Boris Johnson's Resignation Speech

British PM Boris Johnson’s resignation speech is a lesson in delivery skills. Johnson reads a script and yet sounds natural—he uses conversational language and comes across as authentic.

Johnson resisted calls for his resignation, both at this point and previously, when lawmakers believed other transgressions were cause for him to leave office, for example, holding parties that violated Covid guidelines. The “final straw" was when Johnson hired someone who faced sexual misconduct charges. Although Johnson denied knowing about the claims, he later admitted that he did know. Two high-ranking officials resigned, followed by several others.

The speech, 6.5 minutes long, begins with his decision and the “will of the Parliamentary Conservative Party” that a new leader should be instated. He then highlights successes during his tenure, including Brexit, Covid actions, and supporting the Ukrainian people during the war. Expressing regret, he concedes that “no one is indispensable.” At the same time, he acknowledges that some people will be “relieved” and, with colloquial language says, “Them’s the breaks.”

Ending with gratitude for the job, lawmakers, and the public, Johnson leaves on a positive note about the future of the United Kingdom. Despite issues of integrity throughout his time as PM, Johnson does the right, if not obvious, thing in the end.

TikTok Tries to Reassure Senators

Two letters illustrate persuasive communication for students to analyze. The first is a letter from nine republican U.S. senators following a BuzzFeed article, “Leaked Audio From 80 Internal TikTok Meetings Shows That US User Data Has Been Repeatedly Accessed From China.”

The second is TikTok’s response. After a few introductory paragraphs (which say very little, in my opinion), CEO Shou Zi Chew tackles each question in sequence.

As we might expect, some responses are clearer than others. In a fairly obvious obfuscation, Chew doesn’t respond to sub-questions (a, b, c, etc.) individually. Question 9, about Beijing parent company ByteDance and a newly named subsidiary, is particularly confusing.

Despite company efforts, at least one senator believes TikTok should testify before Congress.

Image source.

More Documents Show McKinsey's Role in Promoting Drugs

McKinsey has already paid close to a $600 million settlement for its consulting work with Purdue Pharma that fueled the opioid crisis. Now, as part of that investigation, new evidence has emerged about its role with other companies.

For example, McKinsey worked with Endo, which ramped up sales as part of a “blitz” recommended by McKinsey. In some cases, McKinsey suggested focusing on more potent products and, as we saw with Purdue, targeting physicians and developing aggressive sales incentive programs.

Endo sold Opana, which became an injected street-drug and caused an HIV outbreak. Still, McKinsey suggested ways to increase sales. McKinsey also recommended ways to avoid taxes, which, although technically legal, President Obama called tax “abuse.”

McKinsey promoted itself as having “in-depth experience in narcotics.” In one document, McKinsey boasted, “We serve the majority of the leading players.” That persuasive language has come back to bite the company.

Examples from the McKinsey document trove are included in 11th edition of Business Communication and Character to illustrate persuasive communication, writing style, and a lack of integrity. Newly released documents illustrate internal debate; for example, one consultant wrote, “We may not have done anything wrong, but did we ask ourselves what the negative consequences of the work we were doing was, and how it could be minimized?”

McKinsey may have hoped that the large settlement and public email to staff at the time would have ended the company’s trouble. But more criticism and lawsuits may be looming.

Companies Navigate Comms After Roe v. Wade

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, women’s constitutional right to have an abortion, companies are faced with thorny decisions about whether and how to communicate. Leaders have become more vocal on social issues, for example, gay marriage and Black Lives Matter, but this situation may be more complicated.

Several companies have expanded their health care coverage to include travel for medical procedures, but they avoid the word “abortion.” For example, Disney sent an email to staff:

“We have processes in place so that an employee who may be unable to access care in one location has affordable coverage for receiving similar levels of care in another location,” including, “family planning (including pregnancy-related decisions).”

