Confusing Airbnb Message

Informational messages should be straightforward, but Airbnb sent one that confused hosts and former hosts. I received this email about taxes with the subject, “Action required: Provide missing taxpayer info.” The tone is threatening, and I wasn’t sure whether this applied to my recent international booking or a remnant from my hosting days, although I stopped in 2018.

Apparently, I wasn’t alone. Within two days, I received the second message, “Clarification regarding taxpayer information request.”

My guess is that the message inadvertently went to people who are no longer hosting. The second message could have admitted the mistake but didn’t. Instead of demonstrating accountability and humility, the author wrote, “We wanted to clarify that this action is not required for everyone.”

Shaming Doesn't Work

A recent study explores companies’ responses when an employee falls for hacking. Turns out, shaming doesn’t work.

When an employee causes a cybersecurity breach, company leaders may want to single out that employee by “blaming and shaming.” The intent is to prevent future breaches, but the results can be devastating, as the author explains:

“Shame is similar to a boomerang that will come back to hurt the organization, as well as harming the employee. Managers should deal with the mistake, but not reject the employee. If employees feel that their personhood is being attacked, they will respond defensively. Shaming results in a lose-lose outcome.”

I can’t think of a situation when blaming and shaming works. In the case of a hack, the employee already feels bad and won’t likely make the same mistake. Instead of causing disloyalty, leaders might try demonstrating compassion.

Image source.

Company Responses to the Russian War on Ukraine

Whether and how companies respond to the Russian war on Ukraine presents a case study in leadership character and communication. A New York Times article describes a Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister’s messaging to persuade companies to take action. Mykhailo Fedorov is using social media to call out specific companies—sometimes complimenting their response, for example, closing stores or cutting off services to Russian citizens, and sometimes calling for them to do more.

Fedorov’s tweets, particularly, chronicle what companies are doing and what, in his opinion, is left to do. The NYT article summarizes Fedorov’s strategy:

“The work has made Mr. Fedorov one of Mr. Zelensky’s most visible lieutenants, deploying technology and finance as modern weapons of war. In effect, Mr. Fedorov is creating a new playbook for military conflicts that shows how an outgunned country can use the internet, crypto, digital activism and frequent posts on Twitter to help undercut a foreign aggressor.”

The Ukrainians are using every weapon they can. Technology and persuasive communication, including questioning leaders’ character, are now front and center.

For examples of how companies are supporting Ukraine, see Anthony Winslow’s LinkedIn article.

Advice for Resignation Emails

A Wall Street Journal article suggests ways to resign from your job gracefully. With a wave of post-pandemic departures, we’re seeing all sorts of resignation messages, some more appropriate than others. The string of emails can be disheartening for people who decide to stay, and leavers should be mindful of burning bridges they may want to walk across in the future.

A law career coach advises that people “Let it rip. Let everything out”—in a document that you don’t send. Then, send an email that respects the workplace and the people you’ll leave behind:

“For the real deal, be gracious and express gratitude. Include up to three career highlights. (Any more and you risk being seen as a braggart.) And skip the passive-aggressive jabs.”

I hadn’t thought about including career highlights, and I wonder whether coworkers would appreciate reading them. Instead, I suggest observing what other resignation emails include and following suit. Every workplace has its own norms around these types of messages.

I do agree with this advice:

“By giving your notice, ‘the power dynamic has been leveled.’ Use that new sense of control and confidence to share more authentically about yourself, not torpedo your relationships on the way out the door.”

The coach is right: you made your decision and are burdening your manager and coworkers who will pick up the slack. Now’s the time to demonstrate humility instead of rubbing it in and causing more hurt feelings.

Deception in the Hiring Process

A New York Times article surprised me. During a video job interview, someone else answered “technical questions while the job candidate moved his lips onscreen.”

All applicants present themselves in the best light. We describe our accomplishments and may push the limits of our expertise. We also “cover” parts of ourselves that we fear may be undesirable to an employer.

