Protecting Students from Loan-Forgiveness Scams

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

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

• Never pay for help with your student loans.

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

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

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

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

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

Brands Capitalize on "Girl Math"

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

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

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

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

3M's Defensive Settlement Comms

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

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

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

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

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

UAW Union Communications Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons Learned from Maui's Disaster Communications

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

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

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

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

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

Even Zoom Asks Employees Back to the Office

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

Bud Light's Failed Crisis Communication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The tone is surprisingly formal and bureaucratic in parts.

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

Northwestern's Statement on Coach Termination Lacks Compassion

Northwestern University’s president published a statement explaining the decision to fire the head football coach after investigating claims about hazing. The message could be an example of persuasion—and either good or bad news, depending on your perspective.

Taking responsibility up front, President Michael Schill put his name at the top of the statement, which was posted online. His accountability for the decision is reinforced in his first line: “This afternoon, I informed Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald that he was being relieved of his duties effective immediately.” Later, he writes, “While I am appreciative of the feedback and considered it in my decision-making, [need a semi-colon here] ultimately, the decision to originally suspend Coach Fitzgerald was mine and mine alone, as is the decision to part ways with him.”

Schill convinces his audience—primarily the Northwestern community—by showing the pervasiveness of hazing (“systemic dating back many years.”) and by providing examples of acts (“The hazing included forced participation, nudity and sexualized acts of a degrading nature, in clear violation of Northwestern policies and values”).

But he minimizes the impact (“I am grateful that—to my knowledge—no student suffered physical injury as a result of these behaviors”) and defends himself (“I only recently learned many of the details”). His statement seems to lack compassion towards those affected by the hazing. Complaints must show that people were negatively impacted. Where is that acknowledgement in the statement?

Demonstrating courage and leadership, Schill does acknowledge controversy about the decision. He describes the coach’s positive impact on many, but identifies a replacement and encourages moving forward. Some say the decision is long overdue, with reports of racism dating back to the 2000’s. Schill doesn’t mention that.

The statement ends with misplaced gratitude, which feels like a last-minute add-on. The nod to the Board chair would have been more appropriate in the second paragraph, where he describes input from the chair and others. Lobbing off that sentence, the ending is strong: “While today is a difficult day, I take solace in knowing that what we stand for endures.”

Image source.

Dispute Over "Thumbs-Up" Emoji

From a recent legal contract case, students can discuss what it means to text the “thumbs-up” emoji. A grain purchaser sent a contract to a farm supplier with terms for buying flax at $17 per bushel. The supplier responded to the signed contract in a text message with the emoji, and a judge ruled that the contract was “at least verbally struck.”

Trouble started when the supplier didn’t ship the flax, which quickly increased in price to $41 per bushel. Now, the supplier has to pay $82,000 for breach of contract.

I can see students running into similar trouble with job offers and informal communication. In this case, the purchaser said the “thumbs-up” was no different from other text responses they received from the farmer in the past: “ok,” “yup,” or “looks good.” The defense used a slippery slope argument:

[A]llowing a simple 👍 emoji to signify identity and acceptance would open up the flood gates to allow all sorts of cases coming forward asking for interpretations as to what various different emojis mean – for example what does a 👊 emoji mean or a 🤝 emoji mean, etc. Counsel argues the courts will be inundated with all kinds of cases if this court finds that the 👍 emoji can take the place of a signature.

The judge didn’t agree, perhaps perceiving the argument as a fallacy. Students may want to use the “thumbs-up”—and other emojis—more judiciously for business communication. Legal contracts might call for more formal acknowledgements, such as e-signatures.

Image source.

Negotiating Salary for "Mission-Driven" Organizations

Applicants are hesitant to negotiate higher salaries when organizations use “social impact framing” in job ads, but using business communication principles, students can get more pay. New research published in Organization Science found that candidates feared seeming selfish and reducing their chance of an offer. You never know how managers will perceive salary negotiations, but we know that people in majority groups are more likely to negotiate and that taking the first offer can lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost pay over someone’s career.

In Business Communication and Character, I recommend the following process to help students muster up the courage to negotiate. I hope these suggestions are useful for your students:

• Consider the entire package. Negotiating an increase in salary is best because annual merit increases will build on a larger base every year. But the compensation and benefits package also could include bonus and equity (company stock) pay, healthcare benefits, relocation assistance, tuition reimbursement, sign-on bonus—and other aspects of the job that you may value, such as, how much time you can work from home, the start date, and so on. Think about what is most important to you and where the company might have flexibility. For example, vacation time and retirement plans may be fixed for every new hire at your level, but a hiring manager might have more leeway with relocation, a sign-on bonus, and remote work options.

