Jobs Report and Graphics

A Wall Street Journal article illustrates simple graphics for the latest jobs report and serves as a good discussion starter for students about their own prospects.

The classic bar chart shows non-farm jobs added over the past couple of years. Student might compare the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ presentation and the Wall Street Journal’s. Of course, the WSJ adds some color, including red to highlight the latest data point. But the axis ranges show the biggest differences. The WSJ pulled data back from 2022, forcing a larger x-axis range and including the uptick in 2022, which may imply more volatility and a lower number in 2025.

The BLS includes -100 on its x-axis—a good idea to illustrate potential losses, which of course, we see in longer-range job charts. For perspective on the current employment economy, these would be interesting for students to explore.

Students might create a different chart from the BLS data and tell their own story. Their story might involve a tougher time finding full-time employment, which is an obvious problem with these domestic averages.

A useful discussion is why the BLS and WSJ chose a bar chart for jobs added and a line chart for the unemployment rate. The bar compares discrete values each month, while the line chart shows the trend of a continuous data point over time. A line chart could work for jobs, too, and we’ll see this display as well. Students could search for “jobs added” and compare the graphics.

Mattel Communicates Tariff Response

Mattel communicated its plans as tariffs go into effect. Companies are in a tough spot. As a Financial Times writer explains, “Public companies have been reluctant to make concrete predictions over the effects of tariffs, as they struggle to keep up with rapid policy changes or seek to avoid antagonising Washington.”

Mattel depends on 40% of its production from China and 10% from Mexico. In the company’s fourth quarter financial report, guidance for 2025 includes the following:

Guidance includes the anticipated impact of new U.S. tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada imports announced on February 1st, and mitigating actions we plan to take, including leveraging the strength of our supply chain, and potential pricing.

Reading between the lines, students might understand that Mattel plans to reduce sourcing outside the United States (a CNBC article confirms plans to reduce the amount from 50% to 25% by 2027) and will try to absorb increased costs. In other words, Mattel is saying, we’ll be fine, but we might raise prices. In the end, as CNBC reports, Mattel, like Chipotle and many others, may have “consumers pay the rest.”

A New York Post headline is more blunt: “Mattel shares spike 15% after toy giant says it will raise Barbie prices because of China tariffs.” The article explains how toy companies, although vulnerable because 80% of their products are made in China, produce 80% new toys each year and have a captive audience: kids who want the latest toys and parents who will pay for them.

Price increases are one of those situations that is good or bad news depending on the audience. Either way, we could see it as an issue of integrity: Mattel’s language isn’t quite transparent (clear and accurate), although it’s appropriate for the primary audience of investors.

Image source.

Grammy CEO Models Crisis Recovery

Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. delivered a surprising speech during the 2025 Grammy Awards, directly addressing criticism of the awards and explaining actions taken.

He described the situation when he became CEO in 2020. He said some artists were “pretty vocal in their complaints” and described reading about the Weeknd’s boycott in the newspaper. This approach gives us a window into the personal impact and might engender compassion:

I remember waking up to the headlines that the Weeknd called out the Academy for lack of transparency in our awards. He went so far as to announce he was boycotting the Grammys. That made for some interesting reading over breakfast. But you know what? Criticism is, okay. I heard him. I felt his conviction.

Next, Mason described the Recording Academy’s “transformation,” including new initiatives and a more diverse voting body. As he ends this segment, he promises, “I firmly believe we’re on the right path,” but he says there’s still work to do.

Finally, he transitions to introduce the Weeknd!

As we've seen tonight, music is a powerful force for good. It heals us, it unites us, and we need that in this city right now. With that in mind, on a truly special night, what better way to bring us together than this next artist? Someone who has seen the work the Academy has put in. I'm so honored to leave you with a sentence that I wasn't sure would ever be said on the Grammy stage again. My friends, my fellow music makers, please join me in welcoming back none other than four-time Grammy-winning artist and global superstar, The Weeknd.

This is a preventable (not victim or accidental) crisis situation, so the Academy had to take responsibility and do better. In their book, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs might call this an “extreme crisis,” which requires more significant actions in response. Mason described them well, and his delivery is appropriate for the awards ceremony: scripted but conversational. This is a good example for students to analyze.

New AI Copyright Ruling and My Book Guidance

Students may want to know about the U.S. Copyright Office’s new ruling: AI-assisted works can be copyrighted if enough human creativity contributed to the product.

