In Charts: Disappointing Summer Movie Sales
Students can analyze charts and create their own to illustrate that moviegoers are venturing out less and less for the summer theater experience.
The first chart, created by the New York Times, is attractive and, focusing on just the top five movies each summer, gives us an idea of movie results. Here are a few issues students might find:
Movies six through ten could have had good results that significantly change the comparisons. For example, in the bar and line charts, below, we see that total 2023 box office sales were higher than 2024, which doesn’t show here. But if the goal is to focus on only a few movies, then, at a glance, we can see the winners and their contribution to the group.
Years 2020 and 2021 are missing, which makes sense because theaters were closed for much of that time. But omitting them entirely from the X axis may be misleading.
The chart includes a subtle organizing principle: the biggest hits are at the bottom. But the progression is difficult to see because several others are close in sales. Wider white dividing lines might better distinguish each movie.
The second chart from the NYT represents total box office sales dating back to 1980 with all years included. The bars provide a specificity that ChatGPT’s 2010-2025 line chart, below, doesn’t. (ChatGPT’s first version didn’t adjust for inflation, so the numbers didn’t quite match.) With the line chart, we see the downward trend since around 2015 more clearly. With the bar chart, we see more dramatic changes, for example, drops between 2013 and 2014 and between 2016 and 2017. These moves either don’t show on the line chart as clearly or, quite possibly, ChatGPT has a data issue. Without data labels on both these charts, nuance is difficult to see.
Comparing the bar and line charts illustrates the importance of choosing a graphic for the purpose and audience: a focus on results from each year or a trend over time. Either way, the news isn’t good for an industry trying to make a comeback.
Students might create their own charts. They might have fun comparing box office sales for their favorite summer movies or showing where theaters get their revenue. Superman cost me $12 for two matinee movie tickets and an embarrassing $24 in snacks. Despite high-margin extras like popcorn and soda, audiences who visit a few times a year won’t sustain a local theater. Clearly, Nicole Kidman’s AMC ad, spoofed by SNL, didn’t convince us to leave our houses for “the indescribable feeling we get when the lights begin to dim.”
“Rigged” Data Questions in Business Communication
Without getting too political, we could talk with students about what “rigged” data might look like in a business setting. President Trump used the term to explain his firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner.
Students might first review the BLS report, “The Employment Situation.” Then, they might read an interview with Cornell University Economist Erica Groshen, who was the BLS commissioner for four years during President Obama’s administration.
Data integrity refers to its accuracy, completeness, and consistency over time. In the interview, Groshen disputes claims by highlighting the BLS’s rigor (choreographed, specific roles) and repetition (consistency):
With regard to allegations of altering the data, the process is highly, highly choreographed, with tight deadlines. BLS does this every month, and everybody knows who needs to do what job on what day to get this out on time.
Without getting into the details of the jobs report, students might explore potential “rigged” data in other contexts. What does “rigging” mean? Although a colloquial term, we could interpret it to mean falsifying or manipulating inputs or presenting results to intentionally mislead.
Some examples are obvious, but others are not so clear-cut. For example, at what point could apple polishing, cherry picking, or comparing apples to oranges legitimately be labeled rigging data? If one month of weak sales data during a product recall is omitted from a line chart, is that rigging the data? How about if a rural location is compared to an urban location? On a dating app profile, if someone claims to be 5’ 11” when they are 5’ 10”, is that rigging data? What if they’re 5’ 10.2'“?
Students might consider the consequences of data reporting. Manipulating drug testing results is clearly different from exaggerating customer feedback about a food truck start-up. Students might discuss plans to ensure accuracy in their own data reports—and the consequences of inaccuracies or omissions.
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.
McDonald's Quarterly Earnings Report and Comm Strategies
McDonald’s had a good second quarter, with global sales up 6%. Students could analyze the report formats and communication strategies executives used during the earnings call.
One lesson for students is the multiple communication channels and report formats McDonald’s published to communicate its quarterly earnings. The press release, quarterly report in four formats (PDF, Zip files, HTML, and Excel), and recorded Webcast earnings call (and transcript) are all open to the public and convey a consistent message, which is upfront in the press release:
Our 6% global Systemwide sales growth this quarter is a testament to the power of compelling value, standout marketing, and menu innovation—proving again that when we stay focused on executing what matters most to our customers, we grow. Our technology investments and ability to scale digital solutions at speed will continue to elevate the McDonald's experience for customers, crew, and our global System.
