Adidas CEO Inflames a Crisis

Illustrating how not to handle a crisis situation, Adidas CEO Bjorn Gulden might regret his comments about Kanye West (aka Ye). He renewed a conversation that could have been left behind and, instead, left the company to contain the damage.

During an interview on a Norwegian investment bank podcast, Gulden, appointed CEO in January, reflected on Ye’s antisemitic remarks, which caused the company to cancel its Yeezy partnership, along with several other brands, in October 2022. Gulden said the following about the situation and Ye:

“This is before my time,” Gulden told Tangen. “I think Kanye West is one of the most creative people in the world, both in music and what I’d call street culture. . . . And then, as creative people, you know, he did some statements that wasn’t that good and that caused Adi[das] to break the contract and withdraw the product.”

This was “unfortunate,” the CEO continued. “I don’t think he meant what he said, and I don’t think he’s a bad person. It just came across that way and that meant we lost that business, one of the most successful collaborations in the history. Very sad. But when you work with third parties it can happen, and it’s part of the game.”

Why did Gulden respond in this way? The interviewer had merely nudged: “But sometimes, um, the disadvantage of going with the big names is that they become very dominant, and you kind of had this issue with Kanye West. So, what happened there?”

Gulden could have spoken more generally about the dissolved partnership. But he defends Ye’s statements as something that “creative people” do. The interviewer agrees that these things happen in other industries, too, and Gulden laughs. The more appropriate response would be to support, not disagree with, the company decision—even though it was before his tenure. Otherwise, he raises questions of integrity, or consistency, with company values.

He could have said something like, “That was a terrible loss for the company and for customers. Kanye West is such a creative guy. But the company can’t tolerate inflammatory comments that conflict with the brand and values.” Of course, I would have preferred that he acknowledge the comments for what they are: antisemitic. But he could have said that much.

Gulden might also do more research about Ye’s comments, particularly what they mean for the Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee explains five of them, including the worst, about, “going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE.”

Adidas responded well. With a concise statement, communicators reiterated the company’s decision: “Our position has not changed. Ending the partnership was appropriate.” News outlets won’t let this pass so quickly, but Gulden would do best to stay out of it at this point.

Image source

Analyzing BP's CEO Resignation Announcement

BP’s communicators addressed sensitive “relationship” issues in the company’s announcement about the CEO resignation. I’ve analyzed the British energy company’s message by paragraph.

BP plc announces that Bernard Looney has notified the Company that he has resigned as Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect. 

Murray Auchincloss, the Company’s CFO, will act as CEO on an interim basis. 

The message—some might call it “bad news,” others “positive”—is intended to be persuasive, with the goal of convincing audiences (likely investors primarily and the press/employees secondarily) that BP is an ethical company that stands by its values. The news is right up front, with an interesting few extra words.: “BP plc announces that” seems superfluous, and yet, the company intentionally leads with its own action, if only “announcing.” This reflects an attempt to demonstrate accountability, a subtle way of saying that the “resignation” is more of a technicality and likely was demanded.

The CEO replacement, even an interim one, is announced immediately to convey confidence and smooth operations.

In May 2022, the Board received and reviewed allegations, with the support of external legal counsel, relating to Mr Looney’s conduct in respect of personal relationships with company colleagues. The information came from an anonymous source.

A little history is good, but this seems misplaced. At first, I misread that it took the Board more than a year to take action. A short statement about the recent situation, which led to the resignation, before this part would be clearer. Also, “personal relationships with company colleagues” sounds icky, but I can’t think of anything better. It is icky. Stating “anonymous source” is relevant because the report didn’t come from Looney, increasing the ethical questions about his behavior and supporting the Board’s actions.

During that review, Mr Looney disclosed a small number of historical relationships with colleagues prior to becoming CEO. No breach of the Company’s Code of Conduct was found. However, the Board sought and was given assurances by Mr Looney regarding disclosure of past personal relationships, as well as his future behaviour.