• Know your value. Review your resume and focus on your skills and accomplishments related to the job and company. Be confident about what you bring to the table. People in dominant identity groups may have an easier time with this idea, which is part of the explanation for the gender pay gap in the United States and elsewhere.

• Research starting salaries. Explore your college’s career management office, Glassdoor, PayScale, Salary.com, and other sites to determine the likely range for the position and location. You might share your offer with other students; people are surprisingly willing to talk about their finances, and transparency helps reduce the pay gap. Keep your expectations realistic. You can ask a recruiter about a salary range—but not too early in the process. Negotiations typically don’t start until after you have a job offer. If asked about your requirements, try to get a salary range from the employer first, so you don’t “low-ball” yourself.

• Highlight your assets. When you begin to negotiate, give concrete examples, for example, similar work and accomplishments at other companies. Think about why the employer should pay you more. Often, they are looking for your motivation level. In other words, how can you prove—with evidence—that you’ll work harder than other employees and, therefore, be worth the extra compensation? Avoid talking about your needs, for example, student loans; other than relocation, an employer will pay more for what you can contribute—not for your expenses.

• Decide on your approach. Include all your requests up front so the employer doesn’t get frustrated and feel manipulated when you negotiate each term separately. If you don’t get the salary or other terms you request, what will you do? Be clear about what you’re willing to compromise and at what point you will decline the offer.

• Practice. Practice what you’ll say with friends and others to address counterarguments and hold your ground. You don’t need to apologize (“Sorry to bother you with this. I know you’re busy”). Instead, adopt a confident, persuasive, yet friendly tone (“I’m very excited about the position and joining the team, and I know I’ll bring a lot of value to the table, particularly because of my experience at ___ [or something relevant you accomplished]. I'm wondering if we can explore a slightly higher starting salary of $ ___”). Your goal is to convince the employer, without sounding too demanding, that you’re worth the extra compensation.

Press Conference About School Shooting

This may be too raw to share with students, but this video serves as a good example of a crisis communication press conference. Officials from Richmond, VA, describe a shooting after a high school graduation that killed two and left five injured. The conference is just hours after the incident, so little is known at this point, but authorities say, with confidence, that a suspect is in custody.

In the video, we see principles for a crisis communication news conference. Some of the following are out of order or are covered by different speakers: the police chief, Mayor Levar Marcus Stoney, and the school superintendent. The Q&A also illustrates these principles, despite a pending investigation:

• Introduce yourself

• After brief context, give condolences first if people are affected

• Provide a preview (list of topics you’ll cover)

• Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources

• Never lie or misrepresent the truth

• Emphasize the aspects of business that will continue (instill confidence)

• Provide investigation process/status

• Mention your appreciation of support (e.g., fire department, police)

• Say we will provide updates when we know more

• Give crisis hotline information and other resources, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Mayor Stoney’s section is a particularly good example of an inspiring speech. He demonstrates courage with his stand about guns, which is controversial. I don’t have good evidence for this opinion, but I remember, years ago, officials avoiding criticism of guns immediately after shooting incidents because it was “too soon.” That seems to have shifted.

AI Risk Communications

Two new messages about risks associated with AI are good examples for students to analyze.

Center for AI Safety published a short, joint statement about AI risks. The introduction, which explains the statement, is longer than the 22-word message itself. Unlike a longer statement published two months ago to encouraged a pause, this one is bold and focused:

Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.

The authors use analogies as emotional appeal to persuade their audiences. They also rely credibility, with more than 350 distinguished signatories, including current AI leaders and two Turing Award AI pioneers.

The second message is a blog post written by OpenAI founders to provide guidance for regulators and others wanting to mitigate risk. Titled, Governance of Superintelligence, the post distinguishes between current AI technology and the next generation. The authors’ strategy is to create a sense of urgency about an “existential” threat but prevent overregulation of current technology (like OpenAI, of course). In this statement, they use the analogies of nuclear energy and synthetic biology. The latter might be a better parallel than the pandemic, although a pandemic is more current and may be more universally understood.

Students can edit the governance post for clarity and conciseness. They’ll find overuse of “there is/are” and an abundance of “it,” for example, in this last sentence:

Second, we believe it would be unintuitively risky and difficult to stop the creation of superintelligence. Because the upsides are so tremendous, the cost to build it decreases each year, the number of actors building it is rapidly increasing, and it’s inherently part of the technological path we are on, stopping it would require something like a global surveillance regime, and even that isn’t guaranteed to work. So we have to get it right.

