Another tactic is the use of euphemisms or jargon to downplay the severity of an incident. When United Airlines violently removed a passenger from an overbooked flight, CEO Oscar Munoz initially described it as needing to "re-accommodate" a passenger. This description was so out of touch with reality that it only fueled public outrage.
In more serious cases, this kind of language can be dangerous. When chemical company Arkema Inc. described an explosion at one of its factories as an "overpressurization followed by a fire," it not only misled the public but put first responders at risk by not accurately describing the situation.
Casting Doubt on Victims
Another common tactic in corporate non-apologies is to subtly cast doubt on the victims' experiences. For instance, when a Canadian laboratory's flawed drug tests led to many parents losing custody of their children, the lab apologized only that families "feel they may have been impacted in some negative way." This phrasing suggests the harm was merely a feeling rather than a devastating reality.
The Importance of Acknowledging Responsibility
These linguistic gymnastics undermine the core purpose of an apology. A genuine apology requires acknowledging what happened, taking full responsibility, and then asking for forgiveness. By using evasive language, corporate apologies often become empty defensive statements rather than expressions of true remorse.
Centering Apologies on the Injured Parties
The Mistake of Self-Centered Apologies
One of the most common mistakes in corporate apologies is focusing on how the situation affects the company rather than the people who have been hurt. This is akin to falling into a hole left by construction workers and having them respond by talking about how stressful the situation is for them, rather than addressing your injury.
A notorious example of this occurred in 2010 when BP CEO Tony Hayward responded to the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by saying, "There's no one who wants this over more than I do... I want my life back." This statement, which focused on Hayward's personal discomfort rather than the 11 deaths, 16 injuries, and massive environmental damage caused by the spill, rightfully caused outrage.
Examples of Misplaced Focus
While Hayward's statement is an extreme example, this tendency to focus on the company rather than the victims is widespread in corporate apologies. For instance:
When Samsung's Note 7 devices were prone to catching fire, the company used its apology to claim that "safety remains our top priority."
After a data breach put 143 million people's information at risk, Equifax stated, "We pride ourselves on being a leader in managing and protecting data."
These statements attempt to bolster the company's reputation rather than addressing the harm caused to customers or users.
The Elements of a Victim-Centered Apology
An effective apology should focus on acknowledging the suffering of those affected and the broader impact of the company's actions. It should express genuine remorse and a commitment to making things right. The apology doesn't need to be complicated; it simply needs to show that the company sees and understands the harm it has caused.
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
The Importance of Follow-Through
Saying sorry is only the first step in making amends. For an apology to be meaningful, it must be followed by concrete actions that demonstrate a commitment to change.
This point is illustrated by the case of Facebook. In 2010, a young Mark Zuckerberg apologized for violating users' privacy and promised to do better. At the time, Facebook was still a relatively new company, and users were willing to forgive what seemed like growing pains. However, when Zuckerberg had to apologize again in 2018 for the Cambridge Analytica data scandal, his words carried much less weight. Eight years had passed, and Facebook's track record showed that little had changed in terms of protecting user privacy.
Examples of Effective Action
Some companies have demonstrated how to effectively back up an apology with action:
JetBlue: After major flight disruptions in 2007 affected 130,000 customers, CEO David Neeleman not only apologized but also introduced a "customer bill of rights" detailing the compensation customers could expect for future delays. The company then followed through on these promises, showing customers that their commitment was genuine.
Starbucks: Following an incident where two black men were denied bathroom access in one of its stores, Starbucks closed all its U.S. stores for racial bias training. This dramatic action, which came at a significant financial cost, demonstrated the seriousness of the company's commitment to addressing the issue.
Papa John's Pizza: To make amends for racist remarks made by its founder, the company donated $500,000 to Bennett College, a historically black university. This financial commitment showed that the company was willing to put its money where its mouth was.
The Delicate Nature of Reparations
While financial reparations can be an effective way to back up an apology, they need to be handled carefully. If not done thoughtfully, they can come across as attempting to buy forgiveness rather than showing genuine remorse.
For example, when Topshop made a $25,000 donation to the charity Girl Up shortly after attracting criticism for removing a feminist book display, the move was seen as a cynical attempt to buy goodwill rather than a genuine act of contrition.
Knowing When Not to Apologize
The Pressure to Apologize
In today's social media-driven world, companies often face intense pressure to apologize for any perceived wrongdoing. When faced with a barrage of angry tweets and Facebook posts, it's tempting for PR teams to immediately issue an apology in an attempt to quell the outrage.
However, it's crucial for companies to maintain perspective and distinguish between the opinions of their actual customer base and the voices on social media. The loudest critics on Twitter may not represent the views of a company's core customers.
