In an era when brands are busy writing cheeky ‘apology letters’ to praise themselves, the word ‘sorry’ has started to lose its weight. Across social media, companies pretend to apologise for being ‘too tasty’, ‘too bingeable’ or ‘too irresistible’, turning contrition into a punchline. Against this backdrop of playful, performative remorse, McDonald’s India has taken a different route. With its latest campaign, ‘You Said It. We Made It,’ the brand does not issue an apology letter or put out a ‘sorry’ post, but offers something closer to a genuine apology in action: it listens to real complaints about its burgers and responds by accepting it publicly and fixing the problem.
This initiative began with actual consumer complaints about burger size and satisfaction. The campaign took these complaints from the digital space and made them public, printing them across burger buns and turning customer comments into installations across stores. A new, bigger, reformulated burger was then launched as proof that the brand had listened. The core idea was not humour, but visible improvement.
A Spokesperson from McDonald’s India (W&S) described the trigger for this step, saying, “At Westlife Foodworld, customer first menu innovation is central to our growth strategy, and this campaign is a direct reflection of that philosophy. The decision to spotlight real consumer complaints came from a simple insight: our guests were asking for a bigger, more satisfying burger experience, and we wanted to acknowledge that openly.” For a fast-food giant, foregrounding criticism could have been risky. But the brand chose to turn that criticism into the starting point of the solution, a direction that sharply contrasts the dominant ‘apology letter’ trend that had taken over brand communication.
But, is it sincerity or humour, that actually builds stronger connections? The larger industry context makes that decision even more striking. The ‘apology letter’ format once worked because of novelty: it made brands feel human. But marketers themselves admit that it started losing its edge when everyone began doing it. Soumali Chakraborty, Marketing Head, Arrow, frames this evolution, “When the ‘apology letter’ trend emerged, it created an instant spark. As the style gained momentum, it was only natural that some expressions started feeling repetitive. Consumers appreciate a sense of fun, but they also look for communication grounded in sincerity. It’s not about choosing one over the other; the two can coexist very well.” What McDonald’s has done, then, isn’t a rejection of humour, but a shift toward sincerity that delivers proof instead of punchlines.
Some marketers view sincerity as a long-term strategy rather than a tonal shift. Akash Agrawalla, Co-founder, ZOFF Foods, represents where expectations of consumers are moving, “Sincerity still cuts through, perhaps more powerfully than ever. Audiences today enjoy playful formats like ‘apology letters,’ but they can also instantly sense when a brand is hiding truth, behind humour. At ZOFF Foods, we’ve learnt that trust is built when you’re willing to speak plainly, admit gaps, and show real improvement; whether in quality, sourcing, or communication. Authenticity today isn’t about being perfect; it’s about being consistent, accountable, and human.” If the audience senses honesty, they believe not just the message, but the company behind it.
This is where the conversation widens beyond humour vs sincerity. Shruti Kedia Daga, Co-founder & Head of Marketing, Nasher Miles, points out that humour doesn’t naturally clash with authenticity, “The ‘apology letter’ format has quickly become a cultural favourite, where brands pretend to apologise for qualities that people already love. It’s witty and honestly, there’s nothing wrong with using humour. But brands that face criticism directly, acknowledge shortcomings, and follow through with real improvements often build deeper trust. Humour doesn’t need to be the opposite of authenticity. Both can coexist. What matters is intent.”
Still, sincerity alone isn’t enough if it isn’t paired with real correction. Azazul Haque, Group Chief Creative Officer, Creativeland Asia, highlights the emotional stakes when humour becomes an escape hatch, “Honesty and transparency especially when used to address the concerns and complaints of consumers, will always win hearts. Because it’s genuinely trying to understand and solve a problem. A joke or a smart, tongue-and-cheek reply can further infuriate consumers. And mostly brands are not absolutely transparent even when they claim they are. But at least they are being honest.”
