Comparing Donation Webpages
How do nonprofit organizations structure webpages to solicit Hurricane Ian donations? A Google search for “how to donate for hurricane ian” showed these top three ads:
Red Cross: The boldest of the three, this page shows users how to donate but provides no “why.” The cover image, palm trees blowing in the wind, could be more original.
Salvation Army: Although the Red Cross palm tree image lacks originality, the Salvation Army’s images are generic, showing volunteers with a truck and loading boxes. The call is for other recent hurricanes—not just Ian. Users can find information, including how their donation will be used, in the “Questions” box.
American Humane: Dedicated to rescuing pets, this smaller organization explains its work. Several photos show cute cats and dogs, and text explains the urgency and how quickly volunteers are responding.
Students will find more differences among these three organizations and their favorite nonprofit. An interesting activity could be guessing the organization name, given their webpage without identifying information.
Columbia’s Ranking, Data, and Communication Issues
The news of Columbia University’s tumble in college rankings from 2 to 18 offers business communication lessons for reporting data—and for persuasive arguments. In February 2022, Professor of Mathematics Michael Thaddeus identified discrepancies in how the Columbia reported data for U.S. News’s annual list. His analysis resulted in a persuasive argument with the following main points summarized in the introduction:
In sections 2 through 5, we examine some of the numerical data on students and faculty reported by Columbia to U.S. News—undergraduate class size, percentage of faculty with terminal degrees, percentage of faculty who are full-time, and student-faculty ratio—and compare them with figures computed by other means, drawing on information made public by Columbia elsewhere. In each case, we find discrepancies, sometimes quite large, and always in Columbia’s favor, between the two sets of figures.
In section 6, we consider the financial data underpinning the U.S. News Financial Resources subscore. It is largely based on instructional expenditures, but, as we show, Columbia’s stated instructional expenditures are implausibly large and include a substantial portion of the $1.2 billion that its medical center spends annually on patient care.
Finally, in section 7, we turn to graduation rates and the other “outcome measures” which account for more than one-third of the overall U.S. News ranking. We show that Columbia’s performance on some, perhaps even most, of these measures would plunge if its many transfer students were included.
New reports about Columbia’s fall credit Thaddeus’s analysis. The argument serves as an excellent example for our students, who might also explore their own views about the college rankings. In addition to data integrity, Thaddeus questions the value of these rankings and the influence they have on students’ college choice.
Students can also analyze the university’s response. In a statement posted on September 9, Provost Mary Boyce admitted, “we had previously relied on outdated and/or incorrect methodologies.” She also expressed “regret”:
The Columbia undergraduate experience is and always has been centered around small classes taught by highly accomplished faculty. That fact is unchanged. But anything less than complete accuracy in the data that we report—regardless of the size or the reason—is inconsistent with the standards of excellence to which Columbia holds itself. We deeply regret the deficiencies in our prior reporting and are committed to doing better.
The statement is more about future plans, for example, participating in the Common Data Set initiative, than about acknowledging wrongdoing. A fuller apology, including the impact of the inaccuracies and posted earlier than just days before rankings were published, would have demonstrated more humility and integrity.
RadioShack Takes Risks in New Ad Campaign
RadioShack launched a new advertising campaign that includes sexual and other questionable references. The situation is an interesting example of persuasive communication—catchy and potentially offensive.
A Wall Street Journal article describes franchisees’ mixed reactions to the approach as well as the company’s new cryptocurrency exchange platform. As the majority franchisee, Bob Wilke, president of HobbyTown Unlimited complained, “This is so damaging to their integrity, and the reputation of the brand. We just do not want to be associated with that type of marketing.”
The company follows a sad story line, with 8,000 at its prime in 1999, filing for bankruptcy in 2015 and 2017, getting acquired, and limping along with 110 stores today. Looking at RadioShack’s history, we do see a different picture from the current marketing. This Business Insider article chronicles ads from the company’s inception in 1921, when products were sold primarily through catalogs.
Abel Czupor, the new marketing head, responded to the controversy: “Every company that has lovers also has haters, but that just means that marketing is working. And I would rather have lovers and haters than not having anyone that knows about the brand.” Edgy marketing attracts attention, but it’s not always positive. Business communication students can analyze the company’s roots and progression to decide whether the current strategy might work or only drag the brand further down.
Tip Menus Increase Tips
A Stanford Business researcher found that tip menus in NYC taxi cabs increase the amount people tipped unless the suggestions are too high. Percentages offer options without having to calculate the dollar amount, which seemed to appeal to riders.
In his working paper, Kwabena Baah Donkor theorizes that “the cost of deviating from the norm tip and opting out of the default tip menu are both high relative to the taxi fare.” Typically, people choose conforming and will take the easier path. Both are reasons to select a given tip percentage, assumed to be what others do in a similar situation.
