In classical literature, an apology can mean a defense, such as
Plato’s Apology. In modern parlance, an apology is known as an
expression of genuine sorrow and an acceptance of responsibility for having
caused harm to another person. According to Business Ethics for Dummies,
corporate apologies should be sincere, as soon as possible, and be coupled with
a correction to the problem.[1] Consumers should be on
guard lest a company use the semblance of an apology for marketing purposes,
and, more generally, to manipulate,
which in itself belies the “apology.” Robert Bacal advises that an apology be
used as a strategy to use “along with other techniques.”[2] An apology as a technique in a strategy is a means, and
thus as such it harbors ulterior motives. This invites “perfunctory or
insincere apologies,” which are “worse than saying nothing at all.”[3] Even a sincere apology
as a means to get something suffers from ulterior motives. For example, Bacal advises
that a “sincere apology can help calm a customer, particularly when you or your
company has made an error. You can apologize on behalf of your company.”[4] A sincere
apology is mutually exclusive with an ulterior motive, especially one that
is self-beneficial in some way; the orientation must be to the error. The
manager who wants to give the impression of an apology in
order to disarm the aggrieved customer therefore falls short, for such
manipulation eclipses genuine sorrow.
Likewise, a willingness to take responsibility in terms of making
things right is associated with a sincere apology. In fact, a refusal to “make
things right,” such as by compensating an aggrieved customer, eviscerates the
sincerity itself and thus rides the apology of its content. Nevertheless, Bacal
advises, “Keep in mind that tendering an apology doesn’t necessarily mean that
you’re admitting responsibility.”[5] Responsibility, however,
goes with the recognition of having committed an error. Bacal seems to want to
have his cake and eat it too!
As profit-seeking machines, corporations are inherently oriented
to their own interests (as are most people); hence getting something out of
apologizing while obviating any cost—strangely even in admitting responsibility
as if the emotions involved constitute a business cost—fits with the corporate
apology. In keeping with a business’ nature, it can also be argued that because
companies are economic entities, a corporate apology must involve compensation
having a monetary value to be valid. In other words, unless a business gives
something to the wronged consumer to make up for the error or mistake, no
apology has taken place.
Bacal refers to a “bonus buy off” as “offering something of value
to the customer as reimbursement for inconvenience or other problems.”[6] However, Bacal adds that
the monetary value need not be significant, “since the point is to be perceived as
making an effort.”[7]
Here again, he equivocates, for being motivated to appear apologetic takes the focus off the original error. Also, the
monetary value must at the very least equal the cumulative loss to the customer
from the error to “make things right” again. Therefore, customers should insist on
the corporate apology entailing adequate compensation in goods, services, or
money; otherwise—especially if nothing is
offered even when asked!—the customers should reject the apparent apology.
The vacuous statement, "We apologize for any inconvenience," can
be taken as an example of utter fakeness designed to manipulate under a
subterfuge that is in actuality nothing more than a script. A customer turning
down a company’s easy apology can use the passive-aggressive corporate lingo
too, saying something like, “Unfortunately (i.e., appearance of sorrow) I am
unable (i.e., false rigidity) to accept the apology as it does not come an
offer of adequate compensation.” If the customer “service” employee or even
manager replies that the company “cannot” compensate for its own mistakes,
defects, or lapses—not the least of which are rigidity and rudeness—the
customer has the answer: no apology had been made after all. The customer
should reply, “Unfortunately, your company’s apology cannot accepted” and cease
doing business with the company. In short, such a customer will have tested the
“company’s sincerity” and found the people wanting rather than genuine. Such
pretense in place of sincerity is odious, ethically speaking.
Unfortunately,
the massive herd of customer herd-animals in commercial society are too easily mollified
by the easy corporate-speak. To be sure, some company managements have grasped
the apology-responsibility-compensation connection. As of this writing,
Starbucks still sends free-drink coupons to customers who have registered a
credible complaint against a store. “We’re sorry,” a customer service employee
says, “I’m going to send you some coupons for drinks on us because of your bad
experience in one of our stores.” Such a response is exceedingly more credible,
and genuine, because there is financial
cost in the mix, than a mere, “We apologize for any inconvenience.”
Starbucks is rather generous in giving four free drinks for one
bad experience, though more than one drink is necessary to compensate for the
bad drink and or experience plus the effort to make things right. In Business
Ethics, it is noted that if the compensation is too low—such as McDonald’s
offer of $800 to compensate a hospitalized customer scalded by the hot
coffee—the offer can even be taken as an insult; the passive-aggression therein
is real. Insult that is added to injury is really another injury. Such an “apology”
extends the error and this of course adds to the compensation needed to make
things right again. The point is to see through the efforts to present the appearance of sincerity and
speak to employees in economic terms in order to separate “the men” from “the
boys” on their own turf.
In Nietzschean terms, the
skimpiness in the refusal to compensate an aggrieved customer points to underlying
weakness, for the strong are by nature generous for their strength overflows. The strong say lightheartedly, what are these parasites to me. Giving
up some money is not painful, for the strong are self-confidently oriented to
their surfeit of strength. In contrast, the weak give up little, and at great
pain, because they feel a lack (of strength) within. They are, in other words,
over defensive. Some of the weak have an overwhelming instinctual urge to
dominate nonetheless, as evinced in the pleasure in saying NO to even wronged
customers. Even the passive aggression latent in, “We apologize for any
inconvenience,” with a clear omission or refusal of compensation is of use to
those “new birds of prey.” Imagine how
business would change if only this underbelly—this plethora of weakness instead
of strength—were made transparent in society. Weakness evades the translucent
light so as to dominate even the strong even though such a condition is “upside-down”
and thus in some sense against the laws of nature. The question from a
Nietzschean perspective is how strength can take hold in even a weak sector in
society.
1. Norman Bowie and Meg Schneider, Business
Ethics for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011), 239.
2. Robert Bacal, Perfect
Phrases for Customer Service, 2nd Edition (New York: McGraw
Hill, 2011), 19. Italics added.
3. Robert Bacal, Perfect Phrases for
Customer Service, 2nd Edition (New York: McGraw Hill,
2011), 19.
4. Robert Bacal, Perfect Phrases for
Customer Service, 2nd Edition (New York: McGraw Hill,
2011), 19.
5. Robert Bacal, Perfect Phrases for
Customer Service, 2nd Edition (New York: McGraw Hill,
2011), 19.
6. Robert Bacal, Perfect Phrases for
Customer Service, 2nd Edition (New York: McGraw Hill,
2011), 22.
7. Robert Bacal, Perfect Phrases for
Customer Service, 2nd Edition (New York: McGraw Hill, 2011),
22. Italics added.
