What's in a Handshake?

Business Insider asked Dr. Lillian Glass, a self-described body language expert to analyze President Trump's body language. She says Trump's "robust" handshake with the prime minister of Japan communicates, "Hey, we get along. I really like you." She says the PM's body language communicates the same and says that Trump's "cupping" his hand (placing his hand over the prime minister's) also indicates affection.

But comedians The Young Turks criticize the exchange, including audio of the prime minister telling Trump, "Look at me" and, immediately after the handshake is finished, pulling his body away and looking like he wants to leave.

Dr. Glass says Trump's handshake with the British prime minister shows "he's very respectful" and that "he doesn't know her that well or, you know, that he doesn't have the same affection towards her as the others."

With Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, Glass says Trump and he had a warm handshake, and placing a hand on the arm "indicates friendship." A body language expert who analyzed this move by President Obama said it demonstrated power. Glass says Trump's body language with Obama shows tension.

Discussion:

• If it's not obvious from this post, I'm skeptical about some of Glass interpretations. What do you think?
• What about the context of these interactions could affect our interpretation? Consider that these are short clips, possibly edited, and are in front of the media.
• What, if any, lessons from this can you glean for job interviews? How would you describe your own approach to shaking hands in a business situation?

More Ethical Questions for Uber

Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, has blasted the company for what she describes as sexual harassment, a sexist environment, and HR's failure to respond. Fowler also reports that only 3% of engineers are women at Uber, which she claims has fallen over time.

When she reported sexual harassment, she was given a choice to move to another department or stay and likely receive a poor performance review. This is a basic "don't" in HR, from my experience: you don't move the victim and put him or her at a disadvantage. According to Fowler, no further action was taken in the case, although other women received similar treatment by the same manager.

At this point, Fowler's complaints are getting attention. CEO Travis Kalanick wrote that he would look into the situation:

"I have just read Susan Fowler's blog. What she describes is abhorrent and against everything Uber stands for and believes in. It's the first time this has come to my attention so I have instructed Liane Hornsey our new Chief Human Resources Officer to conduct an urgent investigation into these allegations. We seek to make Uber a just workplace and there can be absolutely no place for this kind of behavior at Uber -- and anyone who behaves this way or thinks this is OK will be fired."

Ariana Huffington, an Uber board member, jumped into the conversation on Twitter:

Image source.

From interviews and messages from Uber employees, a New York Times article reports an "aggressive, unrestrained workplace culture." Kalanick further addressed the controversy in an email to employees that begins: "It's been a tough 24 hours. I know the company is hurting, and understand everyone has been waiting for more information on where things stand and what actions we are going to take."

Discussion:

• Read Fowler's blog post. What persuasive strategies does she use (logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility)? Which parts are most and least convincing? 
• How should the company respond? An investigation is a good start: what should this include, how should it be carried out, and what result would you expect?

Milo Yiannopoulos Loses Speaking Engagement and Book Deal

Milo Yiannopoulos has an active following for the very reason he lost a speaking engagement and book deal: he's out there. A New York Times article refers to him as "a polemical Breitbart editor and unapologetic defender of the alt-right," and he seems to say whatever he wants, which isn't a bad thing-until it is.

Earlier this month, a college tour at UC Berkeley was canceled when protests ended in violence, and today, he lost the chance to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The latest controversy comes from a video in which Yiannopoulos seems to condone pedophilia. Yiannopoulos denies the allegations and "blamed 'British sarcasm' and 'deceptive editing,'" according to the Times.

Simon & Schuster canceled plans for his book, "Dangerous." In a statement, Yiannopoulos said, "The people whose views, concerns and fears I am articulating do not sip white wine and munch canapés in gilded salons. And they will not be defeated by the cocktail set running New York publishing. Nor will I."

According to the Times article, Yiannopoulos's position at Breitbart is under consideration:

Mr. Yiannopoulos, who has railed against Muslims, immigrants, transgender people and women's rights, is a marquee contributor to Breitbart News, where he serves as senior editor. He has amassed a fan base for his stunts and often-outrageous statements. But by Monday afternoon, his future at the website was being intensely debated by top management.

