Episode 112 · 2021-12-15 · 25:11 · Original in Finnish
Sanna Marin's Apology | Katleena Kortesuo and Ivan Puopolo | Negotiator 112
Originally published as “Sanna Marinin anteeksipyyntö | Katleena Kortesuo Ivan Puopolo | Neuvottelija 112”
The communications trainer Katleena Kortesuo and Ivan Puopolo work out when an apology is called for and when it is a mistake. Kortesuo's rule is precise and runs through the whole episode: you apologise when you have offended your own audience, not when the offended party was never your customer. The Africa Star row is her example of the wrong situation and Telia's response to social media pressure an example of the right one. Applied to Sanna Marin's case the distinction produces two different conclusions. The episode also covers why a prime minister is under a magnifying glass of a different order, the Jäätteenmäki case as a question of procedural form, and Kulmuni and responsibility.
Core theses
- The test is whose audience was offended: an apology to people who were never your audience buys nothing and concedes the premise.
- Applied to the prime minister the rule gives two answers, because a head of government has more than one audience and they do not overlap.
- The Jäätteenmäki case is about procedural form rather than substance, which is why it resolved the way it did.
- A prime minister is subject to scrutiny of a different order, so communications advice calibrated for a company transfers badly.
Watch and listen
Summary
The communications trainer Katleena Kortesuo and Ivan Puopolo work out when an apology is called for and when it is a mistake. Kortesuo’s rule is precise and runs through the whole episode: you apologise when you have offended your own audience, not when the offended party was never your customer. The Africa Star row is her example of the wrong situation and Telia’s response to social media pressure an example of the right one. Applied to Sanna Marin’s case the distinction produces two different conclusions. The episode also covers why a prime minister is under a magnifying glass of a different order, the Jäätteenmäki case as a question of procedural form, and Kulmuni and responsibility.
Whose audience was offended
Kortesuo’s rule does the whole job. An apology is owed to people whose opinion of you you depend on. Offering one to people who were never going to be persuaded concedes that the complaint was legitimate without gaining anything, and it invites the next one.
Why the rule splits on a prime minister
A company has a customer base. A head of government has an electorate, a parliamentary group and a coalition partner, and they are not the same audience. That is why the same test yields two answers in Marin’s case, which the episode treats as the interesting result rather than as a failure of the rule.
Form, not substance
The Jäätteenmäki comparison is included precisely because it turned on procedure rather than on the underlying conduct. Keeping that distinction visible is what separates a communications analysis from a political one.
Watch
The recording lives on the Neuvottelija channel: Sanna Marinin anteeksipyyntö | Katleena Kortesuo Ivan Puopolo | Neuvottelija 112. A Finnish edition of this episode is published at www.neuvottelija.fi.
In depth
The Neuvottelija AI editions carry a long-form write-up of this episode: English · suomeksi.
Go deeper
People and topics
Guests: Katleena Kortesuo, Ivan Puopolo