PA's Baseball Apology Rankings

Here are our evaluations of the recent string of HGH-steroid induced-baseball apologies.

Eric Gagne (score 2/10):

"I'm here to let you know I feel bad for my family, what they had to go though, and all my friends, especially my teammates here with Milwaukee. I think that's a distraction that shouldn't be taking place. I'm just here to help the Milwaukee Brewers get to the World Series and playoffs, and that's all I really care about."

"Since 2004, Major League Baseball has done everything in their power to clean up the game, and I think they've done a great job. Right now, I just want to go forward. Major League Baseball is ready to go forward, and hopefully all the fans are ready to do that."

"Right now, I'm just looking forward to pitching for the Milwaukee Brewers in 2008, to do good, have fun and enjoy the game. It's sad, everything that happened, and I think right now we're looking forward to playing baseball in '08."

Gagne's was clearly the weakest of all five apologies, because of how dismissive it was. It failed to accept responsibility for anything other than a "distraction that shouldn’t be taking place." He feels bad for his family but doesn’t appear to be particularly contrite and apologetic with respect to taking HGH. The implication here is that had it not been for the Mitchell Report there would be no reason to apologize or distract his family. The mistake is implicit rather than explicitly acknowledged. He accepted no responsibility and decided to take no questions after his very brief statement. This last item is relevant because it conveys a clear unwillingness to suffer any consequences, including the consequences of investing even a few more minutes of his time to face a probative press corps.

Paul Lo Duca (4/10):

“In regards to Senator Mitchell’s Report, I apologize to my family, all my fans and to the entire baseball community for mistakes in judgment I made in the past and for the distractions that resulted.”

Unlike Gagne, Lo Duca does express an apology to the relevant audience, but, like Gagne, he is apologizing for "mistakes in judgments" and "distractions." The common theme is a reluctance to come clean with respect to what everyone now sees as a serious breach of trust and sportsmanship. Another problem was Lo Duce's refusal to comment on whether he thought the Mitchell Report's allegations about him were accurate -- "I'm not going to comment on that." Unlike Pettitte, Lo Duca stopped short of a full and complete apology.

Brian Roberts (5/10 and then 2/10):

"It's life. You make bad decisions, you pay whatever price there is and you move on. It's not the end of the world. It's not the biggest thing in the world to me. It's really not. I've sincerely apologized and I know I made a mistake, but it won't change the rest of my life. I won't let it change the rest of my life."

This is an interesting case of an apology being issued, then followed by statements (above) that downplay the relevance of the initial apology. In fact, the statement appears to downplay the costs and overall relevance/significance of the entire issue. In the grand scheme of things he is probably right, but it would help for him not to downplay those costs to him. If the issue is not that significant, then the apology is not that impressive.

Andrew Pettitte (8/10):

Andy Pettitte has come off comparatively quite well.

"I want to apologize to the New York Yankees' and to the Houston Astros' organizations and to their fans and to all my teammates and to all of baseball fans for the embarrassment I have caused them. I also want to tell anyone that is an Andy Pettitte fan I am sorry, especially any kids that might look up to me."

"I know that once I have this press conference and talk to everybody about this and share everything with you, I think the truth will set you free. I think I'm going to be able to sleep a lot better at night once all this gets by."

"I am sorry for not telling the whole truth in my original statement," Pettitte said. "I never wanted to bring my dad into a situation like this. This was between me and him, and no one else. I testified about my dad in part because I felt in my heart I had to, but mainly because he urged me to tell the truth, even if it hurt him."

This not only hits many of the ingredients the other two apologies missed, but the fact that his father was somehow implicated because he provided two of the syringes speaks volumes about the costs and consequences Pettitte was willing to accept to begin to make things right. These costs are really important demonstrations of a willingness to pay for the mistake. It certainly goes a long way toward making his apology much stronger, and significantly more credible. Pettitte took a full hour to issue the apology and answer questions, the others took a few minutes and refused to invest the time to answer questions form the press. It’s interesting that Pettitte's apology comes off much better in relation to so many others, because they were so bad in comparison

But here are a few of the problems with Pettitte's apology as expressed in some of his other comments, particularly his steadfast reluctance to call it "cheating."

