CVS Statement on Jury Decision
A jury found that Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS contributed to the opioid crisis and will have to pay damages to Ohio counties. Plaintiffs argued that, as a New York Times article explains, pharmacists are “gatekeepers who have a duty to question suspicious prescriptions.”
The drug stores will likely appeal, and CVS published a statement disputing the decision:
We strongly disagree with the decision. Pharmacists fill legal prescriptions written by DEA-licensed doctors who prescribe legal, FDA-approved substances to treat actual patients in need.
We’re proud of the substantial work we’ve done to support our pharmacists in detecting illegitimate prescribing. But the simple facts are that opioid prescriptions are written by doctors, not pharmacists; opioid medications are made and marketed by manufacturers, not pharmacists; and our health care system depends on pharmacists to fill legitimate prescriptions that doctors deem necessary for their patients. We look forward to the appeals court review of this case, including the misapplication of public nuisance law.
As plaintiffs’ own experts testified, many factors have contributed to the opioid abuse issue, and solving this problem will require involvement from all stakeholders in our health care system and all members of our community.
CVS uses a classic crisis-communication strategy to deflect blame: zoom out and look at the entire system. True, the opioid crisis is complex, but this jury found that pharmacists are part of the problem and should be held accountable.
Jack in the Box Statement: More Well Wishes
Restaurant workers across the country are demanding higher wages and better working conditions, and Jack in the Box is one targeted group. In California, unions are lobbying for The Fast Recovery Act, which would hold corporate offices accountable if franchisees don’t comply with regulations. Today, that responsibility lies with individual stores, making it more difficult for employees to get mandatory Covid 19 protections and sick pay.
A local Jack in the Box didn’t response to a PBS NewsHour request for comment, but the corporate office sent a statement. I see the message only on the video (at 4:33), so here’s a blurry image. Note the much-maligned “hope you are well”—two variations. The first, in slightly larger font, looks like part of a template that wasn’t deleted. In this case, both are superfluous and insincere—like announcing the author’s name, which is at the bottom of the note, and the rest of the statement, in my opinion.
Nothing in the message acknowledges problems or provides plans to improve the situation. It’s defensive and does not inspire confidence in the brand. I see a lack of accountability and willingness to be vulnerable and learn from failure.
Visualizing Big Numbers
President Biden’s “Build Back Better” infrastructure plan may be difficult to visualize. When we consider trillions of dollars, traditional business charts—bars, pies, and lines—may not be the best choice.
Here are a few visualizations to compare:
Pie pieces (shown here)
These aren’t perfect comparisons because they cover different categories and are from different points in time, but they do give us options to help audiences understand data. What other visualizations can you find, and which are most effective for what purpose?
Language Choices
A new report has been criticized from both sides of the political aisle. Published by the American Medical Association and the Center for Health Justice, “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative, and Concepts,” is described as an “equity document.” Its purpose is to provide guidance to physicians and healthcare workers.
Some recommendations seem appropriate, while others seem impractical or, as a New York Times opinion writer called them, “absurd.” Michelle Goldberg gives an example:
“The guide suggests replacing ‘vulnerable’ with ‘oppressed,’ even though they’re not synonymous: it’s not oppression that makes the elderly vulnerable to Covid.”
Key principles include avoiding using stigmatizing and dehumanizing adjectives, avoiding generalizations, avoiding language with violent connotations, and avoiding unintentional blaming. The report suggests “people-first" language, which I suggest in the textbook—when appropriate.
I wonder how students feel about the more specific recommendations in the report: Which would they follow, and which seem silly or unnatural?
Robinhood's Breach Notice
In a blog post, Robinhood announced a “data security incident.” Business communication students will notice several examples of downplaying the situation, including giving numbers of people affected more significantly (310) but no numbers for the total.
Language seems intentionally complex, for example, “The unauthorized party socially engineered a customer support employee by phone and obtained access to certain customer support systems.” In other words, someone called a Robinhood employee and impersonated another employee. The employee fell for this deceit without seeking proof.
Robinhood seems to take no responsibility and identifies no plans for future action to prevent a similar “incident.” The chief security officer provides template text: “As a Safety First company, we owe it to our customers to be transparent and act with integrity. Following a diligent review, putting the entire Robinhood community on notice of this incident now is the right thing to do.”
