Grantland editor acknowledges serious mistakes with transgender story, apologizes

Last week, the sports site Grantland (an excellent site with great writing, by the way) posted a long piece by reporter Caleb Hannan on his search for Dr. V., the mysterious creator of a new-fangled golf putter. The reporter located the inventor and then, to his surprise, discovered that the inventor was a female who had been born male. This added many new layers to the story, including the author outing Dr. V. to one of her investors. Last October, Dr. V. committed suicide.

Reaction to the contents of the piece and the decision to publish it was swift and cutting. (Here's Maria Dahvana Headley, someone quoted in the Mistake Bank book, with a cogent analysis.) Grantland itself, after a few days, ran an essay from Christina Kahrl, an espn.com contributor who is also a director of GLAAD. (ESPN is the parent company of Grantland.) Finally, Bill Simmons, the site's creator and editor-in-chief, discussed Hannan's article and the decisions around publishing it. Simmons acknowledges significant mistakes and apologizes for running the article.

I was originally planning to discuss Simmons' apology in detail as a lesson on decisionmaking, reflection, and atonement. On further reflection, I've concluded that any lessons learned from this mistake, no matter how useful, are trivial compared the life of Dr. V. Our deepest condolences to her family and friends.

Still more on apologies - this time, Kickstarter

A friend passed on word that Kickstarter, under pressure from public interest groups, this week apologized for a campaign featuring a "seduction guide." Here's the apology:

Dear everybody,

On Wednesday morning Kickstarter was sent a blog post quoting disturbing material found on Reddit. The offensive material was part of a draft for a “seduction guide” that someone was using Kickstarter to publish. The posts offended a lot of people — us included — and many asked us to cancel the creator’s project. We didn’t.

We were wrong.

Why didn’t we cancel the project when this material was brought to our attention? Two things influenced our decision:

• The decision had to be made immediately. We had only two hours from when we found out about the material to when the project was ending. We’ve never acted to remove a project that quickly. 
• Our processes, and everyday thinking, bias heavily toward creators. This is deeply ingrained. We feel a duty to our community — and our creators especially — to approach these investigations methodically as there is no margin for error in canceling a project. This thinking made us miss the forest for the trees.

These factors don’t excuse our decision but we hope they add clarity to how we arrived at it.

Let us be 100% clear: Content promoting or glorifying violence against women or anyone else has always been prohibited from Kickstarter. If a project page contains hateful or abusive material we don’t approve it in the first place. If we had seen this material when the project was submitted to Kickstarter (we didn’t), it never would have been approved. Kickstarter is committed to a culture of respect.

Where does this leave us?

First, there is no taking back money from the project or canceling funding after the fact. When the project was funded the backers’ money went directly from them to the creator. We missed the window.

Second, the project page has been removed from Kickstarter. The project has no place on our site. For transparency’s sake, a record of the page is cached here.

Third, we are prohibiting “seduction guides,” or anything similar, effective immediately. This material encourages misogynistic behavior and is inconsistent with our mission of funding creative works. These things do not belong on Kickstarter.

Fourth, today Kickstarter will donate $25,000 to an anti-sexual violence organization called RAINN. It’s an excellent organization that combats exactly the sort of problems our inaction may have encouraged.

We take our role as Kickstarter’s stewards very seriously. Kickstarter is one of the friendliest, most supportive places on the web and we’re committed to keeping it that way. We’re sorry for getting this so wrong.

Thank you,

Kickstarter

Applying Heidi Grant Halvorson's model of apologies to this one, it appears that Kickstarter is touching on two of the three types of apologies:


- the apology to strangers requires compensation; Kickstarter's donation to RAINN qualifies


- the apology to workgroups requires an admission that group norms were violated ("This material encourages misogynistic behavior and is inconsistent with our mission of funding creative works. These things do not belong on Kickstarter").


