What the Target, Neutrogena, Good Good–Callaway, and Lufthansa cases teach us about crisis management and an organization’s credibility.
A public apology can mitigate public backlash against an organization, but it can also raise questions about how the organization is handling the crisis. The timing of the apology, the clarity with which responsibility is acknowledged, and, above all, the actions that follow play a decisive role.
The recent cases involving Target, Neutrogena, Good Good/Callaway, and Lufthansa highlight different approaches to managing communication crises. From the immediate recall of a product to vague commitments, the gradual disclosure of responsibility, and the inability to resolve an operational problem, the four incidents demonstrate how an organization’s response can influence not only the course of the crisis but also its credibility.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Charalambidou on “25 Minutes”: “Odysseas must run for president”
The headscarf that … divided the sisters
- Target: The Value of Immediately Taking Responsibility
Last August, the American retail chain Target recalled a children’s Halloween clown costume following backlash that it resembled racist caricatures. The company made no attempt to explain the intent behind the product or to dispute the interpretation of those who objected. It stated that it had made a mistake, described the costume as offensive, and acknowledged that it should not have been included in its collection. The product was withdrawn, and Target announced that it would investigate how it had passed through its internal approval processes, as well as what needs to change to prevent a recurrence. In this case, the significance of the response lies in its immediacy. The company identified the mistake, took responsibility for its part, and immediately took the obvious corrective action. In doing so, it avoided the well-trodden path of an apology that simultaneously defends the company with a “yes, but” rationale.
- Neutrogena: When an Apology Leaves a Significant Gap
The case of the cosmetics company Neutrogena was different. Following the death of American actress Hayden Panettiere in August, statements she had made a few months earlier resurfaced in the public sphere. Panettiere had claimed that her long-standing partnership with Neutrogena was not renewed after she publicly disclosed that she was suffering from postpartum depression. She had even expressed her disappointment at the brand’s lack of support. Neutrogena acknowledged that it had made Panettiere feel as though she lacked support during a difficult period in her life. At the same time, it announced a “significant investment” in a healthcare partner, with the goal of improving women’s access to support and care services for postpartum depression. Neutrogena acknowledged the impact of its action. However, its commitment remained vague regarding the amount of the investment, the recipient, and the implementation plan. In a crisis of credibility, any commitment gains communicative value when it is accompanied by actions and deeds, not just words.
- Good Good and Callaway: When Responsibility Is Revealed Gradually
The case of Good Good and Callaway illustrates the problems that can arise from gradually assuming responsibility. An advertisement for a co-branded golf driver showed Garrett Clark of Good Good pushing a woman to the ground as she attempted to touch the club. The video was taken down the same day following the backlash, and apologies followed. The crucial detail emerged later. Callaway’s initial response did not mention that it had approved the content prior to its publication. CEO Chip Brewer subsequently acknowledged that, although the video had been produced by Good Good, Callaway had approved it. He admitted that approval should not have been granted and announced a review of the company’s procedures. This was followed by the termination of the partnership and Callaway’s commitment to donate $1 million to organizations working to prevent violence against women and support victims. The crisis, however, continued, with Good Good’s then-CEO publicly accusing Callaway of having requested and approved the ad. A few days later, two top executives at Good Good resigned. This case illustrates why the truth and the true extent of responsibility must be established as early as possible. Any new information that alters what the public knew reignites the crisis and raises questions about what was not disclosed from the outset.
- Lufthansa: An apology does not solve the operational problem
In September, a customer of the German airline Lufthansa filed a complaint with X regarding a payment that, according to him, had been approved months earlier but remained pending. Lufthansa responded that it had already contacted him multiple times via direct messages and that its position would not change simply because he had brought the issue to light on social media. The response went viral, surpassing 15 million views within two days. Lufthansa followed up, apologized for the tone of its previous response, and stated that it was trying to expedite the process. The apology corrected the communication error. However, it did not confirm that the original issue had been resolved. The customer replied that he appreciated the apology but insisted that the payment—which, he claimed, had already been approved—be finalized. Two points emerge from this specific case: (1) an appropriate communication response cannot substitute for the resolution of an operational issue. If the reason that led the customer to make a public complaint still exists, the crisis remains unresolved. (2) On social media, a customer service response constitutes a public statement accessible to millions of users. A response posted via a corporate account constitutes a public statement by the company, even if the intention was to respond to a single individual.
From Apology to Action
The four cases have different origins and developments, but they highlight a common element: the substance of an apology is judged largely by what happens after it is published. Target combined taking responsibility with an immediate product recall. Neutrogena acknowledged the problem, but its commitment to corrective action remained vague and unspecified. At Callaway, the acceptance of responsibility came second. At Lufthansa, the apology addressed the communication error, while the initial operational issue remained unresolved, according to the customer.
For a crisis management team, an apology should therefore not be treated as a mere formality that closes the case. It must be linked to what the company is actually willing to do. And credibility is restored only when there is consistency between what a company says and what it does.
*Director of Communications at GNORA Communications Consultants
