Avoiding Shopping Scams and Other Online Deception

Talking about online retail scams is one way to remind students to evaluate websites critically. A Wall Street Journal quiz shows that younger people are susceptible to shopping fraud, despite what students might think about older people’s vulnerability.

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) describes signs of consumer fraud:

• Fake websites and apps

• Email links

• Making payments on unsecure sites

• Using public wifi to shop or access sensitive information

• Package delivery confirmation scams

These traps seem obvious—until we fall for them. If students don’t admit being duped, maybe they’ll talk about someone who was or a fraudulent site or message they avoided.

If you cover Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion (including a new one—unity), students might identify how online retailers use each. They can find examples on their favorite shopping websites and discuss how ethically the principle is used. Students will easily find examples of scarcity (Cyber Monday! Giving Tuesday! Black Friday!).

Image source.

He's Back: OpenAI Announces Sam Altman's Return

After more than 700 employees threatened to quit, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman agreed to return to OpenAI. The news was announced on X, where most of the communications have taken place—perhaps symbolic of the company’s losing control of the message. Nothing yet appears on the OpenAI blog, where Altman’s termination was first announced.

On the OpenAI X account, we see the smiling, reunited group and an announcement of the new board:

We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam Altman to return to OpenAI as CEO with a new initial board of Bret Taylor (Chair), Larry Summers, and Adam D'Angelo. We are collaborating to figure out the details. Thank you so much for your patience through this.

Formal announcements are missing from Microsoft’s blog too. Instead, posts by Altman and Nadella are chronicled with Nadella’s two previous posts about the situation. Two tired to press the shift key, Altman restated his commitment to the company and the team:

Sam Altman: i love openai, and everything i’ve done over the past few days has been in service of keeping this team and its mission together. when i decided to join msft on sun evening, it was clear that was the best path for me and the team. with the new board and w satya’s support, i’m looking forward to returning to openai, and building on our strong partnership with msft.

Satya Nadella: We are encouraged by the changes to the OpenAI board. We believe this is a first essential step on a path to more stable, well-informed, and effective governance. Sam, Greg, and I have talked and agreed they have a key role to play along with the OAI leadership team in ensuring OAI continues to thrive and build on its mission. We look forward to building on our strong partnership and delivering the value of this next generation of AI to our customers and partners.

Both messages say just enough, without blame or regret. Any explanation, for example, of a lost Microsoft venture, would only raise more questions. Clearly, they both want to move on, which is a theme: employees seem done with the drama, and even some of us watching have had enough.

Emmett Shear, who served as the second interim CEO for about a minute and a half, also expressed his gratitude on X:

I am deeply pleased by this result, after ~72 very intense hours of work. Coming into OpenAI, I wasn’t sure what the right path would be. This was the pathway that maximized safety alongside doing right by all stakeholders involved. I’m glad to have been a part of the solution.

For now, the drama is over. But OpenAI is a changed company, with new, self-imposed hurdles. Communication will need to be a top priority, and perhaps more of it will take place through more traditional channels. The new, experienced board members likely will have ideas for how to rebuild the company’s reputation, and they might, at some point, address whatever rifts caused Altman’s termination to start this chain of events.

---

Random: I’m laughing at the Microsoft Teams jokes. People reacted to Brockman’s first post that Altman was fired over Google Meet. Here are a couple of recent clever posts:

In response to Altman’s post about returning:

The lengths this man will go to not use Microsoft teams (@isroprisdead)

In response to Brockman’s post about returning:

blink twice if it’s bc of ms teams (@gajeshnaik)

Is Snoop Dogg Vulnerable or Self-Promoting?

Snoop Dogg’s November 16 announcement that he’s quitting “smoke” sounds as though he’s struggling with a marijuana addiction. But further inspection raises questions about his intentions.

