iPhone Air Sells “a Piece of the Future”
In the new iPhone ad campaign, Apple illustrates persuasive communication and sells style. Students can analyze the rhetoric.
In what Financial Times calls “the biggest change to the look of its flagship product in years,” Apple lauched iPhone Air, a mere 5.6 mm, or .22 inches, wide. Despite increased tariffs, the price is steady to encourage upgrades and continue contributions to about 50% of the company’s revenues. iPhone 17 prices will be higher, but as one analyst said, “They are sending a strong signal to their consumers that they understand the pressures they are facing.”
The ad starts with video of what looks like a pen balancing on a finger and a simile:
Our intention was to make an iPhone that feels like a piece of the future. Powerful, yet so thin and light, it seems to disappear in your hands.
None of these ideas resonate nor appeal to me. First, the future feels anything but “thin and light,” so the comparison doesn’t quite work. Second, I’ve dropped enough iPhones that I’d like to be able to hold onto the next one. CEO Tim Cook said, “It does seem like it’s going to fly away when you’re holding it.” Why would anyone want that?
The ad might reach techie and younger audiences. While the video shows the phone and other objects floating, the narrator describes how the product is made. Do people need to know that “a high temperature process creates nanocrystals”? Students might care most about the camera capabilities, which comprise 23 seconds of the 2:23 video. When we get to the part where the iPhone crashes on a table, I can relate. Durability, scratch resistance—these are important features.
Students can identify examples of logical arguments (e.g., the manufacturing process, making the “impossibly thin profile”), credibility (e.g., “iconic plateau,” “custom-made chips”), and emotional appeals (e.g., “evoke lightness,” “the power of Pro inside”).
A worthwhile class discussion is what’s missing from the ad, for example, less power/lower battery life, reduced camera zoom range—and perhaps the biggest competitive gap, the inability to fold in half. Also, only one mention of “Apple Intelligence” confirms the FT writer’s conclusion about the company’s “slow progress on AI,” including delayed Siri voice assistant updates.
Recovering from an Embarrassing Incident
The CEO of a Polish paving company faced internet scorn after what appeared to be a hat-grab during the U.S. Open.
Video shows the CEO reaching in front of a young boy to take a hat from tennis pro Kamil Majchrzak. Ignoring the boy’s attempts to retrieve the hat, the executive shared the it with his family.
Students can analyze the CEO’s apology, below, against the following elements of a sincere apology from Business Communication and Character, 12e, Chapter 7:
Shows remorse (for example, saying, “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” instead of “I regret”)
Accepts responsibility (for example, saying, “It’s my fault,” or “I failed to”)
States what he did wrong
Explains what happened
Acknowledges the impact
Offers to fix it
Says what he’ll do differently
Requests forgiveness
Sincere apologies avoid the following tactics, which are more self- than other-focused: making excuses, justifying our actions, blaming the victim, and minimizing the impact.
The tough part for the CEO was explaining what happened without trying to excuse the behavior. He managed to balance this well. We can understand how, during the excitement, he didn’t notice the boy at all and thought Majchrzak was handing the hat to him, particularly after meeting him earlier. Sure, he was a bit clueless in the moment, and maybe his status and focus on his own family caused him to disregard someone else so close to him, but his explanation makes sense.
He also didn’t stop there. With his apology, he hit the other elements, above, well. Most important, he apologized, admitted what he did wrong, acknowledged his lack of humility—and gave the sweaty hat to the boy, who received a second from Majchrzak himself. Saying, “only through actions can I rebuild the trust I have lost,” the CEO asks for forgiveness.
An incident like this can ruin an executive’s career, but his apology may have repaired his temporarily damaged reputation.
Cracker Barrel Subordinates the Change and then Reverts to Old Logo
Following backlash from updating the logo, Cracker Barrel will keep “Uncle Herschel”—the man and the barrel. Students can identify business communication issues in the communication.
The restaurant has a rich history, with its first store, a restaurant with gas station, opening in Lebanon, TN, in 1969. Now 664 restaurants, Cracker Barrel maintains an old-timey, country feel: a menu of comfort food and farmhouse decor with antiques unique to each location.
The logo and decor change are hidden in a press release on August 19 titled, “Cracker Barrel Teams up with Country Music Star Jordan Davis to Invite Guests to Discover ‘All the More’ this Fall.” It’s as though the company leaders knew trouble might ensue. Note the placement in this paragraph, further subordinating the news:
Since 1969, Cracker Barrel has delivered heartfelt service, homestyle food and an unmatched dining experience. With nearly 660 locations nationwide, the brand remains a go-to for guests seeking community, comfort and special moments they can carry with them long after they leave. Its more popular menu offerings like farm fresh scrambled eggs and buttermilk biscuits even serve as inspiration behind the hues of a refreshed color palette featured in the new campaign. Anchored in Cracker Barrel's signature gold and brown tones, the updated visuals will appear across menus and marketing collateral, including the fifth evolution of the brand's logo, which is now rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all.
