Avoiding Email Scams: Amazon's Message
Although not traditionally part of business communication courses, I wonder whether faculty should help students identify scams. This past week, I received a message impersonating the president of our professional organization, the Association for Business Communication. The writer said she didn’t have WiFi access and asked me to pay a bill via Zelle. I’m the Finance Committee chair, but still, this made no sense, so I ignored it and let her know someone is using her name.
Also this week, a friend got roped into a fake call from her insurance company. The “agent” got personal with her, saying she was distressed and needed funds to pay rent in the Philippines. My friend was ready to send her cash, but the scammer insisted on a bank transfer, and then, fortunately, she refused.
Amazon sent an email including suggestions, shown here, specific to Amazon orders. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has a webpage, “How to Recognize and Avoid Phishing Scams,” with examples of what scammers do, ways to avoid getting these messages, and what to do if you receive one—or respond to one. This is useful information to know.
New Conventions for Layoff Messages
Guidelines for communicating layoffs are shifting, which may have implications for other bad-news messages. A Wall Street Journal article discusses which day of the week (now Wednesday instead of Friday), how deep to cut, how much severance to offer, and how to decide who goes.
The most obvious shift is away from the business communication wisdom of delivering bad news in person. Why call remote workers into the office only to fire them?
We could say the same for other types of bad news: cutting bonuses or benefits, giving a “below-expectations” performance review, or ending a project. Maybe the best wisdom is to follow communication norms. If a weekly one-on-one meeting is in person, then that would be an appropriate place and time to talk about negative customer feedback. The medium might raise bigger questions about typical communications. If the most typical communication is by text, then, maybe a text is best, but why is that the most typical way of communicating?
Of course, timing is an issue, so these regularly scheduled meetings might not be ideal. Then, what’s the secondary way to communicate? By phone? By email? The decision also depends on the severity of the news—a career-ended change or a minor setback? The guiding principle in articles seems to be that employees could complain publicly; perhaps a better guide is compassion—being humane and prioritizing employees’ feelings over our own reluctance to give bad news.
Back in 2015, in the 9th edition of Business Communication, I softened the “indirect style” recommendation for bad-news messages—adding a “buffer” and giving reasons before the main point. Research hasn’t supported this organizational strategy, and corporate messages that follow this “soften-the-blow” approach are ridiculed. Employees typically know when bad news is coming—or they should if managers have been doing their job.
In the past, faculty spent too much time worrying about sequence within a message; this is a non-issue in articles about layoff messages like the Wall Street Journal’s. Companies need to worry more about the sequence and timing of multiple messages, which are often posted online because they wind up there anyway. No spoiler alert, but Episode 3 of Succession on HBO, Season 3, is an interesting example.
Cornell Messages About Trigger Warnings
Cornell University’s Student Assembly voted unanimously for faculty to include trigger warnings, but the Administration rejected the mandate. Business communication students can analyze the Cornell students’ resolution and the university’s email response.
The student resolution states: “Urging university officials to require instructors who present graphic traumatic content that may trigger the onset of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to provide advance notice to students and refrain from penalizing students who opt out of exposure to such content.” Evidence includes research about PTSD and discussion about the value of advanced warnings. The resolution concludes: “Student Assembly implores all instructors to provide content warnings on the syllabus for any traumatic content that may be discussed, including but not limited to: sexual assault, domestic violence, self-harm, suicide, child abuse, racial hate crimes, transphobic violence, homophobic harassment, xenophobia.”
In the Administration’s response, President Martha Pollack and Provost Michael I. Kotlikoff reject the recommendation because it “would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education.” They link to the university’s value of “Free and Open Inquiry and Expression” but acknowledge that certain warnings are “common courtesy” and that “contextualizing” content may be appropriate.
Conservative news organizations supported the Administration and criticized students for the proposal. With its own evidence, The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote an opinion piece, not missing a chance to denounce DEI efforts: “Cornell’s position is good news, but these bad ideas will recur as long as the diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy governs academia, pushing the notion that honest speech and debate are traumatic. If universities want to reclaim real intellectual openness on campus, they have to help students get comfortable with being uncomfortable.” Cornell’s Administration might agree with the last part of that argument.
