Monthly Archives: November 2013

 In the Social Media Era, the digital public expects a response, or at the very least acknowledgement, to a perceived crisis almost immediately. The following are official brand responses to a perceived crises, both handled in very different ways. 

GAP recently was praised for its “rocket-fast” response to racist vandalism of one of its Ads in a New York subway.  GAP’s reaction was quick, decisive and sought to correct the problem immediately. Read…

Lululemon was recently the victim of a self-inflicted crisis where the founder dismissed an apparent product flaw by blaming larger women’s body shapes for exacerbating the issue. This ignited like a molotov cocktail of negative sentiment. Lululemon was roasted in social media channels for not living up to its inclusive and progressive brand values. (Lululemon Manifesto)

So, what led to success for the GAP and failure for Lululemon?

Timeliness of Response:

The GAP responded immediately, within 18 hours of finding the issue through monitoring social media channels.  It is important to note that the Tweet of origin occurred at 5:00pm and the GAP sprung to action just before noon the next day. One can reasonably assume GAP waited until just before lunch to try to capitalize on peak Twitter traffic. (see below) GAP wanted its audience to know that it had acknowledged the issue and is taking swift action.

Lululemon took nearly 4 days to formulate the apololgy. The negative press started almost immediately after the interview aired and Lululemon’s silence on the subject not only added to the negative sentiment but apparent ambivalence is almost worse than a direct admission of guilt in the Social Media ecosystem. Mistakes can potentially be forgiven but ignoring there is a problem incites rage among those offended.

Substance of Apology:

The GAP contacted the author of the original Tweet to message them privately with more information about the location of the ad. The implication with the framing of this response is that the GAP is owning the responsibility to remedy the situation rather than simply the offence on an outside party. GAP doesn’t even attempt to deflect or attribute blame.

The GAP then changed the home page picture as a measure of support and a reinforcement of the intent of the original message which is about inclusiveness and racial harmony. The perception of their response is that they are primarily concerned with the feelings of the public who are offended and less concerned with punishing the vandals that defaced their marketing materials.

Lululemon’s apology was framed as an internal-facing address, Chip Wilson  apologized directly to the employees of the company for the bad publicity he brought the company and putting them in a difficult position. There was no attempt to accept responsibility for his own actions, which was initially caused by deflecting responsibility for the previous apparent product flaw. In a sense, the audience that was originally offended was left out of the apology entirely, further compounding the negative sentiment due to late response.

Avenue/Audience of Address:

GAP chose to broadcast its action in a very public venue, Twitter. This appears to have had an inclusive effect, bringing the public “in” on the solution and making a very clear statement that the brand will accept racial intolerance.

Lululemon’s apology was constructed in a way that the public seems to be eavesdropping on an internal communiqué. Mr Wilson turns the prospective apology into a self-deprecating appeal to thank his employees for their service and strength while the brand moves forward despite his mistakes. The apology seems to suggest the company itself is the victim. This further enrages the negative sentiment inferno and tarnishes brand value (the extent of which is difficult to measure).

Each response had an greater affect on brand sentiment than the original crisis itself.

The net short-run result is that GAP was able to add an element of social concern  to its brand value proposition by dealing with this issue promptly and effectively. GAP’s response seemed at the same time effortless and socially conscious. This is great value for a brand that can get great mileage from this particular flavour of differentiation. It is predominantly known for conservative, middle-American values and the response adds an element of freshness and progressiveness.

Lululemon, on the other hand, distances itself from the image it tries to impart with its brand value proposition. It’s response seemed clumsy, cumbersome and seemed to lack leadership, foresight and direction. The mishandling of this issue makes it look uncaring and old-fashioned, with an attitude more fitting of a 60’s male-dominated corporate boardroom than the preferred brand image of a progressive, female-empowering “fro’yo and yoga” lifestyle brand.