Standing Firm: The Protein World Example
Sometimes, refusing to apologize can actually benefit a company. A notable example is the fitness supplement brand Protein World. When its billboard campaign featuring a bikini-clad model with the tagline "Are you beach body ready?" attracted widespread criticism, the company refused to apologize.
This decision, while controversial, worked in the company's favor. Protein World gained 20,000 new customers and generated one million pounds in sales over four days following the controversy. The company understood that its core market consisted of people who were motivated by the image in the ad, and by refusing to apologize, it signaled loyalty to these customers.
Breaking the Outrage Cycle
Another example of effectively refusing to apologize comes from Marks & Spencer. When the company was accused of selling toilet paper with aloe leaves that supposedly spelled out "Allah" in Arabic, it didn't cave to pressure. Instead, M&S investigated the claim, determined it was unfounded, and issued a statement explaining that the design was categorically an aloe leaf. By refusing to apologize for something it hadn't done wrong, M&S broke the cycle of outrage and stood by its principles.
The Importance of Investigation
These examples highlight the importance of taking time to investigate before responding to criticism. When faced with a flood of complaints, PR teams should:
- Take a step back and avoid knee-jerk reactions.
- Investigate the claims thoroughly.
- If the company is at fault, apologize sincerely and take steps to make amends.
- If no wrongdoing has occurred, stand firm and explain the situation clearly.
This approach helps maintain the integrity of apologies when they are truly warranted and prevents companies from being manipulated by manufactured outrage.
Reclaiming the Power of Apology
The Current State of Apologies
The overuse and misuse of apologies, particularly in the corporate world, has led to a situation where saying "sorry" often feels empty and meaningless. Companies apologize reflexively to avoid bad press, without genuine remorse or intention to change. Meanwhile, carefully crafted non-apologies use linguistic tricks to avoid taking real responsibility.
This state of affairs not only undermines the effectiveness of corporate communications but also has broader implications for how we as a society view the act of apologizing. When we're constantly bombarded with insincere apologies, it becomes harder to recognize and appreciate genuine expressions of remorse.
Steps to Meaningful Apologies
To reclaim the power of apologies, both corporations and individuals should consider the following steps:
Apologize only when truly warranted: Reserve apologies for situations where you've actually done something wrong. Constant apologizing for minor issues or perceived slights dilutes the power of the act.
Focus on those who have been hurt: Center your apology on the experiences and feelings of the people affected by your actions, not on how the situation impacts you or your organization.
Take full responsibility: Avoid using passive voice or euphemisms that distance yourself from the wrongdoing. Clearly state what you did wrong and acknowledge its impact.
Show genuine remorse: An apology should come from a place of true regret for your actions and their consequences.
Outline concrete steps for change: Explain how you plan to prevent similar incidents in the future and make amends for the current situation.
Follow through on promises: Actions speak louder than words. Demonstrate your sincerity by following through on the commitments you make in your apology.
The Courage to Stand Firm
Equally important is having the courage not to apologize when you haven't done anything wrong. This means:
- Taking time to investigate claims before responding.
- Being willing to explain your position clearly and calmly.
- Understanding that some criticism may come from people who are not your core audience or customers.
- Recognizing that standing firm on your principles can sometimes strengthen your reputation and relationships with your true supporters.
The Broader Implications
By being more thoughtful about when and how we apologize, we can restore meaning to the act. This has implications beyond the corporate world. In our personal lives, more meaningful apologies can lead to stronger relationships and better conflict resolution. In the public sphere, it can contribute to a culture of greater accountability and sincerity.
Conclusion: The Future of Apologies
As we navigate an increasingly connected world where outrage can spread at the speed of a tweet, the art of the apology becomes more crucial than ever. The challenge lies in striking a balance – being responsive and accountable without falling into the trap of over-apologizing or issuing empty statements.
For corporations, this means developing a more nuanced approach to public relations. It involves training teams to distinguish between serious issues that require a heartfelt apology and minor complaints that might be better addressed through other means. It also means being prepared to stand firm when unfairly attacked, even if that means weathering short-term criticism.
For individuals, reclaiming the power of apology involves being more mindful about our own use of "sorry." Are we apologizing out of genuine remorse, or merely as a social reflex? Are we taking responsibility for our actions, or just trying to smooth over an uncomfortable situation?
Ultimately, the goal is to create a culture where apologies, when offered, carry real weight. A culture where "I'm sorry" is not just a phrase to deflect criticism, but a meaningful expression of remorse and a commitment to do better. By reserving apologies for when they're truly warranted and ensuring they're backed by sincere emotion and concrete action, we can restore the healing and connective power of this fundamental human interaction.
In doing so, we not only improve our personal and professional relationships but also contribute to a society built on greater trust, accountability, and mutual understanding. The path forward lies not in more apologies, but in better ones – apologies that acknowledge wrongdoing, express genuine remorse, and pave the way for meaningful change.