After years of subtle adjustments, the dramatic logo change hardly supports the conclusion, “now rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all.” The redesigned logo is rounder, but the most obvious change—omitting the man (“Old Timer”) and the actual barrel—is key and unmentioned. We might say the leadership lacks accountability for the decision, hiding behind positive/neutral news like a music partnership.
Try as it might to update the brand, Cracker Barrel is thrown back to earlier days. Brighter interiors with fewer, better organized items were meant to appeal to younger crowds, but fell flat. Instead, it felt like an affront to conservative values and became a political issue. As Americus Reed, marketing professor at The Wharton School, said, “If it ain’t woke, don’t fix it.” In the end, the logo redesign was deemed intolerable, as evidenced by the 7% stock price drop.
Social media backlash was fierce, and President Trump’s Truth Social post might have been the final straw. In a rare about-face post on X, the company said they listened and would change the logo back. Unfortunately, in the message, we don’t see the barrel on the X account.
The stock rebounded, and all is right again. Students might discuss lessons learned: get better feedback, make more incremental changes, stand behind your decisions or don’t make them, and perhaps, above all else, stay attuned to the political climate.
Name Change from MSNBC to MS NOW Gets Ridiculed
MSNBC is rebranding itself as MS NOW, short for My Source News Opinion World, but memes are drowning out the company’s enthusiasm.
Critics say “MS,” leftover from when Microsoft held part ownership years ago, is most commonly associated with multiple sclerosis, and they question why the letters remain. My Source News Opinion World seems a forced fit for the letters and makes little grammatical sense. Luckily, they probably won’t be muttered out loud.
Others say “NOW” is so yesterday sounding, and that the logo “looks like something you’d scroll past in a pile of poltical [sic] campaign logos from 2004.” Although the company statement confirms no change, the American flag could signal a more conservative slant.
The statement also conveys a self-importance that might not resonate with viewers:
For our viewers who have watched us for decades, it may be hard to imagine this network by any other name. We understand. But our promise to you remains as it always has. You know who we are, and what we do.
Students might have reactions about the change—or about other brand changes they have noticed. Here are two recent controversial examples:
Google’s Defense of AI Search
A blog post by VP, Head of Google Search, Liz Reid illustrates persuasive strategies and data interpretation to deny the negative impact of AI search features on website traffic.
Although reports find that Google AI search summaries reduce clicks to news and other sites, the company argues that is not the case. In a blog post, Reid writes, “user trends are shifting traffic to different sites, resulting in decreased traffic to some sites and increased traffic to others.” A TechCrunch writer describes the rhetoric well:
That word “some” is doing heavy lifting here, as Google doesn’t share data about how many sites are gaining or losing. And while chatbots like ChatGPT have certainly seen traffic increase in recent months, that doesn’t mean online publishers aren’t suffering.
In business communication, we encourage students to find more precise words than “some” and “very.” Here we see Google hiding behind vague references and aggregate data to mask the impact on publishers. Reid also wrote, “overall traffic to sites is relatively stable.“
Reid claims, “AI in Search is driving more queries and higher quality clicks.” Google argues that click “quality” is improving, meaning people are more purposeful, engaging longer on sites they choose for a reason instead of responding to clickbait. That may be, but organic searches (from unpaid sources) is still down for “some” news outlets already hurting because of declining print and digital subscriptions.
If users get their questions answered from the AI summary, why go to the original source? Students might discuss what, if any, responsibility Google bears for compensating content creators.
Lessons from Delta Comm Failures
A passenger describes a “total communication breakdown” before, during, and after an emergency Delta flight landing. Following are lessons for students from both the incident and from how the reporter addressed the passenger’s complaint.
On a flight from Madrid to New York City, an engine failed, requiring the plane to land on the island of Azores, a stunning place to visit but perhaps not following an emergency landing. After researching the situation, a New York Times reporter confirmed that “Delta’s crisis communications strategy failed badly.”
Lesson 1: Customers have more credibility when they report what happened accurately and objectively.
The reporter called out a few inaccuracies and generalizations in the passenger’s telling. Here’s one example:
“It is also not exactly true that Delta had no ‘ground support or personnel.’”
The reporter found that the airline contracted with locals who were lauded by other passengers. Delta doesn’t fly to that airport, so they can’t be expected to have their own staff.