Several character dimensions are illustrated in these examples. We might say that students demonstrated courage with their resolution, and the Administration demonstrated integrity by being consistent with university values. Some might believe Administrators lack compassion for students and are failing to hold faculty accountable, while others might say the university holds everyone accountable for inquiry and learning. It’s complicated and could lead to a good class discussion.
Another "I Wish You Well" Moment
Gwyneth Paltrow ended her headline-grabbing lawsuit with a whisper: “I wish you well.” Paltrow was sued by a retired optometrist for crashing into him on a ski slope. She defended herself, saying, “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity.”
After the quick verdict in her favor, Paltrow leaned in and said quietly to her accuser: “I wish you well.” He responded, “Thank you, dear.”
I’ve been curious about this expression, which former President Trump said of Jeffrey Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump defended his statement: “I'm not looking for anything bad for her. . . . I wish a lot of people well.” In other words, it’s just a nice thing to say.
But a Guardian article refers to Paltrow’s words as a “memorable kiss-off.” Urban Dictionary explains, “This is what privileged people say when they want you to forget you knew them. ‘I am sorry I have not responded. I have been very busy. I wish you well.’” A Quora user writes, “I use it only with people I never want to communicate with again. It's a hope they change, but I'm not going to stick around for it. It's a nice way of saying, ‘F#%# off.’”
Of course, tone and context matter. We don’t hear Paltrow’s voice, and the exchange is so short. Regardless, her accuser took it positively, as he described the exchange to reporters: “She said, ‘I wish you well.’” Then he said, “Very kind of her.”
We may never know whether she meant it a sincere wish for well-being. We do know that Paltrow was an actress before she started making Goop.
If you have nothing better to do today, you can read “The 9 Most Bizarre Moments” of the trial from The Hollywood Reporter.
Treemap Shows S&P Index
The New York Times uses a treemap to show how the stock market is dominated by two companies. The article, titled, “How Big Tech Camouflaged Wall Street’s Crisis,” warns that concerns about the market aren’t always as they appear.
The article encourages us to temper reports about financial conditions based only on the S&P 500. The first paragraph of the article says it well: “The fate of the S&P 500 index—used by investors as a barometer for the health of corporate America, and cited by presidents as a measure of their handling of the economy—often comes down to just two companies: Apple and Microsoft.”
The treemap is a good choice to display large amounts of data, with each box or rectangular sized proportionately. In this case, the results are dramatic. We see how Apple and Microsoft stocks can sway the entire index. With text callouts, authors identify well-known companies and a group of 32 for comparison.
Students will find a treemap among standard Excel charts. This one is a good example of how they can be used—with additional comments.
Letter Requesting an AI Pause
An open letter asking for a pause on training advanced AI systems serves as an example of persuasive communication. Signed by more than 2,300 leaders as of this writing, the message is a warning and a request. Students can analyze the letter structure and persuasive strategies, which are a mix of emotional appeals, logical arguments, and credibility.
The letter doesn’t follow organizational principles we teach in business communication classes. Although faculty encourage the main point up front, this message includes the “ask” in bold type at the beginning of the third paragraph: “Therefore, we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.” Another main point, also in bold, appears in the middle of the second paragraph: “Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable.” Paragraph organization is mixed. Some follow a traditional topic sentence format, while one is a single sentence.
Evidence for the pause includes OpenAI’s own communication. The letter quotes the company and uses italics: “At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models." Then the authors write, “We agree. That point is now,” good examples of short, punchy sentences.
The last paragraph sounds like an add-on, which is possible with a collaborative writing process. The signers ask for a “long AI summer,” a chance to “reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of all, and give society a chance to adapt.” “AI summer” is catchy and could be a better frame for the letter. Referring to the last paragraph, the last footnote lists examples of other tech pauses: “Society has hit pause on other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on society.” Repeating “society” in this sentence is curious, and I found myself wanting to read more about this—and earlier. The footnote reads, “Examples include human cloning, human germline modification, gain-of-function research, and eugenics.” An analogy of one of these examples could be a useful persuasive strategy earlier as well.
Citations are a mix of academic papers and books, popular media, and websites. The first footnote refers to several sources, which might reduce the credibility. Again, I envision multiple authors “tacking on” sources, including their own work.
Another topic for class discussion is how this news has been reported. Most of the articles I read, for example, Business Insider’s, lead with Elon Musk. But more than 2,000 distinguished leaders signed the letter, including Steve Wozniak, Andrew Yang, and AI researchers. I can’t be the only one tired of hearing about Elon Musk. The signers offer credibility, but Musk might diminish that approach.