With 207 citations, the 52-page report clarifies what AI output can be copyrighted, challenging previous thinking that no output can carry the protection. The ruling is most relevant to people in creative fields who use AI to produce music, film, artwork, etc., but has implications for all of us. The National Law Review summarized the latest:

The Office reiterated its position that copyright protection may currently be available for: (a) human-created works of authorship used as inputs/prompts that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs; (b) creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs (i.e., compilations); (c) creative modifications of the outputs; and (d) the prompts themselves if they are sufficiently creative (but not the outputs created in response to the prompts).

The last point is perhaps the most relevant: prompts alone do not constitute human intervention into AI results. Additional human creativity and authorship are essential.

With a reference to Paula Lentz’s article on ethical authorship, here’s what I included in the upcoming 12th edition of Business Communication and Character on the topic:

Regardless of how you use AI, you are always the author of your work. Maintain your own authorship, including your authority and authenticity, over your writing—in other words, yourself. You want your writing to represent you and your character—not whatever content GenAI generates from existing sources; that output isn’t necessarily original work. Depending on the task, think of AI as a collaborator, an assistant, or a coach—but never a replacement for you.

With this guidance, AI output can certainly be copyrighted. For example, inputting a curated dataset or rearranging or changing results could be enough human creativity. But what is sufficient to reach this threshold remains to be seen.

American Airlines' Evolving Crisis Communications

American Airlines has posted several messages as part of its crisis response to the tragic Flight 5342 crash en route from Wichita, Kansas (ICT), to Washington, D.C. (DCA). The CEO’s videos serve as a model of bad-news communication, and he cleverly and subtlety shifts blame away from the airline.

Calling the tragedy an “accident,” American Airlines places the crash into one of the three categories of crises: victim, accident, or preventable. (See Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Routledge, 2022.) Unlike a preventable crisis, such as financial impropriety, an accidental crisis doesn’t require company leaders to take responsibility. Of course, leaders still need to express sympathy for those affected, but they do not apologize as they would when blamed for a crisis.

American Airlines created a webpage to chronicle the company’s response and what they know. So far, four messages are posted, with blame increasingly shifting elsewhere.

• An initial announcement describes the event with little information and a hotline number. At this point, responsibility is unclear.

• A video from CEO Robert Isom expresses sympathy and concern. His delivery is scripted, but he sounds serious and measured. He promises to “take care of all passengers and crew involved and their families.” He says the AA flight “appears to have collided with a military aircraft on approach.”

• One day later, a second video thanks the Safety Board and others. Now he says they’re focused on the “families and loved ones.” He says “recovery efforts” are continuing, but it’s fairly clear at this point that no one survived the crash. Again, his tone reflects a caring, engaged executive.

  He also begins to shift blame, saying the reverse of his previous message: “A military helicopter collided with American Eagle flight 5342 upon its approach” and “This flight was operated under PSA, one of our wholly owned carriers.”

• The fourth message, below, further shifts blame. President Trump has blamed DEI efforts for the crash: "I put safety first. Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first. The FAA's website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and dwarfism." Isom doesn’t address these comments, but he expresses gratitude for the president’s “leadership on aviation safety,” and “applaud(s)” the Administration’s response. His focus is on military helicopters, focusing on new reports that helicopters may be crowding the airspace around D.C. airports.

Isom is front and center during the crisis communication, as he should be as the leader of a major company involved in a tragedy. In addition to framing the crisis as an “accident,” he doesn’t blame others directly but increasingly shifts attention away from AA to the carrier and to the military. The last sentence in his statement implies a historical lack of investment in critical resources.

CEO Robert Isom statement on the Trump Administration action on aviation safety

Friday, January 31, 2025, 2:45 p.m.

American Airlines CEO Robert Isom issued the following statement surrounding changes to flight activity at DCA: “We are all hurting as we continue to grieve the loss of our passengers and team members. I thank President Trump for his leadership on aviation safety. I applaud him, Secretary Duffy and the Administration for taking quick and decisive action today to restrict helicopter activity around DCA. In the days ahead, we will work tirelessly with the Administration and leaders in Congress to make our aviation system even safer, including by increasing investments in infrastructure, technology and personnel.”

Analyzing an Argument: Institutional Neutrality for Corporations

A New York Times opinion encourages corporate leaders to “keep your mouth shut.” Students can analyze the argument in light of research about public opinion.