One Breitbart journalist, who requested anonymity to describe private deliberations, described divisions in the newsroom over whether Mr. Yiannopoulos could stay on. There was some consensus among staff members that his remarks were more extreme than his usual speech, the journalist said, and executives were discussing by telephone whether his apology was enough to preserve his position at the site.

[Update: Yiannopoulos resigned from his Breitbart position.]

I saw Yiannopoulos for the first time on "Real Time with Bill Maher." What struck me most was this statement: "Mean words on the internet don't hurt anyone." Really? Who gets to decide?

Image source.

Discussion:

• Did the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference and Simon & Schuster make the right decision? Did UC Berkeley?
• What's your perspective on Yiannopoulos' comment, "Mean words on the internet don't hurt anyone"? Who does get to decide?

Kraft Heinz Withdraws Unilever Bid

Kraft Heinz won't acquire Unilever, after all, the two companies announced in a joint press release. The news sent ripples through Unilever's stock, which fell 7% after rising 13% on the initial news. 13%.

The original bid was for $143 million, but Unilever's response wasn't enthusiastic, claiming the price "fundamentally undervalues" the company. Ken Shea, a Bloomberg analyst questioned the whole deal: "The strange episode suggests that Kraft Heinz acted a bit hastily with its takeover plan, and evidently did not think it fully through. Also, the timing and size of the bid-coming just after its earnings conference call on Wednesday last week, in which it downplayed the need for acquisitions-likely leaves their Wall Street credibility diminished."

Image source.

Discussion:

• How does the withdrawal reflect on Unilever? Kraft Heinz?
• What's your view of the joint statement? Why would the two companies take this approach?

Gates Annual Letter

The Gates Foundation's 2017 annual letter is far from a traditional annual report. Instead, it's a letter to Warren Buffet, who, in 2006, gave much of his fortune to support the Foundation's work. 

The report starts with a 2016 letter from Buffet asking Bill and Melinda Gates to, in part, to help "people better understand why success in philanthropy is measured differently from [sic] success in business or government."

The response focuses on "the stunning gains the poorest people in the world have made over the last 25 years." Data include the number of children's lives saved, 122 million.

With quotes from Melinda and Bill, the report includes progress on fighting disease and many charts to show declines in mortality rates around the world. We see such a rich variety of chart types: bar, pie, line, area, and area. In addition, the letter includes a table, photos, videos, and a wonderful bubble chart from Gapminder.org, founded by the recently deceased data visualization pro Hans Rosling.

Discussion:

• Analyze the Gates letter. What do you find most and least effective?
• Analyze each chart type against principles in Chapter 9. Is each the best choice for the data displayed? Could any be replaced with a more effective type of chart?
• How are photos and videos used strategically? What is their purpose?
• I wrote "[sic]" within Warren Buffet's quotation. What does this mean?

Twitter's New Time Out for Bad Behavior

Twitter has been acting more and more aggressively against users who behave badly on the site with new rules for what's acceptable and what's not. Now, the company has started giving users a "time out" when tweets violate those rules. Actions may include limiting post views to followers. As the guidelines say, "Limiting the reach of potentially abusive content creates a safer environment and stronger Twitter community."

Some users have complained about the practice, feeling that one word has gotten them into the dog house, but a Business Insider article interviewed an executive who gave a more holistic view of the decision process:

"A spokesperson declined to explain how Twitter determines if an account deserves to be temporarily restricted or totally suspended, but did say that the company looks at the overall context of an account's behavior rather than just potentially offensive keywords. So if an account repeatedly tweets offensive things to other accounts that don't follow back, Twitter could interpret that behavior as abuse and worthy of a time-out."

A page on Twitter's website explains five reasons to understand why "I'm seeing a message that my account is locked or limited": security purposes, account validation, rule violations, suspicious activity, or temporarily limited features, which is the latest addition.

Image source.

Discussion:

• The decision to temporarily block reach could be tricky. What criteria do you think Twitter will use to determine whether this action is appropriate?
• In what ways will this new step be effective, and how might it fall short?

Will Chime Fix Meetings?

Amazon is introducing Chime, a new product for online meetings and videoconferencing. Described as "Frustration-free meetings with exceptional audio and video quality," Chime is designed to compete with products like Skype, Google Hangouts, and GoToMeeting.  