As another example, the reporter refines the passenger’s note about compensation:
Marc, you called Delta’s approach “shady and evasive.” I would go with “incomplete and maladroit.”
“Shady and evasive” are character judgments, yet we have no idea whether malintent existed. The reporter sticks with behaviors: a failure of good practice and a lack of skill.
Lesson 2: Overcommunicate (within reason) during a crisis and ensure that all customers get the same message at the same time.
The reporter confirms that the wait for information, particularly whether passengers would have hotel rooms, was long and caused stress. Some got messages, while others did not.
Passengers also saw flight staff “whisked off” to a hotel with no explanation or communication. Turns out, rest was mandatory so the crew could fly the next day. But as business communication faculty know, frequent communication is essential. Passengers felt “in the dark.”
Lesson 3: Crisis situations are not the time for humor.
This next bit sounds outrageous from a crisis communication perspective. Passengers heard “loud, scary noises from the left side of the plane” and estimate that it wasn’t until 10 minutes later—10 minutes!—when they heard an announcement recalled this way (commentary is from the reporter):
“The pilot just woke up from his nap and is going to look into what is happening.” If true, wrote Mr. Durrant [a Delta spokesperson], the nap reference was “likely referring to planned rest periods for flight crew.”
Even if the pilot was napping for legitimate reasons, why share it with passengers? If it was a joke, passengers did not seem to find it funny.
Lesson 4: Demonstrate integrity (consistency, accuracy, and transparency) in all communications.
The pilot announced that another plane would arrive in 6 hours. Any reasonable, hopeful passenger would assume this means they would be leaving in 6 hours, but that wasn’t the case because of rest requirements. Passengers had to spend the night.
In addition, passengers seemed to be compensated different amounts at different times, despite an EU law regulating the amount. Some garnered more after writing a “measured” complaint letter.
In the end, this situation reflected poorly on Delta. A few simple changes would not have made the situation less scary or frustrating but could have reduced the reputational hit.
Mattel Communicates Tariff Response
Mattel communicated its plans as tariffs go into effect. Companies are in a tough spot. As a Financial Times writer explains, “Public companies have been reluctant to make concrete predictions over the effects of tariffs, as they struggle to keep up with rapid policy changes or seek to avoid antagonising Washington.”
Mattel depends on 40% of its production from China and 10% from Mexico. In the company’s fourth quarter financial report, guidance for 2025 includes the following:
Guidance includes the anticipated impact of new U.S. tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada imports announced on February 1st, and mitigating actions we plan to take, including leveraging the strength of our supply chain, and potential pricing.
Reading between the lines, students might understand that Mattel plans to reduce sourcing outside the United States (a CNBC article confirms plans to reduce the amount from 50% to 25% by 2027) and will try to absorb increased costs. In other words, Mattel is saying, we’ll be fine, but we might raise prices. In the end, as CNBC reports, Mattel, like Chipotle and many others, may have “consumers pay the rest.”
A New York Post headline is more blunt: “Mattel shares spike 15% after toy giant says it will raise Barbie prices because of China tariffs.” The article explains how toy companies, although vulnerable because 80% of their products are made in China, produce 80% new toys each year and have a captive audience: kids who want the latest toys and parents who will pay for them.
Price increases are one of those situations that is good or bad news depending on the audience. Either way, we could see it as an issue of integrity: Mattel’s language isn’t quite transparent (clear and accurate), although it’s appropriate for the primary audience of investors.
Grammy CEO Models Crisis Recovery
Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. delivered a surprising speech during the 2025 Grammy Awards, directly addressing criticism of the awards and explaining actions taken.
He described the situation when he became CEO in 2020. He said some artists were “pretty vocal in their complaints” and described reading about the Weeknd’s boycott in the newspaper. This approach gives us a window into the personal impact and might engender compassion:
I remember waking up to the headlines that the Weeknd called out the Academy for lack of transparency in our awards. He went so far as to announce he was boycotting the Grammys. That made for some interesting reading over breakfast. But you know what? Criticism is, okay. I heard him. I felt his conviction.
Next, Mason described the Recording Academy’s “transformation,” including new initiatives and a more diverse voting body. As he ends this segment, he promises, “I firmly believe we’re on the right path,” but he says there’s still work to do.
Finally, he transitions to introduce the Weeknd!
As we've seen tonight, music is a powerful force for good. It heals us, it unites us, and we need that in this city right now. With that in mind, on a truly special night, what better way to bring us together than this next artist? Someone who has seen the work the Academy has put in. I'm so honored to leave you with a sentence that I wasn't sure would ever be said on the Grammy stage again. My friends, my fellow music makers, please join me in welcoming back none other than four-time Grammy-winning artist and global superstar, The Weeknd.
