PNC Bets on "Boring”

PNC Bank is betting on boring to attract customers. The campaign illustrates persuasive strategies, and a CEO interview is on-brand.

With an ad labeled “Boring Is Essential,” PNC is appealing to customers living in turbulent times. Given the recent inflation, tight housing market, political uncertainty, and climate change, it’s a compelling message.

During a Bloomberg interview, Chairman and CEO Bill Demchak said, “Banking shouldn’t be drama for our clients. It ought to be predictable, consistent, stuff works, their money’s safe. . . .” Although he also says, “I don’t necessarily like to think of myself as a boring person,” his office setting and demeanor might communicate otherwise—and maybe that’s not a bad thing these days.

PNC is not alone. During the interview, we see a chart showing the number of times bank management used the word “boring” during calls in the past couple of years.

Students will draw connections with business communication course concepts, for example, credibility and trust. PNC is selling its history and stability, ensuring customers that their money will be safe.

Zuckerberg's July 4 Video

On July 4, Mark Zuckerberg posted the perfect video of himself as a proud American, a reprise of one from 2022. Hydrofoiling, holding an American flag, and wearing a tux, he set the video to Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA.” The video has it all. In 2022, he was in shorts, without the beer, and the song was John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads.”

Instagram comments look positive. Apparently, “Bro is the coolest billionaire CEO ever,” a “badass,” and “gangsta.” Some question whether AI generated the video, but others scoff at the idea.

Maybe Zuckerberg is shoring up his image after the many government hearings and social media criticism, or maybe the videos illustrate his political aspirations. Rumors around 2017 and 2020 had Zuckerberg running for president. He is decades younger and certainly more fit than our current candidates. Business communication students can guess his goals, but I’m filing this under Chapter 7 of the textbook, “persuasive messages.”

Boeing CEO's Rough Senate Hearing and Safety Plan

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun faced lawmakers during the senate committee hearing bluntly titled, “Boeing’s Broken Safety Culture.” The investigation offers lessons in answering difficult questions and demonstrating compassion, humility, integrity, and accountability. In addition, students can see a sample report: “Boeing’s Safety and Quality Plan.”

Taking a page from Mark Zuckerberg’s impromptu facing of families during the senate hearing about social media harm, Calhoun began his opening statement by turning around and addressing families who lost people in Boeing plane crashes dating back to 2018. Like Zuckerberg, who was prompted by Senator Hawley, Calhoun had little choice. He was in room full of people holding photos of lost loved ones, with several shouting as we see and hear cameras flash. The pain is palpable, and Calhoun is visibly shaken, playing with his glasses, until the hearing is called into session.

Senator Richard Blumenthal begins by acknowledging families and asking them, by name, to stand with their photographs. He also acknowledges the family of the Boeing whistleblower who died by suicide. I cried. I believe we’re seeing a more compassionate approach to these hearings, keeping the focus on the impact of wrongdoing and on the responsibilities of our corporate and political leaders. But I wonder whether the face-the-victims’-families apology will become routine in these types of hearings and at what point—maybe already—it feels perfunctory.

Blumenthal had harsh words for Boeing, saying the “once iconic” company has “lost its way,” having put “stock price over people.” He said he’s pursuing prosecution and that Calhoun hasn’t kept the company’s promises. Predictable questions were about Calhoun’s salary and his decision not to resign. Throughout the hearing, Calhoun tried his best to convince lawmakers (and families, investors, airlines, and passengers) that they are making changes. Lawmakers didn’t seem to buy it.

Character was on display throughout the hearing. For example, demonstrating an issue with integrity, or inconsistency, at around 26:00, Blumenthal challenged Boeing’s nonretaliation policy with recent charges of threats and harassment against several whistleblowers. Calhoun said that he listens to people and that “something went wrong” [in these cases]. Without specific action on specific cases, his response sounded hollow. The follow-up question about firings based on retaliation elicits no specific information. Calhoun might have prepared this information, knowing it would be a major line of questioning.

Blumenthal’s criticism of Boeing’s data submission and Calhoun’s response, starting around 30:30, are worth watching. He asks whether Calhoun can make sense of the information—a page without any formatting—and he says, “No, sir,” and agrees when the senator says, “complete gobbledygook.” It’s shocking that Calhoun didn’t review what was sent. At first, he said not “line by line,” but it wasn’t clear he reviewed any of the documentation. One explanation is the stress and challenge of preparing for such a hearing, and I acknowledge that. But business communicators, both those preparing the documents and those standing up for them, can do better.