GeekWire quotes an Amazon executive about the program:

"It's pretty hard to find people who actually like the technology they use for meetings today," said Gene Farrell, Vice President, Enterprise Applications at AWS in a press release. "Most meeting applications or services are hard to use, deliver bad audio and video, require constant switching between multiple tools to do everything they want, and are way too expensive."

Conference calls have become a joke. The video "A Conference Call in Real Life" has received more than 14.5 million views, and "A Video Conference Call in Real Life" has more than 700,000. 

The Chime promotional materials focus on the technology, of course: ease of joining, automatic reconnection, mobile access, notifications, etc. But what about the people skills involved in managing a meeting? Isn't most of a meeting's success dependent on the leader and participants? Sure, technology can ruin an online meeting, but so can the people managing it.

Discussion:

• What, if anything, do you find appealing about Chime? How does it compare to other meeting programs?
• What percentage of an online meeting's success is attributable to the people? The technology? Is Chime over-promosing?

NBA Bans Mean Tweets

The NBA is asking players to take the high road. Deputy commissioner Mark Tatum sent a memo to the 30 teams in the league:

"While we understand that the use of social media by teams, including during games, is an important part of our business, the inappropriate use of social media can damage the reputation of the NBA, its teams, and its players," NBA deputy commissioner Mark Tatum wrote in the memo obtained by ESPN.com. "Recently, social media postings (e.g., on Twitter) by some teams have crossed the line between appropriate and inappropriate. In addition to other concerns, such conduct by teams can result in 'Twitter wars' between players that can cause further reputational damage and subject players to discipline by the League.

"As a result, we want teams to be aware of the NBA's rules with respect to the use of social media by teams. As with in-game entertainment, teams are prohibited from mocking and/or ridiculing opponents (including teams, players, team personnel (including owners), and opponents' home cities) and game officials on social media in any form, including through statements, pictures, or videos."

...

"Teams may use social media for fun and light-hearted banter that does not reflect poorly on any team, player, other team or League personnel, or the League as a whole. However, such activity cannot become inappropriate or offensive. As such, we encourage teams to properly and extensively train their social media staff members to ensure that they know what kind of postings are appropriate and what kind are not."

The memo may have been inspired by Twitter banter about Chandler Parsons.

Mashable reports everyone being "obnoxiously nice" now. The sarcasm abounds.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's the difference between light-hearted banter and "inappropriate or offensive" language? I can see some fine distinctions here.
• What's your view of the recent sarcasm: fun, disrespectful, or something else?

Disney and YouTube Drop PewDiePie

With 53 million followers, Felix Kjellberg, known as PewDiePie, is YouTube's most popular star, but the video channel and Disney have cut ties with him after an egregious stunt. On the app Fiverr, people are paid $5 to do crazy things, but this time it went too far.

Two South Asian men carried a sign that read, "Death to all Jews." Kjellberg is shown watching the video with his hand over his mouth. A Wall Street Journal report uncovered additional videos showing Nazi symbols and anti-Semitic jokes connected to the YouTube personality.

YouTube canceled Kjellberg's second season, and Maker Studios, a division of Disney, told Variety: "Although Felix has created a following by being provocative and irreverent, he clearly went too far in this case and the resulting videos are inappropriate. Maker Studios has made the decision to end our affiliation with him going forward."

In a YouTube video, the men who held the saying apologized and pleaded to get back their Fiverr account, which had been suspended. In a blog post, Kjellberg responded to the controversy.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Did YouTube and Maker Studio do the right thing? Why or why not?
• For Disney, connections to Kjellberg seemed risky to begin with, even for potentially 53 million followers. What do you think?
• What's your view of Kjellberg's response? Do you believe his argument?

Former Starwood Exec Comments on the Acquisition

Former head of global development at Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Simon Turner talks openly at The Americas Lodging Investment Summit (ALIS) conference. In an interview, Turner acknowledges that in any acquisition, like the Marriott's purchase of Starwood, not everyone is going to still have a job.

Turner discusses the uncertainly, particularly with the last-minute bid from Anband Insurance, and the value of overcommunicating to avoid confusion.

Turner also describes the process and his feelings of attachment towards the people in his organization, which helped him avoid feeling "woe is me." He also had perspective considering some people spent their entire career at Starwood compared to his nine years.