This is a preventable (not victim or accidental) crisis situation, so the Academy had to take responsibility and do better. In their book, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs might call this an “extreme crisis,” which requires more significant actions in response. Mason described them well, and his delivery is appropriate for the awards ceremony: scripted but conversational. This is a good example for students to analyze.
American Airlines' Evolving Crisis Communications
American Airlines has posted several messages as part of its crisis response to the tragic Flight 5342 crash en route from Wichita, Kansas (ICT), to Washington, D.C. (DCA). The CEO’s videos serve as a model of bad-news communication, and he cleverly and subtlety shifts blame away from the airline.
Calling the tragedy an “accident,” American Airlines places the crash into one of the three categories of crises: victim, accident, or preventable. (See Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Routledge, 2022.) Unlike a preventable crisis, such as financial impropriety, an accidental crisis doesn’t require company leaders to take responsibility. Of course, leaders still need to express sympathy for those affected, but they do not apologize as they would when blamed for a crisis.
American Airlines created a webpage to chronicle the company’s response and what they know. So far, four messages are posted, with blame increasingly shifting elsewhere.
An initial announcement describes the event with little information and a hotline number. At this point, responsibility is unclear.
A video from CEO Robert Isom expresses sympathy and concern. His delivery is scripted, but he sounds serious and measured. He promises to “take care of all passengers and crew involved and their families.” He says the AA flight “appears to have collided with a military aircraft on approach.”
One day later, a second video thanks the Safety Board and others. Now he says they’re focused on the “families and loved ones.” He says “recovery efforts” are continuing, but it’s fairly clear at this point that no one survived the crash. Again, his tone reflects a caring, engaged executive.
He also begins to shift blame, saying the reverse of his previous message: “A military helicopter collided with American Eagle flight 5342 upon its approach” and “This flight was operated under PSA, one of our wholly owned carriers.”
The fourth message, below, further shifts blame. President Trump has blamed DEI efforts for the crash: "I put safety first. Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first. The FAA's website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and dwarfism." Isom doesn’t address these comments, but he expresses gratitude for the president’s “leadership on aviation safety,” and “applaud(s)” the Administration’s response. His focus is on military helicopters, focusing on new reports that helicopters may be crowding the airspace around D.C. airports.
Isom is front and center during the crisis communication, as he should be as the leader of a major company involved in a tragedy. In addition to framing the crisis as an “accident,” he doesn’t blame others directly but increasingly shifts attention away from AA to the carrier and to the military. The last sentence in his statement implies a historical lack of investment in critical resources.
CEO Robert Isom statement on the Trump Administration action on aviation safety
Friday, January 31, 2025, 2:45 p.m.
American Airlines CEO Robert Isom issued the following statement surrounding changes to flight activity at DCA: “We are all hurting as we continue to grieve the loss of our passengers and team members. I thank President Trump for his leadership on aviation safety. I applaud him, Secretary Duffy and the Administration for taking quick and decisive action today to restrict helicopter activity around DCA. In the days ahead, we will work tirelessly with the Administration and leaders in Congress to make our aviation system even safer, including by increasing investments in infrastructure, technology and personnel.”
Analyzing an Argument: Institutional Neutrality for Corporations
A New York Times opinion encourages corporate leaders to “keep your mouth shut.” Students can analyze the argument in light of research about public opinion.
The authors, professors at the University of Chicago Law School, point to their article published in The University of Chicago Business Law Review. They compare corporate leaders’ choices to universities increasingly adopting institutional neutrality, including Chicago, which adopted guidelines back in 1967. The authors suggest that corporate leaders do the same—avoid statements as well as political activity—particularly regarding President Trump and his policies.
The authors argue that corporate leaders cave to pressure, which creates a swell of demand for other corporate leaders to chime in. The resulting statements are either “vanilla” and meaningless or “veer away from the mainstream,” which causes backtracking.
Students might evaluate the opinion against counterarguments. One example is this Forbes opinion, which suggests three reasons for leaders to speak out: aligning with stakeholder values, enhancing brand reputation, and driving position change. Much of the University of Chicago researchers’ article describes notable exceptions to the rule, for example, mission- or values-driven reasons or significant stakeholder views, so these opinions aren’t entirely contradictory.
Students also might bring public opinion into the argument. A recent University of Iowa study confirms what the Chicago researchers suggest.
Ending by focusing on courage and, implied, integrity, the authors highlight two character dimensions for all leaders:
In both the business and university contexts, silence often takes courage and a commitment to institutional modesty. For a corporation, a general policy of silence can remind stakeholders that the business of the business is, well, business.