Analyzing the U.S. Surgeon General's Argument

Business communication students might be interested in analyzing the U.S. surgeon general’s argument for putting warning labels on social media platforms. His persuasive message uses several strategies faculty teach, and students can assess whether his approach and the proposal will achieve his goals.

Vivek H. Murthy conveyed his ideas in an opinion letter in The New York Times, also posted on X and explained during a PBS NewsHour interview (starting around 7:52). The audience is the public, and he has ideas for parents, schools, tech companies—and mostly congress, whose approval is required for his proposed warning label. His frustration is evident, as he points to recommendations made “a year ago.”

Murthy begins with a caveat up front, warding off criticism about the harm of social media, with Jonathan Haidt’s research at the current center. Murthy calls the moment an “emergency,” allowing for decisive action despite imperfect information. We could view Murthy’s proposal as a demonstration of accountability. As the surgeon general, he is responsible for the health and well-being of U.S. citizens, and in this sense, he must act, even as he acknowledges the controversy.

As part of his logical argument, he provides data with links to supporting research: “Adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of anxiety and depression symptoms, and the average daily use in this age group, as of the summer of 2023, was 4.8 hours. Additionally, nearly half of adolescents say social media makes them feel worse about their bodies.”

He offers analogies, which is where the PBS interview starts. When Amna Nawaz asks why he thinks a warning will work, he draws on tobacco labels, which he also writes in his article: “Evidence from tobacco studies show that warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior.” He conjures another analogy in the article: “There is no seatbelt for parents to click, no helmet to snap in place, no assurance that trusted experts have investigated and ensured that these platforms are safe for our kids.” In the last two paragraphs, Murthy asks biggest questions about society and morality: “Why is it that we have failed to respond to the harms of social media when they are no less urgent or widespread than those posed by unsafe cars, planes or food?” Here, too, he draws on analogies for common agreement.

Students can assess the validity of these comparisons. For example, a print label is quite different from a pop-up, box, or other type of website display, and like seatbelts, parents do control their kids’ physical devices, at least theoretically.

He provides personal information, demonstrating his own investment and using emotional appeals. He writes, “As a father of a 6- and a 7-year-old who have already asked about social media, I worry about how my wife and I will know when to let them have accounts.” A short story about a mother whose daughter “took her life after being bullied on social media” also elicits emotion.

Is Murthy’s idea practical? He provides no specifics about how warnings might work and no evidence other than his analogies. But he might inspire congress to do something after years of tech company hearings and little movement.

Image source.

Lawyer Speaks Out Against Musk Pay

A lawyer who spoke against Elon Musk’s Tesla salary claims he was ousted by the company as a result. The situation illustrates persuasive communication and character.

Retired law professor of corporate governance Charles Elson of the University of Delaware planned to submit a legal brief to dispute a $56 billion package for Musk. Students can analyze the legal brief, which the judge referred to as “persuasive.” For a legal document, it’s an unusually fun read, including the footnotes, the first of which clarifies, “Musk did not actually found Tesla, but he was a very early investor and its fourth CEO.”

Here’s an excerpt:

Elon Musk is not unique. Musk is an archetype that we have seen before and will see again: a confident, charismatic founder¹ with world-class sales ability and a “reality distortion field”² that inspires outsized enthusiasm in customers and employees alike. Musk is very special, but he is not a one of a kind.

Bill Gates. Jeff Bezos. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Brin. Sergey Page. Not one was an “ordinary executive” or “typical CEO.”³ Each was “intimately involved in all aspects of [their companies’] operations,” and “instrumental in transforming” it.⁴ Each had “a proven track record of visionary, transformational leadership[.]”⁵

None was paid like Elon Musk.

Elson says that Tesla threatened to drop him as a legal consultant if he filed the opposing letter. Elson struck back, calling the move “extraordinary and appalling” and “a fig leaf for Musk, acting through Tesla, to try to bully a law professor by making a serious economic threat to a law firm with which the professor had a consulting relationship.” He also said, “I was shocked by the whole thing,” but if you have to choose between your job and your integrity, you choose your integrity every time.” The law firm denies being pressured by Tesla to remove Elson, instead staying that his views were “inconsistent with the firm’s obligations to its client.”

