Grubhub CEO: Agree or Resign?

The CEO of Grubhub had a tough message for employees who disagree with his anti-Trump sentiment: "you have no place here." After the election, Matt Maloney wrote an email about tolerance and inclusion. He expressed his disappointment in Trump's election, particularly his "demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled" and his "nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics."

He went a step further at the end of the email:

"If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. We do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team. I want to repeat what Hillary said this morning, that the new administration deserves our open minds and a chance to lead, but never stop believing that the fight for what's right is worth it."

Media reports and social media responses interpreted Maloney's message as a threat: anyone who voted for Trump should resign.

Maloney has responded that his email was misinterpreted:

"I want to clarify that I did not ask for anyone to resign if they voted for Trump. I would never make such a demand. To the contrary, the message of the email is that we do not tolerate discriminatory activity or hateful commentary in the workplace, and that we will stand up for our employees."

This distinction is important; otherwise, the company may be discriminating against people based on political views.

Discussion Starters:

• Read Maloney's full message to employees and his statement. How do you interpret his original message and the explanation?
• Should Maloney have sent the email to employees? What are the benefits and risks to the company and to him personally?
• Could Maloney have revised the email to avoid the controversy? How so?

NY Times Promises Fair Coverage

The New York Times publisher and executive editor sent an unusual email to subscribers about election coverage. Poynter reports that this email and another to employees were in response to criticism of left-leaning coverage of the campaign.

The message is both reflective and forward-looking, questioning an unprecedented election and assuring readers fair coverage of President Trump in the future. The publisher and editor promise to stay true to the newspaper's core mission, and they thank loyal customers.  

Arthur Sulzberger is the newest member of the family to be named publisher of The Times. A fifth-generation publisher, Sulzberger is a descendant of  Adolph S. Ochs, who bought the paper in 1896.

The email comes after Sulzberger sent an internal memo to staff:

Dear Colleagues,

As we close one of the most momentous weeks in our nation's recent history, let's pause for a moment on those famous instructions that Adolph S. Ochs left for us: to cover the news without fear or favor.

As Donald Trump begins preparing for his new administration, those words have rarely felt more important.

The Times is certainly not afraid - our investigative report has demonstrated our courage many times over. That fearless, hard-fought journalism will always stand as the backbone of The Times, no matter the President.

But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias. We will cover his policies and his agenda fairly. We will bring expert analysis and thoughtful commentary to the changes we see in government, and to their ramifications on the ground.

We will look within and beyond Washington to explore the roots of the anger that has roiled red and blue America. If many Americans no longer seem to understand each other, let's make it our job to interpret and explain.

Our predecessors founded our singular newspaper for just this moment - to serve as a watchdog to the powerful; and to hold mighty institutions accountable, without fear or favor. We are more than ready to fulfill that promise.

Together, we have built the world's best digital newsroom and it, too, was made for just this moment. We will chronicle the new administration with a lightning-fast report that features stories told in every medium and on every platform.

Here is what we have all dedicated our careers to: Going after the biggest stories in the world, and telling them as ambitiously as possible.

Get some rest this weekend. We have lots to do.

Arthur

Discussion Starters:

• You might read this as either an admission or a defense. What's your view? 
• What are the communication objectives of both emails? You might consider the newspaper business today. To what extent do you think they meet those objectives? Overall, are the messages effective?
• Assess the writing style against principles in Chapter 5. Pay particular attention to word choice and sentence structure.

FBI Says Nothing New in Clinton Emails

Just under the wire-two days before a close election-the FBI has announced nothing worthy of attention, after all, in Hillary Clinton's emails. The news comes just eight days after the FBI, led by James Comey, said the organization discovered new emails during an investigation of Anthony Weiner. At the time, no charges were made, and the FBI said they had no information about the emails, which wasn't helpful just 10 days before the national election.

Some question whether the FBI could reasonably read all messages, but it seems that most emails were personal or duplicates of what the FBI already reviewed.