- there isn't a reference (at least in how I read the apology) to empathy, which is necessary when apologizing to friends, according to Halvorson. Perhaps that's appropriate. Kickstarter's relationship with the public isn't that close, is it? Or should they have included an empathetic note as well?

Fred Wilson apologizes for insulting corporate venture capital funds

In his AVC blog, Fred Wilson took the opportunity to clarify remarks he made in a video interview (below).



What's fascinating is that his remarks about the corporate VCs come in the context of a mistake story. Fred is so passionate about what he learned from his mistakes working with corporate VC partners that he goes a bit over the top when Sarah Lacy, the interviewer, probes:

Fred: I have made, since then, a few mistakes, for example investing with corporate venture capital firms, corporate investors. Never, ever, ever, ever gonna to do that again. Never, ever. Ever. Never!

Sarah: What happened?

Fred: They SUCK! Because they're not interested in the company's success or the entrepreneur's success. Corporations exist to maximize their interests. They could never be mensch-y or magnanimous. It's not in their DNA. And so they SUCK as investors....

He goes on to exempt Intel and Google from this critique, and ends with this: "That's how you should think about a corporation. They're your exit, not your partner."

But the initial emphasis must have caused some blowback, because today's post contains this apology:

I apologize to all of the corporate venture firms that I insulted on Thursday night. I've got a lot of scars, deep and painful, on this topic and I let that come out in a way that was not right. I'm sorry about that.

I say, thanks, Fred, for sharing. I think he's speaking from the heart, honestly and candidly. To me, that doesn't require an apology.

Heidi Grant Halvorson - three types of apologies

Heidi Grant Halvorson posted on the HBR Blog Network about apologies ("The Most Effective Ways to Make It Right When You Screw Up"). She denotes three different constituencies who require different types of apologies:

1. Strangers - they value offers of compensation (Assuming you accidentally knock over someone's coffee cup, say, "So sorry, I'll buy you another cup of coffee.")

2. Friends and Colleagues - they value empathy ("I'm sorry that I hurt you with that careless remark.")

3. Workgroup - they need an acknowledgement that an important norm was violated. ("I'm sorry I didn't make our meeting and didn't let you know beforehand. That's not acceptable. I will plan better next time.")

This is a very useful addition to our growing body of knowledge on apologies (see related posts on the subject).

Read the entire piece here.

Nirmalya Kumar and Nader Tavassoli of London Business School: "Product Failure Is a Moment Of Truth"

This post was written by Nirmalya Kumar and Nader Tavassoli, professors at the London Business School, and originally published on the LBS Business Strategy Review website. Kumar is the co-author of "Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand Challenge," among other books. Tavassoli and Kumar wrote this on the day that Toyota announced a recall of 3.4 million cars due to issues with airbags.

Today’s news is compounded by the fact that globally, Honda is recalling 1.13 million cars, Nissan almost 500,000 and Mazda 45,000. The internet has added a new layer of visibility, speed and culpability to mass product failures and ensuing product recalls. You could say that social media can make or break a company in crisis.

Companies need to realise that such crises are about more than simply minimising legal liabilities. The challenge is not to allow a product recall to threaten the entire brand or company. Research indicates that negative news is devastating; on average, the media impact of negative news has quadruple weight when compared with positive news. Intel’s 1994 Pentium microprocessor recall allegedly cost $500m alone. Coca-Cola posted a 21 per cent drop in income linked to its European contamination scare and recall of 17m cases of Coca-Cola from five countries in 1999. Firestone’s Ford-related tyre recall is estimated since 2001 to have wiped out more than half its parent Bridgestone’s profits and dragged down the share prices of both companies. But product recalls need not turn into a brand crisis. They can even be an opportunity to build the brand, provided they are handled appropriately.