Any question and answer during the earnings call provides examples of communication strategies. For example, executives use what we might teach as hedging or tentative language (“I think”); however, students can see these responses employed strategically. They persuade the audience by demonstrating humility and credibility—qualifying responses to show a cautious approach and, in effect, saying, “I don’t know everything.” This language also protects an executive whose prediction turns out wrong, and it conveys a conversational tone to build trust.
Although the news is good, the first question challenged the company’s reliance on “value,” particularly in the United States, where families are under increasing financial pressure. Here are the first question and answer as an example from the transcript (my notes in green italics):
David Palmer, Analyst, Evercore: Thank you, and thanks for all of your, comments. Sounds like you’re still exploring ways to bolster value perception in The US. Ahead of anything there, you know, could you just speak to where you think McDonald’s value and affordability scores are today in The US? You know, perhaps before and after Snack Wrap and your recent McValue menu changes. You know, where is the consumer perception today versus McDonald’s in the past and versus near end competitors and maybe even fast casual competitors?
And and if there’s a difference between The US perception in terms of value versus other key IOM markets, would love to hear about that as well. Thanks so much.
Chris Kemczynski, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, McDonald’s Corporation: Hi, David. It’s Chris [builds trust with first names and a friendly tone]. Thanks for the question. I think [demonstrates conversational style and humility with hedging language] when we talk about value, it’s important that we we really break it down and and get very specific about the different consumer segments. And I’ll start with, our most loyal consumers, and these are the ones who are on our loyalty program [previews content].
Roughly a quarter of our business in The US is on our loyalty program [frames the response and emphasizes return business]. And what we see is if you [conversational style] are a loyalty member at McDonald’s, we have we have exceptional value and affordability scores amongst those consumers. And probably that’s most evidenced by what I shared in in the prepared remarks, which is the uptick that you see in terms of frequency when we have a loyal consumer in our loyalty program going from 10 roughly 10 visits to 26 visits. So I think [again] with our loyalty members, our most ardent McDonald’s customers, we’re in a really good position as it relates to value [reinforces “value” throughout] and affordability perception. If you move then to the McValue program, McValue is working.
And if you think about what we have with McValue, we have the $5 meal deal, which is the anchor for that. That continues to perform very well for us. And then we also have the buy one, add one for a dollar program. What’s interesting is [highlights what’s important] those two programs are very complementary. If you look at consumers who are using both, it’s only about 8% or so who are actually using both.
So they’re going after two very different occasions, two very different users, but compelling to both. So I feel good about the loyalty program. I feel good [uses anaphora to emphasize his confidence] about where we are with McValue. But the issue or the opportunity is if you add those two up, that’s, call it, roughly 50% of the business. And we know there’s the other 50% that today isn’t coming into our restaurant, isn’t using McValue, isn’t using the loyalty program [anaphora again], and that’s where we have the opportunity, which is around core menu pricing that we talked about in our prepared remarks [transitions to an “opportunity”—is more direct in the next section].
Today, too often, if you’re that consumer, you’re driving up to the restaurant and you’re seeing combo meals could be priced over $10 and that absolutely is shaping value perceptions and is shaping value perceptions in a negative way. So we’ve got to get that fixed [addresses concern directly]. As I mentioned in my remarks, we’re having, I think [again], very active and productive conversations with the franchisees. But the single biggest driver of what shapes a consumer’s overall perception of McDonald’s value is the menu board. And it’s when they drive up to the restaurant and they see the menu board, that’s what’s shaping the that’s the number one driver. [Could be clearer, but the gist is that the low-priced meals are good sellers, but pricier menu items negatively affect consumer perception.]
So we’ve got more work to do on that in The US. I’d say on the IOM [international operational markets—insider abbreviations for the audience] side of the business, we’re in a better position on that. Part of it is, as I mentioned in in the remarks [Fourth time he refers to the remarks—could demonstrate consistency/integrity] as well, we have a really strong EDAP program in all of our markets. So these are essentially $1 $2.03 dollars $4 euro pound whatever the currency is. But that is proving to be a very strong addition to the value programs in the IOM market.