Snoop Dogg has a few cannabis-related businesses. He owns the marijuana brand Leafs by Snoop and Uncle Snoop’s, which launched Snazzle Os, onion-flavored, infused crispy snacks. Other planned projects include virtual cannabis items “authenticated by non-fungible tokens [NFTs].” A partnership with Martha Stewart produced Best Buds Bags, fancy bags to hold the duo’s BIC EZ Reach lighters on the outside.

One day (November 15) before his giving-it-up announcement, Snoop was quoted about the bag:

“This bag’s got it all. From my favorite lighter, favorite color, and dime-sized secret stash pockets to stash my favorite herbs.”

On November 19, he announced that he’s partnering with a smokeless fire pit maker, Solo Stove:

I love a good fire outside, but the smoke was too much. Solo Stove fixed fire and took out the smoke. They changed the game, and now I’m excited to spread the love and stay warm with my friends and family,

Vulnerability is great unless it’s used for personal gain; then, it’s inauthentic and more like persuasion or manipulation. To be fair, he didn’t specify what kind of smoke he was quitting, but X replies indicate I’m not the only one who drew the cannabis conclusion. Maybe this was intended as a joke, but I didn’t find it funny.

New Baffling Comms About OpenAI Leadership Shuffles

Even the best communication can’t contain this much damage. The OpenAI saga, starting with the surprise firing of the CEO, illustrates the power of employee activism and the importance of communication planning.

The OpenAI board’s poor planning and decision making have led to angry investors, the loss of several key leaders and, as of now, more than 700 additional employees threatening to quit if the board doesn’t resign. The petition was fueled by employees posting on X, “OpenAI is nothing without its people.”

Employees have power because of their numbers and because of Microsoft’s promise to hire them, according to the signed letter. However, they also demand that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman be rehired, which may be unlikely since Microsoft quickly hired the pair to start a new subsidiary. In a 2:53 am, cover-all-bases tweet, Satya Nadella expressed continued confidence in the OpenAI team, and then slipped into the same paragraph Microsoft’s hiring of OpenAI’s two outsted leaders to start the new venture: “And [by the way] . . . .”

The employees who may join them include Mira Murati—the first to sign the letter—who was appointed interim CEO and replaced within two days. The biggest surprise might be #12 on the list—Ilya Sutskever, whom earlier reports blamed for the termination decision. Sutskever’s “regret” tweet doesn’t quite take responsibility, focusing on his “participation” (and if he were just following along) and his intention (which scarcely matters compared to the impact):

I deeply regret my participation in the board's actions. I never intended to harm OpenAI. I love everything we've built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company.

Further confusing those of us on the sidelines—or perhaps simply displaying an impressive swell of forgiveness—Altman replied with three heart emojis.

One obvious lesson for business communication students is to think carefully before making major changes. Faculty teach communication planning that considers who needs to know what information and how each audience might react to the news. The board clearly underestimated negative reactions by investors and employees.

As this circus continues, I’m sure students will learn more about what to do and what not to do when communicating change—and making good business decisions.

Image source.

Recall Notices About Metal in Chicken Nuggets

Recalls about “foreign matter” in food can be tricky to communicate. Tyson and USDA notices illustrate accountability and bad-news messaging for students to compare.

Audiences and communication objectives are similar for all recall notices. For the company and government agency, the primary audience is customers, and both organizations want customers to avoid using affected products. Messages clarify which products have been affected (typically product types, distributors, and locations), and companies offer a refund for returned products. Companies have an additional objective—to maintain brand image.

In this case of the “Fun Nuggets” recall, the USDA message is straightforward, starting with “Tyson” as the actor recalling the product. The notice describes the recall issue this way:

The problem was discovered after the firm notified FSIS that it had received consumer complaints reporting small metal pieces in the chicken patty product.

There has been one reported minor oral injury associated with consumption of this product.

With clunky language, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) subtly promotes itself by describing what the agency does to follow up:

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.