But having a friend interview for a candidate is out of bounds. In this example, the interviewer wondered, “What did he think was going to happen when he moved across the country and realized he couldn’t do the job?” The article concludes with a quote from a deceptive candidate who felt relieved when she didn’t get the job. Of course, that’s a better outcome than suffering the embarrassment of failure.

This situation is a clear example of integrity—misrepresenting oneself, claiming to be someone they (intentional plural) are not. Today, we have a particularly strong job market; I would hope that candidates can find a job for which they’re qualified.

Image source.

Tesla Accuses SEC of Harassment

In a letter to a U.S. District judge, an attorney for Tesla describes how the SEC tries to “muzzle and harass Mr. Musk and Tesla.” Tesla claims that the SEC monitors Elon Musk’s Twitter, yet hasn’t distributed settlement funds to shareholders.

We see strong language throughout the letter, for example, “gone beyond the pale,” “formidable resources,” “endless, unfounded investigations,” “broken its promises,” and “police.” The last paragraph reads as follows:

“Enough is enough. Mr. Musk and Tesla write in the hope that the Court can bring the SEC’s harassment campaign to an end, while ensuring that the SEC finally delivers, at long last, on its commitment to Tesla’s shareholders and this Court.”

The letter is an example of persuasive communication, with the lead strategy emotional appeal. Although logical arguments are included, the language and medium emphasize what the company perceives as irrational. We get the sense that Musk is personally targeted. We’ll see whether the letter gets the desired results.

Zillow's Letter to Shareholders

Zillow ended its failed iBuying business, but is recovering well, as the latest letter to shareholders explains. A foray into the home-flipping business didn’t pan out for the company, resulting in losses and layoffs.

The company’s letter demonstrates accountability, humility, and vulnerability, yet express optimism, as the CEO and CFO write in the closing:

“We want to acknowledge the past few months have been challenging for us all — Zillow leadership, employees, and investors — but innovation is a bumpy road. Big swings are core to Zillow, and they are what make our company so unique. We are excited about the opportunity in front of us. Thank you for joining us on this journey.”

In addition to describing plans, the leaders want readers to take away that performance was “better than expected.” “Better” is used 13 times in the 20-page letter. The approach seemed to work. As a CNBC article summarizes, “Zillow soars on upbeat outlook and faster-than-expected selloff of homes in portfolio.” However, for perspective, the article reports that the stock increased 20% after the letter was published, yet “the stock has lost three-quarters of its value since reaching a record almost a year ago.” Zillow’s leaders have more work to do.

Spotify CEO's New Statement

Following new allegations against Joe Rogan, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek apologized to staff, yet reinforced his commitment to the podcast host. A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur caused new criticism and calls for Spotify to take action. Rogan apologized, explaining that some recordings were from many years ago and were taken out of context.

Ek’s statement is addressed to Spotify employees, but of course, the secondary audience is intended to be the public. The message includes Rogan’s decision, apparently in consultation with the Spotify team, to remove 113 episodes. Although Ek writes that the choice was Rogan’s, we don’t know how much pressure he received.

Ek’s note is a good example of a persuasive communication that tries to balance the needs of many stakeholders. He demonstrates compassion to employees, vulnerabiiity in how the situation affects the company, and integrity in his $100 million commitment to artists and in holding firm to what he sees as a core value of the platform. We could see more personal vulnerabiity and authenticity. Unfortunately, leader will never satisfy all parties in this type of situation.

Spotify Team,

There are no words I can say to adequately convey how deeply sorry I am for the way The Joe Rogan Experience controversy continues to impact each of you. Not only are some of Joe Rogan’s comments incredibly hurtful – I want to make clear that they do not represent the values of this company. I know this situation leaves many of you feeling drained, frustrated and unheard.

I think it’s important you’re aware that we’ve had conversations with Joe and his team about some of the content in his show, including his history of using some racially insensitive language. Following these discussions and his own reflections, he chose to remove a number of episodes from Spotify. He also issued his own apology over the weekend.

While I strongly condemn what Joe has said and I agree with his decision to remove past episodes from our platform, I realize some will want more. And I want to make one point very clear – I do not believe that silencing Joe is the answer. We should have clear lines around content and take action when they are crossed, but canceling voices is a slippery slope. Looking at the issue more broadly, it’s critical thinking and open debate that powers real and necessary progress.