And then also, as I mentioned, our operators there have been very prudent and I think [again] are doing the right things to make sure that our core menu pricing continues to be at leadership levels in the market. I would just note [tentative language], also on our international side, it’s not as competitive a market as it is in The U. S. There’s a lot of different players in The U. S.
We don’t face the same breadth of those players or competitors in our international markets. And so I think it’s a little bit easier for us to stand out and represent good value in international.
Passive Investing in Charts
Simple charts illustrate passive and active investing. A new documentary, “Tune Out the Noise,” which The Wall Street Journal calls “a nerdy and genuinely engrossing documentary about investment strategy,” might interest finance and other business students.
These two charts show the total net assets and the net asset flows of active and passive investments over time. The area chart is a useful way to illustrate the percentage of total assets, while the line chart illustrates dollar value over time, clearly showing a shift beginning around 2005.
This might be an opportunity to explain the difference between active investing (trying to outperform the market, which may involve frequent moves and higher costs) and passive investing (buying and holding stocks for the long term, often in index funds with lower fees). A WSJ article raises questions of humility for active investing:
Picking stocks is at heart an arrogant act.
It requires in the stock picker a confidence that most others are dunces, and that riches await those with better information and sharper instincts.
A class activity or assignment could ask students to research and create visuals for active and passive investments over time. Results seem to vary by asset class. For example, a recent Morningstar analysis found higher long-term success rates of active investing in real estate, bonds, and small-cap equities, and the lowest rates in U.S. large-cap equities.
Comparing Stock Charts for Perspective
This was a bad week for the U.S. stock market, but graphics make the news look worse than it is. Students can compare charts to see how truncated axes affect perception.
Yahoo!’s monthly chart has a short range: 41,000 to 44,000 for this monthly line chart. With the red line and shading, the results look awful. Noting the 6.87% drop is helpful—it’s not great but not devastating either. For the 62% of Americans (varying largely by demographic group) who own stock in some way, their portfolios are unlikely to be invested 100% in DJIA stock, so their personal losses are probably smaller.
This one year chart, also Yahoo!’s, shows a more complete view of the market. Over a year, stocks were still in positive territory—green(!)—and the recent dip is in clearer perspective. Not that short-term investors and perhaps retirees shouldn’t be concerned, and we might be headed into a recession, but this chart recognizes the extraordinary gains in the past year as well as the recent losses.
Students can find longer-term charts to see an even fuller picture of U.S. stock market returns. They might also find, or need to create, charts with a Y-axis starting at 0.
As always, the data visualization depends on the audience and purpose. If your audience is television viewers, and your purpose is to engender fear, then short time frames and truncated axes do the trick. If you’re a financial advisor, and your audience is a client who is a long-term investor with a balanced portfolio, you would probably not show these charts at all and instead focus on their portfolio returns over time.
Jobs Report and Graphics
A Wall Street Journal article illustrates simple graphics for the latest jobs report and serves as a good discussion starter for students about their own prospects.
The classic bar chart shows non-farm jobs added over the past couple of years. Student might compare the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ presentation and the Wall Street Journal’s. Of course, the WSJ adds some color, including red to highlight the latest data point. But the axis ranges show the biggest differences. The WSJ pulled data back from 2022, forcing a larger x-axis range and including the uptick in 2022, which may imply more volatility and a lower number in 2025.
The BLS includes -100 on its x-axis—a good idea to illustrate potential losses, which of course, we see in longer-range job charts. For perspective on the current employment economy, these would be interesting for students to explore.
Students might create a different chart from the BLS data and tell their own story. Their story might involve a tougher time finding full-time employment, which is an obvious problem with these domestic averages.
A useful discussion is why the BLS and WSJ chose a bar chart for jobs added and a line chart for the unemployment rate. The bar compares discrete values each month, while the line chart shows the trend of a continuous data point over time. A line chart could work for jobs, too, and we’ll see this display as well. Students could search for “jobs added” and compare the graphics.
BCom Lessons From the VP Debate
The U.S. vice presidential debate offers business communication lessons in reporting, delivery style, evidence, and answering questions.