The authors, professors at the University of Chicago Law School, point to their article published in The University of Chicago Business Law Review. They compare corporate leaders’ choices to universities increasingly adopting institutional neutrality, including Chicago, which adopted guidelines back in 1967. The authors suggest that corporate leaders do the same—avoid statements as well as political activity—particularly regarding President Trump and his policies.

The authors argue that corporate leaders cave to pressure, which creates a swell of demand for other corporate leaders to chime in. The resulting statements are either “vanilla” and meaningless or “veer away from the mainstream,” which causes backtracking.

Students might evaluate the opinion against counterarguments. One example is this Forbes opinion, which suggests three reasons for leaders to speak out: aligning with stakeholder values, enhancing brand reputation, and driving position change. Much of the University of Chicago researchers’ article describes notable exceptions to the rule, for example, mission- or values-driven reasons or significant stakeholder views, so these opinions aren’t entirely contradictory.

Students also might bring public opinion into the argument. A recent University of Iowa study confirms what the Chicago researchers suggest.

Ending by focusing on courage and, implied, integrity, the authors highlight two character dimensions for all leaders:

In both the business and university contexts, silence often takes courage and a commitment to institutional modesty. For a corporation, a general policy of silence can remind stakeholders that the business of the business is, well, business.

Vimeo CEO Video

Students can analyze this Vimeo CEO message to identify the audience and communication objectives and to assess his delivery style.

A little history is important. Vimeo has had a string of CEOs in the past few years and a number of senior leader departures. As the CEO since April 2024, Philip Moyer might want to make his mark, but students could question the audience, purpose, and medium choice.

It’s unclear who would watch the video, which is posted on Vimeo’s website and sent to users by email. On a positive note, Moyer describes the content creators Vimeo supports, and he mentions a few product features. But he’s not specific about what differentiates Vimeo or what plans are in place. This could add interest—if his audience cares to watch. Maybe acknowledging feedback from customers and describing how features how been improved would increase the audience focus. Maybe Moyer also could highlight a few standout projects created using Vimeo.

Students might comment on filming and Moyer’s delivery. The short video was shot in several segments, which makes it look staged. For only a minute of video, perhaps Moyer could have delivered his message in one take? Some of his gestures look too planned as well. If he were speaking for a minute, we might see more fluid, natural gestures.

Coors Typo and Response

Coors is going all-in on a typo on billboard and full-page newspaper ads—or they planned it all along. One of only three words in the giant ad is misspelled: refershment.

It’s hard to imagine how designers and copyeditors would miss the typo. Ready to respond, the company sent a press release and posted a clever explanation on social media platforms: “a case of the Mondays.” In addition to the obvious typo, the response rings false. On the Instagram post shown here, Mondays is written three times, including in the caption. The repetition could be a persuasive strategy, or it could be cloying for a reaction.

Now, a new campaign renames the beer to Mondays Light, which will be available, in a case, of course, for a limited time. A Superbowl ad connects a Case of the Mondays to “the worst Monday of all. The Monday after the big game.” Social tags, a contest, even a hat are converging into a grand campaign.

ChatGPT tells me the campaign is lauded, but even AI is confused. The response starts by calling the misspelling “intentional” and ends by saying Coors is “leveraging a potential mishap.” It all feels silly to me, but I don’t drink beer or watch football.

Meta's “Non-regrettable Attrition”

Another year, another euphemism for layoffs. Downsize, rightsize, smartsize, rationalize, amortize, reduce, redeploy, reallocate, reorganize, restructure, offshore, outsource, outplace—and now “non-regrettable attrition,” which has no ready verb form, as though it’s something beyond a company’s control.

A Forbes writer sums up the issue:

There’s also nothing wrong with categorizing turnover into desired (company-initiated) and undesired (employee-initiated) attrition.

But the term "non-regrettable attrition" that Meta used is a poor choice of words.

It’s not just tone-deaf—it comes across as dismissive and arrogant.

The writer explains the damage the label does to an individual who might find more suitable employment elsewhere. It’s a good point: a poor performer in one job can be quite successful in another.

We also see an issue of integrity, or inconsistency, in the company’s messaging. Although Zuckerberg’s memo to staff, below, doesn’t mention the term, Hillary Champion, Meta's Director of People Development Growth Programs, separately, said the goal is for 10% non-regrettable attrition: “This means we are aiming to exit approximately another 5% of our current employees [in 2025] who have been with the company long enough to receive a performance rating.”