Other companies were more direct. Back in April, after the Texas ruling that limited abortions, Yelp’s chief diversity officer said, “We want to be able to recruit and retain employees wherever they might be living,” She raised the issue of equity—access for employees who may not have the funds to travel. She also said, “The ability to control your reproductive health, and whether or when you want to extend your family, is absolutely fundamental to being able to be successful in the workplace,”

Starbucks, facing unionization efforts and staffing issues, sent three letters to partners during the past few months and posted them publicly. Each uses the word “abortion” and acknowledges different views on the subject and that some may feel “disheartened or in shock.”

How companies approach these communications reflects their business, employee base, location, and culture. We might expect Starbucks, whose founder and current interim CEO Howard Schultz has consistently been vocal on controversial issues. Starbucks leaders demonstrated courage, vulnerability, compassion, and integrity—standing up for what they believe is right, despite strong feelings on the other side.

Business Communication and Character Lessons from Jan. 6 Hearings

Not every faculty member will want to talk about the United States House Select Committee hearings about the January 6, 2021, attack on the capitol. At the time, some public school teachers were instructed not to “wade into” the events. But for faculty who are willing to take a degree of risk, the hearings serve as excellent illustrations of business communication principles and leadership character dimensions. Following are a few examples.

BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Media Choice: The committee chooses different media for different purposes. Students can evaluate why they might have chosen text, interviews, scripts, live or recorded witness testimony, video, etc. and how effective each is for the purpose.

Delivery Style: Committee representatives and witnesses demonstrate a variety of delivery styles. Some are more natural/conversational or scripted than others. What is the impact of William Barr’s use of a profanity (“b—s—”)?

Claims and Evidence: The committee uses a variety of evidence to prove their claims about former President Trump’s role in trying to overturn the election. For example, the fourth hearing describes voting data in Georgia and Arizona. Students could evaluate, for any of the seven claims, which evidence was strongest and weakest. We also see examples of balancing emotional appeal (for example, Ruby Freeman’s and Shaye Moss’s testimony in the fourth hearing), logical arguments (for example, the testimony in the second hearing about laws and constitutional restrictions on former Vice President Pence’s ability to refuse to certify votes), and credibility (for example, the committee shows a link for viewers to see witness bios online). See a summary of evidence here.

Organization: The committee is trying to prove that former President Trump had a seven-part plan (listed below) to overturn the election. The points are written using message titles (or talking headings) and serve as the committee’s claims. At the beginning of each hearing, committee leaders preview the claim and evidence.

Q&A: Although some of the questions are clearly scripted, students can analyze types of questions asked and how witnesses respond. They may find notable differences between recorded and live testimony.

Email Privacy: Once again, we learn the lesson that emails, text messages, and voicemails may be made public during legal investigations; any communication is discoverable.

CHARACTER

Vulnerability: Several witnesses demonstrate vulnerability; they risk emotional exposure in addition to the targeting and harassment they already experienced.

Humility: We see former President Trump’s lack of humility in his unwillingness to accept failure or defeat.

Compassion: Committee members are compassionate when interacting with witnesses, although we see minimal emotion.

Integrity: The committee contrasts integrity of witnesses with that of former President Trump.

Courage: By participating on the committee, Republican members risk backlash from colleagues and constituents; witnesses demonstrate courage by contradicting former President Trump’s claims and, in some cases, his demands.

Accountability: Witnesses stand by their decisions, for example, in refusing to overturn election results.

Authenticity: Some witnesses and committee members come across as more “genuine” than others.

---

Here are the committee’s main claims:

Trump attempted to convince Americans that significant levels of fraud had stolen the election from him despite knowing that he had, in fact, lost the 2020 election:

1. Trump had knowledge that he lost the 2020 election, but spread misinformation to the American public and made false statements claiming significant voter fraud led to his defeat;

2. Trump planned to remove and replace the Attorney General and Justice Department officials in an effort to force the DOJ to support false allegations of election fraud;

3. Trump pressured Vice President Pence to refuse certified electoral votes in the official count on January 6th, in violation of the U.S. Constitution;

4. Trump pressured state lawmakers and election officials to alter election results in his favor;

5. Trump’s legal team and associates directed Republicans in seven states to produce and send fake "alternate" electoral slates to Congress and the National Archives;

6. Trump summoned and assembled a destructive mob in Washington and sent them to march on the U.S. Capitol; and

7. Trump ignored multiple requests to speak out in real-time against the mob violence, refused to instruct his supporters to disband and failed to take any immediate actions to halt attacks on the Capitol.

