Amazon’s Self-Proclaimed “Stupidity”: From Hatred to Hugs – the Importance of Validation in a Competitive Economy
photo credit: unbarriofeliz
As a married female, I know that “sorry” will suffice for some blunders but not all. After all, “sorry” has a wide range of sentiment when it comes to admitting guilt – in fact, sometimes “sorry” is not so much about admitting wrongdoing as much as it is a courteous supplication of sympathy for one’s percieved hypersensitivity, patience or lack thereof. What exactly does “I’m sorry if you took it that way” mean, after all?
Similarly, in today’s world where “high touch” is no longer just a tactile reference, “We apologize for any inconvenience” just doesn’t cut it, at least with businesses that still need to “touch” consumers. Last week, one of the world’s largest online retailers, Amazon, covertly started deleting previously purchased copies of Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 from consumers’ Kindle devices, while refunding their purchases, due to reasons of the illegalities of the original third-party download source. Bloggers were enraged, as I’m sure were many a Twitterers as well.
But what I think will be remembered are the words of validation given from Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO today. In a statement on a forum, he wrote:
This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our “solution” to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we’ve received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.
With deep apology to our customers,
Jeff Bezos
Founder & CEO
Amazon.com
A couple things:
Not really sure what the no-show was about from our guy Jeff for the earnings call – dodging investor and analyst criticism? Perhaps. But he did recognize the constituency most important to him and his shareholders – the consumer. And sure enough both consumers and online media slowly started to show their acknowledgement of his humble apology (”if you really need a hug, we’ll be here”), stated accountability, and promise to use this as a learning experience to ensure a better handling of such incidents in the future.
Note I didn’t write “apology and regret.” I can’t count how many times I’ve seen clients’ attorneys finalize letters stating “We apologize for the inconvenience” or “We regret to inform you.” We regret it happened. Of course you do. So does the consumer, probably more so than you. But, are you admitting your wrongdoing, that it shouldn’t have happened and how this will actually fuel the fire for better consumer service in the future?
Attention attorneys and PR folk who know this tune so well: I have to pause here for a minute to dwell on an interesting but evolving dynamic – the will of legality/legal ramificiations vs. the will of goodwill establishment (that’s a tongue twister). A sincere apology for a fact that occured, or an expression of regret that it occured under your watch, will not help fuel a pending suit but is more likely to mitigate ill-willed sentiment harbored by consumers. I think there is a multi-faceted and eerie effect that such a validating apology has on the individual who feels victimized by an organization when one is used to self-righteous 800-pound gorilla corporations weilding their lobby dollars as they please – a weird sense of awe, paired with validation… and the cherry on top is the double-whammy of a humanizing-and-associating effect the spokesperson has on the end individual – If I were you, I’d feel the same way. That’s essentially the gist of it in a nutshell. I’m sorry, we screwed up. If I were you, I’d feel the same. NOT, I’m sorry that you feel that way. (because I wouldn’t have?) Despite the similar syntax, the meaning (and feeling) are polar opposites.
PR folks have been talking about the imperative of building relationships for years, some even have their own branded concept of the relationship apparatus. But to get to the marrow of it – consumers need to like you to trust you, and when they like you, they’re less likely to file legal action. Ask Malcolm Gladwell. But if you don’t admit to your wrongdoing, they will never really trust you again. This will always be the big legal-PR dilemma of goodwill establishment, and the reason why I believe that law should be used as a tool to fix crises but never the orchestrating strategy. (And quite frankly, nothing makes one look guiltier than the overexhausted “no comment” remark).
If you are in the business of selling to consumers in today’s economy, your behavior should address the tireless question, Why should I (still) spend my money with you? In Amazon’s case, Bezos had the right answer. If he is being earnest (if), he is saying, Because they saw their actions in our shoes, they are a better company now through it all.
Yeah, yeah. It’s all back down to that one A word again, Authenticity . But it’s a huge step from last decade’s buzzword, Transparency. Transparency is showing reality. Authenticity is being real, but more importantly, keepin’ it that way.
My videos. Featured videos.
My Reading
Recent Posts
I am reading
 |
| 0 / 384 Pages |