For his part, Musk threatened to move the business to Texas if his compensation isn’t approved. Musk is not known for his humility.

Image source.

Bumble Apologizes for Celibacy Joke

Dating app Bumble apologized for ads that offended women. Students can assess the company’s response against principles for apologies.

In addition to the billboard shown here, an ad tells women, “Thou shalt not give up on dating and become a nun.” Women are not amused, with some feeling as though their choice of celibacy is being mocked and their autonomy questioned. Others question why the ad targets women’s behavior and not men’s.

Bumble responded on Instagram (text below). The company hits several of the marks for an effective apology identified in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character, 11e. Although they didn’t explicitly write, “We’re sorry,” they take responsibility upfront (“We made a mistake”). They also identified what they did wrong in the first paragraph and humbly list the reactions—how people were affected—in the second paragraph. Pulling the ads is the only rational thing to do.

For me, the donation seems patronizing and trivial, particularly without knowing whether the amount is significant and without evidence of a previous relationship with the organization. Offering the billboard space is at least relevant to the situation.

Students might speculate on how this happened. Did an external ad agency get carried away? If so, Bumble, appropriately, doesn’t blame them. Did they fail to test the ads with focus groups? We may never know, but Bumble seems to have learned the lesson and, overall, responded well.

---

TO OUR BELOVED BUMBLE COMMUNITY:

We made a mistake. Our ads referencing celibacy were an attempt to lean into a community frustrated by modern dating, and instead of bringing joy and humor, we unintentionally did the opposite.

Some of the perspectives we heard were: from those who shared that celibacy is the only answer when reproductive rights are continuously restricted; from others for whom celibacy is a choice, one that we respect; and from the asexual community, for whom celibacy can have a particular meaning and importance, which should not be diminished. We are also aware that for many, celibacy may be brought on by harm or trauma.

For years, Bumble has passionately stood up for women and marginalized communities, and their right to fully exercise personal choice. We didn't live up to these values with this campaign and we apologize for the harm it caused.

So, here's what we're doing:

We're removing these ads from our global marketing campaign. Bumble will be making a donation to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, among other organizations, as a part of our ongoing efforts to support the work being done around the world to support women, marginalized communities, and those impacted by abuse.

We will also be offering these partners this billboard space to display an ad of their choice for the duration of our reserved billboard time.

Please keep speaking up and telling us how we can be better. We care about you and will always be here for you.

With love and sincere appreciation,

Bumble

Nutrition Labels as Visual Persuasion

As the U.S. government considers new labels on packaged food, students can analyze arguments about this visual communication.

The latest idea is to show large, front-of-package (FOP) labels, possibly without the numbers and percentages we’re used to seeing. Consumers would see information more easily, albeit with some interpretative descriptions (options shown here). The goal is for consumers to make healthier choices.

Students could research arguments about the change. For example, one study showed household reductions in sugar, fat, and sodium after Chilean policies mandated front-side labels. Tony the Tiger was banned from this “Frosties” (Frosted Flakes) box. The Food and Drug Administration also describes focus groups and experimental studies in favor of the change.

The food industry argues that FOP labeling won’t have the desired effect, removes responsibility from consumers, and could infringe on products’ trademarks because of changes to the packaging. One older study showed mixed results of front-of-package labeling, including in a “halo effect” for “vice products,” for which any label—even one showing excessive sugar—made the product look more credible. Students will find more research on both sides and might consider how new weight-loss drugs could affect consumer choice.

Comms About USC Cancelling Valedictorian Commencement Speaker

In another difficult situation for university administrators, University of Southern California (USC) rescinded its plan for commencement speaker valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a first-generation South Asian-American Muslim.

In a statement, the university defends its decision. Administrators admit that the decision was based on fear of the “alarming tenor”:

The intensity of feelings, fueled by both social media and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, has grown to include many voices outside of USC and has escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement. We cannot ignore the fact that similar risks have led to harassment and even violence at other campuses.