In his letter to Congress, Comey stressed the work of the FBI agents to review the messages and said their conclusion from July was unchanged: no charges will be made in relation to Clinton's email server.

The news made The New York Times' biggest online front page headline as well as The Wall Street Journals'. 

Discussion Starters:

• Once again, did Comey do the right thing? What kind of pressure do you think he's been under?
• How, if at all, do you think this latest news will affect the election results? The first announcement did seem to tighten Clinton's lead. Will this announcement reverse it?
• Why are people influenced by this news-either way? The candidates have starkly different approaches, backgrounds, and plans.

Christie Associates Found Guilty

Two former associates of NJ Governor Chris Christie were found guilty of causing traffic problems for political gain. In what has been called "Bridgegate," Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni conspired to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge in 2013 as retaliation against the mayor of Fort Lee. At the time, Kelly was Christie's deputy chief of staff, and Baroni was the deputy director of Port Authority. Previously, two other aides admitted guilt in relation to the scandal.

The most incriminating piece of evidence was an email exchange between Kelly and David Wildstein, who leaked the plan. The message is clear: "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."

In a statement released after the verdicts, Christie says he's "saddened," but he continues to maintain his innocence.

Christie reiterated this point during an interview with CBS News.

But the verdict is bad news for Christie-and possibly for Donald Trump. On the stand during her trial, Kelly said that Christie knew about the plan, and text messages from another aide said he "flat out lied." Trump had named Christie to lead a transition team should he become president, and Christie is actively campaigning for Trump in these last days before the election.

Discussion Starters:

• Does this verdict hurt Christie's chance of maintaining his innocence? Why or why not?
• Assess his statement to the press. How effectively does he stay clear of the case and verdicts?
• What, if anything, should Trump do at this point? He didn't choose Christie as his vice presidential running mate, but he's clearly a Christie fan.

Does Comey Regret His Decision?

FBI Director James B. Comey made headlines today for reporting new allegations against Hillary Clinton because of, you guessed it, her use of email. This time, new emails have been discovered in connection with Anthony Weiner, the former NY congressman who was caught "sexting." His ex-wife is Huma Abedin, a Clinton aide.

Comey apparently went public with the news, in the form of a letter to Congress, without any specifics, with no decision to bring charges, and despite warnings from the Department of Justice. Soon after Comey went public, he issued this email to FBI employees, perhaps indicating his ambivalence about the release. 

To all:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.  Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case.  Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.

Of course, we don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.  At the same time, however, given that we don't know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don't want to create a misleading impression.  In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

Jim

Clinton's approach to the news is to go on the attack, criticizing Comey's decision as "unprecedented" and "deeply troubling."

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• Did Comey make the right decision? Why or why not? Is this just a distraction from the election, which is just 10 days away, or is this essential to Americans' decision?
• Will Hillary ever live down this issue? If she becomes president, what is the best way for her to handle the situation?

Layoffs at Twitter

Twitter is laying off about 9% of employees and closing Vine, the short video app it purchased in October 2012 before it launched. When Instagram offered video options, Vine immediately lost much of its user base. About 350 employees are affected.

Layoffs are awkward for Twitter, a site sometimes used for "live tweeting" bad news. In this case, a former employee created a Twitter Moment, "Last Day at Twitter." Exiting employees also used the hashtag #TwitterLayoffs. This could be risky for a company, but the posts are positive. It could be that employees enjoyed their time at Twitter and understand the rationale for layoffs. It could also be that employees are in high demand from other companies, so they won't be out of work too long.

Discussion Starters:

• Why do you think employees tweeted nice messages on their last day? I offered two theories. Any other ideas?
• Should the company have created its own hashtag for the event to pre-empt something worse? Why or why not?

