A Different Approach to Customer Replies
Squarespace is trying to reduce the volume of customer requests to handle, and I like the approach. I received this email three days after I submitted a ticket on the website.
From: Squarespace Customer Care <customercare@squarespace.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 9:06 AM
To: Amy Newman <amynewman@cornell.edu>
Subject: [Support] Re: Automatic weekly?
##- Please type your reply above this line -##
Hello, this is Squarespace Customer Support. We're writing to confirm that we received your email a few days ago and are still working to respond as soon as possible.
We're currently experiencing a high volume of requests, so it's taking us longer than usual to respond. We apologize for any inconvenience this causes.
If you've resolved your issue since contacting us, please reply with the word "solved" to let us know and we'll close the case on your behalf. You can reopen a closed case at any time by replying to the thread.
If you want to speak to someone directly about your issue, contact us via live chat. Live chat is available Monday - Friday from 4:00 AM to 8:00 PM ET. To start a chat, visit this link, choose a topic, then select Live Chat:
https://support.squarespace.com/hc/en-us/requests/new#choose-topic
I wonder what percentage of customers resolve their own issue before the company can respond. Either way, this message gives customers some control over their fate and may reduce frustration. It worked for me, partly because the declining customer experience is well known and not unique to Squarespace.
It might not work for customers with a serious issue, but they can follow options in the last paragraph. In this sense, the message is a bad-news reply and, like most, it’s also persuasive. Students can analyze how well the writing style and organization work for the audience and purpose.
Argument Linking Marijuana to Violence
A Wall Street Journal opinion is a good example of a persuasive argument for business communication students to analyze. The articles uses logical arguments, emotional appeal, and credibility; evidence is stronger for some points than for others.
The author provides research to support increased marijuana use in young people and to link marijuana use to mental illness and hospital visits. Is the evidence linking use to violence strong enough to convince students? The first study referenced studies of teenagers with mood disorders; the second is a meta-study that concludes, “cannabis use appears to be a contributing factor in the perpetration of violence.” Both are from credible sources and illustrate data analysis principles from Chapter 9 in the text.
I find the article title, “Cannabis and the Violent Crime Surge,” a misleading stretch. Coming just days after an elementary school school shooting—and when gun violence is a news mainstay—the WSJ implies a conclusion that I don’t see in the evidence. The author uses an example as evidence: the Uvalde, Texas, shooter apparently had a history of smoking marijuana. In addition, the argument is complicated by the claim that the shooter was NOT smoking at the time. Yet, he could have been experiencing detox, which may include anger and irritability. The author doesn’t include these points.
The author ends with, “Maybe it’s time that lawmakers and voters rethink their pot-legalization experiment before more young lives are damaged.” Do students agree?
Elon Musk's Harsh Emails
Elon Musk wants employees to work in the office, and he doesn’t waste words in getting his message across. In two emails, below, to Tesla and SpaceX employees, Musk requires at least 40 hours of work in a company main office.
First email:
Subject: Remote work is no longer acceptble [sic]
Anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and I mean *minimum*) of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla. This is less than we ask of factory workers.
If there are particularly exceptional contributors for whom this is impossible, I will review and approve those exceptions directly.
Moreover, the “office” must be a main Tesla office, not a remote branch office unrelated to the job duties, for example being responsible for Fremont factory human relations, but having your office be in another state.
Thanks,
Elon
Second email:
Subject: To be super clear
Everyone at Tesla is required to spend a minimum of 40 hours in the office per week. Moreover, the office must be where your actual colleagues are located, not some remote pseudo office. If you don’t show up, we will assume you have resigned.
The more senior you are, the more visible must be your presence. That is why I lived in the factory so much – so that those on the line could see me working alongside them. If I had not done that, Tesla would long ago have gone bankrupt.
There are of course companies that don’t require this, but when was the last time they shipped a great new product? It’s been a while.
Tesla has and will create and actually manufacture the most exciting and meaningful products of any company on Earth. This will not happen by phoning it in.
Thanks,
Elon///
In case it wasn’t clear, Musk tweeted consequences for employees who fail to follow his rules: “They should pretend to work somewhere else.” Musk is known for being demanding and direct. I refer to his emails as “harsh,” but not everyone will agree.
Musk has reasons for his decision, but he doesn’t include them. His strategy is coercion (implied, and then explicit in his tweet). He will get compliance, but I wonder how motivated and satisfied employees will be to work long hours in an office after having the flexibility to work from home.
