Red Lobster CEO Explains Post-Bankruptcy Strategy

Just 35 years old, new Red Lobster CEO Damola Adamolekun speaks to an interviewer about his plan to turn around the restaurant chain, including a few communication strategies.

Hired by a private equity firm, Adamolekun, the fifth CEO in five years, will implement plans that worked to bring P. F. Chang’s back from bankruptcy. He speaks with enthusiasm and confidence about the brand, saying, “This could be the greatest comeback in the history of the restaurant industry.” When the interviewer noted, “It’s not an easy environment right now. You’re coming in at a tough time.” Adamolekun wasn’t defensive and instead acknowledged the reality and then transitioned to his history of success: “It’s a challenged industry. But I took over P. F. Chang’s during COVID; I’m used to entering at a tough time.”

In addition to his own presentation, he describes a few plans that illustrate what we teach in business communication classes. One focus will be improving the menu “layout, the aesthetics, the photography.” He cites reducing the number of items and the order—the greatest value, he says, is currently buried on page 3.

The video includes a few simple graphics: a timeline of CEOs, a bar chart showing more restaurant chain bankruptcies than in 2020, and the increasing cost of shrimp, a staple of Red Lobster and possibly it’s downfall because of the all-you-can-eat offer.

This example shows how a CEO creates a positive message given a bleak situation.

Bluesky and, Once Again, "Safety Is Extremely Important"

This week, a new company used the old “safety is extremely important” expression after an incident that says otherwise. The CEO of Bluesky, quickly emerging as a popular X alternative, misstated the app’s minimum user age.

When Jay Graber was asked for the minimum age on Bluesky, she said, “When you sign up—I’ll have to check—I think it’s like 18 and above." That is not correct. She’s right that the app asks for a birthdate on the signup screen, but when I entered 2012 as my birth year, a message popped up about age 13, shown here. Here’s how the company responded, according to a BBC report:

Following the interview, Bluesky contacted the BBC to clarify that the minimum age is 13, not 18. A spokesperson said: "Child safety is extremely important for Bluesky. You must be at least 13 years old to sign up for an account, and anyone under 18 using Bluesky has additional settings applied to ensure that the content they see is safe for minors."

In a wide-ranging interview with presenter Rick Edwards, she [Graber] said Bluesky does not try to verify the identification of the user, to ensure people are not lying when signing up.

She said: "We don’t take IDs or anything like that. I know that’s proposed in some places. That’s very private information. I think companies like us would want to make sure we're handling that private user data very responsibly."

Framing verification as a privacy issue is a compelling argument but might contradict Bluesky’s knowledge of those between 13 and 18. What technology do they use to determine that age range? On a recent podcast episode, Scott Galloway asked Google Founder Eric Schmidt whether companies should practice “age gating”:

They should. And indeed Jonathan's [Haidt] work is incredible. He and I wrote an article together two years ago which called for a number of things in the area of regulating social media and we'd start with changing a law called COPA from 13 to 16. And we are quite convinced that using various techniques we can determine the age of the person with a little bit of work. And so people say, well you can't implement it. Well that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. And so we believe that at least the pernicious effects of this technology on below 16 can be addressed.

Schmidt recommends 16 as the minimum, and students might discuss whether Bluesky should change its policy. They also can discuss what the spokesperson could have said differently. One option is to omit that safety cliché entirely. It was an unfortunate mistake the CEO won’t likely make again—and a signal for the company to pay more attention to concerns about users’ age.

AI-Generated Coca-Cola Ads Face Backlash

Coca-Cola ads from 1985 were reimagined using AI, causing complaints of “ruining Christmas.” Students can weigh in on the uses and limitations of AI in marketing. The situation raises questions of integrity, both of the “Christmas spirit” and of the company brand.

The company issued a statement to the New York Times:

“The Coca-Cola Company has celebrated a long history of capturing the magic of the holidays in content, film, events and retail activations for decades around the globe. This year, we crafted films through a collaboration of human storytellers and the power of generative A.I. . . . Coca-Cola will always remain dedicated to creating the highest level of work at the intersection of human creativity and technology,”

The head of generative AI said, “If I want to go very realistic, maybe it’s difficult, but if I want to go hyper-realistic and fantastical, A.I. is actually a much better tool.”

