When the Apology has a Different Meaning

Or I could have titled this post lost in translation. How do you save face for your suppliers, make reparations to your customers and restore public confidence in you product all at once? That is what Mattel has been trying to do with one, all-encompassing apology. Alas, the meaning may have gotten diluted along the way. What if the issues are more than one? Now think about the context in which the issue is embedded -- like related incidents -- and you have a recipe for misunderstandings galore.

According to The Washington Post, Mattel and China Differ on Apology -- the company is thinking it's saying that faulty design was also at play (to the tune of 17.4 million units) so Chinese manufacturers were not to blame for those issues (compare with led-based paint issue on 2.2 million); the country was hearing a personal apology to senior Chinese officials due to design flows it committed, which was then taken to mean that the apology was for harming the reputation of Chinese firms.

China has been in the news a lot for product recalls recently and the country is facing a public relations crisis. Wanting to make the leap to accepting a blank apology without in turn apologizing to consumers about the products that were in fact found "shoddy and dangerous" (Sen. Charles E. Schumer) is part of a comprehensive crisis management and communications strategy. The country has long been a key player in the global economy, it is now experiencing growing pains of entering the public affairs arena in full force.

This post is not about who is right in the Mattel case. It is actually about when an apology is just the beginning and may not even be the right communication to use in the event of a crisis. In Knowledge@Wharton Can't Run, Can't Hide: New Rules of Engagement for Crisis Management Wharton professor Maurice Schweitzer categorizes crisis into three groups:

1. Customer service issues -- here you keep customers from giving up on the company and its promise.
2. Failures of competence -- problems you should have prevented as they relate to your core promise.
3. Screw ups not related to core competences -- incidents and accidents do happen.

This is also a translation issue. Is the company taking the appropriate steps as related to the type of crisis it is facing? An apology is appropriate in the first and second case, I gave it away when I listed the brand promise. The apology in both cases though is not enough -- it needs to be accompanied by a clear communication on the steps you are taking to remediate, restore, respond specifically to the crisis.

The third case is different. You may have done everything right and still be faced with a meltdown. Chris Gidez of Hill & Knowlton writes in the comment to the entry:

There are times when "crises" are caused as much by unrelated circumstances or media hype than by actual misconduct or failure. Yes, executives should express empathy and regret that a situation has caused problems or concern for customers or shareholders. But there is a distinction between an expression of regret and an apology. To prescribe an apology for every sort of crisis overlooks the legal implications of an apology and, more importantly, overshadows the need for the company to demonstrate by performance, rather than word. No amount of apologies or customer bills of rights will help jetBlue if they have another meltdown.

Are we overusing the apology? We should take good care of it as with anything else that gets hyped and overused it may lose efficacy... and meaning. Another commenter suggests using transparency as a guide -- getting communications right in this increasingly complex world where suppliers and company brands are so intertwined might not be child's play.

[Magnetic Letters, Flickr]

Comments

[Roger von Oech]

I think Mattel did the right thing in issuing their blanket apology. This was an abrupt turnabout from their initial stance earlier in the month.

I quoted the Wall Street Journal in a recent post "Could You Go A Day without "Made in China" (http://blog.creativethink.com/2007/09/could-you-go-a-.html) to the effect that the problems with some Chinese-made toy, food, and apparel items were "design problems."

Ultimately, a company is responsible for the design of its products, and that design includes not only the product itself but also such things as how it is manufactured, branded, "subbed out," distributed, etc. Mattel's recent apology seems to have finally taken this "broader" view of design.

I'd much rather have companies do this than self-promoting blowhards like Chuck Schumer get into the act. Even more laughable is Senator Durbin's (Illinois) suggestion that every product "made in China" that comes to our shores should be individually tested for liability issues.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Roger:

I thought this topic might be a departure for a dialogue with you. Thank you for broadening the range to an issue of design -- yes, however we translate the apology and any reparation, the crisis includes opportunity. Wasn't that embedded in the Chinese translation of the term? And wherever there is opportunity, I prefer business to be involved.

Business asks: how can I do this better, differently, more efficiently? Businesses today live to serve the consumers and many do feel the urgency of doing so.

[Carolyn Ann]

Chuck Schumer, a blowhard? I can assure you: he's no such thing.

I might be biased: I used to live down the street from him. Personally, I think he's a fine Senator. And a person who always replied when I said "mornin'" on my way to work. He'd have my vote every time if I were a citizen of this fine nation, and still lived in his Congressional District. :-)

Insofar as Mattel apologizing: for what? Since when does an apology from a corporation count for anything? And why are they apologizing? They weren't the ones who endangered children around the world with shoddy workmanship and materials. The Chinese government, and the Chinese companies are (as usual) squirming their way out of responsibility for their own actions.

Mattel is not responsible, insofar as I can see, for the negligence of their suppliers. Mattel didn't make an effort to be dangerous at the expense of profits, the Chinese companies most assuredly did.

Apologies only work if they are sincere. I've yet to read about any apology from the Chinese suppliers.

Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

Carolyn Ann:

Probably one of the most difficult connections to make in public relations is that the "relation" piece of the term involves a willingness to enter the conversation that is taking place with transparency. An apology is not effective when it's not made about the right thing. For example, I'm sorry this makes you feel that way is said coming from a rigid position and does not address the issue. Compare that with, what we did was wrong and we apologize for it.

It needs to be followed by action you are taking to remedy the situation. At a minimum, by a statement that confirms you are listening to what people are saying, etc. I would be interested in finding out how others view "apology". Is it being overused? Has it become a technique?

[Roger von Oech]

@Carolyn Ann: "Designs" are not only things that come out of a CAD program. Processes are also designs. Supply chains are also designs. Relationships with vendors are also designs. How suppliers deal with their subcontractors is also part of the design. Ultimately, the designer (in this case Mattel) must take responsibility for the design.

For example, I designed a product (the Ball of Whacks: http://creativewhack.com ) that is currently manufactured in China. Part of the design included (and still includes) my relationship with the vendor. If demand for the product grows high, and they have to have some of the production "subcontracted out," it is stipulated that they provide the material for production. That helps with the quality control. There are other parts of the control design as well.

BTW: the proper link for my "Made In China" post is: http://blog.creativethink.com/2007/09/could-you-go-a-.html

[Carolyn Ann]

Thanks, Roger! I would never have thought of the relationships like that. I'll still need some time to bend my mind around that concept: it's quite alien to me!

Carolyn Ann