The statement emphasizes “unprecedented risks we are seeing at other campuses and across the world” and advice from the university department of public safety as factors leading to the decision. In the middle of the statement, we read the decision: “After careful consideration, we have decided that our student valedictorian will not deliver a speech at commencement.” Administrators preempt criticism: “To be clear: this decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period.” The statement includes an FAQ and a link to the commencement selection process.

We could say that administrators lack courage, although they also demonstrate courage by, as they see it, protecting the 65,000 people who will attend the event—and, of course, the university’s reputation, possibly preventing bad press.

A student group’s statement refers to Tabassum’s writings as “antisemitic bigotry,” including, in quoted text, the “‘complete abolishment’ of Israel.” The USC statement doesn’t mention these specifics and, instead, focuses on safety.

Yet, in her statement, Tabassum denies hearing about “any specific threats against me or the university.” She defends her work and calls for courage: “And I urge us to see past our deepest fears and recognize the need to support justice for all people, including the Palestinian people.” The cancellation has an extra sting for Tabassum, who was the valedictorian of her high school but didn’t get to make a speech because of COVID-19.

Moral courage means accurately assessing risks and walking through fears. University administrators have made their assessment. The executive director of the Greater Los Angeles Area Office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) expressed his disappointment, calling the decision “cowardly”:

USC cannot hide its cowardly decision behind a disingenuous concern for “security.” Asna is an incredibly accomplished student whose academic and extracurricular accomplishments made her the ideal and historic recipient of this year’s valedictorian’s honor. The university can, should and must ensure a safe environment for graduation rather than taking the unprecedented step of cancelling a valedictorian’s speech.

I don’t envy university leaders, who may be trying to do the right thing but are finding it difficult to know exactly what that is.

UPDATE: USC has cancelled all commencement speakers, or as they say, they will “release our outside speakers and honorees from attending this year’s ceremony.” Four high-profile people had been invited. Another character dimension at play is integrity: withdrawing a commitment.

Image source.

Activist Investor Letter and Railroad's Response

As activist investor Ancora tries to change Norfolk Southern railroad’s leadership, students can analyze persuasive communications from both sides.

The Ancora letter to shareholders itemizes what they consider “failures of governance” and "the Board’s poor judgment.” Many of the points relate to the hiring of a new COO—the third in the past two and a half years—whom they think is unsuitable, partly because of accusations about his “abusive behavior and serious misconduct.” The activists say the railroad held an insufficient search and overpaid the chosen candidate. Students can analyze the letter in terms of organization (main points in the introduction?), formatting (excessive underlining!), and evidence.

In an interview on CNBC’s Mad Money with Jim Cramer, Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw defended the decision. Cramer challenges him a bit about the COO but, overall, the interview is favorable. Clearly, he’s a fan, supporting what Shaw says about delivering on promises during his short time with the company. As any CEO would, Shaw minimized the February 2023 train derailment in Ohio, which released toxic chemicals. He said, “Yeah, we had a challenge last year, but we met that challenge head on.” Later, he refers to it as “East Palestine” (typonym rhetorical device?), which makes the incident feels unspeakable.

Cramer is indignant when he learns that the railroad offered Ancora two board seats, and the activists didn’t accept them. Ancora doesn’t mention this in its letter. The activists want what Shaw describes as “wholesale change,” which he believes would be too disruptive. Cramer compares the situation to Disney, which students also can research.

For more, see this “fireside chat” with Shaw, another interview ahead of the shareholders meeting on May 9.

Letter from Founder of World Central Kitchen

I’m posting this hoping it’s not perceived as “political” but as a beautifully written letter by an organization leader about his work and his staff. I know that the facts in the letter are disputed.

José Andrés is the founder of World Central Kitchen, whose seven aid workers were killed while trying to deliver food to the people in Gaza. His letter was published in The New York Times with the title, “Let People Eat,” and in ynetnews, an Israeli news source, with the title, “The Probe Into Death of WCK Volunteers Needs to Start From the Top.”

This is a persuasive message, as we define it in business communication, but to me, it’s more usefully viewed as an example of leader integrity and compassion. Andrés demonstrates integrity by focusing on his own and the organization’s mission and values, which he says transcend particular groups or situations. He demonstrates compassion by giving names to those lost and describing his personal connections and appreciation of them and their work.

Update: Here is IDF’s response to the incident.

