Anna Impullitti

ENG223
Dr. Mauk
May 14, 2018
Analysis Three: KFC’s Apology Statement

One of the largest “con-tenders” in the fast food industry, was under public scrutiny, in

February, after experiencing a hiccup in its supply chain. Kentucky Fried Chicken had just

switched its delivery services from Bidvest to DHL, which not only resulted in operational failures,

but a loss of 255 jobs for Bidvest employees (Freytas-Tamura and Tsang). KFC released a

statement upon 600 restaurant closings in the United Kingdom (Trayner). The remaining outlets

struggled to keep its doors open as supplies quickly dwindled for the limited, temporary menu, and

employees had lost their jobs without any indication of when they would be returning. KFC

restaurants that were owned directly by the company maintained pay to salaried employees and

workers with short-term contracts (Freytas-Tamura and Tsang). However, franchisees were not

required to follow this decision.

Britain accounts for six percent of the $24.5 billion in global sales and is the fifth-biggest

market for the company (Freytas-Tamura and Tsang). KFC was under pressure for the infamous

“#KFCCrisis” as people grew outraged by the increasing chicken shortage. Tower Hamlets Police

Department felt it necessary to address these upset customers, tweeting: “Please do not contact us

about the #KFCCrisis – it is not a police matter if your favourite eatery is not serving the menu

that you desire.” Twitter users continued to spread their concern across the platform. Heart North

East’s Twitter account posted a meme of a distraught woman with the caption: “I just want fried

chicken” (Apen-Sadler). These posts illustrate society’s habituation to having instantaneous access

to materials and goods. Thus, the buzz around this crisis created an opportune moment for KFC to

address the situation and exploit it.

 The company’s action to apologize relies on the idea that “all publicity is good publicity.”

This apology became a branding opportunity for the organization. Prior to releasing a statement,

KFC’s communications team had to maintain the brand’s voice to avoid confusion and sustain

cohesion. The actual writers of the statement used the irony of the situation as a rhetorical device

to respond to the issue. The first line of the statement reads: “A chicken restaurant without any

chicken. It’s not ideal.” In this opening sentence, KFC explicitly states the assumption that the

restaurant should have chicken readily available. The statement goes on to apologize to the

customer’s who travelled to their restaurant, only to find that it was closed. This alludes to the idea

that fast food is convenient, and that the closings, and lack of awareness surrounding the store

closings caused an inconvenience to those customers. By establishing these notions of the fast food

industry and current situation, KFC is creating a shared sense of comradery about the associated

commonplaces to “achieve a meeting of minds, even when a contentious issue is at stake”

(Longaker and Walker, 15). Through this structure, the KFC communications team are playing

into the audiences’ beliefs to anticipate their likely responses (15).

However, the apology is not just geared toward consumers, but calls attention to its staff

and franchise partners, too. KFC considers all of the affected, and potentially affected, stakeholders

(intended audience) through both its apology to its customers and a thank-you to its employees for

“working tirelessly to improve the situation” (Trayner). Yet, the discourse is not only addressing

said stakeholders, but those who will be reached by the statement. Due to this consideration, KFC

used comedic relief as a tactic in its persuasive efforts. Above the statement lies a picture of an

empty bucket, reflective of the situation, with the reassembled letters: FCK. This rhetorical

approach reinforces the belief that a chicken restaurant should have chicken, but also considers the
view of British humor. It is founded on sarcasm, satire and self-deprecation. The artifact utilizes

these three characteristics of British humor to trigger a pathetic appeal that embraces the apology.

Genre expectations lay the foundation of the apology. It is said that one must include a

statement of regret, an acceptance of responsibility, and a willingness to take action in order to

create a meaningful apology (Engel). It is imperative to remain confident and take responsibility

for the mistakes and disturbances that occurred. However, holding oneself accountable is not an

invitation to justify those actions. This structure emphasizes the conventions that have been formed

in corporate business and public relations. However, legal counsels advise against apologies

because it is an “admission of blame” (Pfeffer). The presumptions of apologies are built on

responsibility, a deflection of guilt, and bad behavior or actions. They have become expected of

an individual or entity after committing a wrongdoing. Although, an apology is supposed to mend

relationships, this habitual action actually reduces sincerity. Some individuals believe that

apologizing alleviates the guilt felt by the perpetrator and is self-motivated. By contrast, others

value when another individual simply says “I’m sorry.” In this case, consumers expect companies

to apologize, but are weary of its genuineness. The KFC statement works within this continuum

through its presentation.