I thought the term also lacked accountability because “attrition” typically is used to mean people leaving an organization voluntarily. But I was wrong: Gartner defines attrition as both voluntary and involuntary.

Still, another character dimension worth mentioning is compassion. “Non-regrettable attrition” communicates some combination of “We don’t care about you,” and “Don’t let the door…”

---

The full memo is below from Mark Zuckerberg to staff follows:

Meta is working on building some of the most important technologies in the world — Al, glasses as the next computing platform, and the future of social media. This is going to be an intense year, and I want to make sure we have the best people on our teams.

I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster. We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle — with the intention of backfilling these roles in 2025. We won’t manage out everyone who didn’t meet expectations for the last period if we’re optimistic about their future performance, and for those we do let go we’ll provide generous severance in line with what we’ve provided with previous cuts.

We’ll follow up with more guidance for managers ahead of calibrations. People who are impacted will be notified on February 10 — or later for those outside the US.

Letting people go is never easy. But I’m confident this will strengthen our teams and help us build leading technology to enable the future of human connection.

Starbucks Union Example of Persuasive Communication

Starbucks Workers Union messaging illustrates several persuasive communication strategies. Students can analyze the website, Instagram posts, Tiktok videos, and other content to determine which are most and least effective.

Students will have no trouble finding communication examples during the strike that workers promise will last through Christmas in Seattle, Los Angeles and Chicago. Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Influence, Topoi, rhetorical appeals (logos, pathos, ethos), or other frameworks can be used for analysis.

The website and a video offer a few examples of rhetorical appeals, with connections to other frameworks.

Logical Argument (Logos)

A video shows an employee talking about pride flags that hadn’t been put up this year—the first in the 5 or 6 years since she has worked at the store. The employee claims this is inconsistent with Starbucks’ “claims to care about LGBTQ+ employees.” Students might find Starbucks’ messaging about LGBTQ+ support and analyze her argument—and that of Starbucks. Is not having a ladder a legitimate safety issue? If it is, does that mean Starbucks doesn’t care about LGBTQ+ employees? How could union activity affect this situation?

Emotional Appeal (Pathos)

This statement is an appeal based on emotions, particularly what Starbucks partners consider as poor working conditions. They hope this will inspire people to support their cause. The reference to Starbucks profits could be an example of Topoi, comparison—comparing low salaries (although it’s not mentioned explicitly here) to money “raked in” by the company.

How We Got Here

As partners at Starbucks stores across the country, we have long experienced understaffing, overwork, and a lack of say in our workplace. Meanwhile, Starbucks has raked in record, billion-dollar profits.

Credibility/Trust (Ethos)

Referring to themselves beyond their Starbucks role suggests credibility. This is also an example of Cialdini’s social proof: others acting similarly, which could inspire the reader to follow suit if they identify with the partners.

Meet Us

We’re not just baristas—we’re students, parents, forward-thinkers, and coffee fans united by the simple idea that we think Starbucks can be so much better when workers have a say in company and store operations.

Messaging is also about character, of course. In this quote, the employee questions the company’s integrity—promising but not delivering on that promise:

Nobody wants to strike. It’s a last resort, but Starbucks has broken its promise to thousands of baristas and left us with no choice. In a year when Starbucks invested so many millions in top executive talent, it has failed to present the baristas who make its company run with a viable economic proposal. This is just the beginning. We will do whatever it takes to get the company to honor the commitment it made to us in February.

Helping Someone Whose Parent Is Overly Involved

I was curious about this story of a business owner who stepped in to offer advice to a parent. The owner’s friend reported the story and focused on the owner’s feedback to the father, but I want to focus on what else would be helpful to the young person looking for employment.

Jason Feifer, editor of Entreprenuer, posted the story on LinkedIn with a question, “My friend sent this text—would you?” His friend, Jeff Peterson received four messages from a young man’s father, each asking for a job for his son. Frustrated and genuinely wanting to be helpful, Peterson sent the message here. On a Help Wanted Spotify episode, Jason, Jeff, and Nicole Lapin discussed the situation.

They questioned whether this type of message might be helpful for the dad, so he knows, as Jeff says, that he isn’t “doing [his son] any favors.” They talked about other options, for example, ghosting the dad or saying only that all positions were filled.