For their part, the ad agency emphasizes “AI, combined with human creativity.” We read about Silverside’s “team of art directors, artists, animators, and musicians” with a clear view of the team leading and AI assisting, although they acknowledge reducing the creative time from 12 to 2 months, so staff does spend less time. Critics say the drive towards efficiency is causing bad decisions and fake-looking commercials.

Students could watch this opinion video. I don’t see how one ad ruins Christmas no less “their entire brand.” An interesting class discussion could center around the differences among exaggeration, logical fallacies, and hyperbole.

The situation raises important questions about AI and nostalgia. Of note, the polar bear first appeared in a Coca-Cola print ad in 1922—and it was never a real polar bear.

Airbnb Criticized for "Touristification"

Airbnb is planning staged gladiator fights in the Roman Colosseum, which some consider disrespectful of the 1st century amphitheater. Students can discuss the ethics of similar types of tourism and how companies promote them.

The Event Promotion

Promoting a new movie, Gladiator II, Airbnb lures guests into one of its Experiences:

For centuries, the Roman Colosseum has been the stage for epic battles and legendary gladiators. Now, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years, the Colosseum returns to its original purpose as a venue for performances, inviting daring warriors to step foot inside the historic arena to forge their own paths and shape their destinies.

Language describing the event reminds me of what analysts are saying about the U.S. presidential election results:

• Suit up and unleash your inner gladiator inside Rome’s legendary arena.

• Discover if you have what it takes to conquer the Colosseum and emerge victorious.

Airbnb might have predicted criticism. The end of the promotion includes “Airbnb’s commitment to heritage”:

These special experiences at the Colosseum follow a series of measures and commitments by the platform to revitalize heritage tourism in Europe, including donations to heritage across Europe for over ten million dollars.

As part of this program, Airbnb is offering its support to the restoration and enhancement of Colosseum’s heritage, including an ongoing project to restore the permanent exhibition at the Colosseum.

The Response

Critics say, ”Rome is not Disneyland,” and call the event “a disgrace” and “touristification.” Local agencies, already struggling with tourism, called the event “a demeaning use of our historical-artistic heritage.”

Airbnb responded to criticism with a statement to news outlets, referring to “authorities in Rome,” who provided their own statement. The company promised to “enhance the historical and cultural heritage of the amphitheater through immersive activities in full respect of the monument, based on rigorous historical research,” with a focus on “conservation, education and innovation.” Federico Mollicone, a member of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy, describes his support:

The archaeological park of the Colosseum did well to sign a memorandum of understanding with the historical re-enactment associations also guaranteeing tourists a gladiator show of high scientific quality coordinated by ministry officials of Culture. . . . We reiterate our absolute favor for the agreement between public and private in culture, through partnerships or sponsorships, provided that they support initiatives that are of scientific and cultural value approved by the Ministry of Culture.

Airbnb deflected accountability, although the company’s name is still associated with the event, and anyone will recognize Airbnb’s “innovation” in developing the idea. Another relevant character dimension is integrity—upholding integrity of the Colosseum, an ancient ritual, and tourism-saturated Rome.

Overtourism

This is certainly not the only case of potentially problematic tourism. Students can discuss their views on “poverty tourism,” “dark tourism,” and even “eco-tourism,” which could include virtue-signaling and potential environmental degradation. Perhaps “degrading” is a good word to consider in these discussions. What accountability do companies—and tourists—have when planning such vacations?

A useful class discussion also might include the etymology of vacation: “freedom from obligations, leisure, release" and “state of being unoccupied.” Some tourism types do seem to include a disconnection, rather than an engagement, with the place and people. Some lead to cultural appropriation, which we might call a vacation from our good sense.

What drives people to want to experience Airbnb’s Gladiator challenge? Do they want to connect with the history of the Colosseum? That is not how Airbnb is communicating the event.

One Wicked Typo

Mattel issued a short apology for an embarrassing typo on the new Wicked doll packaging. Students can analyze the company’s response and consider how to prevent URL typos.

The dolls coincide with the launch of Wicked, a popular Broadway musical made into a two-part movie. On the packaging, we see that the intended website, www.wickedmovie.com is missing the word “movie” and directs to a porn site.