The Tyson message also starts with the main point up front but emphasizes the “voluntary recall,” which is typical but a bit strange. Would the company need to be convinced to recall the product in such a case? Still, the writer chooses “out of an abundance of caution,” a near-cliché to describe the decision:

A limited number of consumers have reported they found small, pliable metal pieces in the product, and out of an abundance of caution, the company is recalling this product.  

At least two more differences between the messages are notable. “Pliable” does sound better, and of course, Tyson doesn’t mention the “minor oral injury.” Tyson also states, “a limited number” of customer complaints, as any company would in a crisis situation to contain the damage. Stating a specific number also might convey an unpleasant image, which I have in my head, of an 8-year-old screaming at a kitchen table.

The FSIS message states where products were distributed, which seems useful, while the Tyson message includes a product photo, which seems essential. I’m guessing the FSIS wouldn’t send an agent out to buy a bag to take a picture, but they could lift the image from Tyson.

University-Related Communications and the War

If you’re speaking with students about communications around the Israel-Hamas war, here are a few ideas, and students will probably have their own examples that didn’t make national news.

Protests and Free Speech

In addition to student protests at universities, a few well-publicized examples have raised questions about faculty and staff behavior—and about free speech. Students can analyze one or more of these situations and the university’s response. This is a particularly good activity to challenge students to evaluate their sources and to consider all the possible choices and repercussions for the university.

• Yale: A professor of American studies, tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”

• Cornell University: An associate professor of history says on video that the “challenge” by Hamas was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” (See his apology, which students can compare to criteria in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character.)

• Stanford: A lecturer apparently separated Jewish students in class as an example of what Israel does to Palestinians and called an Israeli student a “colonizer.”

Criticism of Ivy League Statements

Some universities have revised or supplemented their original statements. Students can analyze messages to identify changes, for example, taking a clearer stand, including more emphatic language, adding personal reflections, more clearly distinguishing between Palestinian support and the Hamas attacks, etc. Students can discuss how effective the revisions or add-ons are and whether they satisfied critics. Students also may consider what character dimensions are illustrated, or not. Here are a few statements:

Stanford University
“Statement about support and resources for students as crises unfold worldwide” (Oct. 9)
“An update for the Stanford community” (Oct. 11)

Cornell University
”Response to the terrorism in Israel” (Oct. 10 and updated later that day)
”Supporting one another as we stand against hatred (Follow up on events in Israel)” (Oct. 16)

Harvard University
See the series of statements, including the original on Oct. 9, the follow-up on Oct. 10, and the president’s video on Oct. 12 (shown here).

Donors Pulling Funding

Related to the criticism of elite colleges, this article provides examples of donors pulling funding based on universities’ responses. Discussion questions could include the following: How do funders explain their decision? What reasoning or evidence do they provide? What do funders say they want in return? How effective do you believe this strategy will be?

Joint University Statement

Leaders of Yeshiva University, University of Notre Dame, United Negro College Fund, Baylor University, and others issued a joint statement, “We Stand Together with Israel Against Hamas.” Discussion questions could include an analysis of the statement (what’s said and what’s missing), why some leaders would choose to sign this statement and others would not, and how Baylor’s fuller response provides context for the university’s decision to sign.

Firms Denying Jobs

Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman called for Harvard students who signed the pro-Palestinian statement to be revealed, so he wouldn’t “inadvertently hire” them. The CEO of Sweetgreen and others agreed. A law firm rescinded job offers to three students who had signed statements. Discussion could include students’ thoughts about these decisions. What ethical questions are involved? What character issues are at play? What are the possible positive and negative consequences to leaders who make these public statements—and decide not to hire certain job applicants? Here’s one opinion on Ackman for students to discuss.

Tax Credits: Persuasive Comm and Ethics Case

One company’s approach to the U.S. government Employee Refund Credit (ERC) serves as a case in communication ethics. Using communication frameworks, students will easily find ways Innovation Refunds persuaded customers. The website getrefunds.com redirects to this page, which students can analyze.