A large, top-of-page Wall Street Journal heading claims victory for J.D. Vance and highlights delivery skills: “Vance Confident, Walz Uneven in Debate Heavy on Policy.” Students might discuss how “confident” and “uneven” are assessed. What makes Vance sound “confident”? Does “uneven” refer only to Walz’s delivery style or to his overall performance?
The beginning of the debate (before I fell asleep) offers obvious examples of delivery. Tim Walz, the first to respond to a question, spoke slowly and hesitated during the first few sentences, repeated words (said “fundamental” four times in four consecutive sentences), and said “Iran” instead of “Israel.” Vance came out strong. Before answering the first question, he gave a mini-bio, including his difficult upbringing—relating to voters who also find themselves in difficult life circumstances.
Unlike the right-leaning WSJ, the left-leaning New York Times homepage requires scrolling past five articles about the war in the Middle East on the left-hand side before we see the headline: “Takeaways From the Vance-Walz Debate: Civility and Then a Clash Over Jan. 6.” If I recall correctly, the placement on each publisher’s webpage was about opposite for the presidential debate, which analysts reported as a victory for Kamala Harris.
Students can analyze CBS News’s fact-checking, presented in a video. The video allows for clips from the debate and nuance. We see a slider—not a yes/no—assessment of four points. The first, about opioid deaths, receives a “partially true” rating with an explanation of when data started to be collected and the percentage claimed. We don’t hear the sources of the claimed or the fact-checked data, and students might question the source of the fact-checking itself. Like any source, CBS News demonstrates bias, if not in the analysis, then in the selection of issues to check. Another news source would choose different “facts” to check. Regardless, the video—only 8 minutes to fact check the entire debate—could make for good class viewing.
Another relevant topic is how the candidates responded to questions. Three examples might be interesting to explore with students. First, Vance’s responses to the question about immigrants in Springfield, OH, which caused his mic to be turned off. Second, Walz’s response to his claim of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. And third, that last question from Walz: “Did Trump lose the 2020 election?” For this question, Vance chose the classic communication strategy of deflecting the question, saying he wanted to stay “focused on the future,” and then transitioning to, “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?" Of course, that is also is the past. Walz called his response a “damning non-answer.” Students might analyze what “damning” means in this case. Damning for what or whom?
Otherwise, the debate was more civil than many, with candidates pointing out areas of agreement throughout. This is worth students’ attention as well.
Bud Light Ad, Demographics, and Visual
An AdAge article describes a new Bud Light ad and references a movie from the 70’s, raising questions about the target demographic.
The scene is a dean’s office, with a student being accused of plagiarism. The joke is that others admit to failings just to get a cold bottle of Bud Light.
The AdAge writer describes “a scene recalling Dean Wormer admonishing the Deltas in Animal House.” Although the movie is of my generation, I have no memory of that scene and wonder whether others do. It was a cult film at the time, but still, the cohort is in their 60s now. Maybe students know the movie—or think the ad is funny regardless.
Bud Light’s target demographic is younger, according to this report:
While among Baby Boomer beer drinkers Bud Light has a brand popularity score around 30 percent, it’s almost 40 percent among Gen Z consumers. Similarly, around 40 percent of Millennials have consumed Bud Light in the past 12 months, as compared to 24 percent of Baby Boomer respondents.
According to this Statista chart, Baby Boomers consume less Bud Light than the other demographic groups. Students might redesign the chart. To be fair, the main point isn’t about consumption but is about all key performance indicators (KPIs) of the brand. Still, one obvious problem with the chart is the similarity of colors, which makes them difficult to distinguish in the legend. We’re also missing the total, which is greyed out in the legend. In addition, students might question the order of the KPIs on the x-axis, which, at first glance, appear to be in rough numerical order, but that doesn’t hold when we see the Buzz group. Maybe a radar or bubble chart would work better—or at least a horizontal bar.
U.S. Committee Report About Amazon
Few people think about the impact of Amazon Prime Days on employees, but the U.S. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee produced a report worth reviewing in class.
Although the report format doesn’t follow all business communication principles, students will see several they could include in their own reports:
Clear title and subtitle: With repetition and strong language, the titles conveys the main point: “PEAK SEASONS, PEAK INJURIES: Amazon Warehouses Are Especially Dangerous During Prime Day and the Holiday Season—and the Company Knows It.”
Message titles (or “talking headings”): The authors create a clear argument with full-sentence subheadings.