I might consider a different approach. My thinking is that the father already knows that his son, not him, should be taking the initiative for jobs. I’m having trouble imagining a situation where an ambitious, go-getter son tells his dad that he’s going to reach out to Jeff, and the father says, “Oh, no. I’ll do it.” Four times? We don’t know the situation or their relationship, but I’m thinking there may be other issues. In other words, this might be a desperate attempt for a son who can’t or won’t reach out himself.

One option for Jeff, as the business owner, is to simply write—perhaps after the first message (and maybe he did)—”I’d be glad to consider your son’s application. Have him reach out to me himself.” A greater time investment that might be even more helpful is to say, after this fourth message, “Our positions are filled, but have your son contact me directly. I’d be glad to talk with him about how he might approach his search for other positions.” Again, maybe Jeff did respond that way to earlier messages, but that wasn’t discussed in the podcast.

Either way, the dad’s insistence is out of line, as they say on the podcast. I’m guessing students would agree about that.

Fake Firing of Stressed Employees as a PR Move

YesMadam, an Indian home salon company, faced criticism for what may have been a PR campaign. Reports showed the owner firing employees for responding, on a survey, that they’re stressed.

According to a three-page statement on LinkedIn, no one was actually fired. The original message was part of “a planned effort to highlight the serious issue of workplace stress.” People are skeptical about whether that’s true—or whether employees had been fired, and then the company changed course. To me, the original message sounds false and, after all, YesMadam promotes wellness, including reduced stress. So the “joke” fits the brand.

Either way, the incident doesn’t reflect well on the company. This doesn’t seem like one of those, any-press-is-good-press-situations. The three-page statement is clearly promotional and includes language as though the company is considered a leader with “India’s first-ever De-Stress Leave Policy for employees.”

A marketing consultant told BBC:

It's crucial for brands to prioritise ethical marketing practices and avoid using people's emotions as a tool for self-promotion. While attention-grabbing tactics may work in the short term, they ultimately erode trust and damage brand reputation.

Here’s a related topic for student discussion: rage-baiting. Apparently, you get more clicks for rage than for joy.

McKinsey's Admission in a Settlement Statement

McKinsey may be the first consulting firm held criminally responsible for giving advice that led to a client’s criminal activity. As a result of the deferred prosecution agreement, we see a clear admission of guilt for the firm’s role in the opioid crisis. The statement offers an example of demonstrating accountability and compassion, particularly when compared to statements about previous settlements.

Pages from a McKinsey deck encouraging aggressive sales of opioids served as the introduction to Chapter 10 of the 11th edition of Business Communication and Character. Since then, McKinsey has settled other lawsuits, and each statement is posted on the firm’s website. Here are statements after other settlements for students to compare:

February 2021 (State Attorney Generals and others): Former CEO Kevin Sneader wrote:

We deeply regret that we did not adequately acknowledge the tragic consequences of the epidemic unfolding in our communities. With this agreement, we hope to be part of the solution to the opioid crisis in the U.S. . . . As I have said previously, we are determined to take the steps necessary to strengthen our firm’s risk management policies and culture. We will build on the steps we have already taken to learn from past mistakes, and ensure we consistently meet the high standards our firm has always aspired to.

Around that time, Sneader also wrote to staff:

Indeed, while our past work with opioid manufacturers was lawful and never intended to do harm, we have always held ourselves to a higher bar. We fell short of that bar. We did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction, and for that I am deeply sorry.

March 2021 (Nevada): This statement repeats part of the February 2021 quote and includes this statement:

As we noted in connection with the prior settlements, McKinsey believes its past work was lawful and has denied allegations to the contrary. The settlement agreement with Nevada, like those reached in February, contains no admission of wrongdoing or liability.

September 2023 (Political subdivisions and school districts): This statement mentions another settlement with Native American Tribes but includes no quote. This one sounds more defensive:

As we have stated previously, we continue to believe that our past work was lawful and deny allegations to the contrary, and the settlement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing. The firm entered into this agreement to avoid the time and expense of protracted litigation and, in the process, to support the efforts of these political subdivisions and school districts to help those affected by the opioid epidemic.

December 2024 (Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice): The purpose of this $650 million agreement is to avoid criminal prosecution, although one partner will plead guilty to obstructing evidence (deleting documents). The statement starts with this paragraph, with no sign of the previous “deny allegations” language:

We are deeply sorry for our past client service to Purdue Pharma and the actions of a former partner who deleted documents related to his work for that client. We should have appreciated the harm opioids were causing in our society and we should not have undertaken sales and marketing work for Purdue Pharma. This terrible public health crisis and our past work for opioid manufacturers will always be a source of profound regret for our firm.