Of course, this research is useful for other tipped workers. Students might consider other applications: in what other contexts could a menu of options simplify decision making and ultimately increase revenue or further business goals?
Arguments About Student Loan Forgiveness
Students might be interested to analyze persuasive messages about the new U.S. student loan forgiveness program. Political pundits, economists, journalists, my sister—everyone has an opinion on the plan, which the government frames as “The Biden-Harris Administration's Student Debt Relief Plan.”
Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial board op-ed argues that the plan will benefit universities, giving them permission to raise tuition further.
In a New York Times op-ed, Paul Krugman takes a broader view and considers the impact on the economy.
Students can find additional arguments—and will have their own ideas. As for all arguments, identifying logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility illustrates an author’s persuasive communication strategy. Students also will identify rhetorical devices, organizational approaches, and logical fallacies. For example, the WSJ article refers to “Ivory Tower progressives,” and Krugman uses questions throughout his article.
Nuclear Preparedness Video Fail
A New York City video about what to do during a nuclear disaster is criticized as unhelpful and lacking context. Mayor Eric Adams approved the PSA, part of a series about how to handle emergencies, such as extreme heat and flooding. Those videos received a few hundred views, while this one garnered more than 800,000, so officials consider it a success, but the reaction is mocking.
The video narrative says, “So there’s been a nuclear attack. Don’t ask me how or why; just know that the big one has hit.” Critics say that these types of service commercials typically start with some public announcement telling us what has or could happen. Mayor Adams said that the video was planned ”after the attacks in the Ukraine, and O.E.M. took a very proactive step to say, let’s be prepared,” and he “thought it was a great idea.” But we have no introduction. We’re left to worry: is the Ukraine facility an imminent danger?
Video presentation and quality count. Oddly, the YouTube post starts with an ad for a survival food kit. Then, the 1.5-minute video offers simplistic suggestions: get inside, stay inside, and stay tuned. Experts also question the advice. As one says, “get inside” isn’t practical when your house is gone, which will be the more likely case.
This situation may be the result, as the New York Times article suggests, of using a small, inexperienced production company. I wonder whether more context and more research, including focus groups, would have helped. Regardless, this is a communication failure.
Google Employee Petition
Google employees are petitioning for the company to stop collecting abortion-related data. The concern comes after Roe v. Wade was overturned, which could put women who search for abortion services in jeopardy.
Launched in January 2021, Alphabet Workers' Union is driving the petition, now signed by more than 650 employees. The group is asking Google to refrain from turning data about searches and illegal abortions over to authorities, as Facebook did; to omit “misleading ‘pregnancy crisis centers’” in search results, including maps, which often lead to anti-abortion centers; to stop donations and lobbying entirely; and more.
As tech employee activism becomes more prevalent, employees feel more empowered to demonstrate courage. I don’t see the entire petition, but I wonder whether employees are asking for too much, particularly an end to all lobbying and political donations. A more focused, realistic request of actions that show the company’s leadership among tech companies could be more effective.
Although the petition was sent to CEO Sundar Pichai and other executives on Monday, the group hadn’t received a response by Thursday. Company leaders are called on to demonstrate integrity—transparency in communication and consistency with company principles. This is also an opportunity to lead with humility and to show a willingness to be vulnerable because this is a highly sensitive issue with no clear answers. Although a difficult situation to address, leaders must respond, particularly before the story becomes about the lack of response.
Meta Explains Chatbot Offense
Meta’s new artificial intelligence software is already failing. The chatbot, BlenderBot 3, seems to believe Jewish conspiracy theories and that President Trump won the 2020 election, as shown in the conversation here.
Meta is focusing on BlenderBot 3’s pilot status and requires users to accept a statement before they interact:
I understand this bot is for research and entertainment only, and that is likely to make untrue or offensive statements. If this happens, I pledge to report these issues to help improve future research. Furthermore, I agree not to intentionally trigger the bot to make offensive statements.
The company describes BlenderBot 3 as a “state-of-the-art conversational agent that can converse naturally with people” and claims that feedback will improve how the bot interacts:
Since all conversational AI chatbots are known to sometimes mimic and generate unsafe, biased or offensive remarks, we’ve conducted large-scale studies, co-organized workshops and developed new techniques to create safeguards for BlenderBot 3. Despite this work, BlenderBot can still make rude or offensive comments, which is why we are collecting feedback that will help make future chatbots better.
As we learned from other messages this past week, company leaders are pushing back on complaints and asking customers to be patient. We’ll see whether Meta’s strategy of managing expectations turns out better for Blender than Microsoft’s response to complaints about its 2016 chatbot, which was removed after making anti-Semitic, racist, and sexist comments. Meta asks us for feedback, but I’d rather get offended by humans and invest my time in educating them instead of a bot.