Executive summary: Although not labeled, the first four paragraphs function as an executive summary. This part explains the complaint well.
Data and stories: The report mixes data and employee quotes to balance a logical argument with emotional appeal.
OSHA warnings: The second paragraph of page 5 and top of page 6 are particularly strong, giving evidence from OSHA reports about inaccurate and missing reports. To me, these are stronger than the first paragraph on page 5, which accuses Amazon of treating minor cuts and bruises and not reporting them as injuries—which isn’t required.
To meet business communication standards, the report could be improved:
The report could be more visually interesting. The underlined heading, to start, is a 1990s throwback.
This line chart is a mess. Purple highlighting is helpful, but students would find better ways to present this data.
The argument seems to be simply about volume. Yes, Amazon’s injury rate on Prime Days is far above industry averages, but so is its volume. What about on other days? Before Prime Day, when volume is lower, injuries are lower. Perhaps they average out? This doesn’t excuse high rates, but it does explain them. Prime Day is an example of cherry picking data and is employed as a marketing frame for the argument—not the problem itself.
The inflammatory language may detract from the report. “But Amazon does not stop there” is unnecessary to make the argument and might harm the writers’ credibility.
The company’s admission of staffing issues may be inappropriately raised in the report. Using an Amazon safety training video that includes an example of an injury caused partly by lack of staffing seems unfair.
An entire section is dedicated to staffing, but other solutions might be more realistic. More of the report could be dedicated to actions Amazon might take. The few listed on page 8 could be expanded.
I’m never convinced by arguments like this one: “But those investments over four years are less than 3 percent of the company’s $36.9 billion in profits in 2023 alone.” I have often seen these calculations—percentages of revenue or profit—in students’ presentations, and they mean little. What do similar companies spend, or what is the industry average? Without a target, this is not a compelling reason to spend more.
This is an interesting report with good reasons for Amazon to reduce workplace injuries. A consultancy’s report, which students might write instead, could make a more useful, convincing argument.
Data and Visuals Illustrate Tyson's Water Impact
The Union of Concerned Scientists’ report and related visuals show how Tyson Poultry pollutes U.S. waterways and offer teaching tools for class.
The online report is a good example of an interactive report. Unlike the traditional reports we typically teach, this one lacks organizational features that could be useful to a reader; we don’t see an executive summary or table of contents. A hyperlinked list early on could be useful to find, for example, the acknowledgments or references, which account for about one-third of the report. Oversized tables are clear but could convey more meaning with visuals and comparisons. Given the first sentence of the report, “If you have ever purchased meat or poultry from the grocery store or enjoyed chicken nuggets from a fast food restaurant, chances are you are a consumer of Tyson Foods (Miller 2018),” the audience seems to be the general public, but most people don’t know the significance of, for example, 138 million pounds of chloride (although I know it’s not good).
Still, the message is clear in the first paragraph, and the group doesn’t mince words with the report title, “Waste Deep.” After describing the scope of the company, the punchline is at the end of that paragraph: “However, that prosperity comes at a high price—especially for communities burdened by water pollution from Tyson processing plants.”
A Guardian article translates data for the public to better understand. As discussed in Chapter 9 of Business Communication and Character, comparing data to something the audience can picture provides context and relevance. The article includes images of Olympic-sized pools and Manhattan and provides an infographic of all meatpacking plants to show the scope of Tyson’s wastewater.
Later in the article, we see the pollutants grouped. A few major categories with brief descriptions are much easier to understand than the laundry list of pollutants in the Scientists’ report. Students will find other ways the Guardian helps us make sense of the Tyson data.
Harvard's New Stance
In a short report, Harvard has clarified when it will, and will not, speak out about world events. One question is what neutrality means in practice.
With this report, a faculty working group provides guidance to university administration. Other universities, such as Northwestern and Stanford, have taken similar positions—that is, to avoid having one. The Harvard group steers clear of condoning “institutional neutrality,” but their stance is similar to the others’: to weigh in only on matters related to the “core functions” of the university, for example, affirmative action and education taxation. This seems a bit obvious but may be important to specify.