Research About Groupthink
Groupthink causes poor decision making because members come to the same conclusions, failing to see alternatives. You might think the trouble is with homogeneous teams, but a Wall Street Journal article clarifies the types of teams most susceptible to this limited thinking.
The faculty authors describe three sets of teams and ask which is “the most likely to fall prey to the pathologies of groupthink”?
A friendly team of long-term colleagues or a new collection of co-workers who haven’t had time to form close personal bonds?
A team composed of the usual suspects or that same team where an outsider has been brought in to provide a fresh perspective?
A group with a confident leader who has a clear vision of how to do things or a relatively unstructured group without a strong authority figure?
In each, the second team is more vulnerable. Concepts like group identity and psychological safety are at play. Although paradoxical in some ways, a close group of friends who feel comfortable with each other are more likely to offer divergent ideas.
Throughout my career, I have tried different approaches to assigning student teams. This article makes me feel good about the times I’ve let students choose their own teams. Of course, that causes other problems, but groupthink was not likely one of them.
Skewed Chart Example
Dopesick on Hulu includes a great example of a compressed chart scale. The show is about the opioid crisis and features the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma’s role in convincing doctors that OxyContin is not addictive. To prove the point, Purdue shared this graph, showing that the “time release” capsules don’t cause mood spikes (“fewer peaks and valleys”). The trouble, as business communication students can observe, is the Y axis.
In Episode 6 (around 21 minutes), we hear the explanation: “But see what Purdue did? They dramatically compressed the scale.” On the chart, we see that 30 looks to be the midpoint. They used a logarithmic instead of a linear scale to homogenize or “smooth out” the data. (Here’s a good explanation of logarithmic scales.)
In the show, an FDA official says they instructed Purdue Pharma not to use the chart, but the company did anyway. Of course, I’m not sure what happened, exactly, and I didn’t get the court filings to verify the chart.
The show offers many other examples of the company’s persuasive communications and the tragic effect on people’s lives. For more research about Purdue’s misleading communications, see this LA Times article. Also read a fascinating trove of Purdue emails here.
Language Choices
A New York Times writer explores language “on the left,” meaning political liberals. The article also helps us understand choices for business communicators and my challenges revising Business Communication and Character (11e).
The first sentence of the article includes the word “freshman,” and already I have questions. At Cornell, we have been using “first-year” as a gender-neutral term for some time. Of course, this only exemplifies the Amy Harmon’s point about changing language.
Harmon describes frustration on all political sides, including needing to adapt to changing language, skepticism about “wokeness,” and choosing semantics over action
I fear that my book, revised but not yet published, is already out of date. Did I give “BIPOC” and “Latinx” too much attention and “LGBTQIA+” too little? Should I have addressed “wokeness”? I’ll wrestle with all this in the 12th edition.
Facebook Becomes “Meta”
In the midst of controversy after internal documents were made public, Facebook is trying to reinvent itself with a new name: Meta. The company promises that “the metaverse will be social. 3D spaces in the metaverse will let you socialize, learn, collaborate and play in ways that go beyond what we can imagine.” After staying behind the scenes for the past few weeks, as the press cited internal strife as evidence of the company’s wrongdoing, Facebook’s CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg is out in front.
In a 1 hour and 17 minute video, Zuckerberg focuses on the “immersive experience” we’ll enjoy in the future. He emphasizes connection, which has been the company vision since around 2017.
Perhaps in a nod to the ongoing criticism of apps’ negative influence and relentless draw through algorithms, Zuckerberg says, “This isn’t about spending more time on screens. It’s about making that time we already spend better.” Of course, some of us still want to spend less time and want the same for our children. Zuckerberg also acknowledged, “The last few years have been humbling for me and my company in a lot of ways.”
Reactions to the name change are mixed but seem mostly skeptical. A Washington Post article points to a tweet: “Don’t forget that when Phillip Morris changed it’s name to Altria it was still selling cigarettes that caused cancer.”
Zuckerberg’s video is a good example of a scripted presentation with a (somewhat) conversational style. As he moves about, we see, as the Post describes, “a dizzying array of scenes that showcased the company’s vision for the metaverse. It included Zuckerberg doing his favorite water sport, hydrofoiling, with friends in a virtual environment, and then jumping into work meetings from a virtual home office, boxing with virtual avatars and working out on a virtual lily pad.” All this certainly would make me spend more time online and give me more reasons to never leave my house.