The company sent a statement to news outlets—the same they posted on Instagram, shown here. A post on X about the typo received 26.1 million views but no response from Mattel, which last posted on X in January 2019. Students might weigh in on whether Mattel should still have a presence on X if the account is inactive.

Mattel’s statement reads quite “corporate” for a toy company. Of course, they need to address the error with an appropriate, serious tone, but that first long sentence, with its passive voice and unclear reference doesn’t seem fitting to the occasion. What is the “immediate action to remedy this”? The deed is done. “Consumers” creates a distance between the company and kids and parents. Also curious is the invitation to contact customer service. First, it doesn’t feel genuine without a phone number or email. Second, what could possibly be the “further information”?

We don’t see a response to the question below Mattel’s statement, asking about quality control. That’s not a question the company could reasonably answer on Instagram, but students might consider what went wrong. I can imagine that one or more people proofread the box text but didn’t follow the link. This is a good reminder for students, if only to ensure that links work. The challenge here is that the link can’t be clicked on; proofreading requires an extra step of typing it into a browser, which, apparently, no one did.

How to Introduce People via Email

A Financial Times article offers advice for introducing people by email. Students can reflect on their own experience introducing others or getting introduced.

Most important: Before introducing anyone, ask their permission. Otherwise, revealing an email address and setting an expectation that the person will respond could be awkward. If someone doesn’t want to meet, they’re left with a tricky decision of whether to go through with it anyway, ignore the email and a possible follow-up from the other person, or respond and decline the invitation, which could feel hurtful. For the latter, the receiver could cite deadlines, other pressing priorities, or something perhaps more truthful, for example, “It sounds like you have a lot of interesting work in progress. I find my own interests moving away from xx but wish you the best of luck with your projects.” Maybe students could talk about how they might react to that type of email—or draft their own polite decline, as we talk about in business communication textbooks.

The article gives an example of not asking permission: when someone knows the person very well and sends a thoughtful, complimentary email. Students might agree, particularly if they are looking for work and an introduction gets them close to a potential hiring manager.

The author raises the question of how long to keep the introducer on the email chain. I suggest including the introducer on one email from each responder. “Thanks, Jamie, for the introduction! Matt, I’m glad to meet you . . .” As the introducer (which I was recently, after getting permission from both parties, of course), I like to see that the people responded. But that’s enough. I don’t need to be involved in plans for a lunch to which I’m not invited.

Universities Quiet After Election but Criticized

Compared to the 2016 election, university leaders are saying little about President-elect Trump’s victory, which tracks with decreased CEO activism and statements over the past couple of years. But universities are criticized for “coddling” students.

In May, Harvard clarified its communication strategy related to world events, and this week was a chance to put the plan in place. Other universities have followed suit, but a Chronicle of Higher Education article identifies a few statements (from more liberal universities) that student can compare—in addition to their own school’s response or lack of: American University, Emerson College, and Morgan State University.

None of these are as bold as that of Wesleyan President Michael Roth. Having spoken against neutrality, Roth writes openly against Trump’s policies and stance on deportation, DEI, and “attacks on higher education,” which he describes in a paragraph towards the end:

The attacks on higher education, on democracy, on the rule of law, threaten to sweep away freedoms that have been hard-won over the last 100 years. Education is a process through which people develop their capacities for exploration, collaboration and creative endeavors. They learn to treat new ideas with curiosity and respect, even as they are also taught to critically evaluate these ideas. They learn skills that will be valued beyond the university and habits of mind and spirit that will help them flourish throughout their lives. They work to think for themselves so that they can be engaged citizens of a democracy rather than mere subjects of an authoritarian regime. That work has never been more important.

FoxNews reported on universities offering students a “self-care suite,” milk and cookies, hot cocoa, Legos, and coloring games. Showing groups of crying students, the article mocks these practices as well as the cancellation of classes and quizzes. Students can weigh in on these practices, the criticism, and how people might react differently, for example, if they come from immigrant families.

The Elephant/Donkey in the Room

At the 2024 International Association for Business Communication conference in Tulsa, I presented with my Cornell colleagues David Lennox and Christy McDowell about whether and how faculty might discuss U.S. election communications in their classes. Here’s the slide deck and a summary. You’ll see that we co-opted a title from the Southeastern region, which was catchier than our academic title.

We acknowledge that these conversations can be challenging and that faculty decide for themselves whether and how to engage. Tackling this topic requires courage and compassion—for instructors and for students.