The report is uncharacteristically short for an academic paper—a mere three pages including more than a half-page of credits. The main point is in the fifth paragraph: “The university and its leaders should not, however, issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.” At the center of the decision is the integrity of the university: speaking up in accordance with its values and mission. Otherwise, as administrators have learned the hard way, an administration can never represent all views; they don’t, and shouldn’t, speak for everyone. Students might analyze the report and interview responses from the faculty who chaired the committee.
As we might expect, the policy provides cover for administrators. The report authors are explicit about this benefit: “When pressure builds on the university to make an official statement, as will sometimes happen, the university should refer publicly to its policy.”
This quieter approach follows the practice of corporations and nonprofit organizations, who learned their lessons sooner and less publicly than universities did. Today, we hear little about world events from company leaders. During an interview this week with Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix, the interviewer observed, “corporate activism is on its way out.”
Nutrition Labels as Visual Persuasion
As the U.S. government considers new labels on packaged food, students can analyze arguments about this visual communication.
The latest idea is to show large, front-of-package (FOP) labels, possibly without the numbers and percentages we’re used to seeing. Consumers would see information more easily, albeit with some interpretative descriptions (options shown here). The goal is for consumers to make healthier choices.
Students could research arguments about the change. For example, one study showed household reductions in sugar, fat, and sodium after Chilean policies mandated front-side labels. Tony the Tiger was banned from this “Frosties” (Frosted Flakes) box. The Food and Drug Administration also describes focus groups and experimental studies in favor of the change.
The food industry argues that FOP labeling won’t have the desired effect, removes responsibility from consumers, and could infringe on products’ trademarks because of changes to the packaging. One older study showed mixed results of front-of-package labeling, including in a “halo effect” for “vice products,” for which any label—even one showing excessive sugar—made the product look more credible. Students will find more research on both sides and might consider how new weight-loss drugs could affect consumer choice.
Domino's Website About Tipping
A new tipping program at Domino’s illustrates reciprocity, one of Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion, and students can analyze the webpage and functionality.
With the title “You Tip, We Tip,” Domino’s clever program gets at the heart of frustration with tipping since the COVID-19 pandemic. In exchange for a tip of $3 or more, customers get a $3 coupon. Of course, the company benefits by getting another order and can avoid paying workers more than the ridiculously low federal minimum wage of $2.13 per hour (higher in some states and localities). A website explains the program in three sections: How It Works, Videos (which includes only one), and FAQs.
Domino’s explains how the program works in simple terms on an interactive screen. Personally, I find the repeated clicking unnecessary on the last screen, which could show all four boxes under “How It Works” at once. The “gamification” seems overplayed.
The video is funny, including an officiant presenting a tip screen in the middle of a wedding ceremony. Anyone can relate to feeling awkward when seeing that screen.
For a simple program, the website lists a lot of FAQs. Also, almost all answers are only one or two sentences, so the content could be presented more efficiently. Each question is a drop-down, but answers could be incorporated into the question, for example, the one below.
Overall, the program is easy to understand, and the website is clear. But I find it overdone for the purpose, which could contradict and complicate the simplicity of the program.
Annual Letter as Business Communication Genre
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink published an annual letter that’s gaining popularity like Warren Buffet’s letters. The letter is a good example for students to analyze for its organization, persuasive strategies, lack of visuals, and evidence.
Fink’s letter is long, and the audience is stated as BlackRock investors. But of course, he has broader ambitions, which are realized as we see the extensive media coverage. He wants to attract investors to BlackRock, but he also wants to change policy and company practices to fund retirement.
Fink explains “energy pragmatism” and “energy security,” giving up on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) language that first was embraced and then drew cries of “wokeism.” Instead, he focuses on retirement as a broader, more acceptable crisis: an aging population with not enough saved. Fink also quit the threatening approach for CEOs to disclose more about their practices.
The main message of the letter is clear: “We focus a tremendous amount of energy on helping people live longer lives. But not even a fraction of that effort is spent helping people afford those extra years.” Fink argues that people are woefully unprepared for retirement. From a business communication perspective, the letter takes a while to get to the main point. Fink starts with emotional appeal, describing how his parents invested throughout their lives. This could be more effective if their behavior shaped his own thinking, but he admits that he had been at BlackRock for 25 years before discovering their surprisingly large nest egg. Still, the family connection feels relevant to his point.
In addition to the hidden main point, the letter could be better organized to reflect his recommendations. A class assignment could ask students to provide a bulleted list (which The New York Times summarized).