"From the bottom of my heart I know why I did this. I didn't do it to try and get an edge on anyone, I didn't do it to get stronger or faster or throw harder. I did it because I was told it might be able to help me. If people think I'm lying, then they should call me a cheater. Do I think I am a cheater? I don't. From the bottom of my heart, God knows my heart, I know why I was doing this. Was it stupid? Yeah it was stupid. Was I desperate? Yeah I was probably desperate. I wish I hadn't done it obviously, but I don't see myself as a cheater."

The problem is that it clearly was cheating, under any generally accepted interpretation of the rules governing MLB, even if Pettitte refuses to admit it. This is a point he could have conceded without any additional consequences or costs to his already damaged reputation. But he didn’t, most probably because an admission of cheating is a very tough pill to swallow in the sporting world.

To Apologize or Not to Apologize?

In his February 28 Blog posting entitled "On the Inadvisability of Apologizing," Stanley Bing commented on the Maxim debacle and the implications for the practice of apologizing more generally. He writes:

"I read an interesting item in a trade publication this morning. It’s about Maxim Magazine, which many men read for the articles....Okay, now what strikes you about this? Several things occur to me:

1. If Mr. Kaminsky had not apologized, I would not have been aware of his distress or the depredations his magazine had wrought on contemporary culture;

2. The apology did not make Maxim look any better, in fact created the impression that this happens all the time and that on this occasion they got caught;

3. It was probably better for the Black Crowes that nobody knew about it either. Now not only readers of Maxim know that the magazine’s reviewer thought the album was so boring he couldn’t even finish listening to it, but readers of the Hollywood Reporter do, too, and that includes a lot of people in the entertainment business, whereas readers of Maxim are not always in that psychographic."

I responded to Bing's post by pointing out that his argument was interesting but incredibly weak. As I explained in my comments, I can easily think of (and offer) hundreds of reasons, examples, research reports and studies from the business, medical and sports worlds that support the exact opposite argument. In fact, the Maxim example disproves Bing's point -- had the magazine's editors issued a "better" apology the entire matter would have disappeared. It was the absence of an apology that escalated their PR crisis and will probably lead to the firing of Maxim's managing editor and music critic.

Bing's reply appears below:

"You know, what really interests me about the whole apology thing is not really whether people should do it or not. We know that an apology is appropriate and necessary in a lot of situations. What I think I’m writing about here is that in our culture apologies are not sufficient. They are received poorly and often function not as they were intended to do… rather, they incite those who have been wronged to ever-greater levels of indignation. Maybe what I’m thinking about is how we’ve lost the ability to accept an apology with grace. For some reason, only decent people tend to be the ones who offer apologies, and are punished for it. It’s the losers who never apologize and therefore never have to pay for their actions. This all comes back to corporations. Corporations that apologize for things, like governments that do so, are not rewarded for their honesty and humility. They are crushed. So what’s the upside?"

My response follows:

I appreciate your concession, Bing, that “an apology is appropriate and necessary in a lot of situations.” But you go on to argue “that in our culture apologies are not sufficient. They are received poorly and often function not as they were intended to do… rather, they incite those who have been wronged to ever-greater levels of indignation.”

Bing, this is simply not the case, but I don’t fault you for thinking it is. As someone who has spent a great deal of time working through so many different aspects of apologies I can assure you that if delivered well they can do wonders — in any business, political or sports setting. For example, we recently reviewed several HGH-steroid-induced-apologies from several MLB players for CNN’s Sports Illustrated.

What we found, as expected, was that Andy Pettitte did much better job than everyone else — including Eric Gagne and Paul Lo Duca — for very predictable reasons. We haven’t “lost the ability to accept an apology with grace”, we’re just becoming a little tired of weak, self-serving apologies that are dishonest and dismissive. And with respect to corporations, those executives and CEOs who take customer service and customer loyalty very seriously are rewarded with an expanding customer and client base usually taken from other companies whose executives just don’t get it. The facts on this issue are not on your side, Bing, but your opinion about apologies, unfortunately, does represent the conventional wisdom.