Employees Protest RTO Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing Donation Amounts Increases Giving

A recent study confirms what fundraisers typically do: writing a list of possible donation amounts increases what people give. According to the study, “Giving Suggestions: Using Quantity Requests to Increase Donations,” published in the Journal of Consumer Research, fundraising letters or web pages with “donate” buttons will bring in more if they include specific amounts. This is relevant to students developing campaigns for nonprofit organizations and other ventures.

Alice Moon, the first author and an assistant professor of operations, information, and decisions at The Wharton School, explains the phenomenon: “They might just not want to appear stingy by giving a lower amount than they should. But unlike the other types of requests, [quantity requests] clarify those amounts by providing some norm about how much to give.” Other types of requests include offering a list of organizations.

This research parallels tipping research in restaurants, which suggests that servers receive higher tips when customers have higher tip options. But too much inflation could affect online reviews negatively. We could expect the same for donation requests.

Shell Protester and Company Comms

Protester and Shell Oil communications illustrate rhetorical devices, reasoning, and evidence. Dutch activist investor Follow This, which owns Shell stock, pushed for a shareholder resolution to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. As protesters stormed the annual meeting, they illustrated rhetorical devices communication faculty might teach as a way to appeal to emotion and make speech more memorable. “Hit the Road Jack,” and “Go to hell, Shell, and don’t you come back no more” illustrate an allusion to a popular song and assonance, or vowel rhyming.

On page 8 of the annual investor meeting notice, Shell executives explain three reasons for shareholders to reject the resolution:

• Against shareholders’ interests: The company claims it would give up profits, but protesters say the company has had record profits (and, I suppose, can give some up?). The company argues that the proposition “would not help to mitigate global warming,” but evidence is not provided.

• Against good governance: The company argues that the proposition is “unclear, generic, and would create confusion as to Board and shareholder accountabilities.” With criteria reasoning, executives say that Shell already has a shareholder-approved strategy in place, so this new guidance would conflict. They also claim that any change is merely advisory and that “the legal responsibility for approving or objecting to Shell’s strategy lies with the Board and Executive Committee.”

• Negative consequences for customers: This section includes causal reasoning that hasty shifts “could cause disruptions to the world’s energy system, with the risk of shortages and high energy prices.” Skeptics might say this is a slippery slope fallacy. Then, the next two confusing paragraphs have footnotes to Shell's own site (not an external source):

  • As an energy user, Shell has set a bold target to reduce absolute emissions from its operations (Scope 1 and 2), by 50% by 2030, compared with its 2016 reference year. Shell delivered a 30% reduction at the end of 2022, compared with 2016 on a net basis. Global energy-related carbon emissions increased by around 4% in the same period. [A]

  • As an energy provider, Shell has set a target to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products it sells by 20% by 2030. It has achieved a 3.8% reduction since 2016. Our analysis, using data from the International Energy Agency, shows the net carbon intensity of the global energy system fell by around 2% over that same time. [B]

On its website, Follow This announces that the proposition was voted down. However, in a press release, the group emphasizes a relatively high percentage of supporting votes: “One-fifth of Shell shareholders maintain demand for emissions reductions to meet Paris by voting for Follow This climate resolution.” The group founder puts this figure in context, a common persuasive tactic: “Considering that up to 99% of shareholders voted along with the board on the other 25 resolutions, 20% of support and a significant number of abstentions in spite of a negative board recommendation clearly indicates shareholder discontent.” As an example of synecdoche, the group refers to “Paris,” meaning the U.N. Paris Agreement to limit average temperature increases.

Students will find other examples of rhetorical devices and methods used to persuade in both organizations’ communications.

OpenAI CEO Sets a Different Tone

In contrast to how SVB's former CEO handled his U.S. government testimony this week, OpenAI's CEO demonstrated humility, a willingness to learn and an acknowledgment that he doesn’t know everything. Sam Altman talked about the incredible potential of large language models, yet admitted risks. He asked for "regulatory intervention," which, to be fair, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned when he testified, but the tone of this US Senate committee hearing was entirely different from previous tech companies' interactions with regulators.

In his opening statement (starting at 20:45), Altman said, "But as this technology advances, we understand that people are anxious about how it could change the way we live." Later, Altman said, "I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong . . . we want to be vocal about that," and, "We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening."

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chaired the committee panel, also demonstrated humility by admitting “mistakes of the past”:

"Our goal is to demystify and hold accountable those new technologies to avoid some of the mistakes of the past. Congress failed to meet the moment on social media.”

Unlike the E.U., which has already proposed AI legislation, skeptics say U.S. government officials’ limited knowledge makes moving quickly unlikely. But admission of their failings and current risks could inspire action, although it’s unclear how that might happen.