With only one confusing visual, shown here, the letter is meant to be read—as a letter. This genre seems particular to a few high-profile investment managers. The extensive footnotes are important to support Fink’s points but make this an unusual example for business communicators. It’s not quite the letter we see to introduce a company’s annual report. We might call it something like a personal report for the use of “I,” family stories, and observations plus citations and recommendations.
British Royal Family and the "Information Vacuum"
The British royal family (which, I just realized, has its own website), is facing pressure because of edited photos and secrecy about health issues.
News outlets have retracted a photo of the Princess of Wales, aka Kate Middleton, hugging her three children on U.K. Mother’s Day. The princess is an amateur photographer, as she explains in her apology, which came more than a long day after the news broke. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the retraction is unusual but happened because the photos were so obviously edited. The family didn’t share the original photo, raising questions about what exactly was changed.
The reporter described the family’s secrecy regarding recent health issues as well. The princess underwent “abdominal surgery,” while the king is undergoing treatment for cancer. The vague descriptions seem only to fuel speculation. As the WSJ reporter says and business communicators know happens, in an “information vacuum, conspiracy theories have come to rest.”
He also raises ethical and regulatory issues, reminding us that “this is a partly taxpayer-funded monarchy, and they have constitutional roles . . . to uphold.” They need to balance individual privacy with their obligation to keep the public informed about their health.
A Princeton sociology and public policy professor has a different take, questioning the “We pay, they pose” mentality. She also challenges a double standard between calls for Catherine’s privacy and no similar respect for Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex. These differences could be explored with students as well.
Still, the princess’s photo was an attempt to show that everything is alright, perhaps even perfect, which is why people doctor images—to delete imperfections. But her editing has revealed the opposite: that everything is, literally, not right. The situation raises issues of integrity and trust, integrity meaning wholeness and consistency. When the family releases photos in the future, they will be scrutinized more closely.
The Visual Pull of Tech Stocks
Line charts show how the “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla—affect the S&P 500. Students can analyze the potential audience and objective of each of these visual displays, find others, or create their own. Hover over for comments about each, and click on the slide for the original source. The data represents different timeframes, so the charts aren’t quite comparable.
Students also might be interested in evaluating whether Tesla should remain part of the Magnificent Seven. Some believe it’s lackluster performance makes it unworthy of the designation.
China Changes Youth Unemployment Measure
After a five-month lapse, China reported youth unemployment data, which looks better because of new metrics. The change raises questions about data integrity and reporting.
According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the unemployment rate of people between 16 and 24 years old dropped from a high of 23.1 in June to 14.9 in December. But the rate doesn’t mean more young people are employed. The Bureau now excludes students enrolled in school, even if they’re seeking part-time employment. Reports also will now separate people between 25 and 29 from those between 25 and 59. A record number of college graduates are having a particularly difficult time finding jobs, partly because of restrictions on tech, real estate development, and education fields and because of a slow recovery from the pandemic, which Chinese officials seem reluctant to admit.
The youth data change might not have been as alarming if China hadn’t stopped reported data after that record high in June.
Students might discuss the significance of these changes and compare how China reports jobless data to U.S. methodology (see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). This situation is a good project for students to dig into the data and also analyze, for example, differences between urban and overall rates.
Students also can find or create charts to visualize the change over time. They’ll likely find mostly line charts like the one at right that shows the urban rate over the past two years. As many do, this chart has a truncated Y axis, exaggerating the differences (and yet, one percentage point is a lot of people out of work).
Hasan Minhaj Defends Embellishing Stand-Up Comedy
The comedian Hasan Minhaj isn’t cowering after a New Yorker reporter fact checked and criticized his Netflix series Patriot Act and other performances. His response is an unusual approach for crisis communication. Students might discuss issues of integrity and analyze evidence in this situation.
In her article, “Hasan Minhaj’s ‘Emotional Truths’,” Clare Malone wrote,
[A]fter many weeks of trying, I had been unable to confirm some of the stories that he had told onstage. . . . Still, he said that he stood by his work. “Every story in my style is built around a seed of truth,” he said. “My comedy Arnold Palmer is seventy per cent emotional truth—this happened—and then thirty per cent hyperbole, exaggeration, fiction.”