A mishandled public response can cause more damage than the problem it addresses in the first place. Remember, Bill Clinton or Three Mile Island? On the other hand, a well-managed corporate response, such as Tylenol’s handling of the terrorist capsule poisoning incident in the early 1980s, can leave the brand even stronger. Similarly, Lexus’s handling of a recall immediately after the launch of the brand in the USA generated tremendous customer goodwill and positive press for the new brand. Our research has identified “four Cs” of product recall management that should guide companies in troubled times: be candid, contrite, compassionate and committed.

Being candid implies addressing the problem openly and head on. Unfortunately, hope often trumps reality. Many companies wish their problems would stay under the radar screen, they stonewall the public, or even worse, issue outright denials. Exxon famously responded with “no comment” in wake of the Valdez oil spill. Merck went as far as instruct its sales force not to disclose information over the Vioxx crisis. Understandably, companies may feel threatened by a deluge of press inquiries, but speed and clarity of response is essential. The media may be converted into an ally, and internally, it is vital to maintain staff morale.

Being contrite starts with assuming responsibility. Johnson & Johnson immediately took responsibility over the tampering with Tylenol, even though it was hardly to blame. In contrast, Exxon confused the issue of taking responsibility with taking blame. The level of contrition expected by the public varies with whether the recall is an outcome of a malicious attack, accident, or an internal quality failure. Of course, culture matters here. After the Japan Airlines crash that claimed 520 lives in 1985, JAL’s chief executive publicly apologised and tendered his resignation. While, ultimately, it is important to ascertain where responsibility for the failure lies, the burning need of the moment is that the company is seen to take responsibility.

Being compassionate requires being personal. Press releases simply will not do. Johnson & Johnson managers were seen weeping on television cameras as they attended victims’ funerals. In contrast, Lawrence Rawl, Exxon’s chairman, waited two weeks after the oil spill to fly to Alaska. Sadly, all too often the only personal attention the affected receive is being ambushed by company lawyers and photographers.

Being committed requires a cross-functional response team with top management and should not be a public relations exercise. This team’s priority should be immediately to assess the source and potential impact of the crisis. Who was hurt? Does it require free servicing, partial recall or total recall? Once the program is announced, how will the company wholly commit itself to making the process as customer friendly and effective as possible? Obviously, preparation helps. A well prepared company goes beyond buying crisis insurance. It has mechanisms, people and policies to help avoid and manage crises. The brand also needs to consider how to get back on its feet. J&J introduced triple tamper-proof seals on its packaging, coupons and deep price cuts to win back the market, and seminars by its sales force to doctors. Goodwill still has to be converted into sales.

The product failure is a moment of truth. A poorly-managed response can unmask a brand promise as a hollow boast. But a well-managed product recall converts the crisis into a chance to demonstrate a company’s regard for its customers. Business as usual rarely offers such opportunities.

It’ll be interesting to see whether these Japanese car firms will seize the opportunity or crack under pressure.

Reposted by permission of the author.

Scottish public service organization publishes a template for an effective public apology

Iain Nesbit has pointed out a great template for an effective apology from the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman. Page one (of two) is pictured above. The document is available here in PDF form.

In the Mistake Bank book, we refer to a study showing that acknowledging and apologizing for health-care mistakes significantly reduces lawsuits and hospital legal costs. Of course, that's not the point of an apology, but it is a very valuable side effect - people who believe they are being treated fairly and transparently are more likely to resolve a dispute and less likely to escalate.

And when you need to apologize, use this template. It's excellent.

British Power Company apologizes for misselling to consumers

We're in the habit of collecting and sharing corporate apologies here, and last week, there was a big one. After being fined £10.5m by regulator Ofgem, natural gas and electricity supplier SSE posted an apology on the front page of its website (image above) and a longer letter from Ian Marchant, its CEO, on the company blog.

Ofgem described SSE's issues this way:

Customers contacted by SSE were exposed to misleading statements, inaccurate and misleading information on SSE’s charges and misleading comparisons between SSE’s charges and the costs with other suppliers. These failures meant that many customers were unable to make well-informed decisions about whether to switch to SSE and about comparing products in a competitive market, and they were exposed to the risk of choosing a more expensive energy deal. Customers were also told that they could save more money on switching to SSE than was possible.