If you’re looking for another written example for students to analyze, see the statement from OpenAI, which explains the benefits of AI but acknowledges “serious risk of misuse, drastic accidents, and societal disruption.”
Intel Honors Gordon Moore
Intel’s home page links to several communications about the co-founder’s death. Like all obituaries for older people, the articles about Gordon Moore, age 94, were clearly prepared ahead of time. The news is technically bad, but it was expected, so these communications are opportunities to demonstrate respect—and for company PR.
With the primary audience as members of the press, the webpage includes an obituary, downloadable photos, a tribute, and more. The obituary acknowledges the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for the announcement and includes a link to the organization. This is a promotional opportunity for the foundation as well.
The tribute, titled, “He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans: Never the loudest guy in the room, Intel’s co-founder commanded huge respect,” is a more personal look at Moore’s life. Three interviews tell us more about Moore’s “character,” as the author writes.
A visual timeline shows his major accomplishments and recognitions. One of Moore’s most significant contributions is what came to be known as “Moore’s Law,” a prediction that the “number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years.” Intel’s tribute describes Moore as a humble man. He told his biographer that he was embarrassed to have the law named after him.
The press kit lists the following, including the three links above:
Visual Tribute: A Look Back at the Life of Intel's Co-Founder
Timeline: Celebrating Gordon Moore
More on Moore: Five Things to Know About Gordon Moore
Video: The Gordon Moore Effect
Gordon Moore Park at Ronler Acres: Intel Marks Grand Opening of $3 Billion Factory Expansion in Oregon | Event Replay
Comms About TikTok Testimony
TikTok CEO Shou Chew’s testimony provides examples of persuasive communication. U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee members called on Chew to address concerns about safety and security, but lawmakers were not convinced by his answers and are taking steps against the company.
The Committee webpage lists members’ comments under non-parallel, but descriptive headings. The page is self-promotional: congressional members are proud of grilling the CEO, and we see only pithy, unattributed statements—none of Chew’s responses.
Chew’s opening statement is his attempt to convince the committee that TikTok is sufficiently American and will become more so. To establish credibility—and to distance himself from the Chinese government—Chew starts with his brief background: born in Singapore, attended college in the U.K. and business school in the States, and married a Virginian. Chew describes “Project Texas,” the company’s plan to move data to the United States where it will be fully controlled by Americans. Students can analyze his persuasive strategies and delivery skills. He is clear but nods quite a bit.
During the five-hour testimony, as these hearings go, some representatives invested more in their questions than in wanting legitimate answers, while others never got their questions answered. Some sticking points were around 55 minutes into the video and then around the one-hour mark, when Chew evaded questions repeatedly. What made headlines is Chew’s admission that the Chinese government may be able to access some data—or he wasn’t clear enough: “After Project Texas is done, the answer is no,” and “Today, there is still some data that we need to delete.” Several times, Chew tried to put TikTok in context of the tech industry, saying the company is no worse than any others and may be doing more, for example, to protect kids and reduce misinformation.
After the testimony, a TikTok spokesperson tweeted: "Shou came prepared to answer questions from Congress, but, unfortunately, the day was dominated by political grandstanding that failed to acknowledge the real solutions already underway through Project Texas or productively address industry-wide issues of youth safety. Also not mentioned today by members of the Committee: the livelihoods of the 5 million businesses on TikTok or the First Amendment implications of banning a platform loved by 150 million Americans.”
Regardless, Chew’s testimony didn’t seem to impress lawmakers. We’ll see what happens next.
Miami Beach Tries to Curtail Spring Break
Students might be interested in analyzing a video of the mayor of Miami Beach instituting a midnight curfew. Dan Gelber’s message comes after two fatal shootings, which he puts into broader context: “As is the case with most serious crime in our city, both shootings were between visitors to Miami Beach and did not involve residents.” Using anaphora as a rhetorical device, he also said, “We don’t ask for Spring Break in our city. We don’t want Spring Break in our city.”
The mayor describes the rapid police response but says police action would never be enough considering “the volume [sic] of people in our city, the unruly nature of too many, and the presence of guns.” He demonstrates accountability and courage with a clear plan despite the risks: a midnight curfew on South Beach within a defined area. The rules are clear, and the mayor refers to the city website for more details.
