Sorry: The five-letter word that is so hard to say
Consumer trust is fragile, quickly shattered by scandal. Why is it, then, that big brands still refuse to say “sorry”? This corporate reluctance stems from legal fear, but those hollow, defensive ‘non-apologies’ are ruining reputations. Recent events have seen Zara, Next and M&S scrutinised over controversial marketing, but who fumbled their apology?
In the recent weeks, a plethora of businesses and brands have been thrust into the media spotlight for the wrong reasons. From American Eagle’s PR misstep over the viral ‘Great Jeans’ campaign, accused of championing eugenics, to the controversy over Jimmy Kimmel’s temporary suspension over Charlie Kirk comments, the playbook for crisis response is under intense scrutiny.
Yet, despite the vast PR infrastructure available, one simple word remains the hardest to utter: ‘Sorry.’
For any company facing reputational damage, their initial response is crucial. However, too often, organisations default to hollow ‘non-apologies,’ which express regret that customers are upset, rather than taking responsibility for the negative action itself. It is essentially an apology for your feelings. This failure to demonstrate accountability immediately damages public trust.
The problem of prioritising protection
So, why the corporate reluctance? The fear is primarily legal. Straightforward apologies are often viewed as an admission of guilt, potentially exposing the company in question to costly litigation and liability claims.
This prioritisation of legal defence over authentic customer connection is a common pitfall in crisis communications strategy. A genuine, empathetic response is the non-negotiable first step to successfully rebuilding trust in today’s fast-moving market.
Case studies in crisis
The fashion industry has recently offered clear contrasts in crisis response following Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) rulings against Zara, Next and M&S concerning marketing images of ‘unhealthily thin’ models. Given the prominent social concern around female body image, this demanded a response of genuine sensitivity.
Zara’s use of the legal shield
Zara’s reaction was a textbook example of corporate deflection. While they removed the images, their non-apology focused purely on technical compliance. They stressed that the models held “medical certification which proved they were in good health.”
This ‘checklist mentality’ covered their legal liability but completely ignored the public’s emotional concern about promoting a potentially unhealthy aesthetic – a major reputational risk. They apologised for the misunderstanding, not the offence.
Next’s internal intent defence
Next adopted a similar strategy. Their non-apology tactic argued that the image of a model with extremely thin legs was chosen to maintain “focus on the product.”
By defending their internal rationale and ignoring the potential negative impact of the visual message, they created an accountability gap that could severely damage their brand’s moral authority.
How M&S built a sincere apology
M&S provided the most effective response. They quickly acknowledged the ASA ruling, apologised, and removed the image.
Crucially, they voluntarily took down three other images of models that the ASA investigated but did not require to be removed. This action demonstrated a foundational commitment to accountability beyond minimum compliance and spoke directly to the public’s need for acknowledgment.
As M&S demonstrated, a successful apology must be compassionate and honest, followed by restorative action:
- Be swift and voluntary: Apologise immediately to prevent the crisis from escalating.
- Offer no excuses: Accept responsibility unambiguously. Deflecting blame or offering rationales invalidates the apology.
- Connect on a human level: Acknowledge the emotional impact. Show genuine empathy and remorse for the harm caused.
- Deliver corrective action: Explain the concrete steps being taken to fix the problem and prevent recurrence.
The line between a successful crisis response and reputational disaster is dawn by sincerity. Companies must accept that customer issues are emotional. “Sorry” must be the immediate response, followed by genuine action.
The objective is clear: use consistent authenticity as your primary tool for restoring and maintaining trust.
Does your crisis communication plan prioritise accountability and human connection? If not, speak to us. Or go to our Crisis Communications Strategy and Response service page for further information.
