Jeffrey Pfeffer, a Stanford professor and author of the book Leadership BS, wrote a provocative article suggesting that, despite conventional wisdom, apologizing for brand disappointments or missteps is not always the best strategy. In my view, an apology need not always be present, but when it is needed, it should be framed in a way that the brand damage is minimized.
Sincere apologies given to wronged customers, like the ones we have seen from GM, Volkswagen, United Airlines and others, is based on sound logic. Customers, like anyone wronged, want to hear someone say, “I’m sorry that I screwed up.” An apology signals understanding and empathy with the customer’s discomfort and the acceptance of responsibility. The apology can take much of the anger and frustration out of the room.
However, Pfeffer notes that an apology has some significant negative results that should lead to brands considering omitting apologies under the right contexts. First, customers want to deal with firms that offer strength, confidence, and assurance — and research shows that an apology can generate a perception of weakness. Second, an apology will be heard by employees, firm partners, and shareholders, who hopefully have pride in the company, its culture and its products. That pride may be hurt by an apology. Third, the value of an apology may be inflated because often times an apology can give rise to skepticism about the company’s motives and its ability to follow through. Finally, there are the legal aspects of admitting guilt.
The “no apology” option was used by Steve Jobs in dealing with “antenna-gate” when the fabulously successful iPhone 4 lost reception when it was held in a rather normal way and a furor erupted. In a 30-minute press conference three weeks after the product was introduced, Jobs never apologized. The closest that he came was to say smart phones are not perfect because all smart phones (not just the iPhone 4) had degraded reception when held with a hand covering the antenna. He also pointed out that the incidence of complaints and requests to return phones were minuscule which meant the problem was vastly exaggerated. He did offer to buy all users a case that would reduce the problem, change the signal indicator so that the signal degradation would not be exaggerated, and take back phones from those still unsatisfied. But no real apology.
In most situations, however, a firm misstep will require an apology — to take responsibility, to show empathy for those wronged, to detail how they can be compensated, and indicate what changes will be made. However, in these circumstances, I feel that the discussion can be framed so that the damage to the brand is reduced. Instead of leading with the apology, the brand could first offer context. For example, the firm could highlight long-held firm values and why the misstep was inconsistent with way the organization thinks and acts. Or the discussion could center on the actions that the firm has taken to reduce the impact and correct the core problem. When the incident is then referenced in the future, the goal is that the apology is not the first thing that comes to mind.
Clearly, an apology should be an option during a brand crisis, but, when used, it should not automatically be the lead. It should part of a carefully framed larger discussion embedded in a narrative that as much as possible supports the brand vision and promotes strength, confidence, and assurance. And the “no apology” options should not be automatically off the table. If the conditions are right as in the case of the iPhone 4, the firm might avoid an apology and its negative implications altogether.