This brings McKinsey’s settlement total to more than $1.5 billion in addition to the reputational damage. More significantly, other management consulting firms are now on notice. As U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy of Massachusetts said, “We will cut through the slick PowerPoints and the consultant speak and hold you accountable for your conduct if you engage in criminal violations.”

Image source.

Communication Implications of "Love Is Blind" Ruling

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that contestants on the popular Love Is Blind Netflix show are employees, not cast members. This story clarifies the definition and contractors’ rights, which could be important for students in their job search.

What could go wrong on a reality show that asks people to commit to marry each other without seeing each other, with millions of people watching? One thing is that cast members are unhappy and are speaking out about how they’re treated.

Love Is Blind contestants claimed “inhumane working conditions,” including low pay, not enough food or sleep, and too much alcohol. In other words, too much control over the cast members, which implies that they are employees. Show producers argue that contestants make their own decisions:

We document the independent choices of adults who volunteer to participate in a social experiment. Their journey is not scripted, nor is it filmed around the clock.

The IRS, Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act, and some states all have definitions of an employee when compared to an independent contractor, and they all include level of control over the work. Another issue is whether cast members can speak out about their negative experiences. In at least one case, the company started arbitration proceedings after a cast member talked about the show in a televised interview. The NLRB says confidentiality agreements and other contract provisions are illegal.

Uber and Lyft drivers have argued that they are employees of their companies. Although courts have decided that they are not, this situation may be different.

This will be an interesting case to follow, particularly for reality TV fans whose other favorite shows may be affected. Students should carefully consider contract employment agreements before they sign.

Image source.

Lyft and Apple Updating Terms of Service

A useful class activity would ask students to analyze how companies summarize changes to user agreements. Lyft and Apple Pay sent emails this week, but details about the changes aren’t clear.

Lyft’s email includes these major changes:

Terms of Service We're making updates related to the arbitration agreement between users and Lyft, restricted activities on the platform, insurance coverage for certain rides, and user eligibility requirements. These updates will apply to everyone who uses the Lyft Platform, including drivers, riders, and those who use bikes and third-party services. 

Privacy Policy As part of our commitment to respecting your privacy – and explaining how we're complying with new state privacy laws – we're adding information to our Privacy Policy. This includes more detail about the data we collect and why, how we use it, and how we may share it. It also includes updates that reflect new initiatives, such as rider verification. Plus, we've added details about our privacy tools and options to help you better understand your rights and the choices you have related to our data practices.

Apple Pay & Wallet summarized these changes:

• We have simplified our Terms and Conditions for Apple Pay and Wallet so that your review and agreement of these Terms and Conditions is effective across all of your Apple devices.

• For our US customers, Apple Pay is a service provided by Apple Payments Services LLC, a subsidiary of Apple Inc.

• Our Terms and Conditions now include standard assignment provisions.

Lyft’s changes seem significant. Maybe not the privacy policy changes, but all the terms of service changes sound like restrictions. If the changes mean stricter arbitration requirements, less platform functionality, reduced insurance—and who knows what about user eligibility, that could affect a user’s rights and experience.

Lyft’s entire Terms of Service (with the URL tag “preview,” so the link might change) is, according to ChatGPT, about 8,500 words, For such a long document, students might consider a company’s responsibility in communicating changes. Are the email summaries sufficient? I find myself wanting to see documents marked up to show the textual changes. Maybe they could show before-and-after tables?

Weighing in at a mere 5,000-6,000 words, Apple Pay & Wallet’s Terms and Conditions covers simpler transactions and relationships than does Lyft’s. The first two bullets in the email reflect administrative changes, and the last is legal-jargony, at least to me. Here’s the relevant last section, which comes after the ALL CAPS liability section.

8. Assignment

You may not transfer or assign any rights or obligations you have under these Apple Pay & Wallet Terms. Apple and Apple Payments Services may each transfer or assign these Apple Pay & Wallet Terms or any right or obligation under these Apple Pay & Wallet Terms at any time.

Is this new? Is this important to students? Should Apple have written more about this in the email?

I almost always breeze past these notices and wonder whether students do the same. It’s a potential issue of the company’s integrity if the email summary downplays important information for users.

Lyft image source.

Apple Pay image source.