NFL's Image Problem

The NFL's image is further damaged by a New York Times article today titled, "N.F.L. Shows It Doesn't Really Care About Domestic Violence." The piece starts by highlighting declining viewership, for which the league blames the current election. Certainly, people are sensitized to sexual assault incidents, but the NFL isn't helping itself:

"Yet again, in the case of Giants kicker Josh Brown, the league has shown that it could not care less about women and really, really doesn't want to call out its players for doing bad things to them."

Tough words. But the Times explains that Brown "was charged with assaulting his wife" "more than two dozen times." After investigating the case for 10 months, the NFL decided to suspend Brown for only one game.

The Times also said the league blamed the victim: "Brown's wife had failed to cooperate, the league said, and that's why its investigators couldn't get to the bottom of what he had done."

People are voicing their dismay on Twitter, with the second tweet here retweeted almost 2,000 times.

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of the Times' headline: overstated, unfair, spot-on, or something else?
• To what extent do you think these assault issues are causing declining viewership?
• What should the NFL do to restore its image?

Facebook Debates Trump's Posts as Hate Speech

Are some of Donald Trump's posts considered hate speech? That's what Facebook employees debated in December according to a Wall Street Journal article, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg decided against censorship. Some employees felt strongly-even threatening to quit-over Trump's posts proposing banning Muslims from entering the country.

A spokesperson for Facebook said, "That context [of a post] can include the value of political discourse. Many people are voicing opinions about this particular content, and it has become an important part of the conversation around who the next U.S. president will be." Another management team member wrote, "In the weeks ahead, we're going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest-even if they might otherwise violate our standards."

Facebook is in the spotlight partly because Americans increasingly use the site as a news source, and the company has been viewed as left-leaning. Clearly, Facebook is in a tough spot. 

Discussion Starters:

• What is considered hate speech?
• Did Mark Zuckerberg make the right decision? Research Facebook's policy for context.
• Should Facebook adjust its policy? Or is this a decision relevant only to the current election?

Ronald McDonald Sits Out Creepy Clown News

McDonald's classic clown, Ronald McDonald, is taking a vacation amidst news of so-called "creepy clowns," which have been scaring and possibly harming children. A company representative said, "McDonald's and franchisees in the local markets are mindful of the current climate around clown sightings in communities and as such are being thoughtful in respect to Ronald McDonald's participation in community events for the time being."

The issue began with reports of clowns luring children into unsafe places in South Carolina. Since then, pranks across the country have scared kids and taken much of the fun out of clowning. 

Image source. 

Discussion Starters: 

• A look at several clown association sites reveals no statement about the issue. Should they have a statement? If so, what? If not, why not?
• Why do you think the associations don't yet have statements? Your response could be related to the previous question-or not.
• Did McDonald's make the right decision in benching Ronald for a while? What's your view of the short statement? 

Wells Fargo CEO Steps Down

It was probably just a matter of time. Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf announced his retirement in the wake of a bank scandal that brought the CEO in front of the federal government  and brought the company millions of dollars in fines. Stumpf will walk away with about $134 million as his retirement package (although no additional severance pay). According to The Wall Street Journal, the board didn't try to convince Stumpf to continue on.

In a news release, the company included quotations from Stumpf and from the new executives. Stumpf quote read, "I am grateful for the opportunity to have led Wells Fargo. I am also very optimistic about its future, because of our talented and caring team members and the goodwill the stagecoach continues to enjoy with tens of millions of customers. While I have been deeply committed and focused on managing the Company through this period, I have decided it is best for the Company that I step aside. I know no better individual to lead this company forward than Tim Sloan."

A Slate writer called the news "a stunning fall for a banking leader who had helped guide Wells Fargo through the financial crisis and lead the company through its acquisition of Charlotte-based Wachovia." A New York Times writer called Stumpf's resignation "abrupt." 

Discussion Starters: 

• Do you agree with the reporters' language? Is this a "stunning fall" and an "abrupt departure"?
• Is Stumpf's retirement the right decision for the company at this time? Why or why not? What did the board of directors likely consider in encouraging-or at least accepting-his retirement?