Coors Typo and Response
Coors is going all-in on a typo on billboard and full-page newspaper ads—or they planned it all along. One of only three words in the giant ad is misspelled: refershment.
It’s hard to imagine how designers and copyeditors would miss the typo. Ready to respond, the company sent a press release and posted a clever explanation on social media platforms: “a case of the Mondays.” In addition to the obvious typo, the response rings false. On the Instagram post shown here, Mondays is written three times, including in the caption. The repetition could be a persuasive strategy, or it could be cloying for a reaction.
Now, a new campaign renames the beer to Mondays Light, which will be available, in a case, of course, for a limited time. A Superbowl ad connects a Case of the Mondays to “the worst Monday of all. The Monday after the big game.” Social tags, a contest, even a hat are converging into a grand campaign.
ChatGPT tells me the campaign is lauded, but even AI is confused. The response starts by calling the misspelling “intentional” and ends by saying Coors is “leveraging a potential mishap.” It all feels silly to me, but I don’t drink beer or watch football.
Starbucks Union Example of Persuasive Communication
Starbucks Workers Union messaging illustrates several persuasive communication strategies. Students can analyze the website, Instagram posts, Tiktok videos, and other content to determine which are most and least effective.
Students will have no trouble finding communication examples during the strike that workers promise will last through Christmas in Seattle, Los Angeles and Chicago. Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Influence, Topoi, rhetorical appeals (logos, pathos, ethos), or other frameworks can be used for analysis.
The website and a video offer a few examples of rhetorical appeals, with connections to other frameworks.
Logical Argument (Logos)
A video shows an employee talking about pride flags that hadn’t been put up this year—the first in the 5 or 6 years since she has worked at the store. The employee claims this is inconsistent with Starbucks’ “claims to care about LGBTQ+ employees.” Students might find Starbucks’ messaging about LGBTQ+ support and analyze her argument—and that of Starbucks. Is not having a ladder a legitimate safety issue? If it is, does that mean Starbucks doesn’t care about LGBTQ+ employees? How could union activity affect this situation?
Emotional Appeal (Pathos)
This statement is an appeal based on emotions, particularly what Starbucks partners consider as poor working conditions. They hope this will inspire people to support their cause. The reference to Starbucks profits could be an example of Topoi, comparison—comparing low salaries (although it’s not mentioned explicitly here) to money “raked in” by the company.
How We Got Here
As partners at Starbucks stores across the country, we have long experienced understaffing, overwork, and a lack of say in our workplace. Meanwhile, Starbucks has raked in record, billion-dollar profits.
Credibility/Trust (Ethos)
Referring to themselves beyond their Starbucks role suggests credibility. This is also an example of Cialdini’s social proof: others acting similarly, which could inspire the reader to follow suit if they identify with the partners.
Meet Us
We’re not just baristas—we’re students, parents, forward-thinkers, and coffee fans united by the simple idea that we think Starbucks can be so much better when workers have a say in company and store operations.
Messaging is also about character, of course. In this quote, the employee questions the company’s integrity—promising but not delivering on that promise:
Nobody wants to strike. It’s a last resort, but Starbucks has broken its promise to thousands of baristas and left us with no choice. In a year when Starbucks invested so many millions in top executive talent, it has failed to present the baristas who make its company run with a viable economic proposal. This is just the beginning. We will do whatever it takes to get the company to honor the commitment it made to us in February.
Fake Firing of Stressed Employees as a PR Move
YesMadam, an Indian home salon company, faced criticism for what may have been a PR campaign. Reports showed the owner firing employees for responding, on a survey, that they’re stressed.
According to a three-page statement on LinkedIn, no one was actually fired. The original message was part of “a planned effort to highlight the serious issue of workplace stress.” People are skeptical about whether that’s true—or whether employees had been fired, and then the company changed course. To me, the original message sounds false and, after all, YesMadam promotes wellness, including reduced stress. So the “joke” fits the brand.
Either way, the incident doesn’t reflect well on the company. This doesn’t seem like one of those, any-press-is-good-press-situations. The three-page statement is clearly promotional and includes language as though the company is considered a leader with “India’s first-ever De-Stress Leave Policy for employees.”
A marketing consultant told BBC:
It's crucial for brands to prioritise ethical marketing practices and avoid using people's emotions as a tool for self-promotion. While attention-grabbing tactics may work in the short term, they ultimately erode trust and damage brand reputation.
Here’s a related topic for student discussion: rage-baiting. Apparently, you get more clicks for rage than for joy.
