Like people, brands make mistakes. And when they do, in order to rebuild trust with the public, it’s important that they acknowledge their errors.
According to new survey data shared exclusively with Fast Company, there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about doing so. Still, sometimes a company’s trajectory following a misstep depends on the scale of the controversy itself.
The data comes from Sprout Social, a company that helps brands reach their business goals by harnessing the power of social media. It surveyed 2,250 consumers in the U.S., Australia, and the UK, and found that the way a company responds to a controversy is endlessly important.
Brand controversies draw attention
When a controversy unfolds, consumers are typically eager to know more about what happened.
According to the survey’s U.S. results, when a brand missteps, 33% say they sometimes seek more information, while 27% say they often do, and 20% always do. At the same time, just 7% never investigate the controversy further.
The data points to the fact that controversies can be deeply fascinating to the curious greater public. And from that lens, they may even become an opportunity for potential customers to learn more about a company.
Brands should own up to their mistakes quickly—and in an authentic way
Still, a brand’s response matters to potential customers.
Most say that companies should be vocal about their misstep on social media, as opposed to sending out a more formal broadcasted message such as a press release: 34% say this is somewhat important while 27% say it’s extremely important.
It makes sense given that social media is how people get their information these days.
But it’s how they likely learned about the controversy to begin with: 48% say social media is the place they learn about a brand’s missteps most often, while 21% find out via news articles, 19% from friends and family, and 12% learn about the controversy from the brand itself.
When it comes to timing of a brand’s response, consumers say speed matters: 41% say it matters a lot, another 41% say it matters a little, and just 18% feel it doesn’t matter at all.
The nature of the controversy matters most
More importantly, however, seems to be what the controversy was about to begin with.
When asked if customers would buy from the company again after a misstep, 31% said that depends on what the controversy was about.
Similarly, many consumers say that if a brand presents itself on social media in a way that doesn’t align with the company or its executives, that could impact its overall opinion of the company: 25% say it has a moderate impact. Meanwhile, 23% say it depends on the controversy.
Losing trust is easy. Winning it back is hard
The new survey data shines a light on what some brands—fortunately or unfortunately—have already learned.
Target, for example, has worked to claw back customers after its abandonment of DEI initiatives kicked off a wave of boycotts.
But even as negative comments flooded the brand’s social media, the brand didn’t apologize or change course. Given the serious nature of the controversy, it makes sense that it’s been an uphill battle for the company.
In May, the brand’s new CEO, Michael Fiddelke, told the Associated Press about having his work cut out for him in terms of rebounding from the DEI-abandonment fallout. “As we went through last year, it was one of the things that impacted our sales,” he said. “And so we know we’ve got trust to win back with guests, and we’ll be focused on doing it. There’s no easy button to win back trust, but we’ll do the work.”
Meanwhile, some controversies that are relatively unserious still manage to take off online. Take, for example, McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski, who went viral earlier this year for the awkward tiny bites he took of a burger in a promotional video.
While he was relentlessly mocked on social media for what some called and “alienesque” nibbles, the video’s circulation ultimately meant that thousands of people were doing exactly what it intended: thinking about McDonald’s.
Regardless of the humorous nature of the entire fiasco, the brand still addressed the controversy, with Kempczinski himself making light of his own awkwardness and joking that his mother “is to blame,” given she taught him never to talk with his mouth full.
The brand joked about it, too, in a social media post about the company’s new burger, which was posted with the caption, “Take a bite of our new product. Can’t believe this got approved.”
Other brands also jumped in on the trend, with Burger King and Wendy’s posting their own CEOs “enjoying” menu items.
While some suspected Kempczinski isn’t actually a lover of McDonald’s burgers, the awkward video wasn’t offensive or troubling. Still, McDonald’s likely didn’t expect that the viral video would lead to an estimated $18.4 million bump in brand value, which it did, according to Apex Marketing.
These two instances, while different, underscore what Sprout Social’s recent survey data suggests: that how brands present themselves on social media matters to consumers—especially when they fall off course.