In talking about the hotel business, Turner says, although executives compete with each other, there is a sense of camaraderie and respect, which Turner calls "one of the great things about our business."

Discussion:

• What does Turner mean at the beginning when he jokes, "I'm a cost synergy"?
• What lessons can we learn from Turner's views on communication?
• What's your view of Turner's perspective on the hotel business? Do you think this is true of some industries more than others? Why or why not?

Merriam-Webster Tweets

Business Insider has compiled a bunch of Merriam-Webster tweets about the Trump Administration and its use of language. The video, titled "Merriam-Webster can't stop trolling the Trump administration on Twitter," presents several examples: 

• Highlighted the word most often looked up in November: fascism
• Clarified the difference between "historic" and "historical," a word incorrectly used by Secretary of Education Betsy deVos
• Noted that the Holocaust refers "to the Nazis' mass murder of European Jews" after The White House neglected to mention Jews in the International Holocaust Rememberance Day statement 
• Defined "betrayal" after Sean Spicer said he wouldn't define the word during a press conference. 

And more. 

Discussion:

• What's implied in Business Insider's report? Is this a criticism? I'm not sure. 
• How helpful do you find Merriam-Webster's tweets? Some are clarifying and some are not.

Fallacies in Recent Politics

I'm teaching a module on fallacies on Monday and will present a few related to politics-wish me luck: 

• Ad hominen: President Trump's tweets are an obvious example, but I'll use Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" for this example. It's an attack without evidence.

  If it's not too charged (and a bit complicated), I may talk about Senator Elizabeth Warren's reading of Coretta Scott King's 1986 letter about Jeff Sessions, the attorney general nominee. An LA Times opinion piece explains the ad hominen issue well: 

"The original intent of the rule, if you will, was to preserve comity and focus the attention senators on substance rather than ad hominem arguments. But Warren was commenting on Sessions not as a colleague but as the nominee to a position in the executive branch; his character (as perceived by Mrs. King) was central to her argument."

• False analogy: This one will be a question to students. Nordstrom dropped Ivanka Trump's brand, and President Trump criticized the decision on Twitter (although The Wall Street Journal reports a 32% sales decline). This may have been an ethics violation itself, but the false analogy came in the reporting. Kellyanne Conway was charged with an ethics violation for, as a member of the White House staff, promoting Ivanka Trump's products on Fox & Friends:

  "Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I was [saying] - I hate shopping and I'm going to go get some myself today."

  "This is just...it's a wonderful line. I own some of it... I'm going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."

A Breitbart article agrees with the charges, but is this "wildly disproportionate"? The article discusses a SiriusXM interview and includes a few comparisons to democrats' promoting for-profit companies: 

"Obama administration directly involved government in vastly larger business dealings, most dramatically by using the Internal Revenue Service to force Americans to buy products from preferred insurance companies under Obamacare."

"President Obama's pushing green energy technology and electric cars, such as the Chevy Volt."

"...Clintons' case...pushing the Clinton Foundation and using their government power to get people to donate to the Clinton Foundation as a form of quasi-bribery."

Are Verizon and T-Mobile Going Too Far on Twitter?

T-Mobile's sex-themed commercial continued on Twitter with the company trading barbs with Verizon, the ad target. Actress Kristen Schaal stars in the ad and seemed to enjoy being "punished" by Verizon for going over her data plan.

Some thought the ad was cute, but the tweets seemed to get out of hand. A Mashable article sums it up well: "It was all pretty creepy coming from the marketing departments of two of America's biggest telecoms. And most Twitter users were not having it."  Tweets encouraged the companies to end it: 

• "K guys. This has OFFICIALLY gone too far."
• "50 Shades of Don't"

T-Mobile CEO John Legere is known for some outlandish behavior. A CNBC article this month calls his behavior "authentic," for example using the "f-bomb," and Legere explains why he is the way he is:

"The trick for me is, I really believe that I act, behave, and speak the same way my customers do. I say what they think on behalf of them. If you look, most of my colorful nature and antics is to drive change that benefits customers."

Discussion:

• Do you find the commercial itself funny?
• What's your view of the ongoing exchange between Verizon and T-Mobile? In this case, was it worth the risk of offending?