Bluesky and, Once Again, "Safety Is Extremely Important"
This week, a new company used the old “safety is extremely important” expression after an incident that says otherwise. The CEO of Bluesky, quickly emerging as a popular X alternative, misstated the app’s minimum user age.
When Jay Graber was asked for the minimum age on Bluesky, she said, “When you sign up—I’ll have to check—I think it’s like 18 and above." That is not correct. She’s right that the app asks for a birthdate on the signup screen, but when I entered 2012 as my birth year, a message popped up about age 13, shown here. Here’s how the company responded, according to a BBC report:
Following the interview, Bluesky contacted the BBC to clarify that the minimum age is 13, not 18. A spokesperson said: "Child safety is extremely important for Bluesky. You must be at least 13 years old to sign up for an account, and anyone under 18 using Bluesky has additional settings applied to ensure that the content they see is safe for minors."
In a wide-ranging interview with presenter Rick Edwards, she [Graber] said Bluesky does not try to verify the identification of the user, to ensure people are not lying when signing up.
She said: "We don’t take IDs or anything like that. I know that’s proposed in some places. That’s very private information. I think companies like us would want to make sure we're handling that private user data very responsibly."
Framing verification as a privacy issue is a compelling argument but might contradict Bluesky’s knowledge of those between 13 and 18. What technology do they use to determine that age range? On a recent podcast episode, Scott Galloway asked Google Founder Eric Schmidt whether companies should practice “age gating”:
They should. And indeed Jonathan's [Haidt] work is incredible. He and I wrote an article together two years ago which called for a number of things in the area of regulating social media and we'd start with changing a law called COPA from 13 to 16. And we are quite convinced that using various techniques we can determine the age of the person with a little bit of work. And so people say, well you can't implement it. Well that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. And so we believe that at least the pernicious effects of this technology on below 16 can be addressed.
Schmidt recommends 16 as the minimum, and students might discuss whether Bluesky should change its policy. They also can discuss what the spokesperson could have said differently. One option is to omit that safety cliché entirely. It was an unfortunate mistake the CEO won’t likely make again—and a signal for the company to pay more attention to concerns about users’ age.
AI-Generated Coca-Cola Ads Face Backlash
Coca-Cola ads from 1985 were reimagined using AI, causing complaints of “ruining Christmas.” Students can weigh in on the uses and limitations of AI in marketing. The situation raises questions of integrity, both of the “Christmas spirit” and of the company brand.
The company issued a statement to the New York Times:
“The Coca-Cola Company has celebrated a long history of capturing the magic of the holidays in content, film, events and retail activations for decades around the globe. This year, we crafted films through a collaboration of human storytellers and the power of generative A.I. . . . Coca-Cola will always remain dedicated to creating the highest level of work at the intersection of human creativity and technology,”
The head of generative AI said, “If I want to go very realistic, maybe it’s difficult, but if I want to go hyper-realistic and fantastical, A.I. is actually a much better tool.”
For their part, the ad agency emphasizes “AI, combined with human creativity.” We read about Silverside’s “team of art directors, artists, animators, and musicians” with a clear view of the team leading and AI assisting, although they acknowledge reducing the creative time from 12 to 2 months, so staff does spend less time. Critics say the drive towards efficiency is causing bad decisions and fake-looking commercials.
Students could watch this opinion video. I don’t see how one ad ruins Christmas no less “their entire brand.” An interesting class discussion could center around the differences among exaggeration, logical fallacies, and hyperbole.
The situation raises important questions about AI and nostalgia. Of note, the polar bear first appeared in a Coca-Cola print ad in 1922—and it was never a real polar bear.
Airbnb Criticized for "Touristification"
Airbnb is planning staged gladiator fights in the Roman Colosseum, which some consider disrespectful of the 1st century amphitheater. Students can discuss the ethics of similar types of tourism and how companies promote them.
The Event Promotion
Promoting a new movie, Gladiator II, Airbnb lures guests into one of its Experiences:
For centuries, the Roman Colosseum has been the stage for epic battles and legendary gladiators. Now, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years, the Colosseum returns to its original purpose as a venue for performances, inviting daring warriors to step foot inside the historic arena to forge their own paths and shape their destinies.
Language describing the event reminds me of what analysts are saying about the U.S. presidential election results:
Suit up and unleash your inner gladiator inside Rome’s legendary arena.
Discover if you have what it takes to conquer the Colosseum and emerge victorious.
Airbnb might have predicted criticism. The end of the promotion includes “Airbnb’s commitment to heritage”:
These special experiences at the Colosseum follow a series of measures and commitments by the platform to revitalize heritage tourism in Europe, including donations to heritage across Europe for over ten million dollars.