The classic rhetorical triangle of logical argument (logos), emotional appeals (pathos), and credibility (ethos) examples:

• Logos: “We make claiming the payroll tax refund easier.” (logical, step-by-step process for results)

• Pathos: “The ERC offers a welcome cash infusion as owners struggle.” (appeal to emotion)

• Ethos: Wall Street Journal quote and link to the IRS website. (credibility)

Robert Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion examples:

• Reciprocity: With “no upfront costs,” the company inspires business owners to apply in return.

• Scarcity: “Time is running out!” and “don’t let your business miss its chance to make a claim” convey a limited timeframe during which to apply.

• Authority: “[O}ur team of independent tax attorneys and tax professionals” boasts the staff’s credentials.

• Consistency: Users who complete the “check your eligibility” form are more likely to follow through.

• Liking: The company presents its staff as likable and reliable—people business owners would want to work with: “Our team will guide you every step of the way, from eligibility to claiming and receiving refunds.”

• Social Proof: Testimonials and the scrolling list of amounts and company logos show how others have succeeded in getting refunds.

• Unity: I don’t see an example of unity, Cialdini’s additional principle, but maybe you or your students will.

Although the company denies wrongdoing, aggressive marketing tactics have resulted in far more claims—and much higher government costs—than expected.

"Booster" Vaccine Communications

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended simplifying COVID-19 vaccine use, including nixing the term booster. The change is an uphill climb and offers lessons in change communication.

The FDA’s deck from January 2023 explains the rationale. The goal is “harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster.” In other words, to eliminate the need for and complications of multiple shots. Instead, the FDA and Center for Disease Control (CDC) want people to think of the COVID vaccine like a flu vaccine and to get a new one each year. The push to avoid the term booster started even earlier, when Stanley Plotkin, renowned physician who developed the Rubella vaccine, suggested the change:

My point, basically, was that calling them boosters implies that the first doses were failures.

Calling the third dose a booster is immunologically incorrect and also gives the wrong impression that somehow the vaccines failed when they could not really have been expected to give a long-lasting immunity from the first doses.

(Here’s an Atlantic article for a fuller linguistic discussion.)

Last month, CDC vaccine advisor Keipp Talbot said, "Bye bye, booster. We are no longer giving boosters, and it's going to be very difficult to stop using that word because that word has become pervasive.” The CDC’s and FDA’s latest webpages about COVID-19 vaccines don’t mention boosters but refer to “updated vaccines.” On New York’s site, we’re instructed to “Make an appointment for an updated COVID-19 vaccine,” but a page titled, “Booster Doses” still exists, likely for people searching for the old term. As Talbot warned, the change will take some time.

Fake Fetterman and Intellectual Humility

Psychology research suggests that susceptibility to conspiracy theories is caused by a failure of analytical thinking—and intellectual humility. To some, Senator John Fetterman’s improved speech, altered facial hair, and concealed tattoo can mean only one thing: he has a body double (despite his hard-to-match six-foot-eight frame). The research behind conspiracy theories relates to business communication learning objectives about how people decide to believe or deny evidence.

Although people who tend to believe conspiracy theories pride themselves on being “unique” or “too special to be duped,” new research cited in an MSNBC article paints a different picture. From studies published last fall, authors conclude, “[P]eople may believe conspiracies partly because they fail to engage in analytic thinking and rely too much on their intuition.” More recent studies, yet to be published, from a Cornell University psychology lab, conclude:

[C]onspiracy believers not only relied more intuition, but also overestimated their performance on numeracy and perception tests (i.e. were overconfident in their own abilities).

When students scroll through their social feeds, do they generally believe what they read? This question also raises the idea of intellectual humility, a topic I discuss in Building Leadership Character. Psychologists developed this scale, which could be useful to share with students:

• I question my own opinions, positions, and viewpoints because they could be wrong.

• I reconsider my opinions when presented with new evidence.

