To be sorry or not to be sorry? That is the question.
By: Ben Webb
When should we apologize? How should we apologize? Who should apologize? To whom should we apologize? When is an apology not an apology? With social media shining a more glaring spotlight on the most minute details of every brand ad campaign it is almost impossible not to offend someone… Unless, of course, the campaign is so mind-boggling bland that no one can remember it.
Apologies are on the rise. Even if the cause of offense is entirely accidental or, to a certain extent, imagined. Last month Converse launched a new social media campaign for the Chuck 70 X. It starred K-pop singer Karina, who is seen standing in a long white skirt wearing her sneakers and holding a second pair in her hand. She is also in a spotlight that is shaped like the Converse star.
So far, so good. Most people saw a run of the mill sneaker ad. But then the backlash started. A point of the floodlit star that illuminated her skirt was shaped like a KKK hood. The shoes dangling at her side were emblematic of a hanging body. A second picture emerged of models climbing on a ladder to reach Converse shoes dangling from a tree.
Social media lit up. Converse had launched a racist ad. Even if it had been created in good faith. Louisiana Congressman Troy Carter let rip: “Lynching is not a creative concept. The Ku Klux Klan is not an aesthetic. This campaign should never have been created, approved or released.”
Converse apologized immediately, pulled the entire campaign and promised to do better. They had no option. The last thing on the mind of the Korean photographer snapping a Korean pop star for the Korean market was the KKK. Different cultures find offense at totally different imagery. However, accident or not, an immediate apology had to be made.
Sorry doesn’t have to be the hardest word
And a well-structured apology works. The perfect apology is not easy to make, but there is plenty of good research and best-practice to follow. An interesting piece of research by the Journal of Business Research looked at the balance between the treatment of two key messages – the admission of culpability and the intention to reform. Admitting one has made a mistake can accentuate the idea the brand takes responsibility for the error. Emphasising new codes of brand behaviour suggests the same error will not be repeated. That the brand will try harder and do better. It’s more positive. The best apologies ensure the audience is left thinking about the second idea more than the first, that their chosen brand deserves their continued loyalty.
Sometimes, however, should an apology be made at all? The desperation to avoid causing offense means apologies are being made when no mistake has been made at all. At his concert in Philadelphia, Ed Sheeran, the wouldn’t-hurt-a-fly nice-guy, said sorry in front of 60,000 people: “I am making mistakes and I’m so, so sorry.” He was, effectively, saying sorry for his supporting artist Macklemore’s view on Palestine and the stadium owner’s subsequent ban of the rapper. The fans, presumably seeking an hour or two of Sheeran’s soothing music and apolitical escapism, were left trying to absorb his mea culpa.
Are we sorry… really?
It’s not easy to forgo an apology yet some brands have decided to ride out waves of offense. After all, what if it is just a relatively small number of highly active people on social media that have set off a viral storm? Research by Columbia reveals how a so-called “vocal minority” can create an inflated sense of outrage. What if this activity does not reflect the feelings of the general audience who are not moved to complain? Who may even like the campaign? A brand that issues an apology too quickly may undermine its creative impulses and damage its own DNA. Sometimes it might be better to simply explain the thinking behind the controversial ad or campaign and stick to one’s guns.
Take American Eagle, which last year was in the firing line after the launch of its Sydney ‘Sweeney has Great Jeans’ campaign. It was based on the tried and tested genes-jeans play on words. On the one hand there was Sweeney – all big blond hair and big blue eyes – talking blue jeans. On the other, there was a narrative that charged the ad as tinged with support for white supremacy.
American Eagle doubled down and said the campaign was about jeans. Nothing more. Sweeney told GQ she just loved… jeans. And, with similar sangfroid, she has been entirely unapologetic about her controversial mostly-naked ad for sports prediction site Novig. Who said the female form was about athleticism?
And how did it work out? Short term search interest for American Eagle grew 186 per cent, according to Carma, and the share price popped 23 percent in one day. Whether or not the boost in interest turned into sales – both in the short and longer term – is less obvious.
It’s a tough time for marketers. The impact of social media has made the art of brand story-telling more challenging than ever. In a bid to stand out in the crowd it’s not easy to be exciting – or even a little edgy – without potentially causing offense. A campaign that causes real harm as a result of bad judgement or negligence should clearly end with an apology. But what about a campaign built on honest and well-meaning endeavour that upsets a small minority?