Musk's Meeting with Twitter Employees

A summary of Elon Musk’s meeting with Twitter staff gives us a window into a typical “all-hands meeting.” Employees who ask questions demonstrate courage—and humility.

Of course, in this case, employees are most concerned about their jobs if/when Musk’s acquisition of the company is final. A Wall Street Journal article describes his stance:

Regarding layoffs, Mr. Musk said anyone who is a significant contributor shouldn’t have anything to worry about, according to people who viewed the meeting. “Right now, costs exceed revenue,” he said, according to the people. “That’s not a great situation.”

Likewise, this isn’t a great response for worried staff. How do they know whether they are “a significant contributor”? Doesn’t everyone believe that they are? As one person tweeted, “still not sure if I need to start packing my bags.” The company might lose good people in the meantime—people who don’t want to stick around to see what happens.

As expected, Musk was asked how he views freedom of speech. Musk distinguished between freedom of speech and “freedom of reach,” giving the example of “walk[ing] into the middle of Times Square and deny[ing] the Holocaust" but not allowing that to be promoted. "So I think people should be allowed to say pretty outrageous things that are within the bounds of the law, but then that doesn’t get amplified. It doesn’t get, you know, a ton of reach."

A lot of uncertainty remains for Twitter employees. It’s difficult to know how sincere the meeting was. As this employee cartoon suggests, employees expected that the meeting, although billed as confidential, would be leaked. Still, the format was probably useful for employees to hear directly from Musk, which is the point of these meetings, whether in person or virtual.

PGA Commissioner Sends Letter to Suspend Golfers

After a new golf tour has wooed Professional Golfers’ Association players, the association announced that they are no longer eligible to play in the PGA. The commissioner’s letter is an example of bad news for those who accepted the opportunity from the LIV Golf Invitational Series, a Saudi-backed organization, and it’s an example of persuasive communication for those who might consider doing the same.

In his letter, Commissioner Jay Monahan justifies the decision, using the word “regulations” several times. He mentions that players didn’t get proper releases for the conflict and blames players for making a “choice for their own financial-based reasons.” Monahan also appeals to a wide audience when he writes, “But they can’t demand the same PGA Tour membership benefits, considerations, opportunities and platform as you. That expectation disrespects you, our fans and our partners.”

Monahan uses strong language throughout and calls out specific players at the end of the letter, which players received while they were in the middle of a tournament. He demonstrates courage by facing some backlash, and he demonstrates some vulnerability by acknowledging, “What’s next? Can these players come back?”

The PGA is also holding players accountable, although not everyone agrees. In a statement, LIV Golf calls the decision “vindictive” and promises further action. The brief tweet is a notable counterweight to the PGA’s two-page letter. Students may analyze both in terms of tone, audience focus, content choices, and organization.

Another Elon Musk Email: Layoffs

Elon Musk has a unique way of announcing bad news. In an email to employees, which he sent to the New York Times and other news organizations, Musk is brief and direct.

To: Everybody
Subject: Headcount Reduction
Date: Friday, June 3, 2022

Tesla will be reducing salaried headcount by 10% as we have become overstaffed in many areas. Note this does not apply to anyone actually building cars, battery packs or installing solar. Hourly headcount will increase.

Elon

Business communication students can compare this message to principles in Chapter 8 for delivering bad news, particularly about jobs. Musk’s email doesn’t quite measure up. A better example is from Brian Chesky, Airbnb. Chesky tailors the message to his audience, letting them know why the decision was made, how it affects them, and what they can expect. He demonstrates vulnerability and compassion to those leaving—and to those staying.