Another criticism that I continue to hear from many of you is that it’s not just about The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify; it comes down to our direct relationship with him. In last week’s Town Hall, I outlined to you that we are not the publisher of JRE. But perception due to our exclusive license implies otherwise. So I’ve been wrestling with how this perception squares with our values.

If we believe in having an open platform as a core value of the company, then we must also believe in elevating all types of creators, including those from underrepresented communities and a diversity of backgrounds. We’ve been doing a great deal of work in this area already but I think we can do even more. So I am committing to an incremental investment of $100 million for the licensing, development, and marketing of music (artists and songwriters) and audio content from historically marginalized groups. This will dramatically increase our efforts in these areas. While some might want us to pursue a different path, I believe that more speech on more issues can be highly effective in improving the status quo and enhancing the conversation altogether.

I deeply regret that you are carrying so much of this burden. I also want to be transparent in setting the expectation that in order to achieve our goal of becoming the global audio platform, these kinds of disputes will be inevitable. For me, I come back to centering on our mission of unlocking the potential of human creativity and enabling more than a billion people to enjoy the work of what we think will be more than 50 million creators. That mission makes these clashes worth the effort.

I’ve told you several times over the last week, but I think it’s critical we listen carefully to one another and consider how we can and should do better. I’ve spent this time having lots of conversations with people inside and outside of Spotify – some have been supportive while others have been incredibly hard, but all of them have made me think.

One of the things I am thinking about is what additional steps we can take to further balance creator expression with user safety. I’ve asked our teams to expand the number of outside experts we consult with on these efforts and look forward to sharing more details.

Your passion for this company and our mission has made a difference in the lives of so many listeners and creators around the world. I hope you won’t lose sight of that. It’s that ability to focus and improve Spotify even on some of our toughest days that has helped us build the platform we have. We have a clear opportunity to learn and grow together from this challenge and I am ready to meet it head on.

I know it is difficult to have these conversations play out so publicly, and I continue to encourage you to reach out to your leaders, your HR partners or me directly if you need support or resources for yourself or your team.

Daniel

Arguments in the Joe Rogan, Spotify Situation

A few musicians and podcast creators are leaving Spotify over controversy about “The Joe Rogan Experience,” a popular show that has included misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations. Comparing messages from different points of view is an interesting look at persuasive arguments and raises issues of character. Here are a few to explore:

• Spotify’s stance is explained in this statement and may be summarized as follows from the chief executive and co-founder: “I think the important part here is that we don’t change our policies based on one creator nor do we change it based on any media cycle, or calls from anyone else.” Spotify also created a COVID information hub.

• Neil Young removed his music, which had hundreds of millions of views, and explained his rationale in a letter (since removed from his website): “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines—potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them.”

• Crosby, Stills, and Nash followed suit and posted their reason on Twitter: “We support Neil and agree with him that there is dangerous disinformation being aired on Spotify’s Joe Rogan podcast. While we always value alternate points of view, knowingly spreading disinformation during this global pandemic has deadly consequences. Until real action is taken to show that a concern for humanity must be balanced with commerce, we don’t want our music—or the music we made together—to be on the same platform.”

• Roxane Gay explained her decision to remove “The Roxane Gay Agenda” in a New York Times opinion letter. In closing, she wrote, “I am not trying to impede anyone’s freedom to speak. Joe Rogan and others like him can continue to proudly encourage misinformation and bigotry to vast audiences. They will be well rewarded for their efforts. The platforms sharing these rewards can continue to look the other way. But today at least, I won’t.”

• Bréne Brown “paused” her two podcasts and wrote that she is waiting for more information: “I’ve enjoyed the creative collaboration with Spotify, and I appreciate how the leadership has shown up in our meetings over the past week. Now that Spotify has published its misinformation policy, and the policy itself appears to address the majority of my concerns, I’m in the process of learning how the policy will be applied. I’m hopeful that the podcasts will be back next week.” As you might expect, Brown demonstrates vulnerability, including negative, personal comments she has received about the issue.

