Analysis: Dillard’s and an unsatisfying response on the Heroic Media controversy

  1. Dillard’s failed at the policy level.
  2. Dillard’s failed in its management training.
  3. The store manager badly misinterpreted corporate policy. Two years in a row. And there was no corporate corrective after the initial screw-up.
  4. The store manager has gone rogue.

In 1, no excuse. If 2, no excuse. Management training programs for a company like Dillard’s are incredibly rigorous. If 3, I guess we could perhaps credit that mistakes happen. But two years in a row? No excuse. (Unless this is a different store manager from last year, at which point we have even more evidence suggesting that the fault lies at the corporate level.) If 4, why haven’t I read about his/her firing? No business can tolerate an employee playing fast and loose with its brand reputation. Period. But I can’t take my eyes off that last sentence: “To the extent that this has offended anyone, we apologize.” Not we’re sorry we screwed up. Not we won’t do it again. Not we don’t support anti-abortion groups that have been accused of racist activity. None of that. Instead: we’re sorry you were offended, which is the iconic expression of faux-apology in this, the most spin-centric age of public communication in history. There is no acknowledgment of wrong-doing in this e-mail, and if thoughtful readers were to interpret this as meaning that Dillard’s doesn’t think it has done anything wrong, then it would hard to fault them. In light of all this, we’re probably justified noting that they did it before, they’re doing it again, they have offered nothing remotely like an honest mea culpa. As a result, there’s no reason to sympathize with the conclusion that the company’s statement hopes you’ll draw.

An Official Professional View

In a world where audiences don’t think too deeply about what corporations are actually saying underneath the artfully-spun language, this is masterful work. Except that the company has, in fact, offended a lot of people who do pay closer attention, who recognize misdirection and care more about the act than the silver tongue selling it. This, dear Dillard’s executive, is going to cost you money. Perhaps not a huge amount, but you have a fiduciary responsibility to care about activity that drives customers away. If you conclude that it’s worth it, that the anti-abortion market will cover your losses, or that the furor will die down with no lingering effect, and your board will condone the move, more power to you. You may be right. Regardless, customers can vote with their wallets and shareholders can sell if they don’t like the results they’re seeing. Or they can replace you and the board. Whatever. The market will decide, right? But this doesn’t have to be an either/or world. Companies that pay lip service to “taking no position” can behave in ways that actually bring their communities together, that are pro-people and pro-business, and they can do so without alienating huge segments of the market. I was dead serious when I composed those seven principles for corporate giving and I’d love to see Dillard’s living by them. And as crazy as it might sound, I’d love it if you hired me tomorrow to help you work on improving your corporate social responsibility efforts. Dillard’s has always been a brand that, for me, signified quality and value, and I’d love it if I could go back in a store and feel good about your commitment to the community, as well. I’m not holding my breath, of course. Meanwhile, the spokesperson’s e-mail is brief and tonally it wants to read like a statement of objective fact that will quickly make the “misunderstanding” go away. Maybe it will, or maybe this is just going to snowball. Or maybe it will hit a plateau and then kind of linger, waiting to erupt again. If I’m your PR counsel, though, my advice is to take it seriously. Very seriously. Act quickly and decisively to get your marketing activities in line with a productive community engagement policy. No subterfuge, no misdirection, and if you have screwed up, you need to admit and fix it. Right now. Best of luck.

Page 3 of 3 | Previous page

  1. English Teacher:

    Not disagreeing with your content in any way, but I want to ask you not to use the term “passive voice”. As a language teacher, I have a peeve about people castigating the passive voice when they don’t really know what it is and can’t identify it when they see it. The sentence you identify as “a passive voice swamp” is not actually in the passive voice, it’s in the active voice:
    “We sincerely regret that a store manager, without prior authorization, allowed a contrary impression to be created.”
    A passive voice version of the same sentence would be “That a contrary impression was allowed to be created by a store manager without prior authorization is sincerely regretted by us.”

    If you want to call it a disgustingly mealy-mouthed non-apology, or an outright lie, by all means go ahead. It appears to be both. But “We sincerely regret” and “a store manager…allowed” are decidedly active voice.

  2. Sam Smith:

    Upon further review, you’re right – not passive voice. Pure weasel and misdirection, but not passive.

    As for that pet peeve, the issue isn’t “don’t know what it means,” but instead was more like “got in a hurry and got a tad careless.” The process of earning BA, MA and PhD, all with a hefty dose of English and writing involved, taught me to know better.