“A small number” raises more questions than it answers. Whatever the number is, I’m thinking of something higher. “Historical” is an attempt to create greater distance than “prior to becoming CEO” implies. Mentioning the Code of Conduct is important—both that the company has one and that Looney didn’t, for example, have a relationship with someone who reported to him (which is what this implies). The last sentence uses “the Board” again as the actor, emphasizing its due diligence. But “However” seems misplaced after the previous sentence, and “given assurances . . . regarding . . .” is vague. More precise wording would convey that he said he had disclosed ALL past relationships (but hadn’t) and committed not to pursue additional relationships (which is odd and could probably be omitted).

Further allegations of a similar nature were received recently, and the Company immediately began investigating with the support of external legal counsel. That process is ongoing.  

Here’s the real reason for his “resignation.” Using passive voice for the first independent clause of the sentence, the company downplays the Board. With active voice in the second independent clause, the Company springs into action. But despite an “ongoing” investigation, they have apparently, finally, had enough.

Mr Looney has today informed the Company that he now accepts that he was not fully transparent in his previous disclosures.  He did not provide details of all relationships and accepts he was obligated to make more complete disclosure.

In other words, he lied by omission. The language choices are odd here too: he “informed” the Company that he “accepts” (twice) that did not fully disclose information. In case it wasn’t clear earlier, at this point, we might conclude that his resignation was, indeed, forced. Or, in today’s parlance, he was “released.”

The Company has strong values and the Board expects everyone at the Company to behave in accordance with those values.  All leaders in particular are expected to act as role models and to exercise good judgement in a way that earns the trust of others.

Well, of course. But without this assurance, the statement would be incomplete. This is the kind of boilerplate we expect to see in these situations.

No decisions have yet been made in respect of any remuneration payments to be made to Mr Looney.  In accordance with section 430(2B) of the Companies Act 2006, particulars of any such decisions will be disclosed at such times as, and to the extent that, any such decisions are made.

This legalese is likely for investors who want to understand the financial impact. Or maybe it’s for people like me, shaking my head as I think about the millions in compensation that might accompany his departure.

This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 of 16 April 2014 (MAR) as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Ditto about the legalese. This would be an unusual ending for an American company’s statement, which might end on a more forward-looking, positive note.

---

This crisis communication example raises issues of integrity (honesty and transparency in communication) and humility (learning from mistakes). Maybe this story offers a lesson for others, as a university communication professional once told my Corporate Communication class: “The truth will come out.” As these cases often go, covering up unethical behavior is often worse than the behavior itself.

Protecting Students from Loan-Forgiveness Scams

When business communication faculty cover persuasive communication, let’s include a discussion of how students can protect themselves. This CNBC article identifies a few popular scams this summer, including a growing number of fake student loan forgiveness offers.

This Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a warning and three ways for people to avoid falling victim to these loan scams:

• Never pay for help with your student loans.

• Don’t give away your FSA ID login information.

• Don’t trust anyone who contacts you promising debt relief or loan forgiveness, even if they say they're affiliated with the Department of Education.

These points seem obvious—until we fall victim. Companies use emotional appeals (excitement about loan forgiveness, confusion about the process), logical arguments (easy steps to follow for a quick decision and payments cancelled), and credibility (official-looking design, claims to be the Department of Education).

Students can bring their own examples of unethical persuasion and discuss the results. Have they been duped in the past? What aspects of logical argument, emotional appeal, or credibility persuaded them to do something they regretted?

It might be early to discuss the loan-forgiveness scams with undergraduates, but we can hope they remember the message for other examples of unethical persuasion.

Brands Capitalize on "Girl Math"

The “Girl Math” TikTok trend is fun but potentially harmful, and brands love it. Videos show young women describing their view of money. For example, if you return an item, the money you get back is “free”; if you forgo a purchase, the money you save is “free”; or, if you pay with cash, items are “free”—meaning the money can be spent on anything and doesn’t count as a cost. Evolving from “Lazy Girl Jobs” (essentially doing nothing and getting paid), the message is for girls to buy products when they can’t necessarily afford them. In addition to the obvious financial problems, the trend, as a BBC reporter writes, “[C]an also be infantilising and reinforce harmful gender stereotypes.”

Ulta Beauty is taking full advantage of the trend and the consumer, going so far as using #girlmath and #girlmather in its X (Twitter) description. In addition to a weird, frenetic, 6-second video, the account is active, responding to every comment, like this one, about girl math.