Mayor Gelber wards off criticism by saying they are within their legal rights. He apologizes for the “disruption and inconvenience” but could acknowledge more specifically the potential negative impact on businesses and residents.
Students may find his delivery interesting, for example, his impassioned speech, word emphasis, and gestures. The setting, his attire, and his choosing to reach a script also reflect on the mayor’s credibility and are worthy discussion topics.
"Love Letters" to Home Sellers Are Out
Letters to home sellers illustrate problems with bias and insincere persuasive communication. Home buyers try to increase their chances of landing a house by writing letters to sellers, but they cause problems. These persuasive communications seemed like a good idea in a tight housing market. In addition to offering a high price, often above asking, buyers would make emotional appeals, for example, by telling sellers about themselves, how much they loved the house, and how they would care for it.
These letters teach lessons about communication ethics, particularly integrity. One buyer lied by omission, failing to mention a pending divorce that would change the buyer’s ability to get a mortgage. Other problems include revealing race, religion, and other facts that a seller can use—consciously or unconsciously—to discriminate against a buyer, which violates the U.S. Fair Housing Act.
This “Barbie House” letter, written to sellers of a pink house, may have landed the deal (although the buyers also offered $25,000, so who knows). Maybe not in this case, but in others, letters appeal so much to emotions that vulnerable sellers are duped into taking lower offers.
The California Association of Realtors has since published these guidelines for letters, which discourage them entirely.
Zuckerberg Frames Layoffs in the “Year of Efficiency”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s note to employees is a study in bad-news messages. In a 2,188-word message note posted on Meta’s news site and his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg explained his strategy for the “Year of Efficiency.” This frame for operational changes is good for investors, who are concerned with financials, but not for employees who will be laid off.
In the first paragraph, Zuckerberg reiterates Facebook’s initial mission of “building the future of human connection,” and he identifies two broad goals: becoming a better technology company and improving financial performance. He doesn’t wait too long—the third paragraph—to confirm layoffs, which are obvious from the start. With some compassion, he acknowledges “uncertainty“ and “stress” and identifies the timeline, so people know what to expect. In the fourth and sixth paragraphs, he writes:
This will be tough and there's no way around that. It will mean saying goodbye to talented and passionate colleagues who have been part of our success. They've dedicated themselves to our mission and I'm personally grateful for all their efforts. We will support people in the same ways we have before and treat everyone with the gratitude they deserve. . . .
I understand that this update may still feel surprising, so I'd like to lay out some broader context on our vision, our culture, and our operating philosophy.
Zuckerberg outlines additional changes, including hiring freezes, technology investments, and more in-person time, which may not be popular either. Students could analyze evidence Zuckerberg provides for his claims, for example, “leaner is better,” “flatter is faster,” and working in-person improves performance. For the in-person claim, he does acknowledge, “This requires further study, but our hypothesis is that it is still easier to build trust in person and that those relationships help us work more effectively.” Still, this could be a contentious issue, and he could offer external research to support his points. But perhaps academic research would have less credibility than the internal data, which he uses for his other claims.
Zuckerberg demonstrates some humility and highlights changes based on employee feedback:
I recognize that sharing plans for restructuring and layoffs months in advance creates a challenging period. But last fall, we heard feedback that you wanted more transparency sooner into any restructuring plans, so that's what I'm trying to provide here. I hope that giving you a timeline and principles for what to expect will help us get through the next couple of months and then move forward as we implement these changes that I believe will have a very positive impact on how we work.
The post illustrates a CEO’s difficult decisions and how he communicates them to employees. These changes are in addition to last year’s layoffs—13% of the workforce—which Zuckerberg mentions towards the end of the long post. Despite his communication efforts, uncertainty prevails—not only in employees’ wondering who will have a job in a few months but in whether the metaverse vision will be as successful as Zuckerberg hopes.
Four Charts About SVB Don't Tell the Whole Story
WSJ visuals illustrate the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and how four chart types are used for different purposes.
The first is this bubble chart comparing SVB to the next largest bank implosion since 2001: Washington Mutual Bank. The chart—and the article title, “Here is what the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history looks like in graphics”—might exaggerate the issue. Yes, the data and title are accurate, but SVB’s customer base was limited to “a very exclusive group of companies: tech startups and venture-backed health care companies,” as my friends at The Strebel Planning Group explain well. In other words, large, more diversified, and more cautious banks are not likely to fail, despite dramatic headlines.
