Brands must own errors online—speed and tone matter

brand missteps – A new Sprout Social survey of 2,250 consumers in the U.S., Australia, and the UK finds that people actively seek more information after brand controversies, and that trust can hinge on how quickly and authentically companies respond on social media. The findin

For brands, the moment a mistake goes public on social media isn’t just reputational—it becomes a real-time test of whether customers will stick around.

Sprout Social. a company that helps brands reach their business goals by harnessing social media. shared new survey data exclusively with Fast Company. The survey polled 2. 250 consumers in the U.S. Australia. and the UK. and it points to an uncomfortable truth: when a controversy breaks. people don’t sit back.

In the survey’s U.S. results. when a brand missteps. 33% of consumers say they sometimes seek more information. 27% say they often do. and 20% say they always do. Only 7% say they never investigate what happened. The takeaway is blunt—controversies can be deeply fascinating to the people watching. and that curiosity can turn into an opening for brands to either recover or lose more ground.

That’s why the survey suggests brands can’t treat the response as a PR formality.

Most consumers say companies should speak up about their misstep on social media. rather than relying on a more formal broadcasted message such as a press release. In the survey, 34% say this is somewhat important, while 27% say it’s extremely important. Social media is also where many people first learn about the problem: 48% say it’s the place they learn about a brand’s missteps most often. followed by 21% via news articles. 19% from friends and family. and 12% from the brand itself.

Timing is part of the equation, too. When consumers were asked how quickly a brand should respond, 41% said it matters a lot, another 41% said it matters a little, and just 18% said it doesn’t matter at all.

But the most decisive factor may be what caused the controversy in the first place.

Asked whether customers would buy from the company again after a misstep. 31% said it depends on what the controversy was about. Consumers also linked brand representation to lasting opinion: 25% said a social media presentation that doesn’t align with the company or its executives can have a moderate impact. while 23% said it depends on the controversy.

Trust, the data effectively argues, is fragile. Losing it is easy; winning it back is harder.

Target offers a case where the stakes were clearly higher—and the road back looked steep. After Target’s abandonment of DEI initiatives kicked off a wave of boycotts. the brand faced negative comments flooding its social media channels. Yet Target did not apologize or change course in response to that backlash.

In May. Target’s new CEO. Michael Fiddelke. told the Associated Press that the company had “work cut out” in rebounding from the DEI-abandonment fallout. He said. “As we went through last year. it was one of the things that impacted our sales. ” and added. “And so we know we’ve got trust to win back with guests. and we’ll be focused on doing it. There’s no easy button to win back trust, but we’ll do the work.”.

The survey’s numbers help explain why that kind of backlash can stick. When a controversy is serious, the question consumers ask isn’t just whether the brand responded—it’s whether customers believe the brand has actually changed.

Then there’s the other side of the ledger: smaller controversies that can still spread fast.

Earlier this year. McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski went viral after an awkward promotional video showing him taking tiny bites of a burger. Social media mocked the moment for what some called “alienesque” nibbles. Even so, the circulation of the video meant thousands of people were doing the same thing—thinking about McDonald’s.

Kempczinski addressed the controversy directly. He made light of his own awkwardness and joked that his mother is to blame, saying she taught him never to talk with his mouth full.

McDonald’s also leaned into humor: the brand joked about it in a social media post about the company’s new burger. posted with the caption. “Take a bite of our new product. Can’t believe this got approved.” Burger King and Wendy’s joined the trend as well by posting their own CEOs “enjoying” menu items.

For all the ridicule, the viral moment wasn’t framed as offensive or troubling. And in a sign that attention isn’t always the enemy, McDonald’s likely didn’t expect that the video would lead to an estimated $18.4 million bump in brand value, according to Apex Marketing.

Taken together, the two examples show why the survey’s focus on social media response isn’t just about manners—it’s about how people choose to interpret a brand’s misstep when they’re already watching.

Whether it’s Target facing trust recovery after DEI abandonment fallout or McDonald’s turning a mocked video into a widely shared joke, the common thread is consumer perception: how brands present themselves on social media can reshape what people believe next—especially when something goes wrong.

Sprout Social brand missteps social media response consumer trust corporate reputation Target Michael Fiddelke DEI backlash McDonald's Chris Kempczinski viral marketing brand value Apex Marketing