Lane Bryant advertised sales: You call it Girl Math, we call it the Labor Day sale.” The point in this example is getting a lot for little money, which, I guess, is like not spending at all.

I’m trying to find the humor, but I’m old school and believe in saving for retirement. Obviously, these campaigns also promote consumerism, which has other negative consequences, but I’ll get off my soapbox. If you discuss this marketing strategy with students, I’m guessing they’ll see it differently.

AI Doesn't Do Too Well on College Essays

More students are asking AI tools for help writing their college essays, but a New York Times reporter didn’t get great results.

Using short-answer essay questions from Princeton, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Yale, the reporter asked for ideas and full responses. For one of Princeton’s question, shown here, ChatGPT suggested an inappropriate response—not just because it’s about sex but because it doesn’t accurately answer the question.

The reporter concludes:

My takeaway: high school seniors hoping to stand out may need to do wholesale rewrites of the texts they prompt A.I. chatbots to generate. Or they could just write their own—chatbot-free—admissions essays from scratch.

That may be true about many writing assignments. In addition, using AI raises integrity issues and may hurt students’ differentiation. With the limited number of tools, how many students will submit the same song to Princeton? I’m reminded of reading hundreds of applications for the Hotel School at Cornell. To the question about why students chose to apply, far too many wrote that the school is “number one” or that they love Disney. Admissions committee members see enough unoriginal responses without the help of AI.

---

Update: Some schools now offer guidance for using or not using AI in applications. The equity issues are clear in The University of Michigan’s approach. Students might not have people in their lives who can offer this assistance: “Applicants may, however, ask pre-law advisors, mentors, friends, or others for basic proofreading assistance and general feedback and critiques.” 

Georgia Tech offers a more democratic approach:

Tools like ChatGPT, Bard and other AI-based assistance programs are powerful and valuable tools. We believe there is a place for them in helping you generate ideas, but your ultimate submission should be your own. As with all other sources, you should not copy and paste content you did not create directly into your application. Instead, if you choose to utilize AI-based assistance while working on your writing submissions for Georgia Tech, we encourage you to take the same approach you would when collaborating with people. Use it to brainstorm, edit, and refine your ideas. AI can also be a useful tool as you consider how to construct your resume in the Activities portion of the Common Application. We think AI could be a helpful collaborator, particularly when you do not have access to other assistance to help you complete your application.

Analyzing Data Visualizations for Rent or Mortgage

Charts about U.S. rents and mortgages provide good examples of visualizing data. The topic might interest students who will likely rent but could consider buying a home someday. Depending the city, rent money put towards a mortgage could buy a lot or very little square footage. Here are a few charts from the NY Times and from the original source—data from Point2, a real estate analysis company, which provides a few visualizations and clear explanations.

List of Cities. In this NY Times chart, which is essentially a table, the winners and losers are clear in chronological order. But students might see better graphics: a line chart, horizontal bar, or vertical (column) bar chart might be too much with so many data points, but including fewer cities would work well. I’m also wanting to see percentages, which I often miss in data visualizations. In the Point2 article, you’ll see a bar chart within a table that’s a bit more visual.

Map. For a bigger picture, The Point2 article (not shown here) provides two U.S. maps with pinpoints showing the most affordable cities. Curiously, they present separate maps with most and least, and I wonder whether they could be combined, particularly to see the obvious geographic spread between eastern and western cities.

Tree Map. Shown here, this tree map is a great at-a-glance visual with mouseovers for more detail (see Point2 for the functionality). In addition to the proper sizing for each box, the designer added color to show in which cities you get the most space for the rent money.

Point2 makes the data practical by including insurance and property taxes. However, the researchers admit, “[W]e assumed a 20% down payment was covered.” Unfortunately, despite getting more space, buying instead of renting is still impossible for a lot of people. The article clarifies this obstacle and others. Overall, the article is a good example of presenting useful data for decision making.

Lessons Learned from Maui's Disaster Communications

Criticism about Maui’s emergency management during devastating wildfires center around disaster communications and what could have been done differently. Students will see parallels with business communication in this public communication situation.