As part of this program, Airbnb is offering its support to the restoration and enhancement of Colosseum’s heritage, including an ongoing project to restore the permanent exhibition at the Colosseum.
The Response
Critics say, ”Rome is not Disneyland,” and call the event “a disgrace” and “touristification.” Local agencies, already struggling with tourism, called the event “a demeaning use of our historical-artistic heritage.”
Airbnb responded to criticism with a statement to news outlets, referring to “authorities in Rome,” who provided their own statement. The company promised to “enhance the historical and cultural heritage of the amphitheater through immersive activities in full respect of the monument, based on rigorous historical research,” with a focus on “conservation, education and innovation.” Federico Mollicone, a member of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy, describes his support:
The archaeological park of the Colosseum did well to sign a memorandum of understanding with the historical re-enactment associations also guaranteeing tourists a gladiator show of high scientific quality coordinated by ministry officials of Culture. . . . We reiterate our absolute favor for the agreement between public and private in culture, through partnerships or sponsorships, provided that they support initiatives that are of scientific and cultural value approved by the Ministry of Culture.
Airbnb deflected accountability, although the company’s name is still associated with the event, and anyone will recognize Airbnb’s “innovation” in developing the idea. Another relevant character dimension is integrity—upholding integrity of the Colosseum, an ancient ritual, and tourism-saturated Rome.
Overtourism
This is certainly not the only case of potentially problematic tourism. Students can discuss their views on “poverty tourism,” “dark tourism,” and even “eco-tourism,” which could include virtue-signaling and potential environmental degradation. Perhaps “degrading” is a good word to consider in these discussions. What accountability do companies—and tourists—have when planning such vacations?
A useful class discussion also might include the etymology of vacation: “freedom from obligations, leisure, release" and “state of being unoccupied.” Some tourism types do seem to include a disconnection, rather than an engagement, with the place and people. Some lead to cultural appropriation, which we might call a vacation from our good sense.
What drives people to want to experience Airbnb’s Gladiator challenge? Do they want to connect with the history of the Colosseum? That is not how Airbnb is communicating the event.
New CEOs: Lessons for Communicating Change
A Wall Street Journal article describes expectations for new CEOs at Boeing and Starbucks: communicating early and often. The article raises questions about communicating change.
Early communication represents a shift from the “listening tours” and roundtables CEOs held in the past. We seemed to expect a leader to hear from employees and learn the business before taking action. But now, maybe particularly for Boeing and Starbucks leaders, who are facing critical tests, people have little patience for the learning curve.
Boeing faces challenges of safety issues and labor strikes. Starbucks faces staffing issues and declining sales. But the CEOs have a similar message, as the WSJ reports:
“First, we need a fundamental culture change in the company,” Ortberg wrote to Boeing staff on Wednesday. A day earlier, as Starbucks suspended its financial guidance and disclosed weak results for its fourth quarter, Niccol said in a video message: “We need to fundamentally change our recent strategy.”
Students might discuss the implications of these recent leaders determining a new direction or making promises before more investigation. Some questions are, how do they build trust and buy-in quickly, what is enough information, and how do they take decisive action while allowing for revision if a strategy fails?
This Change Management Toolkit from Berkeley staff shows how communication is too often an afterthought, is only in service of the project as already defined, and considers little of what we know about emotional reactions to change. The chart mentions communication during the first stage, Pre-Implementation: “Communicate expected project benefits to impacted stakeholders.” But who determined the benefits? Were stakeholders involved in the goal setting and planning? During the second stage, Implementation, again, the communication seems to be about telling people and getting input on what was already done. Post-Implementation, once again, “celebrate[s]” benefits.
Where are those affected by change? What about their ideas about changes and their potential reactions? Without addressing employees’ fears and concerns about change, leaders might not get the buy-in they desire.
The toolkit does include a “Change Communications Plan Overview,” starting on page 41 of the 50-page document, but it feels like an afterthought, as communication often does during organizational change. In fairness, a section before this offers suggestions for getting feedback, but still, this is all after the change is implemented.
Students might discuss their own experiences of a new manager and an organizational change. They also might consider what the new Boeing and Starbucks CEOs should communicate—before they implement initiatives to “fundamentally change” anything.
How Presidential Candidates Are Using TikTok
Students might be interested in a Financial Times article about the presidential candidates’ TikTok strategies. The article recalls that the 2016 election was all about Facebook. This time, it’s TikTok, particularly for rallying young voters.
With 6.2 million followers, VP Harris’s page includes a video with 4 million views. She talks on the phone to a man’s granddaughter, Evie, and President Biden (still handsy!) joins in.
