Fake or Real? The Role of Genuineness and Completeness in Social Media Brand Apologies

This study examines the effectiveness of real versus fake brand apologies in social media crises. While genuine apologies acknowledge responsibility and express authentic remorse, fake apologies mimic apologetic language without accountability, often shifting blame or minimizing the offense. Building on Image Repair Theory and the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), we differentiate between complete, incomplete, and fake apologies and test their effects on perceived sincerity, response efficacy, and negative electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). We also integrated perceived sincerity as a moderator.

An online experiment (N = 334) exposed participants to a brand transgression and one of five response types: two real apologies (incomplete vs. complete), two fake apologies, or no response. Results show that apology "realness" and completeness significantly affect recipient perceptions. Under high-severity conditions, only complete and genuine apologies effectively reduced negative eWOM.

These findings extend existing crisis communication frameworks by conceptualizing fake apologies as hybrid strategies that imitate “rebuild” responses but functionally align with “diminish” tactics. Practically, the study highlights the importance of issuing long, authentic apologies - especially in serious crises - to protect brand reputation and restore trust.