CEOs’ Direct Talk
A Wall Street Journal article this week, “CEOs Ditch the Warm Talk as Economy Shows Signs That ‘Winter’s Coming,’” provides several examples of leaders’ direct communication. When we analyze bad-news messages in business communication, we consider the organizational strategy and, more important. tone and content choices. The current wave is for CEOs to warn employees about layoffs and prepare them for tough times ahead.
Some CEOs use this direct strategy to manipulate employees to return to offices, but others are demonstrating integrity. A CEO who asks employees to “do more with less” is being transparent. Employees may be motivated by this type of talk—either to work harder and cut costs or to leave the company. If employees leave, the CEO might be OK with that, hoping to reduce headcount or hire new workers who are more productive and have different skills.
Although the article title refers to declining “warm talk,” I would argue that the talk is compassionate—honestly preparing employees so they can make decisions about how and whether they want to continue working for the company.
Cracker Barrel’s Minimal Response to Burger Criticism
Cracker Barrel added the plant-based Impossible Burger to its menu and faced more backlash than expected. An executive explained the change:
"Our new breakfast menu innovations provide a personalized experience with delicious breakfast choices to satisfy every taste bud—whether guests are nostalgic for homestyle food, hungry for a nutritious plant-based option or have a craving for a sweet treat. At morning, noon or night, we want guests to enjoy craveable breakfast favorites at a compelling value.”
But many customers responded negatively:
"Don't ever try to push that crap in my direction. Stick to the basics that made your franchise a success,"
"Are you kidding me? Who do you think your customer base is? I still order the double meat breakfast, and it's not even on the menu anymore."
"You just lost your customer base. Congratulations on being woke and going broke..."
I don’t see much in response from Cracker Barrel, except the picture above on Twitter. A company spokesperson did release this statement to NBC News:
"We appreciate the love our fans have for our all-day breakfast menu. At Cracker Barrel, we’re always exploring opportunities to expand how our guests experience breakfast and provide choices to satisfy every taste bud—whether people want to stick with traditional favorites like bacon and sausage or are hungry for a new, nutritious plant-based option like Impossible Sausage."
Maybe the company gave fuller responses on other social sites, or leaders may have decided to stay out of the fray and let people decide what to order. They did enough testing—in 50 restaurants—to know the market. With the hand-shaking image, they accept responsibility and invite people to just get along. This could be an example of a minority group of outliers making noise, but ultimately, going back to their favorite restaurant as always.
Instagram Responds to Criticism About Video Strategy
When the Kardashians are unhappy on Instagram, everyone is unhappy (apparently). Called the Tiktokification of Instagram (owned by Meta), the company added videos and is suffering backlash from users.
Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri responded to critics—on video. The author of a Vanity Fair article, “Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri Need You All to Stop Being Big Babies,” called the leaders “uncharacteristically unapologetic.”
We do see and hear pushback. Mosseri said the “full-screen experience” was only a test and needs work. But he also said, “I need to be honest. I do believe that more and more of Instagram will become video over time.” He acknowledged “a lot of change,” while trying to reassure people that photos will always be supported.
Mosseri provides evidence based on what people prefer online (not necessarily what they say they want in this moment). Mosseri demonstrates accountability for the changes but not a lot of compassion.
Clearly, Meta isn’t backing off its strategy to compete with TikTok. In the meantime, we’ll see how well company leaders persuade users to stick with the app.
Blame Game for United Airlines
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby apologized for blaming regulators for contributing to the airline’s flight delays. In a memo to employees, COO Jonathan Roitman, who has been removed from his role, indicated that FAA actions caused half of the delays:
“We estimate that over 50% of our delay minutes and 75% of our cancels in the past four months were because of FAA traffic management initiatives—those have been particularly acute in Newark and Florida. These ATC challenges can not only disrupt the schedule, but they also cause us to burn crew time throughout the month.”
The FAA responded by blaming the airline for mismanaging operations during weather conditions. After that, on an earnings call, Kirby said, “I apologized to [Transportation Secretary Pete] Buttigieg because that is not what we intended.”
All this comes after Buttigieg criticized the airlines for cancelling flights and not offering refunds. This is a complicated issue, likely caused by several factors, including staffing issues on both sides. Although Kirby didn’t take full responsibility, he demonstrated some humility and vulnerability in admitting that attacking regulators is not a useful argument, particularly when an internal memo goes public, which is always to be expected.
New Uber Document Leaks
Internal Uber documents from 2013 - 2017 prove what many have thought about the company under the leadership of founder and former CEO Travis Kalanick. More than 124,000 illustrate how Uber, according to a Guardian article, “louted laws, duped police, exploited violence against drivers and secretly lobbied governments during its aggressive global expansion.” Company executives admitted to acting like “pirates.” One wrote, “We’re just f—ing illegal.”
