Vanguard’s Botched Email
Vanguard could have done a better job with service recovery after a mistaken email. Students will have ideas for improving the company’s response.
I received four of these emails (one for each transaction I submitted) on Tuesday at around 8 p.m. Each had the same subject line to match the body text, “We couldn’t process your request,” and the return address, do_not_reply@transactional.vanguard.com. Nothing says we don’t want to hear from you like a “do-not-reply” sender.
Dutifully, I called the number Wednesday morning. The recording said hold times were 25-30 minutes, so I entered my number for a return call and waited. The call came about two hours later.
The representative said the emails were sent mistakenly, apparently to a lot of us. Turns out, the orders had gone through (checking the account would have avoided the call). I don’t recall her apologizing, which is something I would expect in this type of situation—nothing elaborate, just an acknowledgment of the inconvenience.
The correction email came Wednesday at 3:43 p.m., about 19 hours after the first email was sent. A faster response would have avoided worries and phone calls like mine. Maybe the company is unpracticed at handling errors, or it had difficulty determining which clients were affected?
On the positive side, like the first emails, this one included a clear, specific subject line: “Correction: Please disregard our email about an account transaction.” Again, no apology. Also, why is the red horizontal bar blank, while, in the first email, the company name is inside? The two different reds look odd, but the website does use both.
This is a minor failing for a company with a solid reputation. Still, adding a few words during the phone call and in the email, for example, “We apologize for the inconvenience,” seems appropriate if nothing else. After all, the email said to call. For such small transgressions, little recovery is needed, but some acknowledgment seems fitting and expected.
Cantor’s Comms 25 Years After 9/11
Cantor (formerly Cantor Fitzgerald) suffered the largest loss of employees of any company on September 11, 2001. What the company communicates on this 25th anniversary offers lessons in segmenting audiences and commemorating a tragedy without exploiting it.
Cantor’s website has no special message today. On the “Who We Are” page, we see the story integrated into the company’s “six core pillars.”
No other Wall Street institution has a story like ours.
Our company was founded upon six core pillars . . .
They present the message subtly in the lead-in and describe it explicitly in this pillar:
Resilience and Perseverance
Not only have we persevered through every market fluctuation over the past seven decades, but we’ve built a global financial services powerhouse in the wake of unprecedented hardship. In 2001, we tragically lost 658 of our 960 New York-based colleagues in the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. Due to the unwavering dedication, determination and ingenuity of our employees, we stand stronger now more than ever before.
The paragraph doesn’t mention the most emotionally compelling fact—that every one of its employees who was in the building on 9/11 was killed. Perhaps that’s just too gruesome to fathom, or maybe the individual numbers better respect the loss, as each of the 658 lived a life and left loved ones.
Cantor must be careful to avoid using the loss to benefit the company. Focusing on resilience and perseverance, leaders position the company as survivors of the tragedy, which helps deflect criticism of exploitation. Charitable work also can mitigate this risk. The challenge is using the tragedy to serve others—not the company itself, as the content block shown here does.
Under the Philanthropy tab, we find information about the Cantor Relief Fund, and “Donate Now” leads to another site: cantorrelief.org. This separation is important to segment audiences and recognizes that Cantor’s younger clients may not have a meaningful connection to the event. On this site, the company describes its Annual Charity Day, a book created by families affected by 9/11 losses, and a private area for families that requires login. This, too, reflects an ongoing commitment to serve rather than capitalize.
The Relief Fund site feels positive and hopeful. We see people marching, gathering, smiling—and a lot of little kids. Cantor isn’t asking for sympathy for itself, just support for others.
Miami Plane Crash Statements
The Amazon cargo flight crash at Miami International Airport provides a useful crisis communication case study. Here are statements as of September 8, 2026, from the many involved parties.
For students to analyze responses, they might review text from Business Communication and Character, Chapter 7:
How a company responds depends on the type of crisis—victim, accidental, or preventable. A victim crisis involves an event, for example, a hurricane, that is beyond a company’s control. In an accidental crisis, for example, an equipment failure, the company has more responsibility, and in a preventable crisis, for example, financial impropriety, the company has full responsibility (Tachkova and Coombs, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons from the Edge, 2022, 35–42).