Thanks for a great exchange on an important subject

Peter

Another Maxim Apology, Please!

When news of Maxim's fabricated review of the Black Crowes' latest CD surfaced, the magazine's editorial director was quoted as saying:

"I will be the last person to mince words here: This is a mistake. It's a mistake that won't happen again, but it's not a mistake that appears in other parts."

But it appears that fabricated reviews are indeed mistakes that have been repeated in other reviews published by the magazine. We now have reports of a Maxim review of rap star Nas' forthcoming (but not yet released and still in production) album.

Oddly enough, the magazine assigned the exact same rating they gave to the Black Crowes' unreleased album -- 2.5 stars out of five.

"I'm finishing the album now," Nas pointed out, "and it will be out April 22. I don't know what a music rating from Maxim is. I don't know what it even means really. I'd prefer [a review from] Playboy."

Here's a Perfect Apology Team prediction -- things are going to get pretty ugly for Maxim's editorial staff very quickly, all because of their failure to take the time to craft a decent apology to the Black Crowes in the first place. In hindsight, insulting the band by refusing to apologize directly to them was a pretty bad editorial decision. Either James Kaminsky (Maxim's editorial director) is completely clueless and/or out of the loop, or he's hiding many more skeletons in the music critics' closet. In either case his job is in serious jeopardy.

Danish Cartoons and Demands for Apologies

Officials from several Mideast states are demanding apologies from the government of Denmark for a decision by 17 Danish newspapers to re-publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad -- cartoons first published in 2005 that sparked widespread protest throughout the Muslim world.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/13/denmark.cartoon/?iref=mpstoryview

The decision to re-publish the cartoons followed the arrest by Danish police in Copenhagen of several people suspected of plotting to kill cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. It appears as though the freedoms of speech and expression are competing with the freedom of religion and related protections against persecution for those religious beliefs. Islamic groups are claiming that the cartoons will provoke violence against those who subscribe to Islam. On the other hand, those who defend the publication are quick to point out that much (if not all) of the civil-liberty damaging violence perpetrated so far has been directed against the people/media outlets who published the cartoons, not against individuals concerned about being persecuted for their religious beliefs. The question is which of these fundamental freedoms is really in jeopardy today and, by extension, which should take precedence in this case?

A Minimal Maxim Apology: We Give it a 2/10

Editors of Maxim Magazine have issued an apology to their readers for a published review of the Black Crowes’ forthcoming album, Warpaint. The problem with the review was that it was largely fabricated by Maxim’s writer and music critic, David Peisner, who heard only one song from the album. The single track, entitled "Goodbye Daughters of the Revolution," was the only one released by the band, so it would have been impossible for Peisner to hear let alone honestly review the entire CD.

James Kaminsky, Maxim’s editorial director, issued the following apology on February 26:

"It is Maxim's editorial policy to assign star ratings only to those albums that have been heard in their entirety. Unfortunately, that policy was not followed in the March 2008 issue of our magazine and we apologize to our readers."

As apologies go this one was pretty bad and will predictably make things considerably worse for the writer and Maxim’s editors. There was no mention in Kaminski’s very brief statement of a direct apology to the Black Crowes whose album was unjustly trashed. The apology focussed exclusively on Maxim’s readers as if they were somehow seriously harmed by the writer’s decision to bypass “editorial policy.” Left unanswered are the many questions the case raises about whether this is common practice, what Maxim will do to prevent fabricated reviews from being published in the future, or what if anything the magazine intends to do to compensate the Black Crowes for the magazine’s serious breach of ethics and editorial standards. The failure to satisfy most (if not all) of the ingredients of a perfect apology will inevitably push band members to seek not only a more complete public apology but fair compensation for the bad press. Most of what will very likely follow could easily have been prevented -- had Maxim accepted responsibility for publishing the writer’s review and issued something approaching an honest mea culpa, the Black Crowes would likely have let the matter drop. Instead, the editors compounded what should have been considered a pretty serious mistake in the first place by insulting the very people who deserved a decent apology. As expected, the band’s spokesman released the following reply to Maxim’s non-apology:

"Maxim's fabrication of an album review is highly unethical and indefensible. This issue potentially pertains to all artists and their craft, and a publication which apparently has no respect for either. It comes as no surprise that Maxim has elected to apologise to their readers now that the world has been informed of their deception; however, that is not full accountability. In my opinion, Maxim's 'apology' is self-serving damage control by failing to mention the Black Crowes. The appropriate action from Maxim is to immediately issue a public apology to the Black Crowes for disparaging both the band and their soon to be released new album Warpaint without having heard the material."

August Brown, from the LA Times’ The Guide blog said it best:

“One would think that if Peisner were a rogue reviewer firing off baseless opinions like a critical Yosemite Sam, Maxim would be first in line to distance itself from him, but the magazine didn’t here. There’s a whiff of malfeasance in the air to Maxim’s non-apology, but I guess this is where the magazine is drawing its lines for editorial honesty. Maxim’s not supposed to be the Economist or anything, but still. Next they’re going to tell me that their top 10 tips for talking your girlfriend into a threesome weren’t actually field-tested.”

A 'Weak' BBC Apology Compounds the Need for a 'Perfect' Apology

Here's an interesting case of executives of a major media outlet, Britain's BBC Radio 2, exacerbating a public relations crisis by failing to issue something approaching a 'good', let alone a 'perfect', apology after racist comments DJ Sarah Kennedy. Kennedy was complaining on-air about almost hitting an "invisible" black pedestrian who was wearing dark clothes -- "It's lucky he opened his mouth to yawn or do something and I saw him."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/25/bbc.radio?gusrc=rss&feed=media

For whatever convoluted reason, BBC executives mistakenly concluded that a well crafted, on-air and very public apology by Kennedy's would have insulted or re-offended too many people by reminding them of what Kennedy said. The radio station instead decided to issue an off-air apology, which offended many more people. Even assuming BBC officials believed they were being sensitive it's astonishing that none of the BBC's PR or marketing experts raised the possibility that everyone else in the country would logically interpret their actions as an effort to minimize the costs of a PR disaster.

McCain's Immediate Apology Helps Campaign

Bill Cunningham, a conservative radio talk show host, was responsible for introducing Arizona Senator John McCain at a rally in Cincinnati on Tuesday. In his introductory comments, Cunningham made a point on three separate occasions of referring specifically to Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, and went on to call him a "Chicago-style Daley politician who's picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you're going to have in your pocket is change." McCain was very quick to distance himself from the comments as soon as he approached the press at the event. And despite not having made the comments himself he stated:

"Whatever suggestion was made that was in any way disparaging to the integrity, character, honesty of either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton was wrong and I condemn it. I will take responsibility and I apologize for it. I did not know about these remarks but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them. My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign. I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."

McCain went on to describe both Obama and Clinton as "honorable Americans." And in response to a question about whether it was ever appropriate to exploit the fact that Obama's middle name is "Hussein" McCain answered -- "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."

As political apologies go this one was very good -- it was not only immediate but very specific with respect to his decision to accept full responsibility for Cunningham's comment. Peppering his apology by complimenting his opponents as "honorable Americans" will not only resolve what could have been a potentially harmful public relations crisis, but will paint McCain in a very positive light and turn a potential PR disaster into a push to his campaign.

Our Growing Addiction to Public Apologies…and Soap Operas:

A Google News search for the keyword 'apology' would list thousands of business, sports, entertainment and political stories written by distinguished journalist and covered by prominent media outlets. The most fascinating thing about trends for public apologies is that the number of mea culpas is steadily escalating. What is it about apologies that we find so interesting and absorbing to us, and so important to the press?