A PBS NewsHour segment includes an interview with Tricia Wachtendorf, director of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. She identifies a “sequence of behaviors that people need to go through before they even begin reacting to a disaster warning”: hear it, understand it, believe it, personalize it (is this about me?), and confirm it. The objective is to speed up this process as well as the evacuation process. As we might expect, Wachtendorf encourages more advanced warning to help people plan and, as business communicators know, using multiple channels of communication. She also said that research doesn’t support that people panic when hearing warnings, as some believe.

This sequence could be applied to change, bad-news, or persuasive communication. Understanding more about the audience response tells students how to adjust their messages in all of these situations. For example, in a layoff situation, employees likely would process the news in a similar “sequence,” although the process is accelerated in crisis situations.

The county’s head of emergency management resigned following questions about not sounding alarms for people to evacuate. He takes responsibility for the decision, saying people would have “gone Mauka,” meaning inland or into the fire, but he resigned for “health reasons.” I tried to find a statement on the website but got distracted by the lack of information. Here’s the home page with “no alerts at this time,” which seems strange given that Maui Now has this notice: “Maui wildfire disaster updates for Aug. 19: Death toll at 114; fires are still raging but not spreading.”

Investigations may take years, but more information about what happened may help other regions improve communications during similar events.

The Art of the Business Leader Interview

David Rubenstein’s Peer to Peer show on Bloomberg TV is a window into business and political leaders’ lives—and how to approach such an interview. The website, also a YouTube channel, has dozens of interviews. I wish the representation were better, but students can watch someone who interests them and analyze the questions and answers.

In one recent clip, Galaxy Digital Founder and CEO Mike Novogratz refers to Sam Bankman-Fried as a “sociopath.” This segment illustrates how a leader admits his own failings: although he didn’t invest with with SBF, Novogratz acknowledges doing business with him and losing money. Then again, he says, “I just never assumed I’m dealing with a sociopath. It’s hard to risk-manage against that.”

Instructors might ask students to identify ways in which leaders demonstrates character dimensions, for example, authenticity, humility, integrity, and vulnerability.

Even Zoom Asks Employees Back to the Office

Perhaps the least likely of tech companies, Zoom is asking employees to spend more time in the office (return to office, or RTO). The company held out longer than others for obvious reasons: the move could imply that Zoom questions the value of remote work using its product. To protect its market, the company’s communication is delicate, but employees’ reactions are the same as we see throughout the industry.

A spokesperson is careful not to disparage remote work. Instead, she says the company plans a “structured hybrid” approach with employees who work close to an office to work there two days per week. In a statement, she explained:

“As a company, we are in a better position to use our own technologies, continuing to innovate, and support our global customers,” and [Zoom will keep] “dispersed teams connected and working efficiently.”

The reason is unclear to employees, who lashed out on Blind. One wrote, “Isn't the whole point of Zoom that it enables work from ANYWHERE? Apparently, that doesn't apply to the actual employees who make Zoom ...” Of course, that’s illogical, but employees react as they do because many prefer to work from home, at least part of the time. In reality, many employees prefer the hybrid approach Zoom is implementing.

Could Zoom and the other tech companies be more transparent about the decision? Is it about real estate investments, or for closer management and then, as some employees worry, more layoffs? No one wants to be told they aren’t trusted, but that is the sense employees despite claims of better collaboration and teamwork.

Zoom held out long enough. It’s not the only company that uses technology to communicate that has reduced WFH. It’s just the easiest to poke fun at.

Image source.

In-N-Out Burger's Anti-Mask Policy Draws Criticism

A new In-N-Out Burger policy tells employees masks are no longer acceptable. The email became public and is a good example of persuasive writing. Framed as “mask guidelines,” the message follows some business communication principles but not others.

• Overall, the message is clear. The requirement, stores, effective date, exemptions, and consequences are easy to understand.

• The message appropriately follows a direct organization plan, with main points up front in a summary paragraph.

• Headings allow the reader to skim, although they could be more descriptive to reinforce main points.

• The tone is surprisingly formal and bureaucratic in parts.

• In the first sentence under “General Guidelines,” the message refers to an associate as “he or she.” This choice isn’t surprising given the company’s Christian evangelical roots, but the binary pronouns are easily avoidable by ending the sentence after “medical note" or {gasp!} by using singular they.