The SSE apology reads, in part:

The breaches of licence conditions on which the fine is based should never have happened and it is simply not acceptable that they did. Our failings have context – the obligations on energy suppliers were changed significantly and we had a lot to do to change our practices – but there is no excuse; we should have done better.

Today’s announcement is also a clear message for energy companies. Ofgem has been saying for some time that energy suppliers need to transform the way they deal with customers. We agree and we believe that through our Building Trust programme we have led the industry in translating words like fairness, simplicity and transparency into action. We’ve reduced the number of tariffs we offer, we’ve simplified bills, we check that customers are on the best deal for them and we’ve stopped doorstep sales. We've strengthened the compliance processes in our retail business.

The reality is, however, that while SSE has taken a lead on this, Building Trust only started in October 2011 and took a while to implement. However, in many ways it was two years too late. In October 2009, Ofgem introduced new obligations on energy suppliers to make sure sales are conducted in a fair and transparent manner and, frankly, we should have complied with the letter and the spirit of the rules.

We didn’t respond quickly enough to those new obligations and, in particular, we were too slow to recognise that the sales methods sometimes used on doorsteps of potential customers were unacceptable. While SSE was first out of the blocks on this issue, stopping doorstep sales in July 2011, before any other major supplier, we were still much too slow.

This apology has a lot to like, although Marchant leaves the impression that the "Building Trust" program was a proactive step the company took. In fact the Ofgen investigation started in 2010 and Building Trust would certainly have been a response to that investigation. If Building Trust had been launched before the investigation, I would have given SSE much more credit.

[Thanks to Iain Nisbet from www.absolvitor.com (Absolvitor: Scots Law Online) and facebook.com/absolvitor for sharing this story.]

Golfer McIlroy admits mistake and apologizes

World #1 pro golfer Rory McIlroy started a firestorm of controversy by withdrawing midway through his round last Friday in Palm Beach, Florida. He blamed discomfort from an impacted wisdom tooth, but golf writers instead pointed to his poor performance since switching to Nike golf clubs.

Today, McIlroy apologized for his withdrawal and said he had made a mistake, in part saying this:

I should have stayed out there and tried to shoot the best score possible.... Some people have the pleasure of making mistakes in private. Most of my mistakes are in the public eye. It is what it is and I regret what I did.

The wisdom tooth excuse crept into the statement somewhat, as well as a discussion of his relationship with tennis pro Caroline Wozniacki. But, all in all, not a bad performance from a 23-year-old who is not used to failing. The entire apology is here:

Apology day continued: Gary Bettman of the NHL

This apology exceeded my expectations. Gary Bettman, commissioner of the National Hockey League, in an announcement after the owners ratified a new collective bargaining agreement, apologized to all affected by the 113-day-long labor lockout. There was not a trace of defensiveness, and quite a bit of grace in Bettman's words. Of course, the NHL players and fans may not fully agree.


Transcript:
To the players, who were very clear they wanted to be on the ice, and not negotiating labor contracts, to our partners who support the league financially and personally, and most importantly to our fans, who love and have missed NHL hockey, I'm sorry.

I know that an explanation or an apology will not erase the hard feelings that have built up over the past few months, but I owe you an apology nevertheless. As commissioner of the National Hockey League, it sometimes falls upon me to make tough decisions that disappoint and occasionally anger players and fans. This was a long and extremely difficult negotiation, one that took a lot longer than anybody wanted. I know it caused frustration, disappointment, and even suffering to a lot of people who have supported the National Hockey League in many different ways. In the end, neither side got everything it wanted, and everyone lost in the short-term....