Business communication students can also analyze Zuckerberg’s “letter,” referring to a formal public message—not, of course, something mailed. I would say the same for the “keynote,” which is unlike any I’ve ever seen.
Congressman's "Bizarre" Video
Jeff Fortenberry, U.S. representative for Nebraska, was facing indictment for falsifying and concealing information and for lying to investigators about 2016 campaign contributions. In a video called “unusual” and “bizarre,” Fortenberry speaks to the camera from his truck with his wife and dog in the background. He says they are “out for a drive” in his 1963 Ford pick-up.
The video is an interesting attempt at authenticity to sway public opinion. Fortenberry wants us to believe that he is a trustworthy, everyday man—a victim rather than a criminal. He tells the story of FBI agents coming to his house “on a weekend” after a cyclone hit. With an incredulous tone, Fortenberry says, “We’re shocked. We’re stunned. I feel so personally betrayed.”
I wonder what counsel Fortenberry received or whether it was his own idea to create the video. Either way, based on the news reports and the indictment, which came later that day, Fortenberry’s message did not favorably affect the outcome for him. His arraignment is planned for later this week.
Overblown Generational Differences
Finally, a mainstream article, “The Bunk of Generational Talk,” describes exaggerated differences among age groups. Categorical thinking contributes to imagined “gaps” and tropes. With random year divisions, naming generations only reinforces stereotypes.
The article author, a professor of public policy, provides research showing that most differences among generations are driven by factors other than generation alone. For example, beliefs about climate change have tracked fairly closely over time. He summarizes the issue well:
“Our wrongheaded thinking about generations leads us to focus on the wrong problems. Headlines about spendthrift young people, for example, distract us from the huge shift in economic policy in recent decades toward the interests of older people. We avoid facing up to a challenge like climate change by laying the blame on older generations while placing our expectations for salvation on the coming generation. Across a range of issues, manufacturing fake generational battles denies us the benefits of intergenerational connection and solidarity.”
Business Communication and Character describes ways to work and communicate across differences—not invent differences to mock and scorn.
CDC Director Has a More Nuanced Approach
A New York Times writer compares CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky’s vaccine messaging in different settings. Analyzing a podcast with someone Walensky likely considers a colleague, David Leonhardt describes her tone and approach as more conversational. He also identifies examples of Walensky’s acknowledgment of a “risk-benefit” assessment—more nuanced communication than we hear from the CDC in its official guidance on news media programs.
Leonhardt gave another example of Walensky’s more flexible stance on vaccines:
Walensky began her answer by restating official C.D.C. policy: “We’re not currently recommending it.” But then she added the fuller truth: “I’ll tell you what we do know, and some places where I think people might veer from standard guidance.”
He summarizes what could be more helpful in health communications:
“Health officials are frequently unwilling to take that second step in public. When confronted with uncertainty, they do not acknowledge it. They ignore gray areas and talk in black and white.”
This situation exemplifies humility as a character dimension. Leaders who admit uncertainty—that they don’t know everything and are still learning—may be more persuasive, not less.
Leonhardt is also describing integrity and, more specifically, transparency. Consistency in messaging, including giving a fuller picture, could help people make rational choices for themselves. That might not result in outcomes the CDC wants—or it might, but not in the exact timeframe or terms that the CDC dictates. As Leonhardt says, “the full truth” would give people more agency and could cause less backlash against prescriptive guidelines.
Failing Data Analysis in the Theranos Trial
The criminal trial against Theranos Founder and former CEO Elizabeth Holmes now focuses on testimony from Safeway, Walgreens, and Johns Hopkins University. Questions involve how these companies evaluated Theranos’ blood-testing technology and concluded that it was sound when, in fact, results was consistently false.
At this point in the trail, investors blame Holmes, whose defense is that the companies did due diligence and are responsible for their decisions. A Wall Street Journal article about the arguments highlights the companies’ and the university’s failings and over-reliance on Holmes’ claims.
As the relationship between Safeway and Theranos progressed, CEO Steve Burd wrote an email to Theranos with the subject, “Becoming Discouraged.” He testified, “I think whenever you start something new you’re going to have some rough spots, but we continued to have rough spots. We had samples that were lost. We had results that didn’t make any sense.”