McKinsey Testifies About Role in Opioid Crisis

McKinsey’s managing partner testified about what the U.S. Oversight Committee considers a conflict of interest and issue of integrity: consultants worked for drug manufacturers like Purdue Pharma while working for the federal government. Several communication examples illustrate business communication principles:

The Committee’s full report, a 53-page analysis of the situation

The Committee’s press release about the hearing, which includes a summary of the report

Both persuasive communication examples use descriptive message titles throughout the report and provide evidence under each claim. The claims (main points) focus on McKinsey’s questionable actions, particularly how its private and public work may have influenced the other and how the company may have failed to disclose conflicts of interest.

Testimony during the hearing also illustrates persuasion communication. Here are two examples:

• Jessica Tillipman, Assistant Dean for Government Procurement Law Studies, George Washington University Law School    

• Bob Sternfels, Global Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company    

In addition to integrity, as Carolyn B. Maloney said in her opening, this situation is also about accountability and humility. Of course, compassion is a subcurrent throughout, with several impassioned comments about the toll of opioids, including Fentanyl.

Boeing's Scant Statement on Crash

As we wait for details about the plane crash in China, Boeing has issued a statement. The plan was a Boeing 737—not the Max that caused two crashes in 2019 and 2020. Still, the company has suffered greatly, taking longer than expected fixing problems and doing PR damage control in the meantime. This latest situation doesn’t help the company’s reputation.

At the same time, this crash is highly unusual, taking place during descent, during which only 3% of plane crashes occur. In addition, this plane had been operating for six years without issue. Both black boxes were found, so investigators will find more information. But, sadly, knowing the reason for the crash won’t change the fate of 132 victims and their loved ones.

Boeing’s statement is the bare minimum. The company follows its typical communication protocol, saying as little as possible and coming from no one in particular. I understand not taking responsibility at this point, but how about a little more compassion and authenticity? I wonder what lessons company leaders learned in the past two years about communication and character.

Boeing Statement on China Eastern Airlines Flight MU 5735

CHICAGO, March 26, 2022 – Boeing today released the following statement:

“We extend our deepest condolences for the loss of those on board China Eastern Airlines Flight MU 5735. Our thoughts and prayers are with the passengers and crew, their families and all those affected by this accident. Boeing will continue to support our airline customer during this difficult time. In addition, a Boeing technical team is supporting the NTSB and the Civil Aviation Administration of China who will lead the investigation.”

Contact
Boeing Communications
media@boeing.com

Will Smith's Apology

The 2022 Academy Awards ceremony was eventful, with Chris Rock referencing Jada Smith’s appearance and her husband, Will Smith, hitting Rock on stage. Jada Smith has spoken openly about having alopecia, a hair loss condition. Rock’s joke clearly hit a nerve with her husband.

From the audience, Smith cursed at Rock, who continued with his presentation. Later, Smith gave a tearful acceptance speech for Best Actor in a Leading Role, comparing himself to the character he played, Serena and Venus Williams’ father: they both protected their family. He apologized to his fellow nominees and the Academy but not to Rock. The next day, he posted a fuller apology on Instagram, mentioning Rock first.

The Academy tweeted a pat response, “The Academy does not condone violence of any form. Tonight we are delighted to celebrate our 94th Academy Awards winners, who deserve this moment of recognition from their peers and movie lovers around the world.” I don’t see any response from Rock yet.

The rest of the ceremony was awkward, and host Amy Schumer made a joke, “Did I miss something? There's like, a different vibe in here....” Her idea was probably to call out what was obvious.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the situation. Was Rock’s joke about “G.I. Jane 2” over the top? Was Smith’s response appropriate? Should he have been prevented from speaking after that point? Should the Academy do more?

The situation is complex and calls us to explore issues of character, for example, compassion, courage, authenticity, accountability, and vulnerability.

Confusing Airbnb Message

Informational messages should be straightforward, but Airbnb sent one that confused hosts and former hosts. I received this email about taxes with the subject, “Action required: Provide missing taxpayer info.” The tone is threatening, and I wasn’t sure whether this applied to my recent international booking or a remnant from my hosting days, although I stopped in 2018.