Kohl's CEO Admits Mistakes

The outgoing Kohl’s CEO admitted failings, which students can analyze as an example of communicating bad news and accountability. The third-quarter earnings deck also serves as a class example.

One reason for Tom Kingsbury’s blunt admission is the obvious decline in sales and stock price. In the past two years, the stock declined 52%, and this quarter, sales declined 9.3%. In addition, Kingsbury is 72 years old and retiring; he may be concerned about his legacy, but he is no longer concerned about his next career move. Also, as a Citi analyst points out, he can’t blame macroeconomic conditions, as Target did recently, because Kohl’s decline is far beyond what we would expect from the results of inflation and more people shopping online.

Coming in as an activist investor, Kingsbury implemented ideas that didn’t work. Reducing petite clothing, jewelry sales, and private brand labels hurt sales. During the earnings webcast, Kingsbury said these decisions were “shortsighted.” He also said, “We thought, ‘We can do more with a lot less,’ and that didn’t work out for us.” On a positive note, he said, “We continue to believe our market brand strategy and investments into the key growth categories are the right long-term strategic moves,” although the WSJ writer disagrees: “So far, the numbers have told a different story.”

Students can read the quarterly presentation deck, with Kingsbury’s opening quotes. I admire his admission and taking responsibility, but we don’t see a clear strategy for the future, which sounds bleak. He says only “we must execute at a higher level and ensure we are putting the customer first”—nothing new here, and his plans to lower expectations aren’t inspiring. Kingsbury also uses “we” but will leave the company in May. Oddly, the company announced a new CEO the day before the earnings presentation. That’s good news! But I guess the deck couldn’t be updated in time? Students could suggest a stronger approach for this first content slide.

Image source.

Bus Sign: "No Standees Beyond the Standee Line"

It’s been a while since I felt moved to share bad signage. This busy one from the Cornell Campus-to-Campus bus left me wondering who would read it and what they would do differently. Here are my suggestions.

UnitedHealthcare Messaging on Shooting

The CEO of UnitedHealthcare’s insurance unit was shot outside a New York Hilton, targeted by someone who is still not found. The company’s messaging offers a minimal example of crisis communication during a tragedy.

The news is so highly covered that UnitedHealthcare must respond. The company has similar text with a link on its homepage, but the statement is minimal at this point, the day after the shooting:

We are deeply saddened and shocked at the passing of our dear friend and colleague Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Brian was a highly respected colleague and friend to all who worked with him. We are working closely with the New York Police Department and ask for your patience and understanding during this difficult time. Our hearts go out to Brian’s family and all who were close to him.

In part, the incident is alarming because the attack was clearly premeditated and so public—in Midtown Manhattan. The words “delay” and “deny,” likely related to insurance claims, were among those found on bullet casings. The shooting raises safety concerns for other corporate executives. In addition, the shooter is still not found, despite cameras throughout the city, which is a particular issue for law enforcement, whose objective is for people to feel safe. Thompson’s wife told reporters that he and others on the management team had received threats, and news sources are reporting a lawsuit against Thompson and another executive for fraud and insider trading.

Students might discuss what else, if anything, the company should have said at this point. The Times has a long obituary-type article about Thompson, and UnitedHealth might consider the same soon. The Times also has a post about the Hilton, calling it “somehow both drab and sleek,” titled, “A storied New York Hilton adds a grim chapter to its history.” I don’t see anything posted by the Hilton, and that is probably a good choice.

Update: Later that day (December 5), UnitedHealth Group posted a longer statement:

While our hearts are broken, we have been touched by the huge outpouring of kindness and support in the hours since this horrific crime took place.

So many patients, consumers, health care professionals, associations, government officials and other caring people have taken time out of their day to reach out. We are thankful, even as we grieve.

Our priorities are, first and foremost, supporting Brian’s family; ensuring the safety of our employees; and working with law enforcement to bring the perpetrator to justice. 

We, at UnitedHealth Group, will continue to be there for those who depend upon us for their health care.

We ask that everyone respect the family’s privacy as they mourn the loss of their husband, father, brother and friend.

The statement is what we might expect of the company. As is appropriate at this point, they ignore a large outpouring from people who are disgruntled with insurance companies like UnitedHeathcare. Comments bubbled up in the days following the announcement, although we might see defensive hints of acknowledgement at this point: “So many patients, customers” and “those who depend on us.” We’ll see whether UnitedHealth responds further to the public outcry.

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.