Identify Benefits and Risks

We started the presentation with a few benefits about engaging the class to discuss election communications (for example, candidate debates and speeches, campaign emails and texts, ads). Faculty might see these classroom conversations as a way to model civil discourse—a training ground for students to engage others in their professional and personal lives. Faculty might want use election examples to illustrate business communication principles. In addition, faculty might feel personally motivated—a civic responsibility to discuss these messages, which students might not have an opportunity to discuss in any other class.

Then we described a risk assessment model (Kidder, Moral Courage) that includes evaluating potential ambiguity (for example, university mixed messages or unclear guidelines, whether we believe the discussion would be valuable, and perhaps, questions about our own facilitation skills). Faculty might also consider potential emotional exposure (for example, that we might get emotional or flustered during a class discussion or that we might hear student complaints). Finally, we might fear loss (for example, damaged relationships with students or colleagues, risks to tenure or promotion, or harm to students who speak out in class). We weigh the potential risks against the benefits to determine our classroom strategy.

Connect Election Communications to Course Learning Objectives

For faculty who choose to engage, we offered several course learning objectives, shown here, that connect to election communications. Closely tying any class discussion into course outcomes puts us on more solid ground, with a justifiable reason to bring examples into the classroom.

Explore Strategies to Engage with Students

Given these realities, we described strategies for approaching election communications. We all probably have ground rules, perhaps that students participated in creating. Depending on the course, these could include deeper, interpersonal guidance, such as, “Be open to others' views and appreciate differences,” and “Keep confidential discussions that the community has of a personal (or professional) nature.”

Next we applied a Rhetorical Sensitivity model to these potentially challenging classroom discussions. The rhetorically sensitive person (Hart and Burks, 1972):

• Tries to accept role‐taking as part of the human condition

• Attempts to avoid stylized verbal behavior

• Is characteristically willing to undergo the strain of adaptation

• Seeks to distinguish between all information and that information acceptable for communication

• Tries to understand that an idea can be rendered in multi‐form ways

Finally, we described Tango, a team game that Cornell Dyson students participated in during a first-year course. They had good results from the activity: “a statistically significant effect on students’ intent to get to know Cornell students of different political views.” Contact CEO Scott Warren at swarren@jhu.edu for more information about Tango.

Two Examples of Personal, Handwritten Notes

Two recent examples illustrate the value of handwritten notes described in Business Communication and Character, Chapter 6: messages on Starbucks coffee cups and get-out-the-vote postcards.

New Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol is bringing back the personal notes on cups to lure customers who have left. Armed with 200,000 Sharpie markers, baristas will write names or messages on cups, a practice that stopped in 2020 during the pandemic. His other ideas are the condiment bar and cushy furniture to recapture the “second place” that Starbucks used to be. I wonder how baristas feel about the change, which will likely add time to each order. Were baristas involved in this decision? See my other post about communicating change.

The second example of a handwritten message is the get-out-the-vote postcard. Studies show a higher turnout rate when people receive these cards, depending on the audience and the type of postcard and message. Although from 2018, one project used six different postcards to determine impact. They found that a partially printed postcard with a handwritten message did just as well as a fully handwritten message and that neat, legible handwriting is important to the recipient.

Students will have their own examples of personal, handwritten notes, although perhaps few of them. This is an opportunity to talk about when and how to write notes during the job selection process.

Image source.

Bezos Explains His Decision

Amazon CEO and Owner of the Washington Post Jeff Bezos decided that the paper, for the first time since 1988, will not endorse a U.S. presidential candidate. Bezos explained his decision in an opinion piece students can analyze as an example of a persuasive message.

After The Post lost about 200,000, or 8%, of its subscribers, and three editorial board members resigned, Bezos was compelled to respond to the criticism. He frames his argument as, “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media,” citing the Gallup Poll about trust in the media, which has declined.

In this section of the piece, students can identify persuasive strategies they learned in class:

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction.

First is a claim that endorsements influence no one. We don’t see evidence for this claim, and saying “none” may render the argument fallacious. Second, he claims that endorsements “create a perception of bias.” Maybe, but the larger point is that the paper (media) itself is perceived as biased. How does he know that an endorsement increases that perception? In the last sentence, he argues that resisting an endorsement will build trust. Again, how does he know? What did he think during the past two elections when The Post did endorse a candidate? What’s different now?