• I recognize the value in opinions that are different from my own.

• I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong.

• In the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions.

• I like finding out new information that differs from what I already think is true.

The paradox is that conspiracy theorists believe they are going against conventional thinking—for example, disbelieving mainstream media reports. But partly because of arrogance, they too quickly and without enough evidence accept other ideas.

Murdoch's Email to Employees

In his email to employees, Rupert Murdoch announces his “transition to the role of Chairman Emeritus at Fox and News,” but he fails to mention what he’s leaving: both Boards of Directors.

His message confirms what news reports say: he’s going nowhere and will continue to wield influence. A Guardian columnist focuses on Murdoch’s “toxic legacy” and the political overtones of his note in which he criticizes “elites” “in cahoots” with the media. (Cahoots strikes me as an outdated term along the lines of no-goodnik. Both might be new to students.) With more defamation lawsuits pending against Fox, Murdoch also, again, defends the company’s reporting.

A New York Times article chronicles his successor’s “On-Again, Off-Again Relationship With the Family Business.” Unusual for these types of announcements, Murdoch says only about his third child, Lachlan, “[We] have truly talented teams and a passionate, principled leader in Lachlan” and that Lachlan “is absolutely committed to the cause [of freedom].”

Murdoch writes, “Neither excessive pride nor false humility are admirable qualities.” Yet real humility is an admirable quality—and required for a leader to step aside and let others lead. Instead, like Logan Roy in HBO’s Succession, Murdoch will hover until he dies.

Image source.

---

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to let you all know that I have decided to transition to the role of Chairman Emeritus at Fox and News. For my entire professional life, I have been engaged daily with news and ideas, and that will not change. But the time is right for me to take on different roles, knowing that we have truly talented teams and a passionate, principled leader in Lachlan who will become sole Chairman of both companies.

Neither excessive pride nor false humility are admirable qualities. But I am truly proud of what we have achieved collectively through the decades, and I owe much to my colleagues, whose contributions to our success have sometimes been unseen outside the company but are deeply appreciated by me. Whether the truck drivers distributing our papers, the cleaners who toil when we have left the office, the assistants who support us or the skilled operators behind the cameras or the computer code, we would be less successful and have less positive impact on society without your day-after-day dedication.

Our companies are in robust health, as am I. Our opportunities far exceed our commercial challenges. We have every reason to be optimistic about the coming years - I certainly am, and plan to be here to participate in them. But the battle for the freedom of speech and, ultimately, the freedom of thought, has never been more intense.

My father firmly believed in freedom, and Lachlan is absolutely committed to the cause. Self-serving bureaucracies are seeking to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose. Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.

In my new role, I can guarantee you that I will be involved every day in the contest of ideas. Our companies are communities, and I will be an active member of our community. I will be watching our broadcasts with a critical eye, reading our newspapers and websites and books with much interest, and reaching out to you with thoughts, ideas, and advice. When I visit your countries and companies, you can expect to see me in the office late on a Friday afternoon.

I look forward to seeing you wherever you work and whatever your responsibility. And I urge you to make the most of this great opportunity to improve the world we live in.

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

UAW Video Promotes UAW

Once again, I’m confused by United Auto Workers (UAW) communications. With the strike against three automakers in effect, a new video, posted on the website home page, is worth analyzing for audience and communication objectives.

As I wrote about last month, UAW president Shawn Fain is a prominent figure in these union messages. He’s on screen during much of the video, titled “What Is the Stand Up Strike?” and narrates for the entire four minutes, with dramatic background music throughout.

The actors and audience are unclear. Fain starts, “Everything working people have ever won, we’ve won together.” Who’s “we”? What “working people”? All working people? If so, that’s a stretch. He continues, “Today, America’s autoworkers are in the fight of our lives.” By using “our,” he includes himself. In the next few sentences, with accompanying images, he lists autoworkers’ broad goals around pay, benefits, and job security. But he transitions, loosely: “Winning these demands will take all of us. It will take a return to our roots.”