Investigations will reveal how to categorize the crisis but, regardless, we know that five people on the ground were killed and five injured (three in critical condition), so the reputational stakes are high for companies’ responses. Flight 7598A, operated by 21 Air LLC for Amazon Air, was a 32-year-old Boeing 767-33 (a converted freighter); because an operator, major brand, and manufacturer are involved, a lot of fingers could be pointed.
Here is what we see so far.
Local Authorities News Conference: The primary goal for this public news conference is to ensure safety. The first two speakers don’t introduce themselves, but they are the sheriff and mayor, who doesn’t add much except to thank people for their work. The fire chief provides more details, emphasizing his team’s work in rescue and fire safety in the “very complex situation.”
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): One communication goal is to build credibility for the investigation and, later, confidence in its findings. Chair Homendy leads the conference, first explaining who they are and what they do. At around 1:44, she stops to offer condolences. Demonstrating compassion, her delivery is heartfelt (much more so than in the local news conference). She also thanks first responders. She provides details about the situation, for example, that the aircraft struck the vehicles. She explains their process, emphasizing “fact-based information” and building credibility for the agency and their work. This part is rather detailed, listing which team will analyze which data. At about 15:00, she describes the scene as “utter devastation” and “hard to see.”
She doesn’t address a question about speed, but public information now shows the plane exited the runway at 112 knots, which is about 129 miles an hour.
Her response at 19:00 is masterful and worth watching. She balances reassuring people about safety with conveying compassion, while emphasizing that recommendations must be implemented.
Amazon: A primary communication objective may be to distance itself from the flight operator (that is, to shift blame). A company statement posted on the corporate news site mentions "operated by 21 Air” and plans to “coordinate with 21 Air.” Otherwise, the statement offers condolences, as it should, and little else at this point. The first statement includes, “This is a fast-moving situation,” which may be a poor choice of words considering the plane speed would be questioned.
21 Air: Like Amazon, the company says little but posts a notice (signed by the CEO) on its website—on the homepage. Clearly, it’s the most significant news for the company, which promises updates on that same page as information becomes available. The primary communication objectives may be to avoid drawing any more attention to itself than necessary and to reduce speculation before investigations are complete. Curiously, the statement says nothing about the pilots, who were trapped in the cockpit and hospitalized (and then released). Students might question the reason for the omission and draft ways the company might acknowledge the pilots’ condition without assigning responsibility for the crash.
Boeing: No stranger to a crisis, Boeing has no news release on its website and no post on X. Certainly, Boeing leaders would want to avoid the situation entirely and hope this plane isn’t to blame. Like 21 Air, leaders want to reduce speculation. A Reuters article includes only this: “Boeing and 21 Air said they would support the government investigations into the crash.”
A CBS News report questions 21 Air’s safety record. Pilots claim the company fails to provide enough rest between flights, discourages safety complaints, and defers plane maintenance. If these allegations are true, they might point to a preventable crisis for the company, which affects the communication strategy.
When asked about these claims, an Amazon spokesperson demonstrated a distancing strategy:
We'll defer to the NTSB regarding the circumstances of their investigation and to 21 Air regarding these allegations that pre-date our relationship with the company.
Article headlines like this Wall Street Journal’s indicate that Amazon has more work to do in distancing itself.
We’ll see what the NTSB concludes and what, if any, blame may rest with Amazon.
Neutrogena Says Little About Panettiere’s Death
Actress Hayden Panettiere’s death reignited criticism of Neutrogena’s contract termination a decade ago, which surfaced earlier this year. The company responded minimally and may need to do more to quell the backlash.
Before the 36-year-old’s death, Panettiere said in interviews that Neutrogena “fired” her back in 2015-2016 after she spoke about her postpartum depression. She said the company pointed to a “morals clause” after the ten-year relationship. Since her death, fans are calling for a boycott, which analysts say may hurt in the short term but rarely has lasting negative results on sales.
When she made the claims, Neutrogena said nothing; now leaders saying little. An Instagram post reflects a minimal, clichéd crisis communication response: say you’re sad, acknowledge that you didn’t support her (the best part), and say it’s not who you are or what you stand for. Neutrogena also promises to invest in women’s health through a partner to be announced later and says it didn’t respond earlier “out of respect,” which feels dishonest.
The carousel message on Instagram is an odd choice. The additional two screens are easy to miss, and Neutrogena’s “on-brand” font seems out of place. As Rolling Stone reports, the company “stops short of apologizing,” and comments are turned off, as though users wouldn’t comment elsewhere.
