Amongst the unflattering responses, some persistent points arose: too negative, too predictable, out of touch. While a more traditional response to this feedback would be to make quiet changes behind the scenes or to re-launch and re-format the paper, this wasn’t the approach The Standard opted for.
Instead of fighting or hiding the criticism, the paper has not only made it public and accepted it – but is now apologising to its readers.
The campaign will see a series of outdoor and in-transit advertisements – the first will read “Sorry for losing touch” with others following with “Sorry for being negative”, “Sorry for being complacent”, “Sorry for being predictable” and “Sorry for taking you for granted”.
This open and eye-catching campaign is sure to cause a stir but it begs the question: when should companies openly address these problems?
At university I was taught that customer loyalty not only remains but strengthens once a complaint or issue is handled effectively so by all rights brands should respond, accept and apologise for poor products or service. But when is this taken too far?
Was the market research so negative that the paper saw it easier to apologise to London as a whole than individual readers? If this was the best approach in most cases then all television, radio and print ads would be covered with apologies. We’d be bombarded on our way to work with buses and trains branded with ‘I’m sorry’ from phone companies, internet providers, banks and politicians.
Personally I admire The Standard for taking such a frank approach – they asked what their readers thought and now they have listened. I’m sure most brands out there would be too proud or arrogant go through with such a campaign but only time will tell whether it proves effective.