Samsung Trying to Control the Damage

Samsung is dealing with a tough situation: batteries in the Galaxy Note7 have been causing fires. Warnings to turn off Samsung phones are heard on many flights, including mine to Denver this weekend. As the BBC reports, "that sends out a negative message about your products beyond even your own customers."

The company handled the initial reports well but lost favor when its replacements overheated or burned. The BBC article explains the growing issue for Samsung:

"The trouble is that even one phone which catches fire makes for startling pictures and a whole heap of consumer anxiety. Samsung may soon have to decide whether to cut its losses and abandon the Note 7 before it does more damage to its brand."

The New York Times also reported on Samsung's poor crisis communication:

"But for people to see those words, they had to click a link at the top of Samsung's home page with the not-so-urgent label 'Updated Consumer Guidance for the Galaxy Note 7.' As of Tuesday afternoon, the instructions had not been posted to Samsung's Facebook page or the company's Twitter account.

"For some who work in crisis management, it was a baffling and overly passive way for the South Korean electronics giant to deal with a prominent problem that has worsened in the last month."

On its website, Samsung posted this message: 

Samsung Will Ask All Global Partners to Stop Sales and Exchanges of Galaxy Note7 While Further Investigation Takes Place

on October 11, 2016

 

We are working with relevant regulatory bodies to investigate the recently reported cases involving the Galaxy Note7. Because consumers' safety remains our top priority, Samsung will ask all carrier and retail partners globally to stop sales and exchanges of the Galaxy Note7 while the investigation is taking place.

We remain committed to working diligently with appropriate regulatory authorities to take all necessary steps to resolve the situation. Consumers with either an original Galaxy Note7 or replacement Galaxy Note7 device should power down and stop using the device and take advantage of the remedies available.

Discussion Starters:

• Look at Samsung's recent news statements about this situation. How well has the company handled communication on its website?
• How, if at all, do you see this issue potentially reflecting poorly on the mobile industry? What should other phone manufacturers do?

How Naked Is Naked Juice?

Is Naked juice really "healthy" and worth the money? A lawsuit filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest says Pepsi is misleading consumers with some of its claims.

On the packaging, Pepsi promotes the juice as having "no added sugar" and repeats words like kale, when the truth tells a different story. A 15-ounce bottle of Naked contains eight teaspoons of sugar; compare that to a 16-ounce soda, which has about 12 teaspoons. The company's Kale Blazer certainly emphasizes kale on its label, but the primary ingredients are apple and orange juice, cheap products that don't justify the price consumers pay, according to the lawsuit. 

In addition to these misleading statements, the CSPI is faulting Pepsi for not labeling the drinks, "not a low-calorie food," which is required by the FDA when consumers could think otherwise.

Pepsi has responded to the lawsuit:

"Any sugar present in Naked Juice products comes from the fruits and/or vegetables contained within and the sugar content is clearly reflected on label for all consumers to see. Every bottle of Naked Juice clearly identifies the fruit and vegetables that are within."

This isn't Naked's first challenge. In 2013, Pepsi paid $9 million for calling the product "all natural." 

Discussion Starters:

• Do you agree more with the lawsuit or with Pepsi's response?
• What's the difference between sugar from fruit and added sugar? How much does this distinction matter?
• If the lawsuit is successful, how should Pepsi change the labels on its Naked products?

Recruiter Rejects Candidate for "Vulgar Comments"

The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) tells the story of a recruiter who rejected a candidate because of comments found on the dating app OkCupid. The recruiter, Sam Oliver, explains his decision in an article and describes the post: "[H]e was calling her obscene names and threatening sexual assault."

Oliver also describes his process for screening candidates online:

"Like most recruiters, I use a variety of sources when evaluating candidates - LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, AngelList, github, reddit, dribbble, the list goes on. Most people's social media is pretty benign: shared memes and jokes, vacation photos, interactions with friends and family. When looking at people's social media, I'm mostly looking to corroborate facts and timelines on their resume - where they live, previous jobs, alma mater, etc. If they've put enough information out there, I might also get an accurate glimpse of their personality, which is very helpful in hiring."