The second visual, a bar chart (technically a column chart because the bars are vertical), effectively shows when inflows of money turned to outflows. The purple shows the steep, immediate decline, ending in $42 billion—hence, the “run on the bank” that SVB couldn’t cover.
The third graphic is a 2D, stacked area chart, which is used to show the magnitude of a change, something the WSJ clearly wants to emphasize. Again, the chart looks bad, and it is, but a joint statement by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC promised to cover all loses, even those not covered by FDIC insurance.
With a simple line chart, the last graphic (not shown here) illustrates how much SVB depended on bonds, which have lost value over time. The chart type is a good choice for showing a change, including a steep incline in 2021.
All these charts illustrate different types well but, at-a-glance, don’t tell the full story. Perhaps one or two more visuals that puts SVB in greater context of other banks would give a more complete picture of the banking industry’s potential exposure. This could ease public concern and maintain confidence in the system.
Allbirds Admits Mistakes
Allbirds provides a good example of accountability and humility. No executive likes to discuss disappointing quarterly results, but Joey Zwillinger, co-founder and co-CEO, admitted mistakes, which could improve his credibility for future plans.
On the Q4 2022 earnings call, Zwillinger acknowledged “missteps”:
However, in this journey, we also made some missteps:
1) We overemphasized products that extended beyond our core DNA, and as a result, some products and colors have had narrower appeal than expected.
2) Because we were spending significant time and resources on these new products that did not resonate well, we under-invested in our core consumers’ favorite products.
3) Finally we did not increase our brand awareness to the level that we anticipated.
These communications aren’t quite “bad-news message” because they aren’t announcements, which is why Zwillinger is smart to discuss problems openly: they are already quite obvious to investors. One of my favorite lines is, “As we made those adjacent product development decisions, we unfortunately lost a bit of sight of what our core consumer fell in love with us for in the first place and what they continue to want from us.”
With Zwillinger’s humility—his willingness to admit and learn from mistakes—he inspires confidence that Allbirds can get back to its core products and customers. Zwillinger makes the mistakes sound fixable; they sound like an over-reach that didn’t work out, a bad color choice that can be painted over. Other brands might have a tougher time communicating failure if problems are insurmountable or decisions are irreversible.
Salesforce CEO Addresses McConaughey Controversy
The Salesforce CEO responded to criticism about paying actor Matthew McConaughey (“a friend,” according to a WSJ report) more than $10 million while laying off 8,000 employees. In a video interview, Marc Benioff uses persuasive strategies to convince the audience that this is appropriate and not an ethical issue or, as the Barron’s interviewer asks, “Is that fair?”
Benioff started with a joke, which is surprising considering the situation. He interrupts the interviewer to say, “alright, alright, alright,” a classic line from McConaughey’s 1993 movie Dazed and Confused. By not taking the issue seriously, Benioff might have reduced his credibility.
But Benioff then used an effective crisis communication strategy of distancing the current time: “Years ago, we signed a contract with Matthew . . . ” A better choice might have been to avoid using only his first name, which stresses his personal relationship. But the time period does separate the decision from the recent cost-cutting.
Directly addressing the question, Benioff said, “Putting those two things together, I don’t think is fair,” and “it’s not related to our layoffs.” Another strategy Benioff used was providing context. First, he explained that the company ramped up and then faced currency and inflation issues that required reductions. Next, he said, “Do we have to take an employment action [layoffs]? Well, I think every company is.” Acting in line with other companies makes the layoffs sound reasonable—even necessary—without requiring other cuts, such as marketing.
Of course, Benioff doesn’t address the possibility of cancelling McConaughey’s contract, and he doesn’t provide evidence of McConaughey’s “great work” that would warrant maintaining the expense. But overall, Benioff does a good job pushing back on the criticism.
Lesson Learned: Don't Use AI in Sensitive Situations
The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, used ChatGPT to generate an email about the Michigan State campus shooting, and it wasn’t received well. This story illustrates issues of accountability (administrators taking responsibility), but failing compassion in a time of tragedy and failing integrity (consistency).
The email referred to “shootings,” which is not accurate. Otherwise, it sounds like boilerplate, but not that much different from typical emails a campus community receives in these types of situations. Compare that email to one sent from the vice provost and dean of students, which sounds more emotional but is still common.