In the next segment, which lasts about one minute, Fain describes the UAW’s history. We see black and white images dating back to 1936, when Fain says the union confronted “company thugs, spies, and antiunion laws.” Promoting the value of the UAW—and unions, in general—this part seems to address a broader audience. Similarly, for about another minute, Fain then explains the union’s strategy of striking “The Big Three,” presenting the approach as an innovative model.

Not until 3:17 in the 4-minute video does Fain address autoworkers directly. He says, “UAW family, be ready,” and then encourages people to strike if their “local” is called up, stand on the picket line, and participate in other organizing activities. Business communication students will recognize the anaphora towards the end: “Stand up for ourselves and the working class. Let’s stand up for future generations. Let’s stand up for economic and social justice. Let’s stand up and, once again, make history together.”

My skepticism is about autoworkers’ interest in those ideals. Do people strike, which causes at least short-term economic loss, to make history? For future generations? This is why I miss the voice of the autoworker. How do people describe their struggles? What do they see as unfair? What would they like to see changed? Where’s the peer-to-peer influence if workers are the intended audience?

Here’s the video YouTube description, with another dose of anaphora:

The Stand Up Strike is our generation’s answer to the movement that built our union, the Sit-Down Strikes of 1937. Then as now, we face massive inequality across our society. Then as now, our industry is rapidly changing and workers are being left behind. Then as now, our labor movement is redefining itself. This is a strike that grows over time, giving our national negotiators maximum leverage and maximum flexibility to win a record contract.

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.

3M's Defensive Settlement Comms

3M’s statement and the investor call (and associated deck) about settling lawsuits for damaging earplugs sound defensive and deny responsibility. In these crisis response situations, companies choose between demonstrating accountability, compassion, and humility and taking 3M’s route of deniability.

In the statement, 3M does the minimum: states the settlement reason and amount, describes the process going forward, and tries to put a bow on it. The intent is to end the lawsuits. That’s all in three short paragraphs; the rest is a bunch of words—the typical boiler plate of financial considerations, the investor teleconference, and long forward-looking statements. The earplug situation involves Aearo Technologies, the product maker acquired by 3M in 2008, so 3M could shift blame, although the leaders wisely chose not to use that losing strategy.

On the investor call (here are the deck and transcript), all statements, questions, and answers focus on the financials. Of course, it’s an investor call, so participants are most interested in the financial impact to the company. We hear fear, including questions about insurance, the potential for additional claims—and the Big Question about pending lawsuits for a different issue—“forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or FPAS) in drinking water. Legal fees could mount to $30 billion in those cases.

Still, is there nothing to learn from the situation? 3M says some lawsuits were fraudulent, brought by U.S. veterans who did not suffer damages. Still, is there no compassion for those who clearly did? The answer seems to be no, that the company’s primary audience is investors, and that is not their immediate concern.

Students could compare these communications to those of McKinsey about their role in the opioid epidemic, a better example of taking responsibility and acknowledging damage done. Although not perfect, McKinsey’s messages indicate that the company might make changes as a result of the litigation, which is often more important to litigants than the settlement money.

UAW Union Communications Case

Union communications are a particular genre of persuasive communication for students to learn, and the United Auto Workers (UAW) serves as a timely case study. The organization is using new, “more aggressive” tactics against automakers, but communications may seem dated to students.

The UAW’s strategy and messages are worth analyzing with an eye towards the current push against GM, Ford, and Stellantis. Unlike previous negotiations, the UAW is targeting three major automakers at the same time, threatening strikes that could lead to a “loss of more than $5 billion after 10 full days.” The auto industry is already suffering from supply chain issues lingering since the pandemic, so the union may be in a stronger position than in years ago.

