道歉在公关危机中可能有害无益

    你遭遇了公关危机。

    你或你的公司做了些蠢事，或是表现得麻木不仁。这在网上已经传得沸沸扬扬。Twitter和博客上已经刮起了风暴，对你们展开了强烈的抵制。

    这时你该做些什么？

    你应该道歉，对吗？承认错误，向大家道歉，然后继续前行，是吧？

    好吧，公关常识是这么说的。不过这真是最好的应对措施吗？

    对此，每个人都应当考虑他们自己的特殊情况。但一些非常著名且充满争议的公关事件，至少让人们对这种传统观点产生了怀疑。

    本周，一名田纳西州共和党众议员的沟通主管伊丽莎白•劳特恩在犯了明显过失之后，就做了她理应做的事情。

    上周，劳特恩在Facebook上批评奥巴马总统的两个女儿在出席白宫“感恩节赦免火鸡”仪式时穿着不得体。

    劳特恩的言论激起了民众的愤慨，随后她发表了致歉声明：“我花了许多时间来祈祷、与父母交谈，并重读了自己在网上发表的文字。现在，我更清楚地意识到自己的言论造成了多大的伤害。那些不是我的真心话。在此，我要为所有因为我的言论受到伤害或冒犯的人道歉，并向大家保证，我会从这次经历中吸取教训并成长。”

    结果呢？她被开除了，她的道歉完全于事无补。

    不但如此，Twitter上对她的尖刻批评愈演愈烈。“贱人、荡妇、罪犯……”是最为普遍的评论。在她发表道歉声明很久以后，一个网站还故意重提一则令人尴尬的新闻，称她在17岁时就有入店行窃记录。

    那么，为何道歉没有起到应有的效果？有人认为劳特恩没有表现出足够的歉意。不过批评者总会拿这个理由说事。

    两年前，记者法里德•扎卡瑞亚为自己的剽窃丑闻做出了“毫无保留的”公开道歉。结果呢？他被美国有线电视新闻频道（CNN）停职，并辞去了耶鲁大学（Yale）理事会的职务。

    去年夏天，扎卡瑞亚又因为一件比剽窃严重得多的事件，遭到了网民的声讨。但他否认了一切罪名，驳斥了控诉，最终安然度过这场风波。

    2007年，由于在直播中对罗格斯大学（Rutgers）女篮队员出言不逊，主播唐•伊姆斯再三道歉。然而他的道歉激起了全国长达10天的厉声斥责，最终他丢掉了饭碗。

    他的竞争对手霍华德•斯特恩表示：“他当时应该说：‘他妈的，我只是开个玩笑罢了。’”

    You’ve got a public relations crisis.

    You, or your company, has done something foolish or insensitive. And it’s gone viral on the Internet. There’s now a “storm” and a “backlash” in the Twitterverse and the blogosphere.

    What should you do?

    You should apologize, right? Admit your error, apologize to everyone, and then move on, yes?

    Well, that’s what Public Relations 101 says. But is it really the best course of action any more?

    Everyone will have to consider their own, unique circumstances. But some very high profile and controversial public relations flaps do at least cast some doubt on the conventional wisdom.

    This week, Elizabeth Lauten, the communications director for a Republican congressman from Tennessee, did exactly what she was supposed to do after making an apparent gaffe.

    Lauten had criticized the President Obama’s daughters on Facebook last week, complaining that they had dressed inappropriately while appearing at the White House “turkey pardoning” event.

    When her comments sparked outrage, Lauten posted the following apology: “After many hours of prayer, talking to my parents and re-reading my words online, I can see more clearly how hurtful my words were. Please know that these judgmental feelings truly have no place in my heart. Furthermore, I’d like to apologize to all of those who I have hurt and offended with my words, and pledge to learn and grow (and I assure you I have) from this experience.”

    The result? She lost her job, and got absolutely no points from anyone for her apology.

    On the contrary, the vitriol spewed out against her on Twitter actually grew worse. “Bitch… tramp… criminal…” were the more publishable remarks. Long after she had posted her apology, a website dragged up embarrassing news that she had been caught shoplifting when she was 17.

    So, why didn’t the apology do the trick? Some complained that Lauten’s expression of regret wasn’t enough. The problem is critics always say that.

    Two years ago, the journalist Fareed Zakaria publicly apologized “unreservedly” for an instance of plagiarism. The result? He was suspended by CNN and resigned his position as a trustee of Yale’s governing body.

    Last summer, Zakaria was criticized online for what appeared to be a far more serious example of alleged plagiarism. But he denied everything, dismissed the accusations, and rode out the storm.

    In 2007, Don Imus apologized profusely and repeatedly for an on-air gaffe about the Rutgers’ womens’ basketball team. His apologies sparked 10 days of national hysteria and he lost his job.

    “He should have said, ‘F–k you, it was a joke,’” said his rival, Howard Stern.