Sharon Stone Fiasco: Apology should be extended even if original intent was not to offend

There’s no doubt Sharon Stone’s heart was in the right place. She thought she was advocating for Tibetans when she pondered aloud whether the recent earthquakes that plagued China was karmic retribution for the country’s invasion of neighboring Tibet. For the popular actress who had recently converted to Buddhism, her response was instinctive, if you will. And so was the incredibly strong criticism that followed. She had succeeded in inadvertently offending millions of people. She tried to clarify her statements to little avail.

Instead, it appeared she was stalling; trying to negotiate a carefully-worded apology with fashion house, Christian Dior with whom she has a modeling contract to represent in China. Dior, on the other didn’t waste any time issuing a smart, fast apology for her comments.

The company’s savvy move further alienated Stone; the public perceived Stone’s dissent with Dior on how to issue an apology insult to injury. Her subsequent apology came a little too late. Christian Dior dropped her from all of its ad campaigns in China and the Shanghai International Film Festival (where she was a juror only last year) officially banned Stone and her films from the festivities.

Ms. Stone broke the Law of Crisis PR on several levels. The lessons here include:

1) Stone should have apologized – immediately.
2) No matter how seasoned a performer a celebrity is (or anyone for that matter) messages on delicate subjects should be run in front of a public relations professional to be safe before those messages are publicly disseminated.
3) A spokesperson for a cause or, especially for a corporate product, should vet their thoughts thoroughly with their employer.
4) Conversely, the public spokesperson employer should make every effort to be aware of celebrities’ position and head off trouble.

Stalling an apology, especially where it’s warranted (in this case, to a country or group of persons), in any crisis situation is sure to backfire. You can always speak a safe “holding statement” and follow up with more details. Perhaps Stone hesitated because she believed the strength of her personal convictions would tide her over. But they didn’t.

Your comments are welcome.