With 12.4 million followers, Former President Trump’s page includes a video with 13.8 million views. It’s a compilation of people I don’t know but students probably do endorsing him in Las Vegas. The song is by Nettspend, a 17-year-old rapper.
Of course, I’m cherry picking just two examples here that aren’t representative of the candidates’ social media strategies or presence. Students can draw their own conclusions based on their views.
The FT article quoted a get-out-the-vote creator: “Harris’s TikTok strategy is ‘aspirational for any brand, let alone a politician,’ where Trump’s feels ‘less native’ to TikTok and closer to traditional campaign material.” Students might identify the implications for (other) brands—a relevant topic for business communication classes.
This chart shows numbers of views, with more for Harris, despite having half the followers of Trump. This is at least partly because Harris is posting 20 times the number of videos. However, like the polls, I’m not sure their strategies or this data tell us anything about who will win the election.
McDonald's President Reassures Us After E. Coli Outbreak
McDonald’s president illustrates crisis communication strategies after the E. coli outbreak that, as of now, killed one person, left 49 sick, and contributed to a 5% drop in stock price, the biggest loss since 2020.
On a webpage titled, “Always Putting Food Safety First,” McDonald’s posted a video of President Joe Erlinger explaining the steps the company has taken. He focuses on isolating the crisis: listing in which products (only the Quarter Pounder) and states (only a few) where E. coli was found and blaming the onions. This strategy achieves two communication objectives: encouraging consumers to return to McDonald’s and shifting responsibility to a supplier.
The video is odd in that Erlinger demonstrates no compassion and offers no apology. Business communication students know that being a bit more human doesn’t imply culpability. His approach is strictly "an update . . . because food safety is so important to me and to everyone at McDonald’s.” Isn’t it time for companies (looking at you, Boeing) to stop saying how important safety is?
Erlinger also appeared on the Today show, saying, three times, that they took swift and decisive action—twice with active and once with passive voice. “Top priority” also got four plays during the short interview but was more appropriately used as anaphora. Clearly he received coaching. Following well-worn media strategies, he avoided speculation about other products impacted, and he transitioned a couple of times to “what’s important today” (the action they took).
The interview ended with a question about inflated prices and reputational damage. Erlinger recalled advice from McDonald’s founder, “If you take care of our customers, the business will take care of itself.” His objective is to inspire confidence, a word he uses twice at the end. But students will notice that he doesn’t sound or appear very confident. He’s a man managing through a crisis, and it shows.
FEMA Website and “Rumor Response”
As southern parts of the United States manage through two recent hurricanes, students might find it useful to analyze the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website, including its response to criticism.
Students can start by identifying the audience and communication objectives for the website. They might identify the primary audience as people in immediate need and the secondary audience as other U.S. citizens. One main goal is to help people find assistance, and another is to encourage preparation. When I attended a New York emergency preparedness training a few months ago, the speaker was clear about the purpose: to build our confidence, with the theory that we’ll fare better in a crisis if we have some tools (e.g., a to-go bag, a LifeStraw) and a positive mindset that we can help ourselves and others.
On the upside, the FEMA website is kept current. Milton gets top billing, with Helene, just days earlier, on a second screen. I question the graphic choice on this home page. Do we need to see what a hurricane looks like? Two other photos on the carousel seem like better choices: people talking, presumably being helped by FEMA agents.
The next section shows ways FEMA can help. The icons and actions are all clear. Students might compare the current site with former versions at the Internet Archive (currently down because of a hack—another post on that communication is coming). Farther down the page, we see how people affected by Helene, by state, can apply for assistance. Soon, I’m sure we’ll see links for those affected by Milton.
Politicians have criticized FEMA’s response to Helene, and the agency defends itself on a separate page titled, “Hurricane Rumor Response,” a curious title that could also be, “Hurricane Response Rumors.” Either way, “rumor” is a clever framing, clearing some political muck by downgrading the issue to office gossip or a child’s bullying.
The rumors are so plentiful that FEMA apparently has a database searchable by text or topic (two hurricanes so far). Someone spent some time on this, and a worthwhile class discussion would ask students why. Officials have talked about rumors preventing people from getting available help they need—and about morale issues within the agency (which I’m guessing is already feeling beleaguered). It’s, indeed, a strange time when the agency deployed for a crisis faces one itself.
Perhaps writing them as positive actions people can take instead of as negative rumors would more likely achieve the agency’s purpose, as in this example:
Why not surface the second part first? I would hate for someone, reading quickly, to take away that “FEMA only provides loans.” The point is to get people to apply for assistance, not to highlight the rumor.