We’ll see how the trial evolves, but clearly, experts needed to ask more questions up front. In some cases, they didn’t test the actual technology themselves. This story is a good example of failures in integrity and data analysis—perhaps for many involved.
Bad-News Message: Hasbro CEO
Toy company Hasbro announced the death of Chairman and CEO Brian Goldner. The press release is typical, quoting leaders and touting Goldner’s contributions to the company. Goldner was with Hasbro for more than 20 years and served as CEO for more than 13, so his death is significant.
Interestingly, the company statement doesn’t include a cause of death. A Wall Street Journal article mentions Goldner’s prostate cancer diagnosis in 2014 and his recent leave of absence.
Visionary CEO Transformed Hasbro into a Global Play & Entertainment Leader
PAWTUCKET, R.I.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 12, 2021-- It is with deep and profound sadness that Hasbro announces the passing of beloved leader and longtime Chairman and CEO Brian D. Goldner.
This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211012006149/en/
Brian D. Goldner (Photo: Business Wire)
Rich Stoddart, Interim CEO, said “Since joining the Company more than two decades ago, Brian has been the heart and soul of Hasbro. As a charismatic and passionate leader in both the play and entertainment industries, Brian’s work brought joy and laughter to children and families around the world. His visionary leadership, kindness, and generosity made him beloved by the Hasbro community and everyone he touched. On behalf of the Hasbro family, we extend our deepest, heartfelt condolences to his wife, daughter, and entire family.”
Mr. Goldner, 58, joined Hasbro in 2000 and was quickly recognized as a visionary in the industry. He was appointed CEO in 2008 and became Chairman of the Board in 2015. He was instrumental in transforming the Company into a global play and entertainment leader, architecting a strategic Brand Blueprint to create the world’s best play and storytelling experiences. Through his tireless work ethic and unwavering focus, he expanded the Company beyond toys and games into television, movies, digital gaming and beyond, to ensure Hasbro’s iconic brands reached every consumer. The culmination of his pioneering strategy was the 2019 acquisition of independent entertainment studio eOne. Mr. Goldner served on the Board of Directors of ViacomCBS and was the Chair of the Compensation Committee. Mr. Goldner and his wife Barbara were passionate advocates for improving systems of care for vulnerable members of society.
Edward M. Philip, Lead Independent Director of Hasbro’s Board of Directors, said “Brian’s passing is a tremendous loss for Hasbro and the world. Brian was universally admired and respected in the industry, and throughout his over twenty years at Hasbro, his inspiring leadership and exuberance left an indelible mark on everything and everyone he touched. A mentor and friend to so many, his passion and creativity took Hasbro to new heights. Our love and thoughts are with his wife, daughter, and family during this extraordinarily sad time.”
Raiders Coach’s Language and Resignation
The New York Times described emails sent by Raiders Coach Jon Gruden that included racist, homophobic, and sexist language. In his statement, Gruden wrote a short statement on the Raiders’ Twitter account.
The statement isn’t exactly an apology, as we define it in business and corporate communication. Gruden doesn’t describe his behavior or the impact on others.
Raiders owner Mark Davis wrote an even shorter statement: “I have accepted Jon Gruden’s resignation as Head Coach of the Las Vegas Raiders.”
Critics of the decision evoke the “cancel culture,” while others believe Gruden’s comments were outlandish. In a business environment, his language would never be acceptable. The NY Times article quotes Gruden, which I’ll avoid here.
Mark Zuckerberg Addresses Controversy
After weeks of The Wall Street Journal’s posting internal documents criticizing Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg is finally speaking out. The whistleblower, a former Facebook product manager, released the documents, and now the company is participating in U.S. senate hearings to defend its practices. In a Facebook post and in his testimony via video on Capital Hill, Zuckerberg addresses several issues plaguing the company.
First, in his post, which is a copy of an email he sent to employees, Zuckerberg addresses the hours of outages that made Facebook, Instagram, What’sapp, and Messenger inaccessible around the world. Second, he addresses the testimony and defends the company’s policies and practices. Claiming that their work is “mischaracterized,” Zuckerberg denies that teens are negatively affected by their apps as the reports have portrayed.
The post is a study in persuasive communication. He uses a mix of emotional appeal and credibility. Including his hopes for his own children, Zuckerberg presents himself as a concerned, yet confident, parent, reassuring us that all is OK. He cites research and reporting—and transparency—yet the reports uncovered have not been public, and previous testimony contradicts some of the conclusions drawn in internal documents.