• Joe Rogan apologized in a 10-minute Instagram video, promising to “balance out viewpoints with other people’s perspectives.”

UPDATE: A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur has emerged, and he apologized—again.

Apology for Meatloaf Recipe

The folks at Weber Grill didn’t realize that singer Meat Loaf died on the day they published a meatloaf recipe. Had the company used the rock star’s death as a way to promote its products, that would have been in poor taste, but the email with a BBQ recipe was an unfortunate coincidence.

After some predicable backlash, the company quickly apologized for the mistake. Fortunately, just as the initial email made the rounds, so did the company’s apology.

The apology is simple and works well. The company didn’t need to apologize for insensitivity because the mistake was unintentional. In these situations, customers typically are more forgiving, and in this case, demonstrating compassion and humility was enough.

Misrepresenting COVID-19 Study Findings

A study about COVID testing in schools is criticized for its authors’ conclusions. Researchers at Duke, in collaboration with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, studied the “test-to-stay” approach for schoolchildren. With this approach, if a child tests negative after being exposed to someone who tests positive, that child can go to school. Researchers found this strategy to be effective in getting kids back to school—without increasing COVID transmissions.

The trouble, described in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, is that authors concluded, “in schools with universal masking, test-to-stay is an effective strategy.” The writers explain their thinking:

“That invites readers to assume that test-to-stay doesn’t work without forced masking. But since they studied no unmasked schools, this conclusion is baseless. An honest report would either have said so or not mentioned masking at all.”

The writers believe that study authors are pushing their own agenda for schools to require masking. This is a good example of a study interpretation that is technically correct but omits important information for a fair comparison. In such cases, researchers might hurt their own credibility. On the other hand, do people assume, as the writers say, that “test to stay” doesn’t work in schools without mask mandates?

Chris Noth and Peloton Respond to Sexual Assault Accusations

Peloton can’t seem to catch a break. Chris Noth, who played Mr. Big on the Sex in the City revival, first died on the show after using the bike, and then, after appearing in what seemed like a victorious response commercial, was accused by three women of sexual assault.

In a statement, Noth vehemently denied the claims:

"The accusations against me made by individuals I met years, even decades, ago are categorically false. These stories could've been from 30 years ago or 30 days ago—no always means no—that is a line I did not cross,” and

"The encounters were consensual. It's difficult not to question the timing of these stories coming out. I don't know for certain why they are surfacing now, but I do know this: I did not assault these women.”

Peloton removed the ad, and a spokesperson said, "Every single sexual assault accusation must be taken seriously. We were unaware of these allegations when we featured Chris Noth in our response to HBO's reboot. As we seek to learn more, we have stopped promoting this video and archived related social posts.”

I’m guessing that HBO is glad the writers killed off Noth’s character. For Peloton, the news is probably more attention than the company wants. It’s certainly more than Chris Noth wants.

Image source.

Ask for Help in Rich Media Channels for Better Results

New research confirms what you might already think: you are most likely to get the results you want when you ask someone in person.

Experiments indicate that people are more compliant when communication takes place over richer media channels. Requests made face-to-face are most likely to be fulfilled. Second best is Zoom and then phone calls. Email and text requests are least effective. Survey participants thought richer channels would be more effective, but they underestimated the differences.

Cornell University researcher Vanessa Bohns sums up the results:

“We tend to think people will weigh the costs and benefits and make a measured decision about whether to agree to something, saying ‘yes’ only if they really want to. But in fact, people agree to all sorts of things, even things they’d rather not do, because they feel bad saying ‘no’ in the moment.”

Of course, this raises issues of integrity. Taking advantage of people who feel uncomfortable refusing a request will damage trust and credibility over time.

Company Responses to Tornado

An Amazon warehouse in Illinois and a candle factory in Kentucky seem to be the companies hardest hit by a devastating tornado. Although an easy target for critics, Amazon, and particularly CEO Jeff Bezos, probably could do more. Twitter comments called out his response as a “template” and “corporate line.” One wrote, “Literally a day late and a dollar short.” Further damaging his reputation as a compassionate leader, and by unfortunate coincidence, Blue Origin, Bezos’s company, launched six paying passengers into space on the day of the tornado.