Students may discuss what else Neutrogena should have done and can still do. They also may discuss the company’s responsibility. Some may believe the company is being unfairly scapegoated for a decision made a decade ago.
We also don’t know the whole story of the contract termination. We know Panettiere connected the decision to her speaking openly about her depression, but maybe Neutrogena had other reasons. Certainly the company shouldn’t argue the point now; nothing leaders could say would sway fans in their favor.
What might be best is to rise above the noise and focus on the tragic death of a talented, young mother. She tried to raise awareness about her struggles, which were real for her and are for many women.
Confusing Cyclospora Lettuce Comms
Confusion abounds from both Taylor Farms and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about lettuce contaminated by Cyclospora, which has sickened thousands of people. Students can analyze communications and identify failures of accountability.
The FDA and CDC traced the illness back to Taylor Farms de Mexico, but lab tests created what the FDA refers to as a “false positive.” Although one test came back positive, that didn’t prove the source of outbreak. However, the false positive didn’t change the epidemiological conclusion.
Here’s one opportunity for students to revise communications. The statement could be clearer, perhaps explaining terms like false positive and epidemiological.
Students also might question why the FDA communicated results before obtaining more evidence. That would avoid the agency’s need to backtrack with a statement like this:
Due to the complexity in detection of Cyclospora, FDA laboratory experts re-reviewed the sample results and have concluded that the finding does not represent true amplification and should be considered a false positive.
Otherwise, the recall is typical, stating which lettuce people should avoid eating, what symptoms to watch for, and how to get refunds.
Taylor Farms Statements
The company has a dedicated page with a notice and link on the homepage. It also posted a typical recall message, mirroring the FDA’s, but it includes more information.
Most recent as of today is the “Summary of Facts”:
We understand that there is significant confusion over outbreak communication. We want to provide a summary of the critical facts for your health:
On July 17 we voluntarily recalled all iceberg lettuce grown in central Mexico that was identified as the potential source of the Cyclospora outbreak.
This recall has been completed with products removed from the marketplace.
No Taylor Farms branded products are involved in this recall.
We are no longer sourcing iceberg lettuce grown in central Mexico for the remainder of the growing season.
We currently have experts on site in central Mexico investigating all potential sources of contamination.
We are committed to working closely with health officials during this ongoing investigation.
We remain deeply concerned for the health of those who are ill and will provide any updates relevant for your health.
Of course, the company employs the crisis communication strategy of distancing itself as much as possible, emphasizing products “grown in Mexico.”
This part is confusing and matters primarily to the company: “No Taylor Farms branded products are involved in this recall.” Students might flag this statement as a failure to take responsibility, and it is unlikely to inspire consumer confidence in any Taylor Farms products. A clearer approach might be to show pictures or list products unaffected.
Company leaders probably took great pleasure in these statements:
Yesterday, FDA informed Taylor Fresh Foods that one of its iceberg lettuce products from central Mexico tested positive for cyclospora. Today, we were informed that FDA made a mistake, and this was a false positive. To be clear, at this moment, FDA has not identified a single positive product test result for Cyclospora.
Based on initial information provided by health officials, in an abundance of caution, we completed a voluntary recall of iceberg lettuce from central Mexico. Recalled product was limited to iceberg lettuce grown and processed in central Mexico.
That statement leans into the FDA error and fails to convey the full picture. Company representatives also tried to delay the recall by appealing to the White House through a lobbyist. The executives wanted more evidence, which is somewhat understandable given the FDA’s missteps, but still demonstrates the company’s failure to take responsibility.
As we would expect, this “apology” is nowhere to be found in FDA communications. Also notable: Taylor fails to mention the epidemiological work; all roads led to Taylor’s lettuce.
Meanwhile, videos and memes on social media are hilarious, promoting diets of only processed foods for health and safety.
Messaging Around Wendy’s Meme Stock
Alan Greenspan might have called this week’s build up of Wendy’s stock irrational exuberance. The situation illustrates persuasive communication principles and company response.
Taking a page from the “OG” GameStop meme stock, Redditters on WallStreetBets promoted the narrative “Save Wendy’s” and taunted investors with “YOLO” and by showing a $350,000 position in WEN. The rhetoric tempts watchers with a “rescue narrative” and with Robert Cialdini’s influence principles of social proof and scarcity:
“We need to save Wendy's before it's too late!”