Zuckerberg also uses logical arguments, for example, that more teenaged girls who are struggling find the apps helpful. He neglects saying that any percentage find them harmful. With a cursory mention—”It is incredibly sad to think of a young person in a moment of distress who, instead of being comforted, has their experience made worse”—Zuckerberg tries to isolate one case, a classic crisis communication strategy, as though that might be the only one. However, the title of one Facebook report page reads, “1 in 5 teens say that Instagram makes them feel worse about themselves, with UK girls the most negative.” Clearly, he is downplaying his own data.
Mark Zuckerberg
I wanted to share a note I wrote to everyone at our company.
---
Hey everyone: it's been quite a week, and I wanted to share some thoughts with all of you.
First, the SEV that took down all our services yesterday was the worst outage we've had in years. We've spent the past 24 hours debriefing how we can strengthen our systems against this kind of failure. This was also a reminder of how much our work matters to people. The deeper concern with an outage like this isn't how many people switch to competitive services or how much money we lose, but what it means for the people who rely on our services to communicate with loved ones, run their businesses, or support their communities.
Second, now that today's testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we're in. I'm sure many of you have found the recent coverage hard to read because it just doesn't reflect the company we know. We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health. It's difficult to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us just don't recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted.
Many of the claims don't make any sense. If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? If we didn't care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space -- even ones larger than us? If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we're doing? And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?
At the heart of these accusations is this idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being. That's just not true. For example, one move that has been called into question is when we introduced the Meaningful Social Interactions change to News Feed. This change showed fewer viral videos and more content from friends and family -- which we did knowing it would mean people spent less time on Facebook, but that research suggested it was the right thing for people's well-being. Is that something a company focused on profits over people would do?
The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical. We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don't want their ads next to harmful or angry content. And I don't know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed. The moral, business and product incentives all point in the opposite direction.
But of everything published, I'm particularly focused on the questions raised about our work with kids. I've spent a lot of time reflecting on the kinds of experiences I want my kids and others to have online, and it's very important to me that everything we build is safe and good for kids.
The reality is that young people use technology. Think about how many school-age kids have phones. Rather than ignoring this, technology companies should build experiences that meet their needs while also keeping them safe. We're deeply committed to doing industry-leading work in this area. A good example of this work is Messenger Kids, which is widely recognized as better and safer than alternatives.
We've also worked on bringing this kind of age-appropriate experience with parental controls for Instagram too. But given all the questions about whether this would actually be better for kids, we've paused that project to take more time to engage with experts and make sure anything we do would be helpful.
Like many of you, I found it difficult to read the mischaracterization of the research into how Instagram affects young people. As we wrote in our Newsroom post explaining this: "The research actually demonstrated that many teens we heard from feel that using Instagram helps them when they are struggling with the kinds of hard moments and issues teenagers have always faced. In fact, in 11 of 12 areas on the slide referenced by the Journal -- including serious areas like loneliness, anxiety, sadness and eating issues -- more teenage girls who said they struggled with that issue also said Instagram made those difficult times better rather than worse."
But when it comes to young people's health or well-being, every negative experience matters. It is incredibly sad to think of a young person in a moment of distress who, instead of being comforted, has their experience made worse. We have worked for years on industry-leading efforts to help people in these moments and I'm proud of the work we've done. We constantly use our research to improve this work further.
Similar to balancing other social issues, I don't believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own. That's why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now. I have testified in Congress multiple times and asked them to update these regulations. I've written op-eds outlining the areas of regulation we think are most important related to elections, harmful content, privacy, and competition.
We're committed to doing the best work we can, but at some level the right body to assess tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress. For example, what is the right age for teens to be able to use internet services? How should internet services verify people's ages? And how should companies balance teens' privacy while giving parents visibility into their activity?
If we're going to have an informed conversation about the effects of social media on young people, it's important to start with a full picture. We're committed to doing more research ourselves and making more research publicly available.
That said, I'm worried about the incentives that are being set here. We have an industry-leading research program so that we can identify important issues and work on them. It's disheartening to see that work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don't care. If we attack organizations making an effort to study their impact on the world, we're effectively sending the message that it's safer not to look at all, in case you find something that could be held against you. That's the conclusion other companies seem to have reached, and I think that leads to a place that would be far worse for society. Even though it might be easier for us to follow that path, we're going to keep doing research because it's the right thing to do.