We at PA believe that public apologies are intriguing because they raise captivating questions about our own principles and standards of morality and ethics, our own hopes and wishes to be forgiven for our transgressions and mistakes, and our interest in figuring out how to apoligize well when we have to (or how to avoid doing it really poorly when the time comes). It's as if we live vicariously through those who are faced with the burden of coming clean when challenged to correct their mistake. It's the secular version of the Catholic confessional, except in these cases the punishment is often more painful than having to recite ten Hail Mary's or a dozen Our Fathers.

Apologies are also intriguing because it seems as though everyone -- Olympic athletes and other sports heroes, movie stars, CEOs of major corporations, senior political officials, and even a Queen -- is compelled at some point in time to face the music. And we are captivated by these apologies because, in some small way, we get to witness the spectacle of an accomplished, rich, powerful individual at a low point in their lives. Their pain makes our world seem a little more appealing by contrast, if only very briefly. It usually doesn’t last, and once the PR machine kicks in and an effective enough apology is delivered to manage the crisis, their lives go back to being a little more impressive and ours a little more regular. But for that brief, fleeting moment in time it was better to be us than them. The same principle explains the enormous appeal of soap operas -- public apologies are like micro-soap operas for people who don’t have the time to watch a lot of tv.

Demanding Apologies

(Part II of 2 -- from our previous post of February 24th)

Recently, Iran demanded an apology from the US and other western powers in light of a recently released report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that confirmed Iran's compliance with the non-proliferation treaty. The government of Oran not only demanded an apology but compensation for the years of economic sanctions imposed on the country because of the strong suspicion that they were processing weapons grade uranium. What is particularly surprising is that a few officials in Tehran are actually expecting a response. Ironically, the initial reports that began to raise serious questions about Iran's nuclear program (and the government's failure to comply with the NPT inspections regime) were produced by the IAEA -- the UN's proliferation and disarmament watchdog. Ironically, the first intelligence report indicating that Iran's program was not as advanced or threatening as initially believed (and may even have been halted) was American produced by the US National Intelligence Estimate office -- the IAEA's latest report was based on the NIE's findings. If anything, Iran should be thanking Washington and the CIA for producing a report that will lower the chances of the international community imposing sanctions. As far as Iran's apology demands go they will probably be waiting for quite a long time. After all, they are responsible for failing to comply with IAEA mandated inspections and created the crisis in the first place. Ironically, critics of American intelligence estimates prior to the Iraq invasion are now more than willing to accept as absolutely accurate the latest US intelligence estimates that paint Iran as less of a threat. Why the sudden respect for and confidence in US intelligence?

And actor Will Smith demanded and received an apology from the World Entertainment News Ltd (WENN) for a December article claiming that Smith said Hitler "was a good person". The problem was that Smith never uttered those words, so WENN was forced not only to issue an apology but to formally deliver it to London's high court. The company also agreed to pay "unspecified damages", which Smith has promised to donate to charity.

Delivering and Demanding Apologies

In addition to baseball's recent steroid-induced apologies (covered here), we've also come across several other apology-related stories that we'd like to comment on. Some stories are about delivering apologies, others about demanding apologies, and one story dealt with a royal apology to a six year-old girl after a run in with a hungry (or angry) royal swan.

Delivering Apologies:

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband apologized for Britain's role in US Extraordinary Rendition efforts in 2002. In this case the practice involved the kidnapping and arrest of terrorist suspects who were then transported, confined and tortured (including water boarding) on route to the US through British territory -- the flights landed on the island of Diego Garcia, a British protectorate, before moving on to the US. Miliband began his statement to the British Parliament by admitting that "the House and the Government will share deep disappointment at this news and about its late emergence. That disappointment is shared by our US allies (who) recognize the absolute imperative for the Government to provide accurate information to Parliament." The Foreign Secretary stated the government was "very sorry indeed" for the role British territory played. The categorical assurances from the US State Department that British territory was not used obviously put the British government in a particularly embarrassing position of having to admit they accepted the misleading American assurances in good faith. In addition to the British apology, Miliband went on to acknowledge that US officials also "expressed regret" for not acknowledging the renditions through Diego Garcia. "We have to assure ourselves these procedures will never happen again," Miliband stated. Expressions of regret by Washington in no way constitute an apology by any stretch of the imagination -- Bush administration officials are likely convinced that these are necessary evils in a post-9/11 world. The real question today, of course, is whether a Clinton or Obama presidency will change the policies or produce an apology for past American foreign policy decisions and actions. We at PA are not holding our breath.