Calling upon Eugene Meyer’s position is useful, but students might have questions about Meyer’s background and the historical context of the time. Also, Bezos damages his credibility having allowed two previous endorsements during his ownership. He uses variations of “principle” four times in the piece, which is part of one’s integrity, or consistency. Bezos also says he wishes they (he?) had made the decision earlier, but he doesn’t explain the hold-up other than “inadequate planning.”

Bezos addresses the potential conflict of interest directly. He writes that the timing of the chief executive of one of his companies meeting with President Trump—on the day of the announcement—was coincidental and unknown to him. This sounds believable but is certainly unfortunate timing. Of course, a coincidental meeting also doesn’t mean there isn’t a conflict of interest. Bezos denies using his wealth and power to influence decisions at the paper and admits that he’s a “complexifier” for The Post, as The Post is for him. This is certainly true, and his invented word is fitting.

Others cite media fear of retaliation after the election. Is it best for the paper (and the LA Times) to remain neutral and, perhaps, better whether the storm after this highly controversial and possibly contested election? If he had addressed this issue as directly as the potential conflict of interest, would that have increased his credibility?

However students analyze Bezos’s argument, the situation creates a “bad PR look” for The Post and might harm, rather than help, trust in the media.

Image source.

New CEOs: Lessons for Communicating Change

A Wall Street Journal article describes expectations for new CEOs at Boeing and Starbucks: communicating early and often. The article raises questions about communicating change.

Early communication represents a shift from the “listening tours” and roundtables CEOs held in the past. We seemed to expect a leader to hear from employees and learn the business before taking action. But now, maybe particularly for Boeing and Starbucks leaders, who are facing critical tests, people have little patience for the learning curve.

Boeing faces challenges of safety issues and labor strikes. Starbucks faces staffing issues and declining sales. But the CEOs have a similar message, as the WSJ reports:

“First, we need a fundamental culture change in the company,” Ortberg wrote to Boeing staff on Wednesday. A day earlier, as Starbucks suspended its financial guidance and disclosed weak results for its fourth quarter, Niccol said in a video message: “We need to fundamentally change our recent strategy.” 

Students might discuss the implications of these recent leaders determining a new direction or making promises before more investigation. Some questions are, how do they build trust and buy-in quickly, what is enough information, and how do they take decisive action while allowing for revision if a strategy fails?

This Change Management Toolkit from Berkeley staff shows how communication is too often an afterthought, is only in service of the project as already defined, and considers little of what we know about emotional reactions to change. The chart mentions communication during the first stage, Pre-Implementation: “Communicate expected project benefits to impacted stakeholders.” But who determined the benefits? Were stakeholders involved in the goal setting and planning? During the second stage, Implementation, again, the communication seems to be about telling people and getting input on what was already done. Post-Implementation, once again, “celebrate[s]” benefits.

Where are those affected by change? What about their ideas about changes and their potential reactions? Without addressing employees’ fears and concerns about change, leaders might not get the buy-in they desire.

The toolkit does include a “Change Communications Plan Overview,” starting on page 41 of the 50-page document, but it feels like an afterthought, as communication often does during organizational change. In fairness, a section before this offers suggestions for getting feedback, but still, this is all after the change is implemented.

Students might discuss their own experiences of a new manager and an organizational change. They also might consider what the new Boeing and Starbucks CEOs should communicate—before they implement initiatives to “fundamentally change” anything.

How Presidential Candidates Are Using TikTok

Students might be interested in a Financial Times article about the presidential candidates’ TikTok strategies. The article recalls that the 2016 election was all about Facebook. This time, it’s TikTok, particularly for rallying young voters.

With 6.2 million followers, VP Harris’s page includes a video with 4 million views. She talks on the phone to a man’s granddaughter, Evie, and President Biden (still handsy!) joins in.

With 12.4 million followers, Former President Trump’s page includes a video with 13.8 million views. It’s a compilation of people I don’t know but students probably do endorsing him in Las Vegas. The song is by Nettspend, a 17-year-old rapper.

Of course, I’m cherry picking just two examples here that aren’t representative of the candidates’ social media strategies or presence. Students can draw their own conclusions based on their views.