Bud Light's Risky Super Bowl Ad

The commercial garnered 21 million YouTube views so far, and #BoycottBudweiser is trending. Maybe it's a successful ad?

News of Bud Light's new advertising approach-no celebrities-before the Super Bowl: on January 18, a Wall Street Journal article described the storyline, but the immigration focus was not clear:

The Budweiser spot, which is being created by Anomaly, will highlight the pursuit of the American dream by focusing on Adolphus Busch, the co-founder of Anheuser-Busch. The famous Clydesdale horses, long a fixture of Bud advertising for the title game, will make a cameo.

The commercial is called "Born the Hard Way," and the YouTube caption reads, "This is the story of our founder's ambitious journey to America in pursuit of his dream: to brew the King of Beers." But the commercial's tone and underlying message seemed to oppose President Trump's recent ban on travel and immigration from Muslim-majority countries.

Budweiser is no stranger to controversy: the company's "up for whatever" campaign offended many as insensitive to sexual assault. This time, some tweets criticized the spelling, while others showed their support of a boycott.

Discussion:

• What consideration, if any, do you think Budweiser gave to the possibility of boycotts by Trump supporters?
• Was the risk worth it? Take a look at the social chatter and mainstream articles.

Ralph Lauren Loses CEO and Value

Ralph Lauren CEO Stefan Larsson resigned over what the Chicago Tribune calls a "creative clash" with the company founder. The company is struggling to maintain sales as its preppy style appeals to an older crowd, and the brand hasn't found a way to attract new customers.

In a statement, founder Ralph Lauren said, "We both recognize the need to evolve. However, we have found that we have different views on how to evolve the creative and consumer-facing parts of the business. After many conversations with one another, and our board of directors, we have agreed to part ways."

In retrospect, perhaps Larsson was a tough fit: he came from Old Navy, which is a budget brand. He was quoted in the company's press release: "In June, we announced a plan to refocus the Company on what made it iconic, evolve that for today and build our brand to its full potential. That plan is on track—I am proud of the progress the whole team has made and I am committed to ensuring its uninterrupted execution. Ralph will always be an inspiration to me, and I am grateful to have had this experience."

Lauren also said, "The board and I are committed to the execution of the Way Forward Plan and continuing to move our business and iconic brand forward."

The stock fell 12% after the news was announced.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Read Ralph Lauren's press release. How well does the message convey what happened? Does reading the release enhance or diminish the image of the brand in your eyes?
• Assess Larsson's quotation in the release. How well does he explain his own performance while maintaining the company's brand?

Trump Management: A Case Study

The New York Times asked business and management experts how well President Trump is shaping up to be a leader. The results aren't too good.

The article cites a Wall Street Journal conservative op-ed:

The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal bemoaned a refugee policy "so poorly explained and prepared for, that it has produced confusion and fear at airports, an immediate legal defeat, and political fury at home and abroad."

An assistant professor of organizational behavior at Stanford said Trump should take her introductory MBA course, while a professor said his actions "are so far from any responsible management approach." Jeffrey Polzer, an HR professor at Harvard said, "It's really common sense: You want to surround yourself with talented people who have the most expertise, who bring different perspectives to the issue at hand. Then you foster debate and invite different points of view in order to reach a high-quality solution."

Polzer also said that a better approach "requires an openness to being challenged, and some self-awareness and even humility to acknowledge that there are areas where other people know more than you do. This doesn't mean decisions are made by consensus. The person at the top makes the decisions, but based on the facts and expertise necessary to make a good decision."

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of how President Trump has been running the country so far?
• Where's the disconnect? Compare the complexity of running a country and an executive branch of government to running a complex business.
• Maybe this is an adjustment period. Perhaps Trump needs some time to orient himself and adapt his management style. Try to make a case for this line of thinking if it's not your current view.

NFL Rejects GNC Ad

GNC, the vitamin store company, is trying to improve its image, but the company won't get a spot in this year's Super Bowl. Although Fox News accepted the ad, the NFL pulled the plug.

