Apologies

The Winnipeg Free Press has been reporting this week on a "ground-breaking" event that happened today in Halifax, at the third of seven national Truth and Reconciliation Commission events: University of Manitoba President David Barnard apologized for his university's role in educating perpetrators of the abuse aboriginal children, families and communities suffered under the Indian Residential School System.

Photo and caption from the
University of Manitoba website

Barnard's full statement is published on the university's website, here.


The apology follows others from churches and governments, including an apology on behalf of the federal government from Prime Minister Stephen Harper; but this is the first time a university has stood up and apologized for the indirect role it played. As it is explained in a story in this morning's National Post, "The university itself was not a perpetrator of the tragedy, and its mea culpa stems from having educated the clergy, teachers, and politicians who perpetuated the system."


An apology, or an attempt to profit from the suffering of others?


The National Post story, entitled "University's residential school apology raises eyebrows," questions whether the U of M's apology will be taken in the spirit in which it's meant. In it, Michael Davis, of Vancouver reputation management firm Reputations, suggests the university might be seen to be taking advantage of the tragedy for a gain in its public image.


The National Post story quotes Mr. Davis as saying the university’s connection to the residential school system “seems very tenuous,” and that by making an apology "the school runs the risk of appearing to 'use what was a very serious and tragic history for some sort of gain'.” 


In a separate story in the Winnipeg Free Press this morning, however, Truth and Reconciliation Commission member Marie Wilson says the apology "will be tremendously encouraging to survivors."


How can you know whether your apology will help or hurt?


When an organization has acted badly or in some way hurt people, an apology is the first step in repairing damaged relationships.


When the organization's role in hurting people is indirect, as Mr. Davis points out in the National Post story, there's the potential for motivations to be judged (and possibly, misjudged). 


Regardless of how pure the organization's motives, it's important to do research that will help predict whether audiences are likely to take it in the way it's meant... because, PR issues aside, your objective is not to have your apology inflict further disrespect to a group that's already suffering.


Mr. Barnard provided some background on how the university decided to make the apology, noting in a Winnipeg Free Press story that he "consulted widely on campus among deans, senior administrators, the board of governors and the senate. He has also discussed the university’s plan with Manitoba aboriginal leaders." 


That's good PR.


If you can't know, ask.


You can't ever predict with perfect accuracy how people will react to something; but asking a wide range of opinions from within your stakeholder publics will always help. While there will invariably be people "out there" who will disagree with your actions or question your motives, what matters most is how most of your audiences will view them. 


Statements like Mr. Davis' illustrate the risk in taking a public stand. But if the U of M has done its homework and knows its own audiences will see the apology as the sincere gesture it's meant to be, the apology will (hopefully) be able to help its community take a step toward healing.

I'm sorry

I ran across a couple of stories online this week that got me thinking about apologies. Not the kind of apologies we share with one another every day, for accidentally bumping into someone or forgetting to return a call, but the kind that are called for when we’ve really messed up.

I’ve blogged before about how important it is for people/companies who’ve done wrong to come out right away and admit to their mistakes – and our old friend Tiger has been doing a fair job of driving (har, har!) that lesson home in recent weeks. But to come out and admit you’ve done something wrong isn’t always enough; especially when someone has been hurt by your mistake, you also need to apologize.

Head over to YouTube and you’ll find apologies galore: from R&B stars alleged to have abused their girlfriends, to media outlets caught misleading their audiences, to governments, trying to acknowledge and atone for the sins of their predecessors. And while we’re on the topic of big-ticket apologies (and sins), we have to mention the Catholic Church’s 1992 apology to astronomer Galileo, for having condemned him for his blasphemy that the Earth revolved around the sun; it may have been 359 years too late, but at least it finally came.

Would you hire a PR guy to defend you in court?

In his public apology for his treatment of girlfriend Rihanna, Chris Brown said he had wanted to apologize sooner, but had been advised against it by his lawyer. In the eyes of the law, an apology can been seen as an admission of guilt; and so lawyers, whose job it is to keep us out of jail, will often advise silence in the face of our own wrongdoing.