Walmart Apologizes for Commercializing Juneteenth
Walmart is facing backlash for using the Juneteenth holiday to market its products. The new U.S. federal holiday on June 19 commemorates the emancipation of enslaved African-Americans. Walmart took the opportunity to promote clothing, books, and food.
A particularly painful example is a container of red-velvet ice cream showing the Pan-African flag with the text, “Share and celebrate African-American culture, emancipation, and enduring hope.” Twitter users point to a similar ice cream at the Black-owned company Creamalicious. As one Twitter user wrote, “Walmart could have used this opportunity to highlight this brand instead of making a cheap copycat for OUR Independence Day.”
Walmart published a statement to several news organizations:
"Juneteenth holiday marks a commemoration and celebration of freedom and independence. However, we received feedback that a few items caused concern for some of our customers and we sincerely apologize. We are reviewing our assortment and will remove items as appropriate."
Does the statement meet criteria for a “good” apology: express regret, explain what went wrong, acknowledge responsibility, declare repentance, offer reparation, and request forgiveness? I would say only minimally. It does use the word “apologize,” acknowledge what went wrong, and promise to take action, but the statement doesn’t identify why the promotion might “cause concern.” Notice a glaring logical leap between the first and second sentences. Leaders could demonstrate more humility and accountability by explaining how the decision fell short and what damage it caused.
Argument for Public Health Approach to Reduce Shootings
After the tragic shooting at a Texas elementary school, pundits are proposing ways to finally reduce gun deaths. A New York Times opinion article, with graphics, describes a public health approach, which is different from what Nicholas Kristof calls the “liberal approach” of gun control.
The article is a good example of persuasive communication with descriptive message titles and infographics to illustrate each main point. Kristof summarizes his ideas in a 3 X 3 matrix.
In addition to his mix of text of graphics, Kristof uses strong language throughout, including the ending: “So let’s not just shed tears for the dead, give somber speeches and lower flags. Let’s get started and save lives.” I find the balance of logical argument, emotional appeal, credibility (logos, pathos, ethos) appropriate, but others might disagree.
Questions for business communication students might be, does Kristof demonstrate both courage and compassion, and how well do the graphics illustrate the main points of Kristof’s argument?
Spirit Airlines Appeals to Shareholders
Spirit Airlines is trying to persuade shareholders to approve a merger with Frontier Airlines (and reject a hostile takeover bid from JetBlue). Communications on the website, evenmoreultralowfares.com, don’t mention JetBlue’s bid at all:
These messages illustrate adapting information to different genres. As we read each, we see clear, repeated main points—more cost savings for customers and value for shareholders. The company also promises promises more career opportunities and greater job stability for team members. In short, “Everyone wins.” The slide deck is a particularly good example for business communication students to analyze.
In a press release, Spirit confirms the plan with Frontier and encourages shareholders to reject JetBlue’s bid. But the messages on the website, above, remain unchanged. I was expecting to see a clearer comparison, but Spirit’s approach seems to be offensive rather than defensive.
JetBlue's Persuasive Appeal to Spirit Shareholders
Having lost bids to purchase Spirit Airlines, JetBlue is trying a hostile takeover, which includes appealing directly to Spirit shareholders. The letter and website, JetBlueOffersMore.com, are examples of persuasive messages.
On the website, the company uses a simple visual to compare, side-by-side, JetBlue’s offer and Spirit’s plan, which is to merge with Frontier Airlines. A fact sheet promotes the “JetBlue Effect,” which the company describes as lowering fares. In another document, JetBlue counters Spirit’s claim that the takeover would face regulatory challenges.
JetBlue uses strong language and message titles to present its main arguments, for example, “JetBlue’s All-Cash Superior Proposal Offers Greater Value and Closing Certainty.” Business communication students will find more examples of how the company uses persuasive communication principles in these messages.
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.
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.
Persuasive Messaging About Permanent Daylight Saving Time
U.S. lawmakers will debate the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight saving time permanent—no more falling back or springing ahead. The Act name, emphasizing more sunshine, is a lesson in framing. If we keep daylight saving time year round, we’ll get more light in the evenings, but we’ll lose light in the mornings. An NBC writer jokes that it should be called the Rising in Darkness Act.
A Wall Street Journal article describes opposing arguments. One of the biggest downsides is that children will travel to school in the dark, which could lead to accidents. Others cite three previous tries to move to a permanent daylight saving time—all reversed.
