‘A stiff apology is a second insult... The injured party does not want to be compensated because he has been wronged; he wants to be healed because he has been hurt.’
Gilbert K. Chesterton
‘No apologies, nah suckers I’m not sorry
You can all sue me, y’all could be the case of me
No apologies, y’all feelin’ the force of me
No remorse for me, like there was no recourse for me.’
Eminem, “No Apologies”
Chesterton and Eminem, finally together; a strange couple indeed, a mix that surprises and fascinates at the same time, just like pineapple-topped pizza. But that is another story.
Two posts ago, we concluded our analysis on how Prada is planning its presence online, saying: ‘In times of crisis and social interaction, democratisation and informal language, many luxury brands turned into friendlier entities. Prada, instead, chooses to stay true to the meaning of noblesse oblige: whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly.’
Apparently, they are not the only ones to prefer cold austerity instead of a more laid-back and “social” approach. Moreover, brands should remember that, thanks to an interesting invention called “the Internet”, whatever they say and do, for better or worse, is going to spread, fast and furious.
About two weeks ago, one of Dolce & Gabbana’s security guards banned a guy with a camera from taking a photo of their Hong Kong shop window. The day after, more than 2,000 people gathered to protest outside the store.
Overreaction? Nope, because the real problem was, as reported by Vogue: ‘Local newspaper Apple Daily alleges that the label defended its decision on the basis that the store is intellectual not public property, and claims that whilst Hong Kong locals are banned, mainland Chinese tourists are permitted to take pictures - an accusation Dolce & Gabbana denies.’
The Wall Street Journal’s blog gave an interesting account of the facts: ‘Local media recorded the store’s security staff enforcing the policy, triggering accusations of discrimination against Hong Kongers in favor of the wealthy mainland-Chinese tourists who keep such stores in business.’
The brand reacted: ‘Controversial statements reported in the Hong Kong press have not been made by Dolce & Gabbana nor its staff, and we strongly reject any racist or derogatory comments,’ said a D&G‘s spokesperson, ‘It is regrettable that Dolce & Gabbana has been brought into this matter, but we wish to underline that our company has not taken part in any action aiming at offending the Hong Kong public.’
But protesters kept doing what they do best, i.e. protesting. They demanded a proper apology from the luxury brand, which eventually came: ‘We understand that the events which unfolded in front of the Dolce & Gabbana Boutique on Canton Road have offended the citizens of Hong Kong, and for this we are truly sorry and we apologise. The Dolce & Gabbana policy is to welcome the Hong Kong people and that of the whole world respecting the rights of each individual and of the local laws.’
It is interesting to note what The Wall Street Journal’s blog wrote: ‘As Chinese New Year — a critical shopping season in Asia — drew near, Dolce & Gabbana issued a formal apology’.
The controversy spread like wildfire online, as well, with lots of people commenting on D&G’s Facebook page; ‘We are not idiots,’ said one protester ‘We fully understand your purpose of your “apology”. You don’t really care about [Hong Kong] people. You just don’t want to lose the turnover from the mainland (Chinese) tourist during the Lunar New Year holiday.’
London Web Agency Appnova – keep following us on Twitter @appnova and “like” us on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/appnova) for useful news and tasteful digressions about geeky stuff.