Perhaps nothing Bezos said would have been right, or enough. In a news conference, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker said he “implored” Amazon “to stand up for this community to make sure that the families get whatever they need in this community, and they’ve offered to do so.” I have not found statements from Amazon about what that support might include.

The Kentucky factory, Mayfield Consumer Products, was “destroyed,” according to the website landing page. The CEO posted a brief statement, promising more information once known and promoting a victims’ fund. We see character and culture in both company responses.

Peloton Addresses Death (Spoiler Alert)

Sex in the City spoiler alert: Mr. Big dies after a vigorous workout on a Peloton bike. The first episode of the HBO reunion show, “And Just Like That,” has Carrie Bradshaw’s husband sweating with “Allegra,” played by real-life Peloton instructor Jess King.

Company leaders were as surprised as viewers. A spokesperson said they approved King’s role and supplied a bike but had no idea how the scene ended. In a statement, an on-staff cardiologist blamed Mr. Big—a convenient, now deceased fictional character:

"I'm sure SATC fans, like me, are saddened by the news that Mr. Big dies of a heart attack. Mr. Big lived what many would call an extravagant lifestyle—including cocktails, cigars, and big steaks—and was at serious risk as he had a previous cardiac event in Season 6. These lifestyle choices and perhaps even his family history, which often is a significant factor, were the likely cause of his death. Riding his Peloton Bike may have even helped delay his cardiac event."

HBO declined to comment on the situation, and Peloton will be more careful about product placements in the future. Vulture called the episode “the worst Peloton ad ever.” After the episode aired, shares fell 11%, further challenging a company struggling with declining sales and product recalls.

Update: Although Peloton may have grounds for a lawsuit, so far, the company is taking a different approach. In a parody ad produced within just a few days, Peloton hired Mr. Big actor Chris Noth to play the character, alive and flirting with the instructor. A voiceover reminds viewers of the benefits of cycling.

Layoffs by Zoom Call + Updates

The CEO of U.S. mortgage company Better.com announced via Zoom that 900 employees, about 15% of the company, were being laid off. Vishal Garg invited people in the exiting group to the call and then dropped the news: “If you’re on this call, you are part of the unlucky group being laid off. Your employment is terminated effective immediately.” In a way, the Zoom call replaces an email typically sent to all employees before they meet individually with an HR representative.

The video is circulating on YouTube, and we hear one employee’s reaction as she watches: “You’ve gotta be kidding me. After all we did for the company! . . . I can’t believe this. This is not real.”

Certainly, this doesn’t reflect well on the company, particularly because it’s right before year-end holidays. News articles also question Garg’s management style and financial dealings. After the layoffs, he was quoted accusing employees of “stealing” from their coworkers by being unproductive. Reports also mention an email sent to staff, including, "You are TOO DAMN SLOW. You are a bunch of DUMB DOLPHINS... SO STOP IT. STOP IT. STOP IT RIGHT NOW. YOU ARE EMBARRASSING ME.” In addition, Garg faces lawsuits claiming fraudulent activity and misappropriation of funds.

History aside, CNN describes the Zoom call as “short and emotionless.” At times, Garg focuses more on himself than on employees. He said, “This is the second time in my career I'm doing this, and I do not want to do this. The last time I did it, I cried.”

I will give him credit for taking responsibility during the call, saying it was his decision. He also scheduled a call instead of, say, sending an email. He demonstrated accountability and some courage, but Garg lacked compassion. Overall, I’ve seen worse, for example, layoff by text message.

UPDATES: Garg wrote an apology about how he handled the situation. Although he uses the words “I apologize” and describes some of the impact on employees, the audience doesn’t seem quite right. He writes about the future, which includes employees who are staying but not the 900 who were on the Zoom call.

The Better.com board of directors announced that Garg will take some time off. Perhaps his worst crime is that the video went viral; he should have predicted that.

