Watched a brand try a silent apology vs a full video apology

There was this skincare company that messed up a product launch last month. I paid close attention to how they handled it. One brand on my feed just posted a short text apology and went quiet for a week. Another one did a 3 minute video with the founder looking sorry and explaining the fix. The video one bounced back faster in comments and sales from what I saw. Has anyone else noticed which style actually wins back trust?

3 comments

3 Comments

alexc932mo ago

The video one probably just got more views because people love watching trainwrecks. A silent apology shows they're actually fixing the problem instead of trying to perform for likes.

thompson.nathan2mo ago

Strong disagree on this one. The silent apology is just as calculated as the video, maybe even more. It lets them control the whole story with zero accountability because nobody can point to what exactly they said sorry for. Seems like a convenient way to sweep stuff under the rug without having to face any real follow up questions. People watching the video might be looking for a trainwreck, but at least they're getting the full picture instead of carefully edited silence.

christopher_wells41mo ago

Silent apology is just damage control pretending to be humble. Video apology shows the founder's face which forces them to own the mistake. If they're willing to stand there and take questions, that builds more trust than a text post that could have been scheduled days before. Most people who buy from skincare brands want to feel like there's a real person behind the product. The video brand probably had a better bounce back because customers could see they actually understood what went wrong. Silent apology just makes people wonder what they're hiding.