The political issues are difficult to avoid with this news. Nowhere does the message say that masks are “banned,” but that is the effect, and liberal news sources like NPR lead with that headline. Contrast that with the Fox News headline: “Liberals rage at In-N-Out Burger after fast food chain bans masks for employees.” The industry group Nation’s Restaurant News gives a more balanced overview and focuses more on the petitioning customers: “In-N-Out edict ignites new brawl over worker-mask policies.”

In response to the controversy, In-N-Out’s chief operating officer issued a statement with more rationale:

At In-N-Out Burger, we’ve communicated with our smiles since 1948, and a smiling associate helps to set a warm and inviting atmosphere in our stores. We believe that wearing a mask literally adds a barrier to communication — much of which is nonverbal — and promotes a more distant and disconnected environment. In balancing these fundamental values while still accommodating the specific circumstances affecting our associates, we have updated our internal guidelines to permit only those associates with a medical need to wear a face mask while working.

In a way, this story demonstrates integrity. As of now, the company isn’t backing down. Also, In-N-Out management was vocal about COVID-19 policies back in 2021, when the San Francisco store was temporarily closed because of failure to abide by local regulations. So management is consistent.

Image source.

Quantitative Data Needs Context

A Wall Street Journal interview illustrates the importance of context when presenting quantitative data. The segment, “95,000 Hours Saved: Unique Ways Companies Are Tackling Worker Frustration,” describes several ways efficiency can be quantified, but some of them invite questions.

Two examples illustrate lessons from Chapter 9 of Business Communication and Character about comparing and explaining data. What do the numbers really mean? Why do they matter? To help students think more critically about data, consider discussing these examples from the WSJ story, posted as a podcast on YouTube:

• 1:58: To reduce meeting time, Shopify eliminated 12,000 events and saved 95,000 hours. I have questions, and students should too. What percentage of events does this represent? What types of events? What is the context for 95,000 hours: how many employees work how much time total? What was the result? What was gained? What was lost? Are employees doing something productive with their new-found time, or are they working fewer hours, or have jobs been eliminated? In other words, so what?

• 6:35: AT&T reduced time by eliminating a process that sounds insane: listing on an expense report everyone who came to an employee celebration (e.g., an anniversary). The company saved 28,500 hours. As of January 2023, AT&T had about 161,000 employees (down from 280,000 in 2017!). I’m curious about the number of parties and how much time people spent entering names. Also, with 161,000 employees working, let’s say, a 35-hour week for 50 weeks per year, that’s 281,750,000. 28,5000 represents 0.0101% of the total work hours. Is that significant? Maybe.
  Regardless, the data point seems a bit silly when extrapolated, but the process was silly too. I wonder why the process existed and whether employees do similar tasks that might reflect management’s distrust. That seems to be a more useful question for the company to address.

Without a fuller picture of the “efficiencies,” these numbers seem more like sound bites than meaningful statistics for decision making. This is a news report, so let’s hope companies are clearer about why this matters when they communicate with employees and shareholders.

Affirmative Action Decision in Charts

The New York Times published two charts to support the opinion that “in practice, affirmative action mattered a great deal for very few and very little for most.”

The first graphic is an interactive bubble chart (which you can hover over online) to show selectivity. The more selective schools are most highly impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to restrict affirmative action in admissions decisions. With the explosive number of schools at the bottom of the graphic, the designer illustrates how few schools currently use race in admissions decisions. As the article authors explain, “the ruling will make little difference for most college students.”

The second chart, below, is a classic column (or bar) chart, illustrating a related point: “Notice how relatively few Black and Hispanic students attend schools with an admission rate of 20 percent or less.” At a glance, we see the distribution of students, including the obvious divergence of Asian students, by level of selectivity.

Both charts work well for the purpose, but the authors’ main point, about educational justice, is more difficult to illustrate. Students might compare these charts to those of the Chronicle of Higher Education, which are simpler but not interactive or as easy to see at a glance.

Retracted Behavioral Science Studies

The process of discovering fraud—and the aftermath—in a Harvard Business School professor’s work is a lesson in evidence, data integrity, and ethics for business communication students. I’ve admired Francesca Gino’s work and cited her research on learning and authenticity in Building Leadership Character. But three of her studies are being retracted, and Harvard has placed her on administrative leave.