However, the bigger industry question emerges, can radical transparency become a business moat, or will it backfire? The next stage of advertising discourse depends on the answer. Mayank Desai, Business Manager – Growth, Agency09, sees it as a competitive advantage, “Radical transparency can absolutely be a competitive advantage today because consumers are tired of performative remorse. They want brands that listen. Owning criticism openly doesn’t weaken a brand; it humanises it and signals a level of confidence competitors can’t easily mimic. For large corporations facing rising scepticism, this approach reframes them as responsive and self-aware rather than distant and defensive.”
Ahmed Aftab Naqvi, Global CEO and Co-founder, Gozoop Group, pushes the same idea further, “Transparency becomes a competitive advantage the moment it is backed by action, not drama. Most brands use humour or faux-apologies as a distraction; McDonald’s used real customer complaints as a brief. When a brand openly says, ‘Yes, you didn’t like this, so we fixed it,’ it signals confidence, not weakness. Of course, it exposes vulnerabilities, but today’s consumer already knows those vulnerabilities. Owning them earns more trust than pretending they don’t exist.”
However, not everyone believes transparency automatically reshapes how consumers view large corporations. Some argue that public correction doesn’t guarantee public credibility, especially when the core product itself remains contested. Abhijat Bharadwaj, Chief Creative Officer at Dentsu Creative Isobar, offers a sharper counterpoint, “Large corporations are not trusted so much anymore, having been caught time and again for not giving their customers the real picture. Which is why I don’t think the burger buns are a great example here, because the product itself is unhealthy. Even this campaign is lip service, in my opinion.”
KFC’s viral ‘FCK’ ad during its UK chicken shortage crisis was humorous, but the brand solved the supply issue. Domino’s openly admitted its pizza ‘tastes like cardboard’, changed the recipe and rebuilt credibility. In both cases, the apology worked because the improvement worked. The lesson the category learned wasn’t that humour wins, or sincerity wins, but that action wins.
But, Mayank points out that with many brands hiding behind humour and clever apologies, sincerity is now the real standout because authenticity cuts through the theatrics and builds trust that gimmicks can’t. And transparency cannot automatically redeem a corporation. Bharadwaj stresses that truth is only meaningful when it becomes habit rather than optics, “These days, transparency is key. Indian audiences are maturing rapidly and they expect the truth. Authenticity isn’t just a buzzword; it is one of the strongest pillars of brand building. That’s why new age start-ups are giving billion-dollar MNCs a run for their money. Marketers need to realise that flashy statements will always be trumped by the truth. Pretending that a problem doesn’t exist isn’t going to make it go away.”
Even so, the harshest scrutiny arrives not in the moment of change, but in what follows it. Industry legend Pops KV Sridhar, Global Chief Creative Officer, Nihilent Limited, captures the toughest condition of all, “Anything can only become a competitive advantage if you do it honestly. You can’t do one campaign, take out a negative comment from your social media post and then blow it up, answering it publicly. You need to be consistent.” For him, sincerity cannot be selective; otherwise audiences read it as survival mechanics, not truth.
And it circles back to the same pressure point. Transparency works only when it outlives convenience. Which is why Azazul’s caution continues to sit in the middle of the debate, “It can for sure reduce scepticism that is increasing around most brands and might not reshape it. Also the brand has to be consistent with the tone of voice and it’s really tough to be transparent and honest in a capitalist world.” Advertising has already proven that audiences reward accountability when it feels real. The campaigns that audiences remember are not the ones that apologised, but the ones that were fixed.
This is the standard McDonald’s will be measured against, not in comparison to the apology-letter trend, but in comparison to its own future behaviour. McDonald’s campaign sits inside that shift, not against or above it: not as a rejection of humour, not as a publicity trick, and not as an apology for being desirable, but as a willingness to improve visibly. As Bharadwaj reminds us of “the motto of McCann Erickson: ‘Truth Well Told’, it sums up what today’s corporations should be doing quite aptly.” Whether transparency continues beyond this moment will determine whether it becomes trust or just attention.