Sometimes, it's sad to say, that may be the best way to go; unless you’re willing to go to jail for your transgression, you might be better-served by remaining silent, and taking the scorn of the world (or your own audiences, at least) in exchange for your freedom.

But there are times when lawyers’ advice to remain silent can cost their client more than the settlement they’ll eventually be ordered to pay. Think of it this way: if your apology engenders customer goodwill, the business you’ll be able to continue doing after the crisis could be worth far more than a few million paid in damages and settlements. If your refusal to apologize costs you all your customers, you may save a few million in damages, but your business won't last long.

Now, that may sound cold and calculating, but the fact is that companies (especially publicly-traded ones) have to do what's best for their owners' investment. It just so happens that when it comes to apologies, oftentimes what's morally right and what's "right for the business" are one and the same.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail during its listeriosis crisis in 2008, Maple Leaf Foods’ CEO Michael McCain said “Going through the crisis there are two advisors I’ve paid no attention to. The first are the lawyers, and the second are the accountants.” McCain, as PR and business opinion leaders have attested ever since, handled his company’s response to the crisis almost flawlessly; the approach was anchored by a timely, public, multi-media apology.



As a result of its quick, sincere and customer-focused response (involving far more than the apology, it must be said), Maple Leaf's customer confidence ratings rebounded quickly – a fact which I'm sure relieved its lawyers and accountants.

People can forgive imperfection. They’re less able to forgive arrogance.

If you have anyone in your life who refuses to apologize, even when they clearly know they’re in the wrong, you know it’s infuriating. And it’s no different in a relationship between a client and a business than between two people. If you do something wrong, you need to acknowledge that it was wrong, and apologize for having hurt whomever you hurt. It might’nt fix the problem, but it can help.

There’s a great example of exactly this on Steve Farnsworth’s Digital Marketing Mercenary blog this week: “Searskilledmydog.com: The Anatomy of a Social Media Nightmare Averted – Case Study.” It’s a great read, and shows exactly how an apology can get you back on the road to a healthy relationship.

Taking the high road vs. giving in

As America gets ready to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the first airing of Sesame Street on Tuesday, a PR "issue" has erupted around a two-year-old episode of the show, a repeat of which was aired two weeks ago.

In the episode, which my three-year-old has given me occasion to enjoy many times, Oscar the Grouch is the anchor of GNN (Grouch News Network), in a parody of CNN. Anderson Cooper guest stars as a reporter for GNN, and does an interview with grouch muppets Dan Rather-Not and Walter Cranky.

Is this a thinly-veiled suggestion that CNN is too negative? Or an attack on the personalities of Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite? I don't think so (and neither, apparently, does Anderson Cooper). Rather (har har), I think they were chosen because their names provided an opportunity for a fun parody, which would entertain children while providing parents with something to keep them from going insane (a characteristic that keeps parents favouring Sesame Street over, say, the Teletubbies).

I put these parodies in the same category with other Sesame Street bits I've enjoyed: "Desperate Houseplants," "Meal or No Meal," "Law & Order: Special Letters Unit."

But one line uttered by a member of GNN's grouchy audience in the repeat episode has apparently gotten some Fox News fans up in arms.



According to an article on foxnews.com, both the Fox News and the PBS websites received emails from viewers who said they had heard the character say she was switching to "Fox News - now there's a trashy news show."

When I first saw the show, I heard "Pox News," and have heard "Pox News" every time since. When contacted by Fox News, according to the story on its website, "Sesame Workshop Vice President of Corporate Communications Ellen Lewis told FoxNews.com that the show was merely a parody and would never mention Fox News directly." A script from the show reportedly shows the line to be "Pox News," as does the closed-captioning.

Let's face it: in the 24-hour news business, there aren't that many well-known brands to work with. "CNN" easily becomes "GNN," "Fox" easily becomes "Pox;" but what could you do with "MSNBC" to make it grouchy-sounding?

