Every few months the marketing world latches onto a
new trend. Some are refreshing. Some build genuine connections. Then there are
those that are simply irritating and difficult to understand from a
communication point of view. The latest trend of brands issuing tongue-in-cheek
“apologies” for being too good at what they do fits squarely into that last
category.
You have seen them. A formal apology written on a
letterhead in the tone of a crisis statement. Dramatic pauses. Heavy fonts. A
sombre headline that announces “We are sorry”. Then the twist. The brand is not
apologising for a mistake. It is apologising for being excellent. Too
efficient. Too delicious. Too popular. The idea is to be clever. The outcome is
anything but.
From a
reputation management perspective, the trend does not only fall flat. It
contradicts what we know about trust, perception, and stakeholder expectations.
It
creates a false sense of crisis
Crisis
communication is a serious discipline. It is grounded in respect and
responsibility. Its purpose is to reassure stakeholders and provide clarity
during moments of genuine uncertainty. When brands mimic crisis structures for
a joke, they distort the weight of that work. It signals to audiences that
crisis language is a prop. The effect is subtle but corrosive.
If
everything can be framed as a crisis, then nothing is taken seriously as a
crisis. It becomes a communication equivalent of crying wolf. Real crises often
involve safety concerns. People wonder whether there is a threat, whether loved
ones are affected, and whether they need to take action. Using that emotional
frame for entertainment feels careless.
This trend slips into the territory of crisis-styled
clickbait. It borrows the gravity of a real crisis purely to attract attention.
It is
an unnecessary apology
The
logic behind the trend is puzzling. Why apologise for being the best? Why
apologise at all? The moment a brand says “sorry”, even in jest, it puts itself
on the back foot. It invites stakeholders to question whether something is
wrong, even if the content later tries to redirect the message into something
light-hearted.
Anyone who has worked in reputation management knows
how quickly a single word can backfire. Years ago, a potential client proudly
proposed a hook that presented themselves as crooks in order to get attention.
It was meant as humour. Instead, it tread far too close to the very risks they
needed to avoid. When you are building a reputation, you steer away from
negative words, negative associations, and anything that hints at crisis, even
in jest. We declined the work.
In
reputation terms, you never voluntarily take a defensive stance when you are
not under scrutiny. It weakens your signal and dilutes your strength.
It
undermines credibility
Stakeholders
value authenticity. They value messages that are rooted in sincerity, clarity,
and respect. The mock apology trend unsettles that foundation. It takes a
communication format designed for honesty and uses it for entertainment. The
result is a cheapened signal that chips away at hard-earned credibility.
Credibility
sits at the heart of trust. Once that cracks, even slightly, it takes far more
work to restore than it took to erode.
It
strips value from genuine crisis communication
Practitioners
who work in crisis management know how demanding and delicate this field is.
Timing matters. Tone matters. Words carry weight. There is no room for
theatricality. When brands produce spoof crisis statements, they weaken public
understanding of what real crisis communication actually entails.
By
turning a crisis statement into a gimmick, brands condition audiences to see
the format as entertainment. When the next genuine crisis hits, stakeholders
may not recognise the seriousness. That hesitation can cost time and trust at
the exact moment a brand needs both.
It
signals insecurity rather than confidence
A
brand that is genuinely confident in its product or service does not need to
apologise for excellence. It does not need to mimic panic to attract attention.
Confidence speaks plainly. It invites stakeholders into a conversation rather
than forcing them into a guessing game.
Forward-thinking
brands know that humility and strength can coexist. They also know that false
humility rarely lands as humility. It is usually read as insecurity or
manipulation.
A
better way to communicate success
Brands
should absolutely be clever, creative, and innovative. Wit has its place in
communication. So does playfulness. The challenge is to use those tools in a
way that strengthens reputation rather than puts it at risk.
Instead of pretending to apologise, brands can
celebrate success honestly. They can highlight research-driven insights. They
can share meaningful progress, real achievements, and genuine stories of value
creation. These approaches feel confident rather than contrived.
No
unnecessary theatrics required.
The
reputation reminder
Trends come and go. They are tempting, and some can be
useful. The key is to approach them mindfully and choose those that strengthen
your relationship with stakeholders rather than confuse it. The brands that
continue to be taken seriously will be those that ground their communication in
clarity, values, and credibility.
Success
does not need an apology. It stands firmly on its own.
###
.png)
.jpeg)
.png)