“$WEN to the moon – 350K YOLO.”
“Not if, but WEN!”)
“To the moon” also exemplifies insider language and inspires feelings of belonging.
The push worked, temporarily, lifting Wendy’s stock 42% until trading was halted. It closed at 25.7%, but as Vanda research company said, “[O]ur data confirms that today’s surge in WEN has indeed been driven by abnormal retail buying.” Redditers might dispute the “abnormal” characterization.
Wendy’s communicated little during the day except to announce a new CFO. What is there to say when your company becomes a meme stock? Probably nothing.
Meta Says Little About Outage
For a outage that affected hundreds of millions of Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger users, Meta executives have said surprisingly little. Students may analyze the company’s minimal response in this situation.
Meta doesn’t to have a page to provide status updates to the public. However, its business page, metastatus.com, acknowledged outages for ads products.
Other than that, Meta's VP of Communications Andy Stone tweeted only two posts shown here. Nothing appeared after: no company statement, no explanation, no apology, no plans for improvement—silence, as though it didn’t happen at all.
In this case, Meta may have skirted a crisis situation. The outage didn’t translate into outrage, and we may never know what caused the problem. Although the company didn’t follow classic crisis communication advice, they may have made the right decision to say so little.
UnitedHealthcare Ad Tries to Repair Image
Bruised by publicity around the murder of CEO Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare has a new ad focusing on employees. Students can analyze the ad as a strategy for repairing brand image.
With the title “Committed to Care,” the commercial shows a diversity of employees. They speak of their commitment to the company and to serving customers. They look like average people—like one of us—not polished executives in fancy offices wearing fancy clothes. They talk about the heartache and challenges in their own lives of being different and having family members with health problems. They (and their kids) get emotional.
Clearly, the purpose is to humanize UnitedHealthcare—to counter criticism, particularly about denying claims. Critics say the company relies on algorithms, so this ad emphasizes actual people and their feelings.
Students might identify primary and secondary audiences and communication objectives for the ad. They might cite specific objectives, for example, increasing enrollment and lowering cancellation rates, and broader objectives, for example, improving talent acquisition and ensuring executives’ safety.
Given the anger at UnitedHealthcare and support for Thompson’s alleged murderer, the company has a lot of work to do. Students might consider the timing of this ad, about 16 months after the shooting. That’s probably enough time to avoid criticism about reactivity and spin. With an immediate response, the company also might have appeared dismissive, lacking compassion for Thompson’s death. Yet not too much time has passed that the company has missed the moment—the opportunity to present another side of employees’ work.
Comparing Artists’ Statements about Freedom 250
Students might compare how performing artists communicated their decision to withdraw from a Freedom 250 event.
The same day the Great American State Fair concert on the National Mall was announced, several artists changed their mind about participating. Some said they were misled, believing the event wasn’t as non-partisan as initially described to them. Here’s the description on the Freedom 250 website:
Freedom 250 is the national, non-partisan organization leading the celebration of our Nation's 250th birthday. Working together with the White House Task Force 250, federal agencies, and the Commission, Freedom 250 serves as the official public-private partnership that connects, aligns, and amplifies national and local efforts to deliver the defining presidential moments of this anniversary year.
At its heart, Freedom 250 is creating a movement of citizens, organizations, companies, and leaders from across the country to honor our Nation's proud history, cherish our God-given freedoms, and build the Golden Age of Opportunity for the next 250 years. Other signature events include the Great American State Fair, Memorial Day Parade, and Evening Candlelight gathering, Sail4th 250, Salute to America (DC July 4), and the Patriot Games, among others.
Here are statements to compare and a few distinguishing elements. Links to full posts illustrate disconnections in some, jumping from the decision to a global statement without any substantive rationale.
Brett Michaels: Emphasizes concern for fan safety and failing integrity—inconsistency is messaging—of event organizers.
“Concerns have also been raised regarding the safety of my fans, band, crew, family and myself, including threats that are completely unfounded and unforgivable.”
“Unfortunately, what was presented to us as a celebration of our country has evolved into something much more divisive than what I agreed to be part of.”
Martina McBride: Also emphasizes integrity—in this case, consistency between her actions and her songs.