Apparently, I wasn’t alone. Within two days, I received the second message, “Clarification regarding taxpayer information request.”

My guess is that the message inadvertently went to people who are no longer hosting. The second message could have admitted the mistake but didn’t. Instead of demonstrating accountability and humility, the author wrote, “We wanted to clarify that this action is not required for everyone.”

Shaming Doesn't Work

A recent study explores companies’ responses when an employee falls for hacking. Turns out, shaming doesn’t work.

When an employee causes a cybersecurity breach, company leaders may want to single out that employee by “blaming and shaming.” The intent is to prevent future breaches, but the results can be devastating, as the author explains:

“Shame is similar to a boomerang that will come back to hurt the organization, as well as harming the employee. Managers should deal with the mistake, but not reject the employee. If employees feel that their personhood is being attacked, they will respond defensively. Shaming results in a lose-lose outcome.”

I can’t think of a situation when blaming and shaming works. In the case of a hack, the employee already feels bad and won’t likely make the same mistake. Instead of causing disloyalty, leaders might try demonstrating compassion.

Image source.

Company Responses to the Russian War on Ukraine

Whether and how companies respond to the Russian war on Ukraine presents a case study in leadership character and communication. A New York Times article describes a Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister’s messaging to persuade companies to take action. Mykhailo Fedorov is using social media to call out specific companies—sometimes complimenting their response, for example, closing stores or cutting off services to Russian citizens, and sometimes calling for them to do more.

Fedorov’s tweets, particularly, chronicle what companies are doing and what, in his opinion, is left to do. The NYT article summarizes Fedorov’s strategy:

“The work has made Mr. Fedorov one of Mr. Zelensky’s most visible lieutenants, deploying technology and finance as modern weapons of war. In effect, Mr. Fedorov is creating a new playbook for military conflicts that shows how an outgunned country can use the internet, crypto, digital activism and frequent posts on Twitter to help undercut a foreign aggressor.”

The Ukrainians are using every weapon they can. Technology and persuasive communication, including questioning leaders’ character, are now front and center.

For examples of how companies are supporting Ukraine, see Anthony Winslow’s LinkedIn article.

Advice for Resignation Emails

A Wall Street Journal article suggests ways to resign from your job gracefully. With a wave of post-pandemic departures, we’re seeing all sorts of resignation messages, some more appropriate than others. The string of emails can be disheartening for people who decide to stay, and leavers should be mindful of burning bridges they may want to walk across in the future.

A law career coach advises that people “Let it rip. Let everything out”—in a document that you don’t send. Then, send an email that respects the workplace and the people you’ll leave behind:

“For the real deal, be gracious and express gratitude. Include up to three career highlights. (Any more and you risk being seen as a braggart.) And skip the passive-aggressive jabs.”

I hadn’t thought about including career highlights, and I wonder whether coworkers would appreciate reading them. Instead, I suggest observing what other resignation emails include and following suit. Every workplace has its own norms around these types of messages.

I do agree with this advice:

“By giving your notice, ‘the power dynamic has been leveled.’ Use that new sense of control and confidence to share more authentically about yourself, not torpedo your relationships on the way out the door.”

The coach is right: you made your decision and are burdening your manager and coworkers who will pick up the slack. Now’s the time to demonstrate humility instead of rubbing it in and causing more hurt feelings.

Deception in the Hiring Process

A New York Times article surprised me. During a video job interview, someone else answered “technical questions while the job candidate moved his lips onscreen.”

All applicants present themselves in the best light. We describe our accomplishments and may push the limits of our expertise. We also “cover” parts of ourselves that we fear may be undesirable to an employer.

But having a friend interview for a candidate is out of bounds. In this example, the interviewer wondered, “What did he think was going to happen when he moved across the country and realized he couldn’t do the job?” The article concludes with a quote from a deceptive candidate who felt relieved when she didn’t get the job. Of course, that’s a better outcome than suffering the embarrassment of failure.