As I said, we know that no words of apology or explanation will soften the disappointment. I read the letters, followed the tweets, read the blogs. We have a lot of work to do. The National Hockey League has a responsibility to earn back your trust and support....

A notable apology from the editor of The Sun magazine

What follows is an email from Sy Safransky, editor of The Sun, a US political magazine, to subscribers. There are some notable elements in this apology related to recovering from a mistake (Chapter 1 in the Mistake Bank book), which I will enumerate after the email. [The full interview referred to in the email is here.]

The Sun owes an apology to David Krieger, Leslee Goodman, and our readers. In our January 2013 issue we published an interview by Goodman titled “Indefensible: David Krieger on the Continuing Threat of Nuclear Weapons.” In it, Krieger is quoted as saying that the path to global security “can only be through unilateral nuclear disarmament.” He never said that. One of our editors made the error of inserting the word unilateral into Krieger’s statement. In foreign-policy circles, suggesting that one country abolish its nuclear arsenal while others maintain theirs is widely considered unrealistic and counterproductive. We thus misrepresented a central aspect of Krieger’s views. The mistake didn’t get past Krieger, however. When we sent him the interview for a final review, he asked that we replace the word unilateral, which he’d never used, with total. We assured Krieger we would make that change. Then, regrettably, we neglected to do so. I couldn’t be more chagrined at the careless way this was handled. In an effort to make amends, we’ve posted the full text of the corrected interview on our website. We are sending a reprinted version of the interview to hundreds of nuclear-disarmament activists, national-security experts, and others with whom Krieger has worked over the years. We’ll also provide copies for Krieger to distribute at upcoming conferences and for any Sun reader who requests one. (Please write to Molly Herboth at The Sun, 107 North Roberson Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 or e-mail molly@thesunmagazine.org with your mailing address.) Accuracy matters to us. This is why each issue of the magazine is copy-edited, proofread, and fact-checked by multiple editors and proofreaders, and then scrutinized a final time before it goes to print. In this instance, the error got past all of us. (For the record, our veteran proofreader wasn’t available to work on this issue.) As The Sun’s editor and publisher, I bear ultimate responsibility for every word that appears in the magazine. I know what “unilateral nuclear disarmament” means but read right past it. I deeply regret my mistake. Krieger was gracious and forgiving with us. I invited him to clarify his position for our readers, and he sent us the statement that appears below. Sy Safransky Editor and publisher Raising awareness of the continuing threat of nuclear weapons has been my primary focus for three decades as cofounder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Neither I nor the foundation has ever called for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Thus, I was shocked to see myself quoted in The Sun as saying just that. What I said was “The path to security can only be through totalnuclear disarmament.” Why does it matter? Because to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament is to ask that one nation eliminate its arsenal, leaving itself vulnerable to other countries’ nuclear weapons. This is neither realistic nor politically feasible. It is also not sufficient. I do not ask any country to take such a risk. What I ask is for the countries of the world — particularly the nine that now have nuclear weapons — to engage in negotiations with the goal of total nuclear disarmament. I believe that the U.S. can lead the way, using its influence to bring other nations to the negotiating table, where together they might arrange for the phased, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons. It is unlikely that the U.S. will initiate such negotiations, however, unless its citizenry demands it. We must awaken to the danger and organize to abolish nuclear weapons as though our very lives depend upon it — because they do. There are still some nineteen thousand nuclear weapons in the world, and the use of even a small number of them would have catastrophic consequences. Atmospheric scientists tell us that just one hundred Hiroshima-sized nuclear detonations in a war between India and Pakistan, for example, could lead to a global famine, causing hundreds of millions of deaths. Unilateral nuclear disarmament is not what we seek at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. What we seek is a rational solution, and when it comes to nuclear weapons, the only rational number is zero. That means total nuclear disarmament. It is one of the overarching issues of our time, and your voice can make a difference. If you would like to play a role in securing a future free from the threat of nuclear annihilation, join us online at www.wagingpeace.org. David Krieger Click here to opt out of receiving e-mails or to manage your e-mail settings. Copyright © 2013, The Sun Publishing Company, Inc. 107 North Roberson Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Privacy Policy