“It greatly upsets me that any fan who has been moved by my music may now feel like I’m abandoning the meaning behind those songs.”
Young MC: Also says he was misinformed, although students might question why he and others didn’t know the event was “Trump backed.”
“The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event. And despite the claims by the organizers that the event is non-partisan, SPIN magazine describes [it] as Trump-backed.”
Morris Day: Says little but posted this image with jarring colors, an outdated circle-slash, (likely) Cooper-Black font, and the caption, "It's A No For Me.”
The Commodores: Published a statement about their values, as others do.
"Our music has always been our voice, and we choose not to publicly affiliate with any single political party. We support the betterment of all Americans."
Students may find more posts and analyze them for their own illustrations of character as well as inconsistencies and reasoning gaps.
OpenAI Trial: “Stole a Charity” and Other Highlights
Elon Musk’s case against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shows a clever framing and other issues about money and leadership.
Elon Musk repeated versions of the phrase “steal a charity” 17 times when he took the stand. Sam Altman may have made a classic crisis communication mistake by repeating it yet again:
It feels difficult to even wrap my head around that framing. . . It does not fit with my conception of the words '“stealing a charity” to look at what has actually happened.
The phrase seems to be missing a preposition, but it implies that the entire nonprofit organization has been under siege, co-opted for personal (profit) gain. Charity sounds folksy, as though the execs are stealing from the church collection plate or taking money from a food pantry.
Altman also struggled answering a question about his honesty. He was asked repeatedly whether he is honest and whether he lies. Students might analyze this part of the testimony (about halfway down the WSJ page). Altman can’t seem to say that he doesn’t lie. When asked, "You've been repeatedly called deceptive and a liar by people with whom you've done business, right?,” he answered, “I have heard people say that.” The exchange seems like a win for Musk, although he lost the $150 billion claim against OpenAI.
But OpenAI lost too. “Scam Altman” and “stealing a charity” may reverberate in investors’ heads during the pending IPO.
Insults Hurled with Kevin O’Leary in Data Center Fight
Like many communities, Box Elder County, Utah, is debating the development of a local data center. Two young women are in the spotlight, attacked by investor Kevin O’Leary. Students might analyze O’Leary’s claims and the women’s video approach as they attack back. The data center project, dubbed Wonder Valley (“Mr. Wonderful” on Shark Tank), mirrors a smaller Alberta, Canada, project.
On X, Gabi Finlayson and Jackie Morgan posted a video of O’Leary on Fox News. He accuses them of being Chinese operatives, and they interject by commenting on his flip flops and hat. They laugh and curse, and although the video shows many edits, they are authentic—unlikely Chinese shills.
Students may laugh too—the women are funny—but they have stronger arguments. O’Leary has more claims with little evidence. He discounts other protestors ("over 90% of the protesters are actually not people that live in Utah or Box Elder County” . . . “paid by somebody—I don't know who”).
In addition, one of his major arguments is the number of jobs the data center will bring, but Business Insider reports a discrepancy. O’Leary claims 10,000 temporary construction jobs and 2,000 permanent positions, but his own O'Leary Ventures CEO Paul Palandjian said numbers are closer to 4,000 for start-up, and USC Marshall researchers found ongoing jobs to be about 78% of that initial number.
He also dismisses environmental concerns by boosting himself: "I'm actually the only developer of data centers on earth that graduated from environmental studies, so I'm pretty aware of what these concerns are.” His Wikipedia page cites “an honours bachelor's degree in environmental studies and psychology,” which could mean just a few undergraduate courses.” Also, of course, knowing environmental concerns doesn’t necessarily translate into protecting the environment.
The X video did get 3.8 million views so far, so something worked. But students might discuss how else the women can respond to O’Leary’s attacks.
An Argument Against Canvas and Other LMS Use
The recent ShinyHunters Canvas hack exposed vulnerabilities in higher education infrastructure and ignited calls for educators to take protective actions. A blog post by the Digital Rhetorical Privacy Collective (DRPC) offers an example of a persuasive argument for students to analyze and includes recommendations relevant for business communication faculty.
Talk with Students about Data Ownership, Privacy, and Security
Lessons around digital citizenship and data integrity are certainly within our course objectives, although data privacy and security may be less so. Still, the breach is an opportunity to remind students about setting strong passwords, restricting personal information, and practicing skepticism to avoid phishing attempts.