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) strongly opposes the Act. In a statement, the group supports a permanent time but writes that the better choice is standard time, with more light in the mornings. They cite research that standard time “aligns best with human circadian biology and provides distinct benefits for public health and safety” compared to daylight savings’ “increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events, mood disorders, and motor vehicle crashes.”
Both AASM statements, linked above, are good examples of concise communication and clear organization. I question the organization around “acute” and “chronic” impacts and would favor main point headings, but the argument is short and easy to read for laypeople—the primary audience.
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.
Data in Domino's TV Commercial
To fill work hours, companies are getting creative about recruiting. Domino’s, FedEx, and other companies are running commercials on TV and using social social media influencers to drum up applications.
The Domino’s ad features an employee who rose through the company ranks to become a franchise owner. She seems “relatable,” we say these days, so viewers can picture themselves working at Domino’s and maybe having the same success. Surprisingly, she is only 27 years old.
The company touts data: “95 of our franchisees started out as delivery drives or store employees.” That sounds impressive and potentially inspiring. But I want to know what percentage of drivers and store employees have become franchisees? Also, the commercial omits important information about the investment costs. Fees vary by store, but could range from $145,000 to $500,000, and a net worth of $250,000 may be required. Still, maybe the ad works to recruit new employees? I wonder.
Peloton's New Ad Campaign
Peloton is trying for a comeback with a new ad campaign. After losing market share, market value, a CEO, a couple of fictional characters, and about 2,800 jobs, the company needs a boost, but the latest campaign feels, to me, defensive and, dare I say, desperate.
Ads quote negative views of the company and counter with positive quotes, presumably from people who have been converted. For persuasive communication, research supports acknowledging opposing sides, even hostile points of view, and then arguing against them. But the counter-quotes in these ads represent one person’s opinion and may not provide enough evidence to outweigh the introductory quote, which seems to represent many.
I also wonder whether Peloton—without providing more evidence—might inadvertently reinforce negative perceptions of the company and products. Introductory quotes refer to Peloton as a fad, a cult, elitist, a scam, an easy workout, and an overpriced coatrack. These are all good reasons for me to never buy a Peloton.
The ads seem to disregard real challenges. The quotes represent good feedback for company leaders who, in response, defend rather than try to change the brand.
Best and Worst Super Bowl Ads
The Kellogg School of Management rated the 2022 Super Bowl Ads based on a framework called ADPLAN: attention, distinction, positioning, linkage, amplification and net equity.
Uber Eats received the highest rating for its commercial featuring several celebrities eating inedible objects delivered to their home. It’s funny and memorable, with a close connection to the company’s new service.
On the other hand, Salesforce got an “F” for its commercial staring Matthew McConaughey. The ad took jabs at other tech company leaders focusing on space travel and, instead, implored us to “engage,” “plant more trees,” “build more trust,” and “make more space—for all of us.” Kellogg justified the bad rating: “for fumbling on effectiveness and linkage back to the brand.” I see the point: after watching the ad, viewers still won’t know what Salesforce is selling.
The Kellogg School’s ranking is one measure. In a USA Today viewer poll, the Coinbase ad, showing a QR-code worth $15 traveling across the screen for a minute, ranked last. Kellogg gave it an A.
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
BlackRock CEO Defends Focus
Investment firm BlackRock has pushed companies to pursue a social purpose in addition to profits. The chief executive’s annual letter to investors defends this approach, which has been criticized as anti-business.
Up front in the title, “The Power of Capitalism,” Larry Fink addresses criticism head on and further explains in the letter:
“Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism.”
Fink states his belief clearly in the last paragraph:
“…it is more important than ever that your company and its management be guided by its purpose. If you stay true to your company's purpose and focus on the long term, while adapting to this new world around us, you will deliver durable returns for shareholders and help realize the power of capitalism for all.”
The letter illustrates persuasive communication, focusing not on emotional appeal but logical arguments. For his audience, which he defines at the beginning as CEOs, he encourages a commitment to purpose—for leaders to let stakeholders “know where we stand on the societal issues intrinsic to our companies’ long-term success.” He writes “long-term” 18 times in the letter, using repetition to drive the point home. Fink illustrates a few leadership character dimensions, for example, authenticity, integrity, and courage.
Strong Tone in Activist Investor Letters
Two recent letters illustrate strong language in persuasive messages to boards of directors:
Blackwells, which owns less than 5% of Peloton, is calling for the board to remove CEO John Foley and to sell the company. A Fortune article provides background, but the letter, as are most activist investor letters, is quite explicit. Jason Aintabi, chief investment officer for Blackwells, cites “multiple leadership failures,” blaming Foley for the company’s decline. With strong language throughout, Aintabi ends the letter with a pun intended, “The ride for Mr. Foley is over. This Board must now independently chart a new path for Peloton.”