Here's what is really good about Safransky's apology:

1. Timely. The January 2013 issue is still current. He didn't wait till time had passed, and  
2. Public & accessible. It was sent to every subscriber, rather than being buried on a page deep in the print magazine or website.
3. Shows a sense of agency. "I deeply regret my mistake." Not the editor's mistake (inserting a word into the quote), or the proofreader's mistake, or anyone else's. The buck stops with Safransky, and he takes responsibility.
4. Authentic & personal. There are no weasel words or sliding around the truth. There's just a touch of the passive voice - "I couldn't be more chagrined at the careless way this was handled" - but, after all, apologies are hard.  [Here's a less successful one.]
5. Fair & generous. Safransky includes Krieger's critical note right in the email, allowing him to correct the record and provide his own context.

I hope many leaders read this apology and absorb its lessons. They may be in a position to do this themselves one day.

[Thanks to Amy for sharing this.]

Social app company Path apologizes for importing customer address books without asking

This week, there was a big to-do over the discovery that social-media startup Path had been uploading customers' address books without permission. The latest turn of events is an apology from CEO Dave Morin. It says, in part:

We are sorry.

We made a mistake. Over the last couple of days users brought to light an issue concerning how we handle your personal information on Path, specifically the transmission and storage of your phone contacts.

As our mission is to build the world’s first personal network, a trusted place for you to journal and share life with close friends and family, we take the storage and transmission of your personal information very, very seriously.

Through the feedback we’ve received from all of you, we now understand that the way we had designed our ‘Add Friends’ feature was wrong. We are deeply sorry if you were uncomfortable with how our application used your phone contacts.

In the interest of complete transparency we want to clarify that the use of this information is limited to improving the quality of friend suggestions when you use the ‘Add Friends’ feature and to notify you when one of your contacts joins Path––nothing else. We always transmit this and any other information you share on Path to our servers over an encrypted connection. It is also stored securely on our servers using industry standard firewall technology.

Now, I much prefer the straightforward "We Are Sorry" at the top of the post, as opposed to "we are sorry if you were uncomfortable..." that comes later. Imagine that I insulted you, and you pushed back, and I said, "I'm sorry if you took my comments the wrong way." You would not consider that much of an apology.

Morin's apology sounds like that. A straightforward statement such as, "We are sorry that we used your contacts without permission" would have been more to the point.

This "sorry you were uncomfortable" apology reveals that the company thinks what it did was correct and justified, and only because it garnered bad publicity did they do anything about it. This says something about social web services like Path. They feel that they deserve access to your information, and would prefer to do it without asking, unless people find out about it. I'll try to remember that when I get the next signup request for a new service.

What do you think? Is this a heartfelt apology? Does Path even feel they made a mistake?

Quicken admits a mistake and sets out a path to making it right

Karen Wilhelm of the Lean Reflections blog sent along this email she received, dated 22 December 2011:

Mac users have been steaming about this issue for some time. Intuit has never supported the Mac community very well (I run QuickBooks on Windows via Parallel - not a good solution by any means). And this falls short of an apology to users. "We have not always delivered on this promise" and "I understand the frustration" are a few steps below "I'm sorry." But the company does appear to be responding to the outcry from users.

It's interesting that the letter writer, Aaron Forth is an outsider to Intuit. He came to the company via its acquisition of Mint.com. Perhaps this made him more open to supporting the Mac community than Intuit lifers. What do you think?

Wall Street Journal collects 10 CEO video apologies

The Wall Street Journal "Deal Journal" blog has collected YouTube clips of 10 CEO apologies, the most recent being RIM Co-CEO Mike Lazaridis apologizing for the company's lengthy service outage:



You can view the entire collection here.