Insist on Transparency and Responsible Technology Use in Classrooms
The DRPC suggests talking with students about what faculty can see and how we track student participation in an LMS. This is one of those situations when it might not be our responsibility, but we may be one of few (or the only) faculty who discuss the breach and LMS vulnerabilities with students.
Reduce, Rethink, Refuse LMS Use
Although well intentioned, blog post suggestions in these categories are rather broad. We might rethink how we use an LMS as we rethink our entire courses and pedagogy because of AI. But the recommendations to move assignments to other platforms and post the bare minimum may work for some content or some faculty but not others.
Students may have their own ideas about LMS use, including whether they would like to see more low-tech options and whether they want to manage new platforms that require separate logins.
UPDATE: Students might compare that blog post to a Chronicle opinion.
Opposition Letter to Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger
An open letter signed by movie and TV professionals illustrates persuasive communication and a few sensitive issues.
Students can identify the major arguments in the letter, which are primarily around dangers of consolidation and reduced competition. They might also identify the strongest and weakest arguments. Here are a few examples:
The anti-trust framing is a strong argument, particularly with reference to only four remaining major U.S. studios and planned legal action mentioned at the end.
Discussion of reduced opportunities is a strong argument about the negative effect on jobs and those who rely on the industry.
The “collapse of the international sales market” claim is a big statement without evidence and could be interpreted as a slippery slope fallacy.
Missing evidence is also apparent in claims about the “severe strain” on the industry, although this might be obvious to insiders.
Also notable is the long list of signatories and, particularly, those selected for top billing. In boxes instead of the text list below them are “featured signatories,” and we might wonder how they achieved this status. Do they represent paid supporters, well-known names, or something else? Do those at the bottom know they won’t be featured?
Anyone can sign the Google form and provide a role. We see a few moviegoer, consumer, voter, and citizen” roles, so maybe those “featured” are culled actors and directors?
Regardless of the popularity of the letter, will it work? If the primary audience are the dealmakers, they might have already considered and rejected these arguments. Antitrust challenges may be more likely to determine the outcome.
Communication Strategies to Oppose U.S. Forest Service Changes
In addition to companies’ own messaging that students may compare, a website, SaveUSFS, illustrates a communication campaign to mobilize opposition against changes to the US Forest Service.
SaveUSFS: This website is a great example of a campaign with clear explanations, message examples, and calls to action. Students can identify the communication objective, which is primarily to get brands to speak out and pressure federal action. The site illustrates how to mobilize action by offering specific copy-and-paste language and ways to connect with brands. The clear organization and calls to action are most obvious in the site menu:
The Situation | The Stakes | The Brands | What To Say | Take Action
Patagonia: Not one to shy away from controversy, Patagonia published a statement with strong language:
We commented about this last Wednesday after the news broke, but we want to be clear on our stance about the recent news of the United States Forest Service, because protecting public lands is core to our purpose: Moving the USFS to Utah will gut the agency. By shutting down its research stations, culling its staff, and moving the headquarters to Salt Lake City, it will be surprising if USFS can effectively manage anything at all.
The only beneficiaries of the move and other rollbacks to public land policy from this past year are billionaires and extractive industries.
Patagonia will continue working with our Tribal and nonprofit partners to protect public lands and advocate for more funding for USFS and the Bureau of Land Management.
Conservation Alliance: Consisting of 190 member companies, this group focuses on “protect[ing] lands and waters for future generations” and “business resilience.” Notably, only 77 companies are “signatories” to the group’s statement (below). We are left wondering why others didn’t sign on, and students might guess why, for example, wanting to frame their own messages, time limitations, or concerns about consumer or political backlash, particularly for smaller companies or those dependent on government funding.
As businesses that rely on well-managed, accessible public lands, we expect the U.S. Forest Service to adhere to its legally mandated mission: ‘to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people’. The recent announcement to relocate agency headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah and close regional offices and research facilities raises concerns about the agency’s ability to properly manage its 193 million acres and maintain decades of research and scientific knowledge needed to support them. Recreation on Forest Service lands currently drives $23.3B in economic output annually but local communities, visitors, businesses, and the outdoor economy stand to suffer if the agency doesn’t receive the funding, resources, and staffing that it needs through this transition. We are committed to working alongside the Department of Agriculture and congressional leaders to provide clarity on the priorities of our community, advocate for robust public engagement, and safeguard the future of Forest Service lands.