CBS' Big Brother contestant Adam Jasinsky issued a very weak apology to the various branches and affiliates of the American Autism society for his truly idiotic comments on the show over a week ago. In a conversation with one of the other contestants on the show, Adam explained what he would do with the money should he win the contest (fat chance of this happening). He was quoted as saying that, among other things, he would invest in a beauty and hair salon "so retards can…get their hair done." As someone who claims to be the public relations person for the United Autism Foundation (it's not yet clear whether this foundation even exists) Adam was either lying about his job/position or is incredibly incentive for a "public relations" expert responsible for pushing this particular cause. In either case he owes a lot of people a sincere and credible apology that goes well beyond his expression of regret for "any and all inappropriate, unprofessional and misleading comments" he made on the show. This apology is perhaps one of the worst we've come across. In addition to the obvious people who deserve Adam's mea culpa, this guy should also be apologizing for seriously undermining the credibility of so many national and regional autism organizations trying to generate funding and support for their incredibly important and worthy cause. That is perhaps one of the more unfortunate consequences of this screw-up. Hopefully the real costs (which will still not be sufficient by any means) will be incurred when the viewers kick the jerk off the show. Big Brother's producers should also have considered a more meaningful apology -- "We certainly find the statements made by Adam to be offensive, but believe they were countered by the immediate reaction of shock and condemnation from a fellow houseguest, Sheila." We at PA completely understand the slippery slope associated with chastising (or throwing off) a "reality show" contestant for offensive comments, and we understand there is screening to minimize the risk of something like this happening. But this was a battle the network should have picked and exploited for a truly good cause, if only to make an important point that even reality TV shows have limits. The only reasonable alternative at this point is for the CBS producers of the show to issue their own apology and emphasize the crucial importance of the autism cause. Hopefully they will do this when Adam is inevitably kicked off for his stupidity.

Chinese movie star Edison Chen issued an apology for inadvertently letting some very private videos and pictures of former girlfriends get into the wrong hands. Chen decided, following his apology, to take a leave of absence once his current contract obligations were fulfilled. As apologies go, Chen's expression of remorse came with an announcement that he will be taking a break from acting and giving up potentially lucrative scripts and projects. This is noteworthy gesture.

And finally, even the Queen was compelled recently to offer a royal apology for the injury to a little girl after she was bitten by one of the Queen's royal swans. Six-year-old Elishia Stevenson sent the Queen an email note about the incident and, in return, received a brief email reply written and sent by the Queen's lady in waiting -- "The Queen thought it kind of you to write to her and was sorry to hear about the swan." As apologies go this one is far from emotionally draining, but that's besides the point in light of the completely blameless nature of the incident. The Queen's problem now, of course, is that she didn’t personally craft the reply and may have to apologize for this.

Check back tomorrow for Part II: Demanding Apologies

Other Perfectly Good Reasons to Apologize

Here's a great list of other important reasons why apologies makes so much sense. They can provide excellent opportunities to satisfy so many other goals we typically set of ourselves, our relationships and our lives.

From Earthling Communication

1. When you admit your mistakes and don’t hide your weaknesses, other people you come across are more able to do the same. They own more courage to begin practicing the power of apologizing. You act as a role model and an encourager.

2. We all are extremely flawed...If we were cars, we’d breakdown every 50 miles and require servicing just as often. But we are not mechanical beings. Thank goodness for that....Apologies are an absolute necessity to bring balance in our lives.