CVS Statement on Jury Decision

A jury found that Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS contributed to the opioid crisis and will have to pay damages to Ohio counties. Plaintiffs argued that, as a New York Times article explains, pharmacists are “gatekeepers who have a duty to question suspicious prescriptions.”

The drug stores will likely appeal, and CVS published a statement disputing the decision:

We strongly disagree with the decision. Pharmacists fill legal prescriptions written by DEA-licensed doctors who prescribe legal, FDA-approved substances to treat actual patients in need. 

We’re proud of the substantial work we’ve done to support our pharmacists in detecting illegitimate prescribing. But the simple facts are that opioid prescriptions are written by doctors, not pharmacists; opioid medications are made and marketed by manufacturers, not pharmacists; and our health care system depends on pharmacists to fill legitimate prescriptions that doctors deem necessary for their patients. We look forward to the appeals court review of this case, including the misapplication of public nuisance law.

As plaintiffs’ own experts testified, many factors have contributed to the opioid abuse issue, and solving this problem will require involvement from all stakeholders in our health care system and all members of our community.

CVS uses a classic crisis-communication strategy to deflect blame: zoom out and look at the entire system. True, the opioid crisis is complex, but this jury found that pharmacists are part of the problem and should be held accountable.

Jack in the Box Statement: More Well Wishes

Restaurant workers across the country are demanding higher wages and better working conditions, and Jack in the Box is one targeted group. In California, unions are lobbying for The Fast Recovery Act, which would hold corporate offices accountable if franchisees don’t comply with regulations. Today, that responsibility lies with individual stores, making it more difficult for employees to get mandatory Covid 19 protections and sick pay.

A local Jack in the Box didn’t response to a PBS NewsHour request for comment, but the corporate office sent a statement. I see the message only on the video (at 4:33), so here’s a blurry image. Note the much-maligned “hope you are well”—two variations. The first, in slightly larger font, looks like part of a template that wasn’t deleted. In this case, both are superfluous and insincere—like announcing the author’s name, which is at the bottom of the note, and the rest of the statement, in my opinion.

Nothing in the message acknowledges problems or provides plans to improve the situation. It’s defensive and does not inspire confidence in the brand. I see a lack of accountability and willingness to be vulnerable and learn from failure.

Robinhood's Breach Notice

In a blog post, Robinhood announced a “data security incident.” Business communication students will notice several examples of downplaying the situation, including giving numbers of people affected more significantly (310) but no numbers for the total.

Language seems intentionally complex, for example, “The unauthorized party socially engineered a customer support employee by phone and obtained access to certain customer support systems.” In other words, someone called a Robinhood employee and impersonated another employee. The employee fell for this deceit without seeking proof.

Robinhood seems to take no responsibility and identifies no plans for future action to prevent a similar “incident.” The chief security officer provides template text: “As a Safety First company, we owe it to our customers to be transparent and act with integrity. Following a diligent review, putting the entire Robinhood community on notice of this incident now is the right thing to do.”

Skewed Chart Example

Dopesick on Hulu includes a great example of a compressed chart scale. The show is about the opioid crisis and features the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma’s role in convincing doctors that OxyContin is not addictive. To prove the point, Purdue shared this graph, showing that the “time release” capsules don’t cause mood spikes (“fewer peaks and valleys”). The trouble, as business communication students can observe, is the Y axis.

In Episode 6 (around 21 minutes), we hear the explanation: “But see what Purdue did? They dramatically compressed the scale.” On the chart, we see that 30 looks to be the midpoint. They used a logarithmic instead of a linear scale to homogenize or “smooth out” the data. (Here’s a good explanation of logarithmic scales.)

In the show, an FDA official says they instructed Purdue Pharma not to use the chart, but the company did anyway. Of course, I’m not sure what happened, exactly, and I didn’t get the court filings to verify the chart.

The show offers many other examples of the company’s persuasive communications and the tragic effect on people’s lives. For more research about Purdue’s misleading communications, see this LA Times article. Also read a fascinating trove of Purdue emails here.