Engine Capital wants the Kohl’s board of directors to evaluate the ecommerce business separately and to consider selling the company. The letter comes after a Starboard Value bid to buy the company. The tone of this letter is just as strong as the Blackwells letter about Peloton, but it’s less personal about the CEO. Still, Engine implores the board, “As we will show, there is no excuse for the Board to cling to the status quo.”
Both letters are good examples of tone in context. Of course, investors are not required to be so blatant, but the language is typical—and likely expected—for such demands to be considered credible and to be taken seriously.
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.
Peloton CEO Addresses Difficult Times
Peloton was hot during the pandemic, barely keeping up with demand for bikes and treads. But sales have tumbled as consumers became more price sensitive and competition increased. The Sex in the City HBO reboot, And Just Like That, and Billions Season 6 episode didn’t help when they killed off lead characters during or after a vigorous workout on a Peloton bike. Company shares tumbled 76% in 2021.
CNBC reported that Peloton is pausing production, but Co-Founder and CEO John Foley denies the claim. In a statement (posted on the website as a “note” sent internally), Foley criticizes an internal leak and subsequent “speculative articles.” His tone is firm when he writes about legal action against the “leaker,” a warning to other employees. Trying to get ahead of more bad news, Foley admits that layoffs are possible, while complimenting the team. He chooses positive data to present: the number of users, workouts, and churn rate. He doesn’t include negative data about revenue or stock price.
The note is part defense and part cheerleader, as Foley props up employees—and the company—against a turbulent time in the company’s history. He demonstrates some integrity, humility, and vulnerability, but his leadership will continue to be taxed in the weeks ahead.
Foley’s full message follows (with the giant logo as it appears on the website):
We have always done our best to share news with you all first, before sharing with the public. This week, we’ve experienced leaks containing confidential information that have led to a flurry of speculative articles in the press. The information the media has obtained is incomplete, out of context, and not reflective of Peloton’s strategy. It has saddened me to know you read these things without the clarity and context that you deserve. Before I go on, I want all of you to know that we have identified a leaker, and we are moving forward with the appropriate legal action. But moving forward, I want to take a moment to talk about some of the changes with you directly.
As a public company that is in a pre-earnings “Quiet Period”, we are limited in what information we can share. However, we issued a pre-earnings press release earlier this evening about our preliminary Q2 results, in order to offer an initial and more accurate picture of our business performance.
As you have heard me and other leaders say over the past few months, we are continuing to invest in our growth, but we also need to review our cost structure to ensure we set ourselves up for continued success, while never losing sight of the important role we play in helping our 6.2+ million Members lead healthier, happier lives.
What this means for our team right now
In the past, we’ve said layoffs would be the absolute last lever we would ever hope to pull. However, we now need to evaluate our organization structure and size of our team, with the utmost care and compassion. And we are still in the process of considering all options as part of our efforts to make our business more flexible.
This team is made up of some of the smartest, most passionate, hard-working and KIND people I have ever met. You have each painted your masterpiece at Peloton in your own way, and your contributions matter. They always have, and they always will.
I am SO proud of everything we have accomplished together, and it pains me we are faced with these tough decisions. I know this is difficult, and I want to thank you for your patience as we work through these times together.
Rumors that we are halting all production of bikes and Treads are false
Notably, we’ve found ourselves in the middle of a once-in-a-hundred year event with the COVID-19 pandemic, and what we anticipated would happen over the course of three years happened in months during 2020, and into 2021.
We worked quickly and diligently to meet the demand head-on at a time when the world really needed us, in large part thanks to how hard you worked every day. We feel good about right-sizing our production, and, as we evolve to more seasonal demand curves, we are resetting our production levels for sustainable growth.
Connected Fitness is here to stay
This past quarter, our churn rate was 0.79%. This means that our Members are sticking with us, again thanks to your brilliance and continued innovation. Connected fitness provides the convenience people need to stay active and centered and will continue to be a key part of the future of fitness. In fact, just a few days ago, we recorded our highest ever number of daily workouts -- over 2.9M workouts.
I want to acknowledge that this does not answer all of the questions I am sure many of you have right now. But, I did want to share what we could at this time.
I know there is a lot of noise and anxiety in our environment right now, which is why I wanted to take this moment to provide some additional context for you all as we navigate the next few weeks together.
John