Chick-fil-A's New "Chicken Commitment"

Chick-fil-A had a difficult announcement to make, changing its No Antibiotics Ever (NAE) policy to some antibiotics. Students can analyze the message for its audience focus, persuasive strategies, and issues of integrity.

The message begins with the reason: “To maintain supply of the high-quality chicken you expect from us.” The opening implies that, without this new strategy, consumers might not get good chicken, setting the reader up to agree with whatever the company needs to meet that standard.

The change is right up front: from no antibiotics to some. Although this is jarring at first—“No Antibiotics Ever (NAE)” is quite a “commitment”—the message is clear. Chick-fil-A admits and focuses on the change. Maybe the NAE plan wasn’t realistic to begin with. They could say more explicitly that NAE was established in 2014, and new threats require reevaluating the policy.

But the message audience is likely not consumers. The acronyms NAE and NAIHM mean something only to Chick-fil-A and industry insiders. I wonder how much consumers even care about the decision. Do they choose Chick-fil-A because they don’t (or haven’t until now) used antibiotics in the chicken, or do they go because it tastes good, and they like the service, speed, or fries and other sides?

Regardless, the frame is now about “restricting the use of those antibiotics that are important to human medicine”; in other words, only the necessary kinds for chicken. The focus is on limiting, and the message downplays that yes, they will now use antibiotics. They also don’t explain the difference between human medicine and other animal antibiotics. In this Northeastern University article, a food expert describes concerns about using any antibiotics and calls the move a “dangerous precedent for other food companies to follow.” He also challenges Chick-fil-A’s focus on supply and says the decision is, no surprise, really about profits:

They’re saying that the availability of the supply is not there; it is there, apparently. It’s just the availability at the price point they’re willing to pay is not there to maintain their profit margins. When they’re trying to defend their actions, they’re not talking about science and medicine and health.

The message raises issues of integrity because of what’s missing—lying by omission. Without more explanations, the company fails to acknowledge the potential downsides of the decision and focuses on restrictions instead of actual use. And yet, this is what we expect companies to do: to present themselves in the best possible light.

After the introduction shown above, the message identifies three short explanations about quality, animal well-being, and continuous evaluation. I admire Chick-fil-A’s candor in lines like this: “Like other chicken in the United States, ours contains no added hormones.” They’re not trying to distinguish themselves. On the contrary, the entire message, with large font, is so short and colorful that the words draw little attention.

Annual Letter as Business Communication Genre

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink published an annual letter that’s gaining popularity like Warren Buffet’s letters. The letter is a good example for students to analyze for its organization, persuasive strategies, lack of visuals, and evidence.

Fink’s letter is long, and the audience is stated as BlackRock investors. But of course, he has broader ambitions, which are realized as we see the extensive media coverage. He wants to attract investors to BlackRock, but he also wants to change policy and company practices to fund retirement.

Fink explains “energy pragmatism” and “energy security,” giving up on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) language that first was embraced and then drew cries of “wokeism.” Instead, he focuses on retirement as a broader, more acceptable crisis: an aging population with not enough saved. Fink also quit the threatening approach for CEOs to disclose more about their practices.

The main message of the letter is clear: “We focus a tremendous amount of energy on helping people live longer lives. But not even a fraction of that effort is spent helping people afford those extra years.” Fink argues that people are woefully unprepared for retirement. From a business communication perspective, the letter takes a while to get to the main point. Fink starts with emotional appeal, describing how his parents invested throughout their lives. This could be more effective if their behavior shaped his own thinking, but he admits that he had been at BlackRock for 25 years before discovering their surprisingly large nest egg. Still, the family connection feels relevant to his point.

In addition to the hidden main point, the letter could be better organized to reflect his recommendations. A class assignment could ask students to provide a bulleted list (which The New York Times summarized).

With only one confusing visual, shown here, the letter is meant to be read—as a letter. This genre seems particular to a few high-profile investment managers. The extensive footnotes are important to support Fink’s points but make this an unusual example for business communicators. It’s not quite the letter we see to introduce a company’s annual report. We might call it something like a personal report for the use of “I,” family stories, and observations plus citations and recommendations.

Baltimore Bridge Crisis News Conferences

The collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore offers crisis communication examples for students to analyze. Sadly, the incident cost the lives of six workers from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras who were working on the bridge at the time.

