Marketing teams often work at speed. Campaigns are planned, emails are scheduled, headlines are sharpened, and brands compete for attention in crowded inboxes. But speed must never come at the expense of judgement. The recent backlash faced by Wowcher, after a marketing email appeared to reference a serious crocodile attack at a UK zoo involving a toddler, is a stark reminder that crisis management does not begin when a public apology is issued. It begins much earlier, in the controls, approvals and sign-off processes that should prevent harmful content from being published in the first place.
At the heart of this incident is a basic but crucial lesson: every organisation needs robust safeguards before marketing material goes live. A subject line that may have been intended as attention-grabbing instead caused distress, anger and reputational damage. In crisis terms, this is a preventable incident. It raises important questions about how marketing content is created, reviewed, approved and scheduled. Who checks tone and context? Who has authority to stop a campaign? Are scheduled emails reviewed again when major news events occur? Is there a clear escalation route when content may be sensitive?
Good sign-off processes are not about slowing creativity or creating bureaucracy for its own sake. They are about protecting the organisation, its customers and the people who may be affected by what is published. A strong process should include more than proofreading. It should involve checks for legal risk, brand alignment, ethical judgement and situational awareness. In cases where humour, tragedy, children, injury, death, crime or live news events are involved, organisations should apply a higher level of scrutiny. The simple question should be: “Could this cause harm or be perceived as exploiting someone’s suffering?”
However, even the best processes can fail. That is why organisations also need a clear plan for dealing with public backlash. Once the email was circulated and screenshots were shared online, the issue moved from a marketing failure into a reputational crisis. At that point, the response needed to be fast, accountable and human. Wowcher’s statement acknowledged the wording was unacceptable, apologised unreservedly and said the content had not been approved for use. Those elements are important: accept responsibility, avoid defensiveness, recognise the harm caused and explain what immediate action is being taken.
But apologies alone are rarely enough. In a public backlash, audiences look for evidence that the organisation understands the seriousness of the issue and is taking meaningful steps to prevent a repeat. That means pausing and reviewing scheduled content, strengthening approval controls, identifying how the failure occurred and ensuring accountability at the right level. It also means communicating with empathy, especially when the incident relates to a child and a family experiencing trauma.
For crisis managers, this case underlines a wider point. Reputation is not only shaped by how an organisation responds when things go wrong. It is shaped by the systems in place before the mistake happens. Marketing sign-off should be treated as part of organisational risk management, not simply as an internal creative process. In today’s environment, one poorly judged email can be screenshotted, shared and judged by the public within minutes.
The lesson is clear: brands must build processes that combine creativity with care. Effective sign-off, situational awareness and rapid crisis response are not optional extras. They are essential safeguards for any organisation that communicates publicly.