"Unfortunately for him, he had used his LinkedIn head shot as one of his OKCupid profile photos, and it was very easy for me to confirm his identity via a reverse Google image search. To any seasoned recruiter, I deduced his real identity using well-known tricks of the trade; people often do not realize how much information is public and readily accessible via social media."

Both the SHRM article and Oliver explain that the rejection is perfectly legal. You may be thinking that you can't discriminate against applicants, but that applies only to certain qualities, such as race, sex, and age. On the other hand, employers have a legal responsibility to maintain a harassment- and discrimination-free environment, and an employee who writes "threatening" messages online may put an organization at risk. 

Although he had no obligation to, Oliver told the applicant why he wouldn't pass his resume along to his client, which gave the applicant a chance to deactivate some accounts and remove incriminating photos. 

This situation is a good lesson for students seeking jobs. Assume everything you post can be retrieved and traced back to you.

Discussion Starters:

• Does the recruiter's decision surprise you? Why or why not? What are the downsides to rejecting a candidate based on social media posts?
• What advice from Chapter 12 would have helped this applicant?
• What about your own social media history may put your job search in jeopardy? Use Google and other sites to find as much information about yourself as you can.

Offensive 9/11 Mattress Company Ad

What were they thinking? Miracle Mattress in San Antonio, TX, produced a commercial advertising twin mattress prices for 9/11. At the end of the ad, two employees fall into "towers" of mattresses, and the lead actor says, "We'll never forget."

Understandably, people were outraged. This reminds me of the golf club that used a similar promotion in 2013. Also, this year, Coca-Cola took down a display of soda cartons at a Florida Walmart.

The company owner posted an apology and announced the store's closing on Facebook. He said elsewhere that he was unaware of the ad created by his employees.

Discussion Starters:

• How are these promotions different from, for example, Memorial Day sales?
• Assess the owner's apology. What principles of persuasion does he use? What recommendations do you have for improving the message?
• In this post, the owner didn't mention that he was unaware of the ad, as he did in other sources. What's your view of this choice?

Wells Fargo Reaches Settlement Agreement

Wells Fargo is taking action after the discovery that bank employees opened millions of fake checking and credit card accounts. Employees opened accounts in unsuspecting customers' names so they could earn credit for the sale. The bank benefited from fees people paid on accounts they never used.

In addition to paying a $100 million settlement fee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the bank has fired 5,300 employees over the past few years.

The company issued two major communications related to the situation: 

• A press release
• An email to employees

In addition, Jim Cramer interviewed CEO John Stumpf on Mad Money:

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• Compare the two Wells Fargo statements. How well does the company tailor these messages to primary and secondary audiences?
• How can customers miss paying fees? What is their responsibility, and what is the company's? Consider visual displays of bank statements in your response.
• How well does Stumpf respond to Jim Cramer's questions? Which are his strongest and weakest arguments?

Conversational Customer Service Wins Big Points

When Skyscanner travel app suggested a 47-year itinerary for a customer, he asked what he could do during the layover. Jen, the customer service rep didn't miss a beat: she's quick and fun, and includes her promise in the P.S.

The post went viral on Facebook, with people commenting on her spontaneity and lack of script. Customers are getting tired of the template response. The Houston Chronicle wrote, "We aren't sure who Jen is, but she totally just owned the Internet and we all loved it."

Social media responses have been getting friendlier. Perhaps companies (or their social media reps) are taking more risks. Sure, a negative post can cause all sorts of trouble, but this example and others prove that a positive, personal style by a human being can garner a lot of attention.

Discussion Starters:

• Look at recent social posts by your favorite company. Analyze the tone and approach. Have you noticed a change over time?
• Jen's strategy may not work for everyone. What are some risks of her casual style?