Audience analysis is complex for union communications. Automaker CEOs likely are a primary audience. In the messages below, students will see the union president as a prominent figure, which may be understandable, given his positional power during negotiations with CEOs. Yet his image and videos strike me as a bit much. With declining union membership, the stakes are high for organizations like UAW to not only negotiate on behalf of current members, but to influence perception of union value and benefits.

Given the opportunity, the UAW needs to step up its social media campaign. A 2020 Journal of Industrial Relations study of Facebook communications found that unions are “challenged by digital technologies” and use “outdated ‘one-way’ model of communication.” Students might use the table at right, from the study to evaluate UAW communications, to analyze UAW communications. Here are a few starters:

UAW Website: At left on the home, we see three links for which we can evaluate tone defined by the Journal of Industrial Relations study. The first link is a call to action (signing the petition), but the second two are informative (checking out news and reading the magazine).

UAW’s YouTube Channel: The first video is a good one for students to analyze. UAW president Shawn Fain says union demands are not about the president but are about the members. He starts, “Historically, the biggest and most significant demands in our union have been referred to by the president’s demands.” Sounding defensive, the president explains the process before describing “our” (workers’) demands. Fain says, again, “These aren’t my demands; they come straight from the membership.” With dramatic text and threatening-sounding music, the video feels, as the study authors say about other union communication, “outdated.” Could another approach work better, for example, driven by the workers’ voice instead? I find no other video on the channel from workers about the three automakers—only a few about other union activity.

X (Twitter): As of this writing, two of the first four posts have a picture of Fain. One of the most effective retweets a post by Robert Reich.

Instagram: As of now, of the first six images, two have a picture of Fain and another includes his name.

As a class activity or assignment, students could act as consultants to help the UAW. Having students read a resent Washington Post article about Fain, described as “tough talking” but prone to “theatrics,” for example, not shaking executives’ hands and throwing proposals in the trash, which aren’t appreciated by all.

Of course, first, students would identify the primary and second audiences and define communication objectives. At this moment, the union has power over GM, Ford, and Stellantis, but the UAW also is trying to increase their union base and have a broader impact. Is the organization meeting its communication objectives?

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.

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.

Bud Light's Failed Crisis Communication

A Fortune writer summarizes the Bud Light controversy well: “As it turns out, people do really have thoughts and values.” Business communication students will recognize failures around crisis communication and character in this story.

By almost any definition of crisis communication, the company failed. Backlash started when Anheuser-Busch (AB) InBev formed a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. After two weeks of memes, CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a vague statement that the Fortune author appropriately calls “corporate gobbledygook that tries to appease all sides and achieves nothing.” Of course, the company is in a tough spot, mocked by conservatives and criticized by Mulvaney and LGBTQ+ advocates for not taking a stand.

Whitworth did an interview with CBS in July, although students will recognize his general responses. Gayle King tried to get personal: “What has this been like for you?” He doesn’t sound like someone whose employees are being laid off and whose brand is suffering staggering losses. Of course, we expect a CEO to be optimistic, but wouldn’t a two-year CEO also be personally devastated? Consumers today want to see more from brand leaders—we want to know them as people.

AB let issues linger. A stronger response might have staved off the boycott and revenue decline we see today: Bud Light is no longer America’s top-selling beer, and almost $400 million in lost sales is associated with the controversy.

I’m reminded of the Bud Light controversy in 2015—the “Up for Whatever” campaign. At that time, the company posted a clear apology.

This time, AB seems lost. A partnership with country music band Midland is only fueling the controversy.

A company can’t market, advertise, or partner its way out of a crisis. Only a clear, consistent communication strategy can do that. Although it might lose some support by taking sides, AB is losing all support by taking no sides.

At this point, the best approach might be for the leadership team to demonstrate good character. Courage requires leaders to take a stand despite risks. They are overdue for executing on crisis communication principles: admitting their failings, apologizing for wrongdoings, and having an unequivocal path forward. This includes clearly acknowledging criticism and the damage done.