This situation is a clear example of integrity—misrepresenting oneself, claiming to be someone they (intentional plural) are not. Today, we have a particularly strong job market; I would hope that candidates can find a job for which they’re qualified.

Image source.

Zillow's Letter to Shareholders

Zillow ended its failed iBuying business, but is recovering well, as the latest letter to shareholders explains. A foray into the home-flipping business didn’t pan out for the company, resulting in losses and layoffs.

The company’s letter demonstrates accountability, humility, and vulnerability, yet express optimism, as the CEO and CFO write in the closing:

“We want to acknowledge the past few months have been challenging for us all — Zillow leadership, employees, and investors — but innovation is a bumpy road. Big swings are core to Zillow, and they are what make our company so unique. We are excited about the opportunity in front of us. Thank you for joining us on this journey.”

In addition to describing plans, the leaders want readers to take away that performance was “better than expected.” “Better” is used 13 times in the 20-page letter. The approach seemed to work. As a CNBC article summarizes, “Zillow soars on upbeat outlook and faster-than-expected selloff of homes in portfolio.” However, for perspective, the article reports that the stock increased 20% after the letter was published, yet “the stock has lost three-quarters of its value since reaching a record almost a year ago.” Zillow’s leaders have more work to do.

Spotify CEO's New Statement

Following new allegations against Joe Rogan, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek apologized to staff, yet reinforced his commitment to the podcast host. A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur caused new criticism and calls for Spotify to take action. Rogan apologized, explaining that some recordings were from many years ago and were taken out of context.

Ek’s statement is addressed to Spotify employees, but of course, the secondary audience is intended to be the public. The message includes Rogan’s decision, apparently in consultation with the Spotify team, to remove 113 episodes. Although Ek writes that the choice was Rogan’s, we don’t know how much pressure he received.

Ek’s note is a good example of a persuasive communication that tries to balance the needs of many stakeholders. He demonstrates compassion to employees, vulnerabiiity in how the situation affects the company, and integrity in his $100 million commitment to artists and in holding firm to what he sees as a core value of the platform. We could see more personal vulnerabiity and authenticity. Unfortunately, leader will never satisfy all parties in this type of situation.

Spotify Team,

There are no words I can say to adequately convey how deeply sorry I am for the way The Joe Rogan Experience controversy continues to impact each of you. Not only are some of Joe Rogan’s comments incredibly hurtful – I want to make clear that they do not represent the values of this company. I know this situation leaves many of you feeling drained, frustrated and unheard.

I think it’s important you’re aware that we’ve had conversations with Joe and his team about some of the content in his show, including his history of using some racially insensitive language. Following these discussions and his own reflections, he chose to remove a number of episodes from Spotify. He also issued his own apology over the weekend.

While I strongly condemn what Joe has said and I agree with his decision to remove past episodes from our platform, I realize some will want more. And I want to make one point very clear – I do not believe that silencing Joe is the answer. We should have clear lines around content and take action when they are crossed, but canceling voices is a slippery slope. Looking at the issue more broadly, it’s critical thinking and open debate that powers real and necessary progress.

Another criticism that I continue to hear from many of you is that it’s not just about The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify; it comes down to our direct relationship with him. In last week’s Town Hall, I outlined to you that we are not the publisher of JRE. But perception due to our exclusive license implies otherwise. So I’ve been wrestling with how this perception squares with our values.

If we believe in having an open platform as a core value of the company, then we must also believe in elevating all types of creators, including those from underrepresented communities and a diversity of backgrounds. We’ve been doing a great deal of work in this area already but I think we can do even more. So I am committing to an incremental investment of $100 million for the licensing, development, and marketing of music (artists and songwriters) and audio content from historically marginalized groups. This will dramatically increase our efforts in these areas. While some might want us to pursue a different path, I believe that more speech on more issues can be highly effective in improving the status quo and enhancing the conversation altogether.