I think Ms. Lewis' response was reasonable (and I would hope/assume it included an expression of regret that some viewers might have misheard the line and been offended).

The Ombudsman for PBS, however, took a different approach, saying in his statement on the matter that

"I don't know what was in the head of the producers, but my guess is that this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted. Broadcasters can tell parents whatever they think of Fox or any other network, but you shouldn't do it through the kids."

I'm certain that the White House's recent skirmishes with Fox News have something to do with this sensitivity; but this show was produced a year before the current administration was even elected (though Fox News' coverage of the presidential election campaign may well have been a topic of interest at that time). I'm surprised that the PBS Ombudsman would have hung the Sesame Street producers out to dry like that - especially given that Sesame Street has been doing parodies of popular shows and famous people for four decades (remember Monsterpiece Theatre with Alistair Cookie?).

In the opening scene of "Desperate Houseplants" one potted plant mourns "I can't take it anymore! I've lost my bloom!" - and I don't remember any of the Desperate Housewives cast being offended by it.

Parents across the political spectrum seem to agree that Sesame Street provides a great example for our children to see and admire... but for some, that's only true for as long as it parodies everyone except Fox News.

There's taking the high road and apologizing for having offended someone; then, there's giving credibility to irrational claims. An organization should always apologize for having offended - even when the offense wasn't intentional - but I don't think it should give credence to a baseless charge.

While that approach may take care of the complaints in the short term, I'd expect the opposite to be true in the long term. Having essentially agreed that Sesame Street's producers were purposely trying to turn pre-schoolers against Fox News (?!), PBS' Ombudsman should now expect Sesame Street to be watched far more closely for perceived slights against the institutions and voices of the "Right."

Sesame Street opens its 40th season on Tuesday with a guest appearance from... uh oh... Michelle Obama.

Just apologize

The ongoing Lisa Raitt saga has given us another PR primer: when a recording of you saying something insensitive comes to light, apologize. Right away.

The Federal Natural Resources Minister has been the target of shots from politicians, reporters and everyday Canadians for a few days following the public release of a private conversation in which she referred to the shortage of medical isotopes as a “sexy” issue, which she hoped to be able to work to her political benefit.

Whatever your political stripes, you have to agree that it was not the Minister’s finest hour. But here’s a shocker: people say and do stupid things. We’ve likely all said things we’ve regretted at some point. When the people saying and doing those stupid things are influential, though, it gets attention – and it should. The question is: from a PR perspective, where do you go from there?

Time and time again (often in the context of extra-marital affairs – think John Edwards, Ted Haggard, Bill Clinton) we see leaders caught misbehaving, and trying to ignore the issue in the hopes it’ll go away. The problem is that it usually doesn’t – so on top of it all, the offender also looks dishonest, sneaky, and arrogant. Minister Raitt’s position on Tuesday spawned countless further media stories about her refusal to apologize and the Tories’ attempts to downplay her regrettable comments.

Depending on your offence, people may be able to understand that you’ve made a mistake; everyone makes mistakes, after all. But if you act as though the hurtful or disrespectful thing you said or did isn’t a big deal, you’re showing a lack of regard for others – which some will perceive as a much deeper personality flaw, more difficult to forgive.

In my professional life I've had occasion to debate with clients about the need to apologize for having “wronged” people, however inadvertently. Their position was that “apologizing is essentially admitting we willfully did something wrong, and that isn’t the case. It was a mistake, and people will just get over it.” The problem with that logic is that it isn’t about us – it's about the people we hurt. Our intentions are irrelevant; we need to acknowledge and apologize (sincerely) for having hurt people, however unintentionally it may have been.

If an embarrassing statement or act comes to light, it’s out. You can’t erase it, and you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist. Your choices are either to act like it’s not a big deal and draw out the agony as outrage grows… or to show humility and apologize right away.

If you’ve acknowledged your error and apologized quickly, there’s not much left to report on. There’s still lots of work ahead to restore your reputation, but at least you’re able to stop fending off reporters and get to work.

A video of Minister Raitt's apology (issued Wednesday) is posted on the National Post website here.