News outlets love headlines like NPR’s, “Harvard professor who studies dishonesty is accused of falsifying data,” and, this almost identical one from The Guardian, “Harvard professor who studies honesty accused of falsifying data in studies.” Fair enough, but her work is far broader—more about management decision making than honesty or ethics.

On their blog Data Colada, researchers describe how they discovered falsified data. Their sleuthing involves a fascinating dive into hidden Excel files that, the detectives say, proved that data was* moved and changed. Students might be interested to learn how much data Excel stores.

As examples of crisis communication, responses to the news are mixed. To date, Harvard hasn’t commented on reports or the decision to place Gino on leave. Announced in a blurb, at least one of her scheduled presentations has been cancelled. In a Chronicle article, collaborators and other behavioral scientists expressed their concern and/or defended their own work. Rational folks suggested waiting until more information is revealed, and work is ongoing to document the origins of all study data. Gino wrote nothing about the controversy on her own website, but she did post a short statement on LinkedIn. Her voice is reserved but clear, expressing humility and gratitude—both appropriate for the situation and early findings.

* Random: I use data as a singular noun, which is more common in business. This article explains my reasons well.

Chronicle Recommendation for Full Disclosure Raises Character Questions

A Chronicle of Higher Education article suggests that academic leaders practice full disclosure when applying for jobs. The recommendation is to avoid issues later in the hiring process, and the decision tests candidates’ character, particularly integrity, courage, and authenticity. Our students face similar decisions.

Here’s the search consultants’ advice:

Be forthcoming and candid about any sensitive or confidential information that may affect your candidacy. Search committees and hiring managers—and I can’t stress this enough—hate surprises. So it’s critical to disclose a potential roadblock as soon as possible once you’ve decided to become a candidate.

Hiring managers “hate surprises” for a few reasons. First, no one wants to waste time. If a candidate, even at an entry-level, will be ruled out, HR wants to know early on. Students with a criminal record of theft should not bother applying for an auditing position. Second, employers want to hire people with integrity, which includes being honest up front. This takes courage, a worthy topic of discussion with our students. Yes, students risk missing out on a job offer, but better to remove themselves from the process early than wait until the third interview or, worse, after they’re hired. When I worked in HR, terminating hired employees after a discovery was a painful process, and this only makes it harder for someone to find another job.

In their list of disclosures, the search professionals include legal issues, negative publicity, barriers to relocating, and leaving previous employers on bad terms. Students might want to discuss gaps in employment, negative social media posts, family obligations, and job terminations—not all at once, of course. Depending on the situation, job market, industry, and so many other factors, students have difficult decisions to make about whether, how, how much, and when to disclose issues that might negatively affect their candidacy. Some of the advice in Business Communication and Character is rooted in Chalice Randazzo’s work: "A Framework for Resume Decisions: Comparing Applicants’ and Employers’ Reasons” (BPCQ, 2020).

Here’s an inspiring story about a researcher at Intel who decided to talk about his history of addiction during his job interview. In the end, what students choose to reveal reflects on their character. They might find this discussion and handout about the Character, Audience, Message (CAM) Model useful.

Image source.

Texts from 2012: Instagram Cofounder Considers Acquisition by FB

I feel like a voyeur reading texts between tech leaders, and this exchange doesn’t disappoint. In 2012 texts, we see Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom and investor Matt Cohler navigating Mark Zuckerberg’s initial gesture to acquire the company, which happened just two months later.

At some point during these 30 back-and-forth texts, they could have picked up the phone, which would have avoided the messages becoming public as part of The House Judiciary Committee’s anti-trust investigation. Such an important conversation seems worthy of a call if not an in-person meeting. But I guess I’m old school: in addition to my propensity to worry about what might go public, I don’t like spending half my day texting.