With these apology guidelines and societal assumptions in mind, KFC writes, in bold,

“We’re Sorry.” It is linguistically appropriate to use these two words as they function to strengthen

the credibility and reputation of KFC. Additionally, the bolded and larger typography catches the

eye and suggests the company’s guilt. Underneath is a brief statement that acknowledges the

inconvenience the company caused. Subsequently, KFC does not place blame on DHL or any other

members, and continues to take responsibility. By holding themselves accountable, the company

increases its credibility through its honesty and goodwill to those affected. Lastly, the apology
ends with a statement of restitution. KFC argues it is remedying the situation by “working

tirelessly” to bring fresh chicken to more of their restaurants each day. Additionally, the company

asserts that it is making progress. KFC directly provides evidence of its progress by providing a

link that lists the opened restaurants. However, the argument is mostly indirect. Therefore, the

argument relies on the unspoken relationship between KFC and the public. The structural elements

of the corporate apology allow the elements of the argument to persist and work together.

Although the text does not deflect blame, it does not concentrate on the wrongdoings.

Instead, the text uses discourse that is focused on praise. This drives the speech by spinning it into

a seemingly positive light. KFC extends praise to its team members who are working hard to

correct the situation. Then, the apology addresses future actions. The company states that each day

“more and more fresh chicken is being delivered” to restaurants.

The message is clear, using precise language and avoiding filler words. It is also important

to note the diction of any given apology letter as it can make things worse or be a great branding

opportunity. The wording is direct, taking responsibility without placing blame, yet the statement

does not dwell on the mistake. Its brevity acts as a driving force to connect both emotional and

credible appeals as a persuasive device. The language is informal, though it does not use slang,

and it still maintains appropriate linguistics for the genre. Informal speech, in this case, creates a

human and conversational tone. This “natural speech” is used to provide clarity throughout the

logical explanation KFC makes in its statement (162).

The text follows a consequential form, flowing from the first premise and leading to the

conclusion. This progression is observed as cause-and-effect. First, KFC notes the situation by

stating, “A chicken restaurant without any chicken.” Consequentially, the company’s team

members are working to fix the problem to deliver more chicken to its restaurants. Finally, the
statement concludes with a call-to-action. Due to the circumstances, KFC provides a link that

shares the current opened restaurants. The “issue then explanation” sequence reinforces genre

expectations. The visual complements the text by adding a qualitative form that is reflective of the

situation and evokes moods that are associated with it – anger, disapproval, confusion, irritation,

etc. Additionally, the arrangement of FCK on the bucket allude to the company’s acceptance of

responsibility.

Vivid imagery is a supplemental factor to KFC’s apology. Images are not only quicker to

process than text, but also are more memorable (Combining Pictures with Print or Audio Generally

Maximizes Learning). In fact, images hold a strong rhetorical power because 70% of our sensory

receptors are in our eyes (Antranik). The visual organizes the viewers’ experience and elicits

interpretations through the background and foreground elements, and the main focal point. The

position and size of the bucket guide the observer’s eyes from the middle of the advertisement, to

the “We’re Sorry,” and finally the statement. In addition, the visual uses figures of words with

their play on KFC. This tactic “serves to emphasize particular words/ideas by foregrounding them”

(153). With the empty buckets as the focal point of the advertisement, “FCK” appears as a

prominent feature. This simple, and arguably subtle, word arrangement is indicative of the

occurrence and stimulates inferences upon reading the text. The solid, red background provokes

moods that are associated with color. Red elicits warning, but also represents the color of the brand.

This presentational element stimulates an emotional response because it illustrates life as it is.
References:

Antranik. “The Eye and Vision.” Antranik, antranik.org/the-eye-and-vision/.

“Combining Pictures with Print or Audio Generally Maximizes Learning.” I'm Thinking ..., 21
July 2014, dkuropatwa.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/combining-pictures-with-print-or-audio-
genera/.

Engel, Beverly. “How To Give A Meaningful Apology.” Family Business Center Articles,
Family Business Center of Pioneer Valley,
fambizpv.com/articles/resolving_conflict/meaningful_apology.html.

Freytas-tamura, Kimiko De, and Tsang, Amie. “KFC Has a Problem in Britain: Not Enough
Chicken.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Feb. 2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/kfc-chicken-uk-shortage.html.

Mailonline, Dianne Apen-sadler. “'Is This a Sign of the Apocalypse?' Twitter Goes into
Meltdown with Hilarious Overreactions to KFC Chicken-Shortage That Has Shut Two-Thirds of
Its British Stores.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 20 Feb. 2018,
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5410387/Twitter-users-share-hilarious-reactions-KFC-
crisis.html.

O'Leary, Tom. “5 Steps to an Effective Apology | PickTheBrain | Motivation and Self

Improvement.” Pick the Brain, PickTheBrain, 8 Oct. 2013, www.pickthebrain.com/blog/5-steps-
to-an-effective-apology.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. “Corporate Apologies: Beware the Pitfalls of Saying Sorry.” Corporate
Apologies: Beware the Pitfalls of Saying Sorry, Fortune, 26 Oct. 2015,
fortune.com/2015/10/26/corporate-apologies-crisis-management/.

Trayner, David. “KFC Apologises over Chicken Shortage with Cheeky Ad - and Twitter LOVES
It.” The Sun, The Sun, 23 Feb. 2018, www.thesun.co.uk/news/5649831/kfc-advert-chicken-
shortage-apology-twitter/.