The FT article quoted a get-out-the-vote creator: “Harris’s TikTok strategy is ‘aspirational for any brand, let alone a politician,’ where Trump’s feels ‘less native’ to TikTok and closer to traditional campaign material.” Students might identify the implications for (other) brands—a relevant topic for business communication classes.

This chart shows numbers of views, with more for Harris, despite having half the followers of Trump. This is at least partly because Harris is posting 20 times the number of videos. However, like the polls, I’m not sure their strategies or this data tell us anything about who will win the election.

New System for "Gate Lice"

American Airlines is testing a system to discourage people from crowding the gate before it’s their turn to board. Students can discuss the ethics and whether the company will achieve its objectives.

Apparently, “gate lice” is an industry term or, at least, used by American Airlines employees to describe people who jump the line. This group always baffled me: Why spend more time than you have to on the plane? According to a Washington Post article, “Experts in human behavior say travelers who mass at the gate ahead of their turn do so out of a tendency to conform —and out of a sense of competition.” More specifically, some might want to make sure they can stow (rather than check) their carryon and have it nearby if space is limited.

The new system flags these folks with an “audible signal.” One benefit is removing the responsibility of a busy gate agent, who might miss the group number or feel uncomfortable asking a passenger to step aside. However, the sound—and referring to someone as lice—seems shaming.

Feedback from rule-following passengers so far is positive. But students might consider the long-term effects of the system. After all, this is another attempt to control the unruly passenger, which is a real issue. But could this disciplinary approach change behavior in the short term, while creating a more negative flying experience in the long run? Removing accountability from both the gate agent and the passenger inspires more policies and rules to guide good behavior. In the end, could this also remove common sense and good communication?

Image source.

McDonald's President Reassures Us After E. Coli Outbreak

McDonald’s president illustrates crisis communication strategies after the E. coli outbreak that, as of now, killed one person, left 49 sick, and contributed to a 5% drop in stock price, the biggest loss since 2020.

On a webpage titled, “Always Putting Food Safety First,” McDonald’s posted a video of President Joe Erlinger explaining the steps the company has taken. He focuses on isolating the crisis: listing in which products (only the Quarter Pounder) and states (only a few) where E. coli was found and blaming the onions. This strategy achieves two communication objectives: encouraging consumers to return to McDonald’s and shifting responsibility to a supplier.

The video is odd in that Erlinger demonstrates no compassion and offers no apology. Business communication students know that being a bit more human doesn’t imply culpability. His approach is strictly "an update . . . because food safety is so important to me and to everyone at McDonald’s.” Isn’t it time for companies (looking at you, Boeing) to stop saying how important safety is?

Erlinger also appeared on the Today show, saying, three times, that they took swift and decisive action—twice with active and once with passive voice. “Top priority” also got four plays during the short interview but was more appropriately used as anaphora. Clearly he received coaching. Following well-worn media strategies, he avoided speculation about other products impacted, and he transitioned a couple of times to “what’s important today” (the action they took).

The interview ended with a question about inflated prices and reputational damage. Erlinger recalled advice from McDonald’s founder, “If you take care of our customers, the business will take care of itself.” His objective is to inspire confidence, a word he uses twice at the end. But students will notice that he doesn’t sound or appear very confident. He’s a man managing through a crisis, and it shows.

#Desperate to Work and Willing to Be Vulnerable

A Wall Street Journal article describes increasing popularity of the LinkedIn banner, “Desperate.” Students might discuss the value of vulnerability and whether they would use the banner given the tough job market for recent grads.

A few months ago, I wrote about the “Open to Work” banner, but the urgency to find a job has escalated for some seekers. The pink is glaring, and the message is clear, but as we might expect, the results are less clear, according to the WSJ report:

The #Desperate banner draws even more attention to someone’s need for a job. Recruiters say the tag could help people get noticed and hired. It also could backfire, because some hiring managers might see it as a signal that someone caused problems in their previous workplace.

Brené Brown has made vulnerability a household word, and we know the value. Allowing ourselves to risk emotional exposure inspires connection, and that may be true for job seekers. Those with the banner report receiving good support from others, if not full-time offers. One poster said, “I don’t think the desperate banner takes away my confidence or bravery,” while another said, “Frankly, as a victim of redundancy, I am desperate, and I don’t think that’s anything to be ashamed of.” 