I’m always surprised at the casual nature of texts among executives. To start, Cohler quotes Zuckerberg: "i'm not sure if this is a good idea yet, but i think maybe facebook should buy instagram, what do you think?" Then, in Systrom’s concern about the company he founded, we see Zuckerberg’s power:

Kevin Systrom
got it
you know him better than I do
a) will he go into destroy mode if I say no
b) will he understand if we choose to raise instead
c) will he understand that I don't want to shutter the product and that doesn't align with what FB does with companies

Matt Cohler
a) probably (and probably also if we just don't engage at all)
b) no, he'll go harder into destroy mode then
c) what i think he would most likely want to see is for instagram to turn into a stand-alone mobile facebook photos app, like beluga turned into facebook messenger
(re c he hasn't indicated anything to me at all there, i'm just speculating)

Later, we see these two planning to lie (I’ll be blunt here) about other potential suitors, as Systrom has a meeting scheduled with Jack Dorsey of Twitter.

The exchange is fascinating—a window into how M&A and other strategic decisions are made, or, how they just seem to happen despite what executives want for their company. Early in the exchange, Systrom writes, “I'm not interested really - even at the right price I don't think so,” but we know he sold anyway.

“Rainbow Capitalism” and Integrity

Brands walk fine lines this month, perhaps genuinely wanting to show support for the LGBTQ+ community, but finding critics at all turns. June is Pride Month, when some companies engage in what may be called “rainbow capitalism” or “rainbow washing,” advertising or selling merchandise without any substance behind it. Memes joke about companies’ gratitude at the end of the month.

This year, Target and other companies removed merchandise, for example, as a swimsuit for trans women, after conservative backlash. Target published this statement after receiving bomb threats:

For more than a decade, Target has offered an assortment of products aimed at celebrating Pride Month. Since introducing this year's collection, we've experienced threats impacting our team members' sense of safety and well-being while at work. Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior. Our focus now is on moving forward with our continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community and standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.

In other words, we’ll support people, as we always have, but can’t risk safety. They could say more about the threats and their “commitment” to convince customers that removing merchandise was the right decision and is still in line with their “inclusivity” values.

Ford, GM, and other companies’ plans are described in this article, which might make good class reading. Students could choose a brand and compare its Pride products and advertising to its policies and determine whether behavior matches ideology—an issue of integrity, or doing what they say they’ll do. Critics say companies will wave a flag but not offer employees gender-affirming insurance or allow employees to use preferred pronouns.

Students also can discuss why this year is different from others. Although a political topic, the context is important to assessing why brands may have scaled back their participation and whether that was the right thing to do. Of course, industry, location, product mix, customer base, and other factors are relevant too.

Untimely "Welcome to Hell" Ad

As orange haze was filling New York, a billboard appeared in the foreground: “Welcome to Hell, New York.” Creators of the “Diablo IV” video game ad didn’t realize the poor timing, and the coincidence may have worked in their favor. The launch date on the billboard is 6.6.23, the same day air quality alerts began. Of course, if marketers used the news of smoke from Canadian wildfires to promote the ad, that would have been in poor taste.

On Twitter, the EVP Corporate Affairs and CCO, Activision Blizzard, responded to questions:

I would like to clarify that Blizzard has no affiliation or partnership with the wildfires in Canada. In fact we are firmly against wildfires and condemn them in the strongest terms.

Funny? Maybe they could have done better. Some humor is acceptable in this situation because the smoke was eerie and could be harmful but didn’t cause widespread devastation, at least in New York. If that had been the case, for example, if the ad appeared in Quebec, the company response would need to be quite different.

This story reminds me of the adage (P. T. Barnum), no publicity is bad publicity, which is no longer true. But in this case, Activision Blizzard got recognition beyond the billboard.

PGA Commissioner Address Criticism Directly

Golf tournaments PGA and LIV, which is backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, announced a merger and faced backlash. Part of the controversy is how the decision was communicated: primarily during a CNBC interview of LIV Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan and PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan.

Players complained openly, shown here. As we teach business communication students, a thoughtful communication plan could prevent negative reactions—at least about how the news is delivered. Players should have been informed before any public announcement was made. Even in the CNBC video title, the news is called a “surprise deal.”

Monahan addressed personal criticism directly. In his statements, he demonstrates courage by acknowledging a perceived lack of integrity:

I recognize that people are going to call me a hypocrite, Anytime I said anything, I said it with the information that I had at that moment, and I said it based on someone that's trying to compete for the PGA Tour and our players. I accept those criticisms. But circumstances do change. I think that in looking at the big picture and looking at it this way, that's what got us to this point.