3. When apologizing you begin to fix the problem you created and the healing process begins. By not apologizing you are merely sweeping dirt under a rug. By not apologizing you are covering up your actions hoping to get on with life. It doesn’t work that way. The problem will reappear and bite you when you least expect it and at the worst time. That is one of Murphy’s Law which states that the worst thing will happen the worst way and at the worst possible time.

4. If someone hurts you it is justice to have them apologize to you. For some reason this is not the case when we hurt someone. The hurting person desires your sympathy as much as you desire theirs.

5. Apologizing is giving back what you have taken. You restore the victims feeling of worthiness and self-esteem. When a person is continually damaged from someone else’s actions and lack of apologies, their entire self-concept goes straight in the bin. They feel absolutely useless. Yes, not apologizing is that powerfully destructive. This principle is more so true for children. A child cannot be expected to accept other’s mistakes that damage how they feel of themselves as being a part of life.

6. By having complete responsibility of your actions you possess an enormous amount of self-control. You do not become a victim of others. You become your own person. You begin to create your own destiny. By taking action and guiding your thoughts and feelings, you stop blaming others for what has happened to you and your relationships

7. By sincerely apologizing you show effort in a relationship. You are taking action on the relationship by apologizing. That is an entire different mindset to avoiding mistakes in an attempt to “secretly get by”.

8. We become greater than our desires. When asking for forgiveness you rise above your destructive inner desire to not show remorse and you become a far greater person. You no longer need to cover up your behavior as you have brought it into the light. This takes courage!

9. Your newfound courage will roll into other areas of your life as you begin to face up to other difficult issues you had avoided in the past.

10. Apologizing produces guilt in other people for the better. They see you apologize for your mistake and compare it to their contribution to the mistake or another mistake they’ve made. They may become aware that what they have done is far worse then your mistake which produces guilt and possibly leads them too also apologizing. You can say apologizing has a “chain-reaction” affect.

Baseball Apologies Strike Out!

John Donovan of Sports Illustrated asked us for our take on some of the recent apologies offered by several Major League Baseball players following their involvement in the HGH steroids scandal -- specifically on the mea culpas delivered by Eric Gagne, Andy Pettitte and Paul Lo Duca.

The PA team was more than happy to oblige.

Check out John's article to see how they fared.

Valentine's Day is the Perfect Day for the Perfect Apology.

We’re not suggesting you replace 'I love you' with 'I’m sorry', but think back over the past year. If you think hard enough you’ll probably remember some incident, some event or argument that could have included an apology, no matter how insignificant the mistake.

The point is not really to apologize for something your husband, wife, girlfriend, or boyfriend has already forgotten, but to use the occasion to offer a small apology as a way of saying I love you. The fact that the mistake has been forgotten is the best time to apologize for it, especially on Valentines day.

It’s just a small, added touch that can turn a simple I love you into a more meaningful illustration of that love.

How to Apologise

How to Apologise from our friends across the pond. Well worth a view!


How To Apologise

Here's An Apple Apology That Deserves Some Credit.

To all iPhone customers:

I have received hundreds of emails from iPhone customers who are upset about Apple dropping the price of iPhone by $200 two months after it went on sale. After reading every one of these emails, I have some observations and conclusions.

First, I am sure that we are making the correct decision to lower the price of the 8GB iPhone from $599 to $399, and that now is the right time to do it. iPhone is a breakthrough product, and we have the chance to 'go for it' this holiday season. iPhone is so far ahead of the competition, and now it will be affordable by even more customers. It benefits both Apple and every iPhone user to get as many new customers as possible in the iPhone 'tent'. We strongly believe the $399 price will help us do just that this holiday season.

Second, being in technology for 30+ years I can attest to the fact that the technology road is bumpy. There is always change and improvement, and there is always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price or the new operating system or the new whatever. This is life in the technology lane. If you always wait for the next price cut or to buy the new improved model, you'll never buy any technology product because there is always something better and less expensive on the horizon. The good news is that if you buy products from companies that support them well, like Apple tries to do, you will receive years of useful and satisfying service from them even as newer models are introduced.