The Alliance statement is much softer than others and likely illustrates what happens when we try to get multiple perspectives onto the same page: We get a watered-down result.
Additional Brands: SaveUSFS compiled a list of additional brand messages, mostly on Facebook, for students to compare.
Instagram and the “PG-13” Label
Instagram is expanding its Teen Accounts and dropped the “PG-13” language. Students can analyze the communications about these accounts—and explore skepticism about whether these new safety tools work.
After losing two lawsuits about child safety, Meta’s Instagram focuses on Teen Accounts to reassure parents and appease European lawmakers. But the PG-13 label was contested by the Motion Picture Association as a trademark violation and potential cause of confusion.
Meta’s attempts to restrict teen content literally cannot be “guided by” or “aligned with” the MPA’s PG-13 movie rating because Meta does not follow this curated process. Instead, Meta’s content restrictions appear to rely heavily on artificial intelligence or other automated technology measures.
At issue is the degradation of the rating, which is determined by parents who watch the movies. In updated language, Meta said it was “closer to PG-13 movie standards—which parents already know.” In this latest communication, titled, “Instagram Expands Teen Accounts Inspired by 13+ Content Ratings,” Meta refrains from “PG” language entirely, instead saying the “revamped Teen Accounts” are “inspired by 13+ movie ratings criteria and parent feedback.”
Students may have a lot of opinions about the announcement and Teen Accounts. They might explore criticism about age verification and content screening to assess whether parents can trust this classification. They might also assess Instagram’s “Tips for Parents” and “Manage Your Teen Account Settings” for kids.
McDonald’s CEO Leans Into Viral Video
McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski explains his mini-bite viral video and other challenges facing the company.
Kempczinski boldly agreed to a Wall Street Journal video interview, and he handles the discussion well, at times laughing about the viral video. Directly addressing why he took what looked like a tiny bite of the new Big Arch burger, he explained:
I blame it all on my mom because she said, don’t talk with your mouth full, and I think probably, in that case, I should have said, you know what, to hell with it, I’m gonna talk with my mouth full.
His explanation makes sense, and he does speak with his mouth full during the WSJ video after taking a human-sized bite of a French fry.
However, for the original video, he obviously didn’t think through the possibilities of editing (which, as I pointed out, removed a crumb from his lip). A too-full mouth of food could have been omitted.
Kempczinski takes a personal approach now, mentioning that he first learned about the viral video from his kids. As in his other videos, he sounds authentic—like his genuine self—and speaks about the competitive market and rising costs as we would expect of a CEO.
New Research About Expressing Emotion and Implications for Students
Business communication faculty have long taught students that emotional appeals—for example, eliciting anger—are persuasive, and that still holds. But new research published in a monograph, “Emotions on Our Screens,” shows that expressing our own emotions online may not change others’ minds. We see parallels with delivering bad news.
Six studies assessed posts about climate change and found that, when people expressed emotion, for example with a sad-face emoji, users viewed the post as “less appropriate and inauthentic.” Talbot Andrews, professor of government at Cornell University, explains, “I think you’re crying crocodile tears to make me feel bad about this, and I see through that ploy.”
I’m reminded of layoff meetings during which managers would cry. These meetings require a delicate balance: neither indifference nor emotional spillage that some employees perceive as performative and attention-seeking—similar to the climate research examples.
From the research about online displays, Andrews clarifies:
Emotional expression can serve an important role, helping people find a community that cares about their issue. Even if it doesn’t achieve any influential goal—persuading others or building your social media clout—expressing emotions often makes people feel better. The takeaway is not that people should keep their feelings to themselves, but that such expression won’t always be taken at face value.
As we might expect, emotions in text messages were found to be more authentic than those on social media. Public posts seemed more like “virtue signaling” or clickbait.
Students might evaluate their own texts and social media posts for displays of emotion. What might they change if their goal is to persuade?
Brands Having Fun
The stolen truck carrying 413,793 packages of KitKat bars launched memes and jokes from Nestlé and other brands. The situation is another example of companies embracing mishaps.