Perhaps the only giveaway was a line at the bottom:
(“Paraphrase from OpenAI’s ChatGPT AI language model, personal communication, February 15, 2023.”)
On the one hand, I admire the writers’ honesty, doing what faculty are increasingly asking students to do: to identify whether and how they use AI for their writing. But of course, the choice reflects poor judgment.
Student backlash was swift and fierce. Using words like “disgusting” and “sick and twisted,” students called on administrators to “Do more. Do anything. And lead us into a better future with genuine, human empathy, not a robot.” A senior said, “Would they do this also for the death of a student, faculty, or staff member? Automating messages on grief and crisis is the most on-the-nose, explicit recognition that we as students are more customers than a community to the Vanderbilt administration. The fact it’s from the office of EDI might be the cherry on top.”
University officials responded quickly. In a follow-up email to students, an EDI dean wrote, “While we believe in the message of inclusivity expressed in the email, using ChatGPT to generate communications on behalf of our community in a time of sorrow and in response to a tragedy contradicts the values that characterize Peabody College. As with all new technologies that affect higher education, this moment gives us all an opportunity to reflect on what we know and what we still must learn about AI.” Could ChatGPT have written that too?
This is a precarious time for universities, as faculty grapple with how to use AI tools and what policies best serve students and academic goals. Using AI as a starting point for such a sensitive message may never be acceptable, and it’s certainly too soon now. Faculty will have a difficult time enforcing AI policies if they use tools in ways that contradict the spirit of their own guidelines.
"Intense" Google All-Hands Meeting
A window into a Google employee meeting reveals strife within the company and how executives are responding by redefining/clarifying strategy and downplaying problems. Employees are still frustrated about the embarrassing introduction of Bard, Google’s AI competitor to ChatGPT. In the exchange, below, Bard product lead Jack Krawczyk tried to distinguish the engine from search, which employees say differs from the initial strategy. A new feature, “Search It,” is newly built for internal use for this purpose.
[Employee Question] “Bard and ChatGPT are large language models, not knowledge models. They are great at generating human-sounding text, they are not good at ensuring their text is fact-based. Why do we think the big first application should be Search, which at its heart is about finding true information?”
Krawczyk responded by immediately saying, “I just want to be very clear: Bard is not search.”
“It’s an experiment that’s a collaborative AI service that we talked about,” Krawczyk said. “The magic that we’re finding in using the product is really around being this creative companion to helping you be the sparkplug for imagination, explore your curiosity, etc.”
But Krawczyk was quick to follow up by saying, “we can’t stop users from trying to use it like search.”
CEO Sundar Pichai stressed improvements over time, downplaying Bard’s factual error, which overshadowed the rollout and caused Alphabet’s 9% stock decline. He said, “It’s important to acknowledge that it’s experimental, and “Products like this get better the more the people who use them. It’s a virtuous cycle.”
At some point, Pichai acknowledged, “It’s an intense time.” The meeting sounded rough, showing us the difficulty of facing employees in real time. All-hands meetings like this take leaders’ patience and sometimes call for vulnerability, which isn’t apparent from these quotes. From the reported excerpts, it’s difficult to gauge how employees responded, but the intensity, as Pichai said, is clear.
What Label Redesigns Teach Us About Typeface and More
After 50 years, the Campbell’s soup can label got a makeover. The new design illustrates evolving typography and marketing strategies.
In a Wall Street Journal video, a brand strategist describes the importance of not straying too far from the iconic design (made famous by Andy Warhol), with the goal of looking like something that “feels at home in your pantry versus one that you remember seeing in grandma or grandad’s pantry.” Fun fact: the red and white label was “inspired by the Cornell football team’s uniforms.”
The new design updates the typeface. The company nixed the dated drop shadows with text that looks “simpler, more modern,” as the narrator says. This is a good lesson for students tempted to add text shadows to their PowerPoint decks and other heading text. The “SOUP” text is changed from serif to sans serif without outlining, another more modern look, and it’s smaller—maybe because it’s obvious. The name of the soup (for example, tomato) is smaller too.
Major additions include a picture and descriptions of the ingredients. Slimmer text allowed more space for a tomato to attract younger customers who value healthy ingredients. For chicken noodle soups, the brand expert says the picture makes Campbell’s stand out among others that show a bowl of soup, but I find the chicken and noodle weird looking and unintuitive.