According to AdAge, "Jeff Hennion, exec VP-chief marketing and e-commerce officer at GNC, said the NFL objected to its commercial because fewer than 3% of its products include two of the 162 substances banned by the league. According to Mr. Hennion, the NFL has approval rights over commercials in the big game." NFL also wanted GNC to change its logo, which has the name on a pill bottle. The company was working on that, but the commercial was still rejected.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Why do you think the NFL rejected GNC's ad? Is it about the banned substances or something else? Related question: What's your view of the ad?
• I can't find a statement from the NFL. Should the company make a comment? What are the advantages and potential downsides?
• GNC makes an interesting argument with the 3% claim. Do you find it convincing? Consider principles from Chapter 9.

Users #DeleteUber

Uber users aren't happy with the company's surge pricing during a New York City taxi protest. NYC yellow cabbies delayed JFK airport pickups for an hour to protest President Trump's ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries.

Trouble started for Uber when its pricing tool showed higher prices because of the shortage. Uber says it was automatic-not intended to take advantage of the taxi drivers' decision. The company also suspended the surge but not before #DeleteUber started trending. 

Meanwhile, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick posted a call for support for drivers affected by the ban on his Facebook page.

A Yahoo story, "The Day Lyft Was Bigger than Uber," explains that some users have been favoring Lyft since Kalanick joined Trump's advisory board, while others became fans when Lyft donated $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been at the forefront fighting the president's new policies. The uptick for Lyft was significant: "... data from third-party app tracking firm App Annie indicates Lyft surpassed Uber in the US on Sunday for most app downloads on iOS in the US in a single day - more than twice the number of times people downloaded Lyft just two weeks prior. Downloads for the Android version of Lyft's app in the Google Play store also saw a significant boost that day."

Discussion:

• Some say boycotting Uber isn't the best way to protest, particularly because the CEO is against the president's actions. What do you think?
• Assess Kalanick's statement on his Facebook page. What are his key messages?
• How do you feel about Uber? Do you buy the argument that the surge pricing wasn't capitalizing on the taxi protest?

CEOs Respond to Trump's Executive Order

The New York Times reports "Frantic Phoning Among CEOs" about how they should address President Trump's ban on travel from Muslim-majority countries. Leaders want to oppose the ban but are concerned about "poking the bear," according to the article. The new president has taken tweet jabs at others, for example, the union leader involved in Carrier negotiations when he spoke out.

In a statement on the Starbucks website, Schultz opposed initiatives around DACA, building a wall, the Affordable Care Act, and immigration. He pledged to employ 10,000 refugees.

Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook also have come forward. Cook focused on Apple, of course: "In my conversations with officials here in Washington this week, I've made it clear that Apple believes deeply in the importance of immigration - both to our company and to our nation's future. Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do." Other tech company leaders have weighed in their opposition: Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Expedia, and Microsoft.

The Times called financial firms' response more "moderate." For example, Lloyd Blanfein of Goldman Sachs said, "For us to be successful, our men and women must reflect the diversity of the communities and cultures in which we operate. That means we must attract, retain and motivate people from many backgrounds and perspectives. Being diverse is not optional; it is what we must be."

The article also noted energy and heavy industries' "mixed-bag" response, consumer and retail companies' resistance, and media and telecom's "no comment."

Discussion:

• What risks and rewards do CEOs face in addressing the travel ban?
• Why are industries responding differently? What does each have to lose or gain?
• Assess Howard Schultz's statement. While others are questioning how and whether to respond, he is on it. Why?

Kraft Heinz Gets Mixed Reviews for Holiday

Kraft Heinz won't have a commercial in this year's Super Bowl, but the company will give employees Monday off. Joking that the day after, #SMunday, should be a national holiday, Heinz started a petition on change.org:

"We can all agree that going to work the Monday after the ‘Big Game' on Sunday is awful," the petition states. "So as far as we're concerned at Heinz, we as a nation should stop settling for it being the worst work day of the year. We don't settle for that awesome football Sunday to be just like every other day of the year."

They're certainly getting mainstream press, for example, in The Washington Post, but the article refers to the move as a "Super Bowl stunt."

The company recently laid off thousands of workers, and the day off isn't available to factory employees. Some social posts call the campaign "pandering" and one tweet reads, "I think we have bigger things to worry about." 

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of the campaign: pandering, clever, inappropriate, or something else?
• What about the timing? News from the Trump Administration is heavy is week.