KitKat took full advantage of the incident:
We’ve always encouraged people to have a break with KitKat—but it seems thieves have taken the message too literally and made a break with more than 12 metric tons of our chocolate.
Then other brands got into the game. Pizza Hut claims a new KitKat pizza, DoorDash suggested people add 500-600 KitKats to their order, and RyanAir posted a plane with a mouth full of KitKats. This Del Taco one is cute.
We saw similar brand responses during the McDonald’s mini-bite incident. McDonald’s humbly poked fun of itself, and other brands pounced. The art is responding on-brand and quickly. Some of the KitKat responses are repetitive and feel like copycats. Student could analyze them to see which are most and least effective. RyanAir’s stands out for its weird silliness—definitely on brand.
I expected to see something on the KitKat website. But under “latest news” are progressive muscle relaxation and box breathing videos, perhaps overdoing the “have a break, have a KitKat” slogan. Student will have opinions on this too.
Business Communication Lessons from Meta/Google Trial
Business communication students can learn from the KGM v. Meta and Google case for their own presentations and messages. Three examples are emotional appeal/storytelling, concrete visualization, and document discovery.
Considered a landmark case that opens paths for other suits, KGM v. Meta and Google (Instagram and YouTube) found companies negligent, citing defective product design causing addiction. The plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, has a reputation of theatrics in the courtroom, which we see in these first two examples. Students need to balance ethics/credibility and effectiveness for their own presentations.
Emotional Appeal/Storytelling
At the heart of this case is how kids are affected by social media, and storytelling was key. Families brought photos and a large banner with names and ages of children who died, blaming social media companies. Plaintiff attorneys also showed a large poster with hundreds of selfies KGM posted of her when she was a child.
These strategies humanized the plaintiff and contrasted Mark Zuckerberg’s stoicism. As NPR reported:
At one point, the family's lawyer brought out an internal document about how Meta's staff has pushed Zuckerberg to be more empathic and relatable and more human in public appearances and, you know, not to be fake and corporate and cheesy—these are their words—you know, during events like court appearance. And Zuckerberg responded by, you know, showing some human vulnerability. He said, quote, "I think I'm actually well known to be very bad at this."
Concrete Visualization
In legal terms, “demonstrative evidence” or a “demonstrative exhibit” “explains or illustrates” testimony; it’s not direct evidence. In persuasion communication, we might call this type of evidence examples rather than, for example, data. We also encourage students to make large numbers concrete.
Lanier illustrated these strategies:
As the punitive-damages phase of the trial got under way in court on Wednesday, the plaintiff’s attorney, Lanier, revealed a jar of M&Ms—415 of them. Each one represented $1 billion of the $415 billion in total stockholders’ equity of Alphabet Inc., he said. As he removed M&Ms one by one, Lanier noted how the jar barely registered a change, symbolizing how inconsequential even a ruling of $1 billion in damages would be to a company of Alphabet’s value.
This type of illustration gets attention and does clarify points but might seem cheesy in business presentations.
Discovery
Once again, this is a good opportunity to talk with students about the legal discovery process, which makes any internal emails, texts, reports, Teams content, etc. public. Perhaps the plaintiff’s strongest evidence was Meta’s own documentation that demonstrated how leaders exploited—actually, built—platform features to increase addiction.
Instead of a lesson warning students about what they put in writing, we might teach them to act with integrity. If social media executives hadn’t build systems that are now proven to be addictive, they wouldn’t have had to censor what they put in writing.
Both Meta and Google are appealing the case. They will not accept responsibility. Together, the companies will pay $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages. That’s .6% of one M&M. How could students visualize that?
Viral Staples Videos
Staples has an employee turned social media star with fun viral videos. The “Staples Baddie” Kaeden Rowland somehow makes office products look interesting.
In this video with 5.7 million views, she explains how to make a signature stamp.
Rowland says she’s autistic and wanted to show her work as a print specialist:
I was like, How can I make people really feel, not just see, the passion I have for these stationery office products?
Staples leadership supports her authentic videos, which we might expect given her following. User comments include, “You are single-handedly saving staples,” and “omg are you the staples baddie i saw someone do a presentation in their class about????” The Staples social account engages on some videos, as you see here.
An engaging class project can ask students to develop a video series relevant to a brand that could go viral. What might make the videos take off? How would they ensure that the series aligns with brand values? What are the risks and challenges?