Okay, great, so we're in agreement.
The incentives applied by dissatisfied customers aren't about getting companies to apologize: it's about getting them to behave in a manner such that they don't have to apologize. If you want to discuss whether there are better strategies that dissatisfied customers might employ, that's something I'd be happy to discuss.
If you actually want businesses to apologize and adjust their behavior as you claim, then it makes sense to look at how customers can make that happen.
Point being: if your goal is to actually help people harmed by corporations, calling those people "internet mobs" who "ragequit" and then analyzing whether it's profitable to apologize to them is a pretty strange way of communicating that goal.
I’m not looking to debate whether or not you agree with my word choice for “the people on the internet who loudly protest companies who do stuff they disagree with, and stop using those companies’ services out of these disagreements”.
Neither do I, and I'd be interested to hear how you think people could do better.
My point above is that I don’t think internet mobs incentivize businesses to behave that way, and in fact it seems that apologizing to the mob, or adjusting behavior in response to things the mob does not approve off, are counterproductive for the business. They continue to take heat for the wording of their apology, they get another wave of media coverage about the thing the mob is pissed about, there’s not really any visible upside.
Given that, I’m surprised more business don’t just ignore the angry people on the internet and just proceed as-is, continuing to rake in money from the people who aren’t outraged.
But maybe I’m just a lizard, unfit for your civilized society.