In Building Leadership Character, I profiled Kalanick’s leadership as a example of failing humility. As a dimension of character, humility is being “rightsized”—believing you’re neither below nor above others. Bragging about skirting the law is an obvious illustration of a lack of humility.
A spokesperson for Kalanick responded to what is called the “Uber files.” The message itself demonstrates failing humility, including an inability to learn from mistakes. (Of course Kalanick may face legal in addition to image challenges.) Instead of taking responsibility, the spokesperson questions the authenticity of the documents and tries to distance Kalanick from them:
In pressing its false agenda that Mr Kalanick directed illegal or improper conduct, the ICIJ [International Consortium of Investigative Journalists] claims to have documents that Mr Kalanick was on or even authored, some of which are almost a decade old.
As a crisis communication strategy, distancing is often effective. Uber employs the same strategy in its statement, for example, “When we say Uber is a different company today, we mean it literally: 90 percent of current Uber employees joined after Dara became CEO.” The company admits mistakes and uses that fact as the impetus for change: “It’s also exactly why Uber hired a new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, who was tasked with transforming every aspect of how Uber operates.”
Business communication students can analyze both responses as crisis and persuasive communications. Which is more effective in restoring image?
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.
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.
Lizzo Apologizes for Ableist Slur
Singer and songwriter Lizzo apologized to fans and critics, many of them on TikTok, offended by the term “spaz” in her new song, “GRRRLS.” One tweet explained the controversy:
@lizzo please re-release “grrrls” without the ablist [sic] slur. That word is not kind to disabled people. Your music is global and you have a voice folks listen to. We are trusting and asking you to release it without the slur.
Others mentioned their surprise because the singer “champions women, plus size people and others whom society treats poorly, Lizzo preaches inclusivity and should do better.”
Lizzo responded with an apology that demonstrates accountability and authenticity. She admitted the mistake, announced a new version, and highlighted her own identity. The apology could have been improved by recognizing how the term is offensive and harmful. Regardless, fans seemed to appreciate the response and, overall, the apology was effective.
Airbnb Announces Party Ban
Airbnb’s message banning parties could be considered good news or bad, depending on your perspective. The company’s decision follows a temporary ban during the pandemic, when public gathering spots shut down and parties in rental homes increased. At the time, the rationale was to prevent COVID-19 spread and to reduce the negative impact on neighborhood, a common complaint about Airbnb even before the pandemic.
The decision is easier now—a continuation of the ban rather than a new announcement. As the company wrote in the statement, “It’s been working.” The rationale is clear, and the message is well organized with “Key Takeaways” at the beginning and message titles as headings. Points address concerns of three likely audiences: hosts, neighbors, and guests.
Whether you consider the news good or bad, the statement is an example of a persuasive message. The goal is to stop parties and to win favor of neighbors and municipalities frustrated with noise and other negative effects of short-term rentals, for example, diminished housing inventory and higher home prices. In this regard, the company is demonstrating accountability, although, of course, some would like Airbnb to do more.
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.
Comms About Disney Leadership Changes
When companies announce leadership changes, they typically include quotes from outgoing executives, but a Disney press release mentions the head of TV only in passing. The focus of the release is on Dana Walden’s promotion to Chairman of Disney General Entertainment Content. The 817-word statement mentions Tim Rice near the end of the first paragraph:
She will have oversight of ABC Entertainment, ABC News, Disney Branded Television, Disney Television Studios, Freeform, FX, Hulu Originals, National Geographic Content, and Onyx Collective. Walden previously served as Chairman, Entertainment, Walt Disney Television and succeeds Peter Rice, who is leaving the Company. Her appointment is effective immediately, and she will report directly to Chapek.
News reports explains that Rice was fired for differences over creative decisions, compensation, etc. The company statement could have acknowledged a bit more and demonstrated integrity and accountability for the decision; otherwise, the press carries the message.
In Walden’s email to employees, she mentions Rice in the 14th of 16 paragraphs:
In reflecting on my own professional journey, I am very fortunate to have worked alongside Peter Rice for a long time. We have been friends for almost three decades and he was my boss for eight years. He is a gifted executive, and I learned a lot from him. I know you all join me in wishing him the best in whatever he chooses to do next.
Of course, this is the right thing to do—and important for employees who may have loyalties to Rice. I respect that she didn’t sugarcoat his departure (and at least Disney isn’t claiming the weasley “mutual agreement” reason for leaving).
As always, leaders communicate by what they say and what they omit. This situation also illustrates a question for business communication students: is this bad news, good news, or a persuasive message? I would argue that it’s all three, depending on your perspective.
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.