My guess is that the banner will be short lived. The bold color and novelty draw attention that might fizzle the more we see it. I also hope the job market for this cohort improves, which would reduce the desperation and the need.

Image source.

Comms About the Internet Archive Breach

After a major breach, the Internet Archive founder sends casual bad-news messages.

The Archive, including the Wayback Machine, is home to more than 840 billion web pages. Last month, the BBC reported the Archive as a valuable and vulnerable resource, and this month, we’re seeing why. The article also describes controversy about the service offering books and other content for free, the subject of a lawsuit the organization lost in 2023.

Although user information for more than 31 million people was compromised, the founder’s message on X focused on what most concerned the public: the integrity of the content and when the site would be back up.

In addition to the message on X, I found only three short posts on Bluesky and Mastodon—all below and at right:

Update: @internetarchive’s data has not been corrupted. Services are currently stopped to upgrade internal systems. We are working to restore services as quickly and safely as possible. Sorry for this disruption.

A note on the website just says simply this:

Temporarily Offline

Internet Archive services are temporarily offline.

Please check our official accounts, including Twitter/X, Bluesky or Mastodon for the latest information.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

These aren’t the typical data breach emails from a CEO. Kahle doesn’t offer suggestions for users to, for example, change passwords, which others advise.

He sounds like someone who lives in a high-crime area and expects to be robbed: “Sorry, but DDOS folks are back . . .” Kahle says nothing about the group, but a Newsweek article reported that a "pro-Palestinian hacktivist movement” claimed responsibility for the attack. Kahle might be more cautious about accepting that claim—or might not want to give the group publicity, whether it is responsible or not.

FEMA Website and “Rumor Response”

As southern parts of the United States manage through two recent hurricanes, students might find it useful to analyze the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website, including its response to criticism.

Students can start by identifying the audience and communication objectives for the website. They might identify the primary audience as people in immediate need and the secondary audience as other U.S. citizens. One main goal is to help people find assistance, and another is to encourage preparation. When I attended a New York emergency preparedness training a few months ago, the speaker was clear about the purpose: to build our confidence, with the theory that we’ll fare better in a crisis if we have some tools (e.g., a to-go bag, a LifeStraw) and a positive mindset that we can help ourselves and others.

On the upside, the FEMA website is kept current. Milton gets top billing, with Helene, just days earlier, on a second screen. I question the graphic choice on this home page. Do we need to see what a hurricane looks like? Two other photos on the carousel seem like better choices: people talking, presumably being helped by FEMA agents.

The next section shows ways FEMA can help. The icons and actions are all clear. Students might compare the current site with former versions at the Internet Archive (currently down because of a hack—another post on that communication is coming). Farther down the page, we see how people affected by Helene, by state, can apply for assistance. Soon, I’m sure we’ll see links for those affected by Milton.

Politicians have criticized FEMA’s response to Helene, and the agency defends itself on a separate page titled, “Hurricane Rumor Response,” a curious title that could also be, “Hurricane Response Rumors.” Either way, “rumor” is a clever framing, clearing some political muck by downgrading the issue to office gossip or a child’s bullying.

The rumors are so plentiful that FEMA apparently has a database searchable by text or topic (two hurricanes so far). Someone spent some time on this, and a worthwhile class discussion would ask students why. Officials have talked about rumors preventing people from getting available help they need—and about morale issues within the agency (which I’m guessing is already feeling beleaguered). It’s, indeed, a strange time when the agency deployed for a crisis faces one itself.

Perhaps writing them as positive actions people can take instead of as negative rumors would more likely achieve the agency’s purpose, as in this example:

Why not surface the second part first? I would hate for someone, reading quickly, to take away that “FEMA only provides loans.” The point is to get people to apply for assistance, not to highlight the rumor.

A Late Tote Bag Isn't a Tragedy

A friend sent me this HelloFresh email with a note: “For your blog. Like I’m sitting here fretting over my free tote bag.” Sometimes communication and customer service people need better perspective.

The email is clear enough: The free tote bag is delayed. But I agree it’s a bit much for the transgression. The email reads as though something far worse has happened. Calling it an “isolated incident” and saying they’re “work[ing] through” issues is language best left to crisis communication strategists. That last bit—thanking the reader for understanding and patience—is overdone and, in my view, a bold assumption for any message.