SVB's Former CEO Deflects Blame for Bank Failure

Silicon Valley Bank’s former CEO, Gregory Becker, testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (starting at 18:55). As the New York Times reported, Becker “pointed the finger at pretty much everybody but himself.”

Becker blamed the bank’s demise on regulators for failing to manage inflation and interest rates, the media for raising questions about the bank’s financials, and depositers for withdrawing money in a panic. Critics blame SVB management for the high percentage of uninsured deposits, the lack of client diversification, and the lack of liquidity because of overinvestment in long-term bonds and other government securities.

In his opening statement, Becker gave a nonapology; he didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Notice the subject of the following sentence and the pronoun reference for “this”:

"The takeover of SVB has been personally and professionally devastating, and I am truly sorry for how this has impacted SVB’s employees, clients and shareholders."

In other words, he apologizes for how the takeover—the regulators’ actions—affected people. The Wall Street Journal ran this headline: “'I'm Truly Sorry': Former Silicon Valley Bank CEO Apologizes for Failure.” But he didn’t apologize for his failure.

The word of the day—and of the past three years—is “unprecendented,” which Becker used three times in his 5.5-minute speech. His strategy was to persuade senators that the failure was out of his control. In his written statement, we see “unprecendented” six times.

Senators were unforgiving, and we’re left to wonder whether they would have been more sympathetic if Becker had taken any responsibility for the damage. A CNN article reported harsh critism from both Republicans and Democrats, with one saying, “It sounds a lot like my dog ate my homework.”

Becker’s testimony is a good example for students to see a lack of accountability and humility, or learning from mistakes. He uses crisis communication strategies, such as distancing himself from the failure, but his testimony didn’t reflect well on the bank or on himself.

Comms About Starbucks Unions and Store Closures

Three stores in my hometown, Ithaca, NY, have closed, about a year after they unionized, but Starbucks denies retaliation charges. Communications illustrate principles of persuasion.

The union filed a complaint citing a causal effect:

Ithaca was the first city in the United States with 100 percent unionized Starbucks locations, after the union won elections at all three locations by a combined total of 47-3 on April 8, 2022. On May 27, 2023, Ithaca will have no Starbucks locations due to the Employer’s heinous conduct in response to the union campaign.

In response, according to a local report, Starbucks cited “staffing, worker turnover, inability to retain management and worker absence” as the reasons for closing. When the Collegetown location closed, which was the first to unionize and the first to close, management cited maintenance issues. For the two additional stores, a company representative pointed to a quarterly results report that included this hollow, jargony explanation: “In support of our Reinvention Plan, and as part of our ongoing efforts to transform our store portfolio, we continue to open, close and evolve our stores as we assess, reposition and strengthen our store portfolio.”

The “optics,” as PR and crisis communicators say, are bad, and Starbucks may have an uphill climb to avoid a causal link between union efforts and store closings. Context also matters: a college town, Ithaca is a “very liberal” community, with the School of Industrial Labor Relations at Cornell University. Large corporations are not always appreciated locally.

Our local news came less than two weeks after Howard Schultz testified at a U.S. Senate hearing, “No Company Is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks.” His testimony began, as we might expect, with his humble upbringing, raised by a veteran father and without “adequate benefits.” He said he respects workers’ rights to unionize but describes unions as an impediment and criticizes their tactics. Most of his statement focuses on the good Starbucks has done in the world. Students will find a good mix of logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility throughout the statement.

Cornell students are taking action with a petition for Starbucks coffee to be removed on campus. The statement uses a few rhetorical devices that students can spot (e.g., anaphora, chiasmus, rhyming). They’ll also see emotional, accusatorial language typical for a student petition.

Image source.

Southwest Comms and Disruption

After technical issues that caused outsized delays in December, Southwest communicated little, trying to downplay more service disruptions yesterday. The first tweet, shown here, responded to a customer complaint. The second tweet accurately describes the issue as a “pause,” a term a New York Times article repeats, based on the time period. But the impact on passengers was significant: 1,820 flights (43% of the airline’s daily flights) were delayed. A silly gif with moving clip art appeared in the second message for no reason.

On the Southwest website, a short “Operational Update” tries to shift blame to a supplier: “a vendor-supplied firewall went down and connection to some operational data was unexpectedly lost.” Later, a “Travel Advisory” apologized to customers and gave options for no-fee rebooking and standing by—and a list of phone numbers for assistance.

Critics say Southwest’s “outdated” technology might cause more problems until a systemwide upgrade is possible. One communication strategy is to manage customer expectations in the meantime. Telling people to expect delays might ease some pain; of course, that could lead to fewer bookings, but that may likely happen anyway. Passengers will need to be reminded about other benefits of traveling with Southwest.