Third, even though we are making the right decision to lower the price of iPhone, and even though the technology road is bumpy, we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price. Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these.

Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and who is not receiving a rebate or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of any product at an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store. Details are still being worked out and will be posted on Apple's website next week. Stay tuned.

We want to do the right thing for our valued iPhone customers. We apologize for disappointing some of you, and we are doing our best to live up to your high expectations of Apple.

Steve Jobs
Apple CEO

The PA Team gives Steve Jobs' business apology an 8/10 -- it hits all the marks but doesn't come quite close enough to fairly compensating established customers with a full $200. However, we suspect it dealt with the problem and complaints very well.

Politicians, Apologies, and PA Scores

With all the spin-doctors and PR professionals our politicians have at their disposal, we are continually surprised by the poor quality of their apologies. A quick look at what some of them have said, what they did wrong, how they apologized (in their words), followed by our ranking.

1. John McCain (Republican Presidential Candidate) -- "Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today." McCain was referring to how easy it was to walk freely around Baghdad on a visit to the war torn city, until pictures of him in full combat gear and completely surrounded by dozens of special and regular units of the US armed forces appeared in the media.

McCain's Apology -- "Of course I am going to misspeak and I've done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future."

PA's Apology Score -- 0/10

2. George Allen (US Senator who was running for Re-Election) -- "This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us everywhere... Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

Allen's Apology -- "I would never want to demean him as an individual. I do apologize if he's offended by that. That was no way the point."

PA's Apology Score -- 0/10

3. Senator Joseph Biden (Senator and 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate) -- "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Biden's Apology -- "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama."

PA's Apology Score -- 4/10

4. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- apologizing for mistakes related to the apprehension and transfer of Canadian engineer, Maher Arar, to Syria to face imprisonment and torture for suspected ties to terrorism.

Rice’s Apology -- "We do absolutely not wish to transfer anyone to any place in which they might be tortured. We do not think that this case was handled as it should have been.…I think we and the Canadians do not have exactly the same understanding of what is possible in the future for Arar in terms of travel and the like. But we have told the Canadian government that we do not think that this was handled particularly well in terms of our own relationship and that we will try to do better in the future."

PA’s Apology Score -- 1/10


Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney -- "I took compensation from Mr. Schreiber for serious work done on his behalf around the world. I was paid ($275,000 in cash) to execute this mandate." The money was subsequently deposited in two safety deposit boxes in Montreal and New York, presumably to avoid paying taxes.

Mulroney's Apology -- "The truth is that I should have declined the offer. I should have insisted the payment in a more transparent or accountable manner. By not doing so I inadvertently created an impression of impropriety that I hope will not reflect adversely on the high office I was privileged to hold. When I look back on it today I realize I made a serious error of judgment in receiving a payment in cash for this assignment even though it was decidedly not illegal to do so. That mistake in judgment was mine alone. I apologize and I accept full responsibility for it."

PA's Apology Score -- 6/10

Australia's Apology to the "Stolen Generations"

When Australia's new legislature convenes on Wednesday, February 13, the first item on government's agenda will be for the Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, to issue a formal public apology aimed at the "Stolen Generations" -- aboriginal children who, from 1915 and 1969, were forcibly taken from their parents to be placed in institutions or raised by white families. The concept of restorative justice embedded in the recommendation that the Australian government apologize to its indigenous population deserves serious consideration -- for the same reason similar recommendations make sense in the US for apologies to American Indians and African Americans. The most significant barrier to issuing these apologies is the mistaken assumption that once issued tens of thousand of legal cases will be launched by lawyers searching for compensation for their clients. This fear is unwarranted, for many of the reasons outlined in www.perfectapology.com. Governments should seriously consider taking the lead from medical apologies and the full disclosure movement sweeping medical and malpractice litigation. The political benefits will far outweigh any costs (real or imagined).