I know it's frustrating to see the good work we do get mischaracterized, especially for those of you who are making important contributions across safety, integrity, research and product. But I believe that over the long term if we keep trying to do what's right and delivering experiences that improve people's lives, it will be better for our community and our business. I've asked leaders across the company to do deep dives on our work across many areas over the next few days so you can see everything that we're doing to get there.
When I reflect on our work, I think about the real impact we have on the world -- the people who can now stay in touch with their loved ones, create opportunities to support themselves, and find community. This is why billions of people love our products. I'm proud of everything we do to keep building the best social products in the world and grateful to all of you for the work you do here every day.
Corporate Vaccine Messages
Business communication students can analyze vaccine messages to compare how organizations adjust for the context and audience. Following are a few examples:
The medium companies choose is also interesting to compare.
The Society for Human Resource Management offers templates for companies—one about requiring vaccines and another about optional vaccines. How do company messages compare to these templates?
Lands’ End Bad-News Message
So many products are delayed these days. In an email to a customer, Lands’ End acknowledged further delays and blamed the issue on labor shortages and high demand. On a flight I took recently, the pilot also mentioned staffing issues (causing us to sit on the plane for a hour waiting for a gate to clear).
I like the transparency. We all know about worker shortages since the pandemic, and it seems logical to name the problem as it is. In normal times, we might see this as a company’s excuse, but the problem is so systemic that no one company can be blamed.
I also appreciate Lands’ End’s usual conversational style. Although I wish the customer were given a timeframe, at least the message is easy to understand.
Mailchimp Acquisition News
Mailchimp’s acquisition announcement is an example of a positive message. In an email and statement on the website, Co-founder and CEO Ben Chestnut reveals the news in the third paragraph. The single sentence is in bold type, but it takes a while for the reader to get the message.
Chestnut provides reasons for the acquisition in this paragraph:
Together with Intuit, we’ll deliver an innovative small business growth engine powered by marketing automation, customer relationship management, accounting and compliance, payments and expense, and e-commerce solutions, creating a single source of truth for your business. We’ll also be able to offer more personalized support and onboarding, expand our international footprint, and scale our teams to innovate faster and deliver the solutions you want and need.
Both sentences, long and jargony, use “we” as the subject. I wish he had explained the decision in more natural, conversational language written from the reader’s—”you”—perspective. Why should I care? How will the change help me manage my business, etc.?
Students could rewrite the entire message and do a better job. The message is positive—and it could be persuasive. Otherwise, it could be interpreted as bad news, not good.
Painfully Long Peloton Email
This is the second email someone sent me from Peloton CEO and Founder John Foley. Both seem much longer than they need to be. The first paragraph muses on the company success, and the second paragraph introduces the main point—the Peloton Tread. Essentially, this is a sales pitch.
CEO and Founder John Foley organizes the email around three advantages of the Peloton Tread, which are clear and easy to follow. He could use more “you” language to focus on benefits to the reader rather than features of the product. Persuasive business writing tells readers “why” they should want to do what the writer asks.
If you were advising John Foley, what other advice would you offer? Would visuals help the message? How could he reduce the length of the email to increase the chance that people will read it? Read the entire message.
Hi there,
When we founded Peloton nearly a decade ago, we dreamt of bringing high-energy boutique fitness experiences into the home through vertically integrated platforms. That’s a fancy way of saying that we wanted the hardware to be the best in the world, the software to bring the energy and connection of other people into your home, and the content to deliver the inspiration of the most motivating instructors coaching over the best music. I hope you agree that we deliver on that goal already, but I hope you also see that we continue to innovate on the software and content because we always want your experience to get better, a commitment that I made to you back then and I am making to you again today…
But today, I write to you about another platform: The Peloton Tread. Have you ever taken a bootcamp class or a HIIT total body group class or any class involving a treadmill, where the instructor asked you to step off of the treadmill for a more full-body workout? As one of the founders of Peloton, I of course LOVE a great indoor cycling class! As you might guess, so does my wife Jill. But we have found over the years that complementing the fantastic cardio provided by the Peloton App with cardio AND strength training via bootcamp classes is a perfect new part of our fitness journey.
So I wanted to take a minute to share my excitement for the Peloton Tread with you.