I deeply regret that you are carrying so much of this burden. I also want to be transparent in setting the expectation that in order to achieve our goal of becoming the global audio platform, these kinds of disputes will be inevitable. For me, I come back to centering on our mission of unlocking the potential of human creativity and enabling more than a billion people to enjoy the work of what we think will be more than 50 million creators. That mission makes these clashes worth the effort.

I’ve told you several times over the last week, but I think it’s critical we listen carefully to one another and consider how we can and should do better. I’ve spent this time having lots of conversations with people inside and outside of Spotify – some have been supportive while others have been incredibly hard, but all of them have made me think.

One of the things I am thinking about is what additional steps we can take to further balance creator expression with user safety. I’ve asked our teams to expand the number of outside experts we consult with on these efforts and look forward to sharing more details.

Your passion for this company and our mission has made a difference in the lives of so many listeners and creators around the world. I hope you won’t lose sight of that. It’s that ability to focus and improve Spotify even on some of our toughest days that has helped us build the platform we have. We have a clear opportunity to learn and grow together from this challenge and I am ready to meet it head on.

I know it is difficult to have these conversations play out so publicly, and I continue to encourage you to reach out to your leaders, your HR partners or me directly if you need support or resources for yourself or your team.

Daniel

Arguments in the Joe Rogan, Spotify Situation

A few musicians and podcast creators are leaving Spotify over controversy about “The Joe Rogan Experience,” a popular show that has included misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations. Comparing messages from different points of view is an interesting look at persuasive arguments and raises issues of character. Here are a few to explore:

• Spotify’s stance is explained in this statement and may be summarized as follows from the chief executive and co-founder: “I think the important part here is that we don’t change our policies based on one creator nor do we change it based on any media cycle, or calls from anyone else.” Spotify also created a COVID information hub.

• Neil Young removed his music, which had hundreds of millions of views, and explained his rationale in a letter (since removed from his website): “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines—potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them.”

• Crosby, Stills, and Nash followed suit and posted their reason on Twitter: “We support Neil and agree with him that there is dangerous disinformation being aired on Spotify’s Joe Rogan podcast. While we always value alternate points of view, knowingly spreading disinformation during this global pandemic has deadly consequences. Until real action is taken to show that a concern for humanity must be balanced with commerce, we don’t want our music—or the music we made together—to be on the same platform.”

• Roxane Gay explained her decision to remove “The Roxane Gay Agenda” in a New York Times opinion letter. In closing, she wrote, “I am not trying to impede anyone’s freedom to speak. Joe Rogan and others like him can continue to proudly encourage misinformation and bigotry to vast audiences. They will be well rewarded for their efforts. The platforms sharing these rewards can continue to look the other way. But today at least, I won’t.”

• Bréne Brown “paused” her two podcasts and wrote that she is waiting for more information: “I’ve enjoyed the creative collaboration with Spotify, and I appreciate how the leadership has shown up in our meetings over the past week. Now that Spotify has published its misinformation policy, and the policy itself appears to address the majority of my concerns, I’m in the process of learning how the policy will be applied. I’m hopeful that the podcasts will be back next week.” As you might expect, Brown demonstrates vulnerability, including negative, personal comments she has received about the issue.

• Joe Rogan apologized in a 10-minute Instagram video, promising to “balance out viewpoints with other people’s perspectives.”

UPDATE: A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur has emerged, and he apologized—again.

Apology for Meatloaf Recipe

The folks at Weber Grill didn’t realize that singer Meat Loaf died on the day they published a meatloaf recipe. Had the company used the rock star’s death as a way to promote its products, that would have been in poor taste, but the email with a BBQ recipe was an unfortunate coincidence.

After some predicable backlash, the company quickly apologized for the mistake. Fortunately, just as the initial email made the rounds, so did the company’s apology.

The apology is simple and works well. The company didn’t need to apologize for insensitivity because the mistake was unintentional. In these situations, customers typically are more forgiving, and in this case, demonstrating compassion and humility was enough.