Martha Stewart’s apology was working. Then she started explaining again.

Jordyn Taylor Dean is a celebrity publicist.

After more than 20 years in media, first as a television journalist and later as a publicist, I’ve learned that one of the quickest ways to make a controversy worse is to tell the public why it shouldn’t be offended.

People are telling you what they saw. You’re telling them what you meant.

Martha Stewart’s Halloween controversy shows exactly why those two conversations rarely end well.

Stewart posted photos of herself dressed as someone experiencing homelessness, holding a sign that read, “I AM HUNGRY HELP ME!!” The images appeared in a post that also promoted her QVC candles.

At a time when families are struggling with the cost of groceries, rent and housing, homelessness isn’t some distant problem. For many Americans, the fear of losing everything is very real.

And that’s what makes the costume so troubling.

Stewart got to take hers off at the end of the night. People actually experiencing homelessness don’t have that luxury.

When the backlash came, Stewart said she was distressed by the reaction and explained that she was trying to raise awareness about homelessness.

Don’t insult the public’s intelligence.

If awareness was the intention, where was the information? An organization people could support? A way for her millions of followers to help?

We saw a costume and a candle promotion. Help us connect the dots.

To her credit, Stewart later issued a more direct apology, acknowledging that the costume was insensitive and that her first response hadn’t gone far enough.

That should have been the end of it.

But then came Craig Melvin.

At a Nov. 3 event, Stewart explained that the “Today” co-host had accidentally spilled chocolate on the sweater she intended to wear to a Halloween party. With only minutes to find something else, she said dressing as someone experiencing homelessness was the easiest last-minute option.

A spilled drink explains a wardrobe change. It doesn’t explain the costume choice.

And it raises another question: If this was about raising awareness, why is Stewart now describing it as a last-minute solution to a ruined sweater?

The two explanations aren’t necessarily incompatible. But when an apology has already addressed the criticism, adding another account invites the public to question what you said the first time.

Worse, it pulls someone else into a controversy they didn’t create.

As publicists, we sometimes have to tell clients what they don’t want to hear. The right response isn’t always another interview, another statement or another explanation.

Sometimes it’s knowing when the apology has done its job.

When you make a mistake, own it. Don’t make your apology about how the criticism made you feel. And don’t attach a good intention to a bad decision and expect the public to accept it without question.

Most importantly, when you’ve finally gotten the apology right, know when to stop talking.

Because the public doesn’t owe you an understanding of your intentions.

You owe the public an understanding of your impact.

Impact over intent. Always.