In part, Malone’s focus was on the consequences of Minhaj’s fabrications (he might say “embellishments”). When comparing his stories to George Santos’s, Minhaj says Santos’s are "pointless,” whereas his have societal value, which gives him moral standing. Students can discuss how much is too much “stretching the truth.” How might standards of integrity differ for comedians, politicians, organizational leaders, entrepreneurs, job applicants, etc.?
People make difficult decisions about whether and how to respond to criticism. Minhaj fought back. A New York Times writer summarizes Minhaj’s response well:
Typical crisis management dictates you should move on, not fixate. But in our attention economy, where the most popular Netflix specials of the past year featured Chris Rock talking about the Slap and John Mulaney joking about going to rehab, comedians are wise to consider Rahm Emanuel’s famous political advice: Never let a good crisis go to waste. Minhaj split the difference. He did not linger on the story but dedicated a solid chunk of jokes to it that got one of the biggest responses of the night. There were moments when I even thought this scandal might be the best thing that ever happened to him.
During a recent Beacon Theater show, Minhaj quipped to the audience, “Don’t fact check me.” He said of the New Yorker report, “I got caught embellishing for dramatic effect,” and said it was too bad it was such “a dorky scandal” and not one involving, for example, child abuse.
In a 21-minute video watched, so far, 1.9 million times, Minhaj addressed criticism head-on, showing headlines and a Bill Maher clip. He apologized to those hurt by his routines and addressed three stories in detail. He distinguished between what really happened and how he changed details to create a funny/poignant story. Supporting his points, Minhaj played audio from the interview with the New Yorker reporter. As he acknowledges during the video, his explanations are a bit much (saying at one point, “If you’re still here,” and, I admit, I dropped off soon after). But he does provide good evidence of the reporter ignoring or missing information. (For a deep dive of disputed facts, read this Slate analysis.) Naturally, Malone posted a short statement on X, defending her reporting.
To his credit, Minhaj has enough perspective to conclude with a main point (direct organization plan—up front!): he didn’t “fake racism.” Students can draw their own conclusions and whether they are convinced by Minhaj’s presentation of the evidence.
This situation gives students a different perspective on crisis communications. Minhaj highlighted rather than downplayed criticism, which may have avoided his getting “cancelled” and might even elevate his reputation.
Missing Communications Prep in University Testimony
If students need an example of the value of crisis communication, the university presidents’ testimony this past week proves the point. An embarrassment to all three colleges, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, and MIT, the public hearing ended with apologies from two of the leaders and the resignation of Penn’s.
A New York Times article describes how a law firm prepared both the Harvard and Penn presidents. As business communication faculty know, legal advice protects the organization from litigation. But crisis communication advice protects the organization’s, and the leader’s, reputation.
To a PR expert, the lack of proper preparation, including practicing answering a range of difficult questions, is clear. NY Representative Elise Stefanik asked the most pointed question: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or No?“ Presidents focused on speech vs. conduct and said it “depended on the context.” Harvard President Claudine Gay gave vague answers about Harvard’s “commitment to free expression” and “rights to privacy.” Stefanik and other lawmakers accused Gay of not speaking with “moral clarity.”
To me, the character dimension most at issue is integrity—the universities’ commitment to DEI and free speech, yet what some see as an inconsistent application. All three presidents issued statements after the hearings:
Harvard: President Gay issued a short statement, contradicting her response to Stefanik’s question: "There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.” In an interview with the Harvard Crimson, she apologized and demonstrated compassion, “I am sorry,” “Words matter,” and “When words amplify distress and pain, I don’t know how you could feel anything but regret.”
MIT: In a statement, President Kornbluth linked to her opening statement and wrote generally about community and fighting against hate. She didn’t directly address the hearings or her responses to questions.
Penn: Demonstrating humility in a video message, President Magill admitted that she should have responded differently: “In that moment, I was focused on our University’s longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It's evil—plain and simple.”
Magill has since resigned from Penn along with the Board chair. Alumni pressure at Penn was particularly strong even before the hearings. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, possibly the loudest voice, is calling for the other presidents to resign as well. A Harvard graduate, Ackman wrote an additional letter to his alma mater, a good example of persuasive communication if you’re prepared to manage fallout from a heated class discussion.