Comment by el_dev_hell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by el_dev_hell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Apologizing just gives fuel for revenge. In this case I think because the harm done was so small, it was economical to apologize.

Yeah, it's always a tradeoff.

I worked at a non-tech fortune 500 for a few years and was able to see the inside of repair/warranty/disputes. These were very high ticket items and the brand was/is very highly regarded for after sales support.

In the employee handbook for repair support staff (the people communicating with clients about the status of their repair/claim) there was a passage similar to the below:

"Apologies MUST NOT acknowledge anything other than the customer's explicit feelings without written acknowledgment of fault from $MANAGER".

I asked a member of that team to decipher WTF that meant, and they showed me an example email. They were only allowed to apologise in the below way:

"Hi bob, we're sorry you feel our product is faulty".

I always found these weasel apologies infuriating in my personal life.

Yep that’s awful. The reason for that rule is probably legal. If your company is taken to court over damages resulting from a faulty product, a written acknowledgment of blame will probably make that worse for the company.

It’s still awful though. I would hesitate to do business with a company that doesn’t take any responsibility for their own products.

Right, so the company is saying "I will never acknowledge our mistakes because if I do we might have to fix them." or "I am trying to trick you into thinking I am apologizing even though I'm not".

That's more offensive and insulting and time-wasting than saying nothing.

More charitably, people have an instinctive tendency to bend over backwards to apologize for things they're not responsible for in the interest of cordial relations. This is good if you're casually trying to make friends, but bad if the other party might take you to court. Companies therefore very reasonably explicitly correct for this behaviour.

Yeah, I agree. Avoiding apologies is probably a good idea for the company. The part that stuck with me was the "acceptable" pseudo-apology.

Not apologised at all comes off better than a backhanded apology IMO.

You're right about it being a tricky attempt at faking an apology.

But the below isn't correct:

> Right, so the company is saying "I will never acknowledge our mistakes because if I do we might have to fix them."

I probably didn't word it perfectly in my original comment, but the company did acknowledge mistakes quite often after assessments of the claimed faulty/broken/whatever product (roughly 30% of faulty claims were approved and either repaired or reimbursed from memory). The rejected claims were often taken to court (like 15%) due to the value of products.

I was mostly commenting on the deception of only allowing pseudo-apologies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com