Every few months the marketing world latches onto a new trend. Some are refreshing. Some build genuine connections. Then there are those that are simply irritating and difficult to understand from a communication point of view. The latest trend of brands issuing tongue-in-cheek ‘apologies’ for being too good at what they do fits squarely into that last category.
You have seen them. A formal apology written on a letterhead in the tone of a crisis statement. Dramatic pauses. Heavy fonts. A sombre headline that announces ,“We are sorry”. Then the twist. The brand is not apologising for a mistake. It is apologising for being excellent. Too efficient. Too delicious. Too popular.
The idea is to be clever. The outcome is anything but.
From a reputation management perspective, the trend does not only fall flat. It contradicts what we know about trust, perception, and stakeholder expectations.
It creates a false sense of crisis
Crisis communication is a serious discipline. It is grounded in respect and responsibility. Its purpose is to reassure stakeholders and provide clarity during moments of genuine uncertainty. When brands mimic crisis structures for a joke, they distort the weight of that work. It signals to audiences that crisis language is a prop. The effect is subtle but corrosive.
If everything can be framed as a crisis, then nothing is taken seriously as a crisis. It becomes a communication equivalent of crying wolf. Real crises often involve safety concerns. People wonder whether there is a threat, whether loved ones are affected, and whether they need to take action. Using that emotional frame for entertainment feels careless.
This trend slips into the territory of crisis-styled clickbait. It borrows the gravity of a real crisis purely to attract attention.
It is an unnecessary apology
The logic behind the trend is puzzling. Why apologise for being the best? Why apologise at all? The moment a brand says “sorry”, even in jest, it puts itself on the back foot. It invites stakeholders to question whether something is wrong, even if the content later tries to redirect the message into something light-hearted.
Anyone who has worked in reputation management knows how quickly a single word can backfire. Years ago, a potential client proudly proposed a hook that presented themselves as crooks in order to get attention. It was meant as humour. Instead, it tread far too close to the very risks they needed to avoid.
When you are building a reputation, you steer away from negative words, negative associations, and anything that hints at crisis, even in jest.
We declined the work.
In reputation terms, you never voluntarily take a defensive stance when you are not under scrutiny. It weakens your signal and dilutes your strength.
It undermines credibility
Stakeholders value authenticity. They value messages that are rooted in sincerity, clarity, and respect. The mock apology trend unsettles that foundation. It takes a communication format designed for honesty and uses it for entertainment.
The result is a cheapened signal that chips away at hard-earned credibility.
Credibility sits at the heart of trust. Once that cracks, even slightly, it takes far more work to restore than it took to erode.
It strips value from genuine crisis communication
Practitioners who work in crisis management know how demanding and delicate this field is. Timing matters. Tone matters. Words carry weight. There is no room for theatricality. When brands produce spoof crisis statements, they weaken public understanding of what real crisis communication actually entails.
By turning a crisis statement into a gimmick, brands condition audiences to see the format as entertainment. When the next genuine crisis hits, stakeholders may not recognise the seriousness.
That hesitation can cost time and trust at the exact moment a brand needs both.
It signals insecurity rather than confidence
A brand that is genuinely confident in its product or service does not need to apologise for excellence. It does not need to mimic panic to attract attention. Confidence speaks plainly. It invites stakeholders into a conversation rather than forcing them into a guessing game.
Forward-thinking brands know that humility and strength can coexist. They also know that false humility rarely lands as humility. It is usually read as insecurity or manipulation.
A better way to communicate success
Brands should absolutely be clever, creative, and innovative. Wit has its place in communication. So does playfulness. The challenge is to use those tools in a way that strengthens reputation rather than puts it at risk.
Instead of pretending to apologise, brands can celebrate success honestly. They can highlight research-driven insights. They can share meaningful progress, real achievements, and genuine stories of value creation. These approaches feel confident rather than contrived.
No unnecessary theatrics required.
The reputation reminder
Trends come and go. They are tempting, and some can be useful. The key is to approach them mindfully and choose those that strengthen your relationship with stakeholders rather than confuse it. The brands that continue to be taken seriously will be those that ground their communication in clarity, values, and credibility.
Success does not need an apology. It stands firmly on its own.
Regine le Roux is a reputation specialist and managing director of Reputation Matters, a reputation management consultancy promoting sustainable organisational growth. She completed her Communication Management Honours degree Cum Laude at the University of Pretoria.
