Does it seem like there are more advertising apologies than there used to be? A few months ago Apple said sorry for their iPad commercial that showed beloved examples of analogue creativity being crushed in a giant metal press. Two weeks later Bumble had to issue an apology for running a billboard that suggested a vow of celibacy was ‘not the answer’.

In July adidas apologised for an insensitive ad campaign based around the revival of a shoe they had made for the 1972 Munich Olympics. Those games are notorious for an incident in which Palestinian militants killed 11 members of the Israeli team, so they also had to apologise to their model, the famously Palestinian Bella Hadid.

But they’re just the latest in what feels like an acceleration of mea culpas, particularly for ads that have featured accidental or thoughtless racism. In 2018, H&M apologised for showing a Black child modelling their ‘Coolest Monkey in the Jungle’ hoodie. In 2017, Dove apologised for promoting a facial wash that appeared to show a Black model becoming a white model after using the product. Also in 2017, Nivea apologised for running an ad featuring the line ‘White is Purity’, which was sadly taken up by white supremacists.

The reason behind this extra offence and the corresponding contrition is the ability of social media to enable a negative reaction to grow and spread at speed. Those channels also allow brands to issue an apologetic response just as quickly, so the dialogue between annoyed consumer and shame-faced corporation can now be immediate, public and free.

The reason behind this extra offence and the corresponding contrition is the ability of social media to enable a negative reaction to grow and spread at speed

The more complicated reason is that there are now far more kinds of behaviour that could be deemed offensive. Movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have brought a more thorough understanding of the difficulties faced by marginalised communities, and that increased awareness of a wider range of problems has led to an increased awareness of where transgressions have been made.

For example, the Bumble situation would not have happened ten years ago. In 2014 there was far less understanding of the various reasons behind celibacy. A decade on, many more people are aware that celibacy can be a choice, or a response to trauma, so making it a punchline to an ad for a dating site now seems deeply insensitive.

Education has also allowed many more people to understand how pervasive and insidious racism can be. H&M, Dove and Nivea’s missteps might have gone unnoticed back in the 20th century, but today they stick out like sore thumbs. This progress is undoubtedly a good thing, helping unheard voices to express themselves, and helping brands to learn from their mistakes and think more carefully about how future messaging could be perceived.

Movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have brought a more thorough understanding of the difficulties faced by marginalised communities

That said, there is another side to the coin: the ability to make your voice heard is available to everyone, not just to those with progressive, liberal opinions. In 2020, the Sainsbury’s Christmas campaign featured a Black family, prompting some depressing complaints from the kind of people who felt that this was not ‘British’ (one even suggested Sainsbury’s rename themselves ‘Blackberry’s’).

And let’s not forget the recent right-wing furore over Bud Light’s decision to promote a single post using transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Voices of intolerance complained about it for weeks, boycotts were called and, of course, Kid Rock shot up a case of the offending beer with an assault rifle.

Both of those examples are clearly nonsensical, but there’s also more of a middle ground where brands are accused of wrongdoing but do not agree. Take Protein World’s ‘Are You Beach Body Ready?’ scandal of 2015. More than 70,000 people signed a petition to complain that its idealised image of a woman amounted to body-shaming. However, the ASA disagreed and the head of marketing behind the work said he was “happy to see that common sense has prevailed”. Further along the scale, we have brands such as Paddy Power and BrewDog, which have made deliberate provocation a core part of their corporate communications.

Paddy Power is presumably delighted at the number of times their ads have been publicly censured, while BrewDog responded to the Portman Group banning their Dead Pony Club ale with this apology: “On behalf of BrewDog PLC and its 14,691 individual shareholders, I would like to issue a formal apology to the Portman Group for not giving a shit about today’s ruling.”

If there’s a lesson in all of this, it seems that offence and apology are now potent weapons that are partly in the hands of brands and partly in the hands of consumers

Returning to Apple, you could argue that the entire debacle was a net positive for the brand. They released a commercial that might have gone relatively unnoticed had people not misunderstood the intended message. It was then the subject of many think pieces, news articles and indignant tweets (including one from Hugh Grant), extending its impact for several days and pushing it to the top of social media feeds.

In response, Apple issued an apology, which was also reported all over the world, thoroughly analysed and generally accepted. The original commercial was never going to cause much damage to a brand of Apple’s size, but the opportunity to show their audience that they listen to feedback and act on it reflected well on them and earned a ton of free media for their new iPad.

If there’s a lesson in all of this, it seems that offence and apology are now potent weapons that are partly in the hands of brands and partly in the hands of consumers. And, along with Kid Rock’s gun, they should be wielded with great care.

Based in Los Angeles, Ben Kay is a creative director and copywriter, and advertising columnist for CR; ben-kay.com; Top image: Apple Crush ad