Think Before You Apologize to Customers

Personally, I do not believe the mere fact that a customer complaint goes "viral" necessitates a formal apology from the brand.

While it is true that social media enables complaints from small minorities of the market (and even single customers) to gain immense visibility, it is also true that we have a tendency to overstate the impact of social dialogue. The fact that a complaint exists in the realm of social media does not at all mean it carries backing from a significant portion of the customer base, and it therefore could very often create a false panic.

But panic can be a powerful motivator, and no matter the objective severity of a social customer complaint, many organizations will opt for issuing a public apology.

Given that proclivity for apologies, it is important to remember that in the world of customer relations, the apology often requires more than the half-hearted "I’m sorry" expected of kindergarteners who roughhouse on the playground. The message, especially when regarding a viral customer issue, will be subject to strict scrutiny, and one wrong move or misspeak can result in significant damage to the brand.

Recognizing the offense

Last week, daily deal API Sqoot prompted a firestorm of controversy for the messaging in an advertisement for its "Boston API Jam" hackathon. Its subsequent apology did little to quiet the outrage and, in fact, made it difficult even for Sqoot sympathizers to confidently support the brand.

In casually listing the "perks" of attending the event, Sqoot highlighted some common benefits like massages, live music, free gym access, food trucks, craft beers, energy drinks and chocolate. All represent standard, innocuous advantages of attending a fun, yet professional "web 3.0" hacking event.

More controversial, however, was its listing of "Women" as a perk in the exact same vein as "Top-Shelf Booze" and "5-Hr Energy." Drawing attention to its attractive female staff, the bulletin lists, "Women: Need another beer? Let one of our friendly (female) event staff get that for you."

At its core, this seems like a classic case of "it’s all well and good till somebody gets hurt."

Preying on human lust is hardly a new phenomenon for either gender (it, in fact, is a cornerstone of many a marketing campaign), and (attractive) women are regularly positioned front-and-center in customer-facing arenas (casinos, car shows, restaurant chains, bars, etc.). Whether or not it is the actual selling point or just, as it was portrayed in this case, as a "perk," the presence of "women" is very unlikely to deter the typical, red-blooded male.

And so, if we presume that the intended skew of the marketing bulletin was that typical, heterosexual, young adult male, it certainly makes sense to confirm that there will be "WOMEN!!!" at the event.

None of this changes the fact that this flavor of marketing, quite clearly, represents gender commodification. It is exceedingly unlikely that Sqoot’s intent in trumpeting the "women" perk was to underscore the organization’s commitment to diverse hiring practices and idea exchange. Far more likely, it was to assure prospective male customers that there will be girls there, at least some of whom will be in hospitality roles of special value to flirts and gawkers.

And once that discourse enters the market place--once somebody "gets hurt"--it becomes virtually impossible to defend the marketing message on an academic level. "Bros, there will be babes serving you drinks," is not the epitome of high-class advertising. Period.

No matter how much we demand of tech organizations, especially with supposedly progressive, new generation professionals at the helm, a business is under no obligation to use its marketing material as an impetus for change in the world. It can, at the end of the day, market crudely if crude marketing is the key to mobilizing its target audience.

Truth in advertising

But when it does so, it has to stand behind that marketing strategy. In this case, if one is going to so blatantly play on the "female as a commodity" mindset, he probably has to take a pass on a commitment to gender inclusion and the transcending of stereotypes.

With its apology, one that came as event sponsors started pulling out of the hackathon, Sqoot seemed to want to have its cake and eat it too, and the result was a statement that fueled continued, if not amplified, concern over the organization’s approach towards women in technology.

Even though Sqoot technically avoided common pitfalls like apologizing "to those who were offended," it still made the mistake of attributing the outrage to miscommunication, labeling the error one of execution rather than fundamental philosophy.

"While we aimed to call attention to the male-dominated tech world through humor and intended to be inclusive, the gravity of our wording was just the opposite. Our words completely undermined our intentions and went further to harm the world we're trying to have a positive impact on," wrote Sqoot.

According to that explanation, Sqoot’s intent was not to market to a male-skewing target demographic but to instead satirize the fact that the programming sector is notoriously male-dominated. The breakdown here was based on poor word choice rather than poor a poor promotional strategy.

Yes, in a marketing bulletin that referred to pizza and "idea guys" as "lame," featured enough typos to make a middle school English teacher cry ("take a brake from hacking," "strick instructions," "stay focus and," "a thing of the paste") and used "top shelf booze" and chocolate to sell the value of an event, Sqoot felt it needed to take a second to satirically encourage gender transcendence. All while using straightforward, non-ironic language. Really?

People and businesses make mistakes all the time, but it seems exceedingly hard to fathom that Sqoot possibly believed it could have seamlessly—and effectively--weaved a well-intentioned riff on gender stereotyping into a marketing bulletin of this tone.

A Sqoot blog commenter only added fuel to the fire by posting links to the brand’s past promotional efforts. One, entitled "Sqoot makes you Yelp," featured a woman with "Makes Me Yelp" written on the backside of her pants. Another, pushing its transparency, featured a topless woman with the ever-transcendental tagline "Sqoot goes topless!"

Even if the intentions in this specific situation were wholly pure, and that is a suspect imposition given the context of the marketing bulletin, Sqoot has, historically, embraced "fratty" gender stereotypes to build its brand.

Given that history, it is hard to fault customers for suspecting the same of the Boston API Jam campaign.

As a result, Sqoot’s refusal to acknowledge the connection between its branding messages and ongoing gender commodification and stereotyping within the programming community produces a hollow apology.

Regardless of the intent behind this specific incident, Sqoot’s impact on gender comes from the very way it brands, not simply from ill-advised, "grave" wording.

Thatis the "crime" for which customers want Sqoot to demonstrate an acceptance of blame, because it is the one most in need of rectification if Sqoot truly wants to mature as a business.

No matter how sincere its apology and how pure its intentions behind the Boston API marketing bulletin, its apology process requires a full acceptance, appreciation and understanding of why customers are upset. Many of the disgruntled customers are upset specifically because they do not believe this controversy was the mere result of a miscommunication.

Individual incidents aside, if Sqoot wants to customers to trust its overall initiative to "call attention to the male-dominated tech world through humor and intended to be inclusive," it has to atone for those scenarios in which it strayed from that philosophy.

There is no "apology" template

If I were to conclude this piece with some "best practices" for apologies—and, in fairness, there are some structural guidelines many organizations should follow—I would be adding to the challenge.

Apologies are not about templates or a balance between appeasing customers without admitting too much wrongdoing. They are about speaking to customers in a manner that is both consistent with your brand and appreciative of their legitimate frustration.

With social media capable of turning even "minor" complaints into mainstream controversies, it is tempting to say what is necessary to calm the storm. Resist that temptation.

A response might very well be warranted, but assure the response can hold up as a point of definition for the brand. If you’re trying to portray your brand as a socioeconomic idealist Hell-bent on transcending stereotypes, make sure that message is rigidly consistent with who you were prior to and who you will be after the "mistake." Do not risk alienating key segments of your existing customer base—or exposing your brand as more-significantly untrustworthy—all for the short-term, singular sake of treating a viral outbreak.