Monahan loosely acknowledged the impact on tour players, but he could have demonstrated more compassion, particularly for those who had turned down generous Saudi money to stick with the PGA:

This is an awful lot to ask them to digest, and this is a significant change for us in the direction that we were going down. We just realized that we were better off together than we were fighting or apart, and by thinking about the game at large and eliminating a lot of the friction that's been out there and doing this in a way where we can move forward and grow the PGA Tour.

Of course, Monahan’s explanation didn’t convince everyone that the merger is the right decision. A news release on the PGA website, which claims that the merger is “for the benefit of all stakeholders,” is another example for students to analyze.

Employees Protest RTO Policies

As companies push for employees to return to the office after working remotely during the pandemic, employees are pushing back. In their arguments, we see different approaches—some more effective than others.

Here are a few employee messages against return to office (RTO) plans:

Apple: This powerful message directly argues against points the executive team made to inspire people back to work. It’s a compelling persuasive example. One of the strongest arguments is that the RTO policy “will make Apple younger, whiter, more male dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied, in short, it will lead to privileges deciding who can work for Apple, not who’d be the best fit.” Although the writers don’t provide a lot of evidence, the potential impact reflects reasons employees give for refusing to go back to an office. Less diversity as a result of RTO is clearly inconsistent with Apple’s inclusion and diversity mission, but the employees don’t mention that. This is a good lesson for our students who cite a company’s mission in their presentations; this approach may be too obvious and pedantic for internal arguments.

Starbucks: This message also disputes claims made by senior management and more explicitly identifies contradictions with the company mission, “One cup, one person, and one neighborhood at a time.” The logic is loose, and it sounds shallow. Later, employees hit hard: “Morale is at an all-time low, and the brand reputation and financial value of this publicly traded company are at risk.” Those are big, bold statements that might cause executives to be less, instead or more, sympathetic.

Black & Veatch: Writers of this petition for a construction engineering company use survey data as their primary source of evidence. The message cites the “Working in New Ways” policy that allowed for remote work. Employees use criteria reasoning (and question the executives’ integrity): “Positions were advertised and professionals hired with the expectation their positions would remain permanently virtual.” Sadly, this message highlights the dangers of an employee survey: the data could be used against the company.

I can’t find an employee statement, but Amazon made news this week when they resisted CEO Andy Jassey’s RTO message. Jassey makes the usual arguments about culture, collaboration, learning, and connection, relying on what he and the rest of the “s-team” (senior management team) has observed. Students can analyze his argument and may find weak evidence.

At Amazon, employee walkouts may or may not influence the decision, but solidarity among corporate and warehouse employees is refreshing. Although warehouse employees never had remote work options, they seem to support the corporate staff’s flexibility, with one explaining, “It’s just showing us that Amazon has a problem with workers and listening to us.”

Netflix Anti-Sharing Message

On its website and in an email, Netflix communicated what people already know: sharing passwords is not OK. Business communication faculty would consider these messages bad news, although users must have known this was coming, so the approach is straightforward and direct. On its website, under a clever, intentionally misleading heading, “Share Netflix with someone who doesn’t live with you,” the company says, actually, you can’t, even though sharing has been an open secret for years.

Netflix sent an email to people who share accounts outside their household, which tells us that they knew all the time and didn’t take action. In the message, the company offers alternatives. You can transfer your account, which is a nice way of saying boot someone off your plan and tell them how to get their own for full price. Or you can buy an extra member, which might be a good solution for family and close friends, who have been seeing each other’s lists for years. For $7.99, you can add one member, but that’s only if you pay $15.49/month for the standard plan; you can add two members if you pay $19.99 for the premium plan.

The “Plans and Pricing” page could be clearer. Compare that page to Max’s “Choose Your Plan” table (formerly HBO Max). Why have a separate category for prices? The language is an obvious sales tactic: the “standard” plan is now the third highest of four levels. Like other streaming services, what used to be the regular plan without ads is now sub-standard with ads. The 99-cent strategy is well worn, giving the impression that people are paying significantly less. However, this USA Today article rounded up.

For many years, Netflix has been losing subscriber revenue, an estimated 100 million use shared accounts. With increasing competition among streaming companies, this move isn’t surprising—and shouldn’t be to those who have benefited for so long.