Students might agree that customers should be notified, if only to avoid questions. But students could write a simpler, more appropriate email.

Although tempting, sidestepping the issue entirely—“Your free tote bag is on its way!”—doesn’t feel quite right either. I don’t know all the history, but it seems as though some apology/explanation/acknowledgment is appropriate.

Maybe an email could be as simple as this:

Your free HelloFresh tote bag will be delivered within 60 days. We apologize for the delay. [And then something uplifting. They could show a picture of it, offer a small discount, or say something cute like, “It’s worth the wait!”]

This is technically a bad-news message—but not that bad. Demonstrating compassion could include a recognition of other, far worse problems in someone’s life.

Diet Mountain Dew Debate Ad Skirts Politics

Diet Mountain Dew capitalized on the VP debate but cleverly avoided any political opinions.

Apparently another area of agreement between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz is their love of the sugary stuff. So, “of course,” as a Forbes article says, Diet Mountain Dew placed an ad during the VP debate.

The ad effectively highlights the product’s moment of fame without choosing sides. Most Americans now think brands should stay out of politics, with Republicans and Independents feeling most strongly about the issue.

The 15-second commercial is simple and fun, with the bright green bottles in the limelight against grey tones. Guards want some but can’t have it, as though the product is exclusive, which students may recognize as the scarcity effect.

The ad is a good example of brands connecting with current events—to show their relevance and cultural sensitivity—without causing controversy. This reminds me of Marco Rubio’s awkward dip for water, which gave Poland Springs an easy advertising opportunity. The response was delayed, but the company eventually posted a cute picture of the famous water bottle on Facebook. This feels so old-timey now, before brands were expected to, and then shunned for, commenting on political issues.

BCom Lessons From the VP Debate

The U.S. vice presidential debate offers business communication lessons in reporting, delivery style, evidence, and answering questions.

A large, top-of-page Wall Street Journal heading claims victory for J.D. Vance and highlights delivery skills: “Vance Confident, Walz Uneven in Debate Heavy on Policy.” Students might discuss how “confident” and “uneven” are assessed. What makes Vance sound “confident”? Does “uneven” refer only to Walz’s delivery style or to his overall performance?

The beginning of the debate (before I fell asleep) offers obvious examples of delivery. Tim Walz, the first to respond to a question, spoke slowly and hesitated during the first few sentences, repeated words (said “fundamental” four times in four consecutive sentences), and said “Iran” instead of “Israel.” Vance came out strong. Before answering the first question, he gave a mini-bio, including his difficult upbringing—relating to voters who also find themselves in difficult life circumstances.

Unlike the right-leaning WSJ, the left-leaning New York Times homepage requires scrolling past five articles about the war in the Middle East on the left-hand side before we see the headline: “Takeaways From the Vance-Walz Debate: Civility and Then a Clash Over Jan. 6.” If I recall correctly, the placement on each publisher’s webpage was about opposite for the presidential debate, which analysts reported as a victory for Kamala Harris.

Students can analyze CBS News’s fact-checking, presented in a video. The video allows for clips from the debate and nuance. We see a slider—not a yes/no—assessment of four points. The first, about opioid deaths, receives a “partially true” rating with an explanation of when data started to be collected and the percentage claimed. We don’t hear the sources of the claimed or the fact-checked data, and students might question the source of the fact-checking itself. Like any source, CBS News demonstrates bias, if not in the analysis, then in the selection of issues to check. Another news source would choose different “facts” to check. Regardless, the video—only 8 minutes to fact check the entire debate—could make for good class viewing.

Another relevant topic is how the candidates responded to questions. Three examples might be interesting to explore with students. First, Vance’s responses to the question about immigrants in Springfield, OH, which caused his mic to be turned off. Second, Walz’s response to his claim of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. And third, that last question from Walz: “Did Trump lose the 2020 election?” For this question, Vance chose the classic communication strategy of deflecting the question, saying he wanted to stay “focused on the future,” and then transitioning to, “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?" Of course, that is also is the past. Walz called his response a “damning non-answer.” Students might analyze what “damning” means in this case. Damning for what or whom?

Otherwise, the debate was more civil than many, with candidates pointing out areas of agreement throughout. This is worth students’ attention as well.