Sponsorships Getting Less Clear

The Federal Trade Commission has guidelines for celebrities and bloggers to reveal their sponsorship ties, but they are not consistently followed, and some say the guidelines could be clearer. Companies shell out thousands of dollars for people with large numbers of followers to mention their brands on social media. But what's the difference between testimony and an ad?

Mary K. Engle, the FTC's associate director for advertising practices told The New York Times that, although an endorsement has to be clear, they are not "prescriptive" about what's included in a social mention. The FTC guidelines suggest starting a post with something like "#Ad." According to the Times, "For example, simply saying 'thank you' to a brand or adding '#sp' or '#spon' probably isn't clear enough, while saying a brand is a 'partner' probably is," Engle said.

The organization Truth in Advertising wrote a letter to the Kardashian/Jenner family about recent posts they consider to be deceptive marketing. On her Instagram account, Kylie Jenner displays Fit Tea but fails to mention that this is a paid endorsement.

Discussion Starters:

• Should the FTC create more specific guidelines for what to include in social media posts? Or should celebrities know better?
• What's the value of disclosing that a celebrity is compensated by a brand? How, if it all, would a clearer marking affect your decision to buy a product?

Twitter's New Quality Filter

Twitter is still trying to make the site a kinder place, with fewer trolls and less abuse. Twitter's user base has been declining, and several celebrities have signed off permanently. The company, led by Jack Dorsey, has responded to complaints: "We are going to continue our work on making Twitter a safer place."

The latest attempt is a "quality filter," which Twitter explains on its blog:

"Turning it on filters lower-quality content, like duplicate Tweets or content that appears to be automated, from your notifications and other parts of your Twitter experience. It does not filter content from people you follow or accounts you've recently interacted with – and depending on your preferences, you can turn it on or off in your notifications settings."

Twitter frames the new features as ways to "Control Your Experience on Twitter." In addition to the filter, users can limit their notifications, for example, from only people they follow.

Discussion Starters:

• How well is Twitter addressing criticism of bullying and harassment on the site? To what extent will these features address concerns?
• How well did Twitter present the change on its blog?

Plagiarism by Trump Institute

In addition to Trump University, which is taking heat for defrauding students, Trump Institute is now criticized for plagiarism and other issues.

Donald Trump promoted the $2,000 institute in an infomercial to wannabe real estate investors, but his claims fell short. He said instructors were handpicked, but at least one person connected with the program said she responded to a Craigslist ad. And the Institute's organizers were Irene and Mike Milin, who The New York Times describes as "a couple who had been marketing get-rich-quick courses since the 1980s." In April, The Daily Beast wrote a long piece about the Milin's history of "legal entanglements," including promising government loans that no one received. 

The Times offered this comparison between Trump's materials and a 1995 book published by Success magazine. 

This example is part of the 20 pages that were copied from the original book.

Discussion Starters: 

• What is Trump's ethical responsibility to check the organizers' past? What responsibility does Trump Institute have to prospective students? Finally, what responsibilities do prospective students have? How could people avoid being hoodwinked into paying $2,000 for a program that doesn't deliver? 
• What plagiarism guidelines would you like to share with Donald Trump? 

At Last, Email Help?

Email "triage" tools can help us organize and our messages and, maybe, make better decisions about our communications. Hiri seems to focus on how people use email rather than on the tool itself. After all, we're the problem, not email. 

The company makes big claims: "Communication is the soul of your company. Hiri is an email app that helps you save time, organise your day, and improve communication." We'll see, but the app does have some nifty features:

• A weekly score of your clarity, brevity, and tone. (I'm curious about how this is rated.)
• A forced wait time of 30 minutes, to avoid checking email too often. This could be frustrating, but checking too often causes stress, according to some studies.
• Distinguishing emails that require action from FYIs. Tasks are created from emails that require a response or action. This could be useful to diminish attention to all those emails on which we're copied. 

Discussion Starters: 

• How could these features help people organize their time and improve communication?
• Which email triage tools have you used in the past, and how have you found them helpful?