Recently, my soy milk brand was redesigned with similar principles. Note the emphasis on ingredients on the right-side image: the soy bean, green leaf, and subtle leaf shapes in the dot over the “i” and the “k.” We also see finer lettering and more sentence case than all caps. Health benefits are more prominent: 0 sugar and vitamin D. The protein grams are moved left, reflecting a shift from the protein-obsessed heath craze to other customer preferences.
“Milk” appears only at the bottom in fine lettering, maybe pending the lawsuit trying to prevent plant-based products from using the description. The FDA only recently proposed guidelines to allow them to do so.
Students might find these and other product redesign changes interesting and will see ways to incorporate principles into their own page, web, and visual design.
Comms About Dilbert Cancellation
A class discussion about Dilbert creator Scott Adams’s “racist rant” in a YouTube video can take many directions, including whether what he said was truly racist and whether media outlets did the right thing. Putting making the decision aside, a safer approach is to compare statements communicating the decision. Here are three examples for students to analyze:
Cleveland.com. In a letter announcing the change in The Plain Dealer, Ohio’s largest newspaper, the editor wrote, “This is not a difficult decision.” The editor incudes excerpts from the video to get ahead of criticism: “I hate to quote him at all, but I do so to dissuade responses that this is a ‘cancel culture’ decision.” For context, the editor also cites an article noting that 77 other outlets cancelled Dilbert in September after he introduced the first Black character, as critics said, "apparently to poke fun at 'woke' culture and the LGBTQ community."
USA Today. The newspaper, with the largest circulation in the United States, kept it simple with this tweet.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Between these two examples, is a short statement that includes a caveat: “While we acknowledge his right to free speech and expression, he does not have a right to the AJC’s financial support or our platform.”
Students might also analyze Adams’s response in a tweet and video in which he said, "Most of my income will be gone by next week . . . My reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed. You can't come back from this, am I right?” This warrants another class discussion: can people redeem themselves after a crisis? I would argue that the first step is vulnerability, but that’s for another post.
Warren Buffett's Letter Refers to “an Economic Illiterate”
Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders is always greatly anticipated, and this year, it doesn’t disappoint. All letters since 1977 are archived on this page of the company’s bare-bones website, which is a class topic in itself.
Last year was rocky for investors, but 92-year-old Buffett maintains confidence. As usual, his writing tone is straightforward and no-nonsense; for example, he writes, “‘Efficient’ markets exist only in textbooks. In truth, marketable stocks and bonds are baffling, their behavior usually understandable only in retrospect.” The most quoted excerpt seems to be his defense of stock buybacks:
When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive).
Buffett’s style is also conversational. This paragraph demonstrates his humility as well:
At this point, a report card from me is appropriate: In 58 years of Berkshire management, most of my capital-allocation decisions have been no better than so-so. In some cases, also, bad moves by me have been rescued by very large doses of luck. (Remember our escapes from near-disasters at USAir and Salomon? I certainly do.) Our satisfactory results have been the product of about a dozen truly good decisions – that would be about one every five years – and a sometimes-forgotten advantage that favors long-term investors such as Berkshire. Let’s take a peek behind the curtain.
In addition to the writing style, the letter is a good example of clear organization, audience focus, and varied sentence structure. Finance students may enjoy reading his billionaire’s wisdom, just as his investors do.
Do Better than “CFBR” for Social Support
A WSJ article describes the increased use of “CFBR,” meaning commenting for better reach, a way to elevate a social media post. A popular way of giving laid-off employees more visibility during their job search, the approach raises questions of authenticity and true compassion.
Hootsuite’s definition makes it sound careless:
CFBR, or Commenting For Better Reach, is a popular comment used on platforms like LinkedIn and Facebook.
Since most social media algorithms favor content with high engagement, “commenting for better reach” is a way to offer an organic boost to a post you think should have more exposure. When you comment on someone else’s post, that post is more likely to show up in your followers’ feeds.
This tactic may be effective, but it’s a little spammy. If you want to take a more thoughtful approach, we recommend leaving an authentic comment that engages with the post’s content—or even resharing that post with your followers.
Typing CFBR may be the “Good luck!” of social media posts despite heartache shared in the original post. I wonder how students view and use the comment. Maybe they can find better ways to support their peers.