Typical news conferences for crisis situations cover the following points, against which students can analyze this one:

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

• 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, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Compassion typically comes first, and then explanations and plans.

The news conference also illustrates the players’ roles and responsibilities—and their audience and communication objectives—when a public crisis happens:

• Governor Wes Moore: First up, Moore’s focus is on local response. His primary audience are local responders and Baltimore residents. His attention is on gratitude to those working on rescue. He also wants to reassure people that they are safe. He says that this is most likely an accident and that “we haven’t seen any credible evidence of a terrorist attack.” This surprised me given that the ship pilot reported lost power, but he is warding off potential conspiracy theories. At the end, he expresses sympathy for the victims and their loved ones, which might have also come at the beginning. As expected, he talks about “Maryland spirit” (“We are Maryland tough, and we are Baltimore Strong”) with some nice anaphora at the end too: “That’s what we’ve always done. That’s what we’ll continue to do. And that’s what we’re doing to get done together.”

• Senator Chris van Hollen: Although he adds little substance, he expands the gratitude and demonstrates the response of the federal government. His sympathy is first, and he talks about all the agencies that are already on the scene or will be soon. He admits his limited role: “I’m just here to say, together with [other senators and congressmen]. . . . we’re with you, we love you, and we’ll get through this together” (more anaphora). Like a lot of tragedies for politicians, this one is a photo op. He does what’s expected.

• Next up are the secretary of transportation and representatives from FBI and the Coast Guard.

The Q&A portion is predictable for this early conference. “We have no further information” and “We have no estimates on time lines” are common themes. The focus is on rescue at this point. However, the governor gets a bit emotional around 11:30 talking about the Key Bridge and the impact of the bridge loss on local lives. The questions, and the answers, are a bit of a dance at this point. The governor talks about rebuilding, but people died and are still missing, so he’s balancing hope for the future with compassion.

Other communications are of interest to business and crisis communicators:

• Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott: In a separate news conference, we see the chief of police introduce the mayor. He is brief and all about compassion and gratitude, asking people to pray for everyone affected.

• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chair Jennifer Homendy: The only woman I’ve seen in the communication mix, Homendy is responsible for investigating the crash. Her objectives are to reassure the public that they will determine the cause. She emphasizes the work of her team—24 investigators, which I guess is supposed to sound like a lot, or at least, enough to do the job.

• Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg: He’s asked about bridge safety across the country, and his job is to reassure us that infrastructure is strong. He says, “This is a unique circumstance. I do not know of a bridge that has been constructed to withstand a direct impact of a vessel this size.” This is a classic communication strategy: to isolate the situation.

• The ship’s captain will be under scrutiny in the coming months. The head of the American Pilots’ Association is already defending the pilot: “These are among the most highly trained mariners in the world.”

• President Biden spoke about the tragedy, and political leaders have begun to question bridge safety as part of larger, political infrastructure issues, which Buttigieg (somewhat) addressed.

Topoi in the Business Communication Class

My friend and colleague, Christy McDowell, has an article in Business and Professional Communication Quarterly about using topoi in class. With Annette Holba, they describe topoi as a framework for arguments—different ways to “use logic so that an audience can follow our reasoning.”

Topoi can deepen students’ understanding of logical arguments, and Christy and Annette provide examples and a class activity for instructors to use. I like the framework because it’s easily applied. Students could identify topoi used in a recent business message. As the authors explain, when you bring an example for students to analyze, in addition to the audience, communication objectives, and use of logos, ethos, and pathos, analyzing topoi is a deeper dive into how the writers use logic to reach the audience and what other approaches might be more effective.

Students also could develop their own argument, choosing relevant topoi for the context and audience. The authors provide several examples for this assignment.

I see topoi introduced in any class that includes rhetorical approaches and, particularly, in persuasive communication classes.

Miami Beach Tries to Break Up With Spring Breakers

Like last year, Miami Beach is trying humor to avoid the deluge of college students during spring break. Students will have fun analyzing this one. If they traveled, what was their decision process for spring break? Does the Miami Beach humor work for them? Did it affect their decision?

The video is a parody of a break-up, with a few characters explaining, “We just want different things.” It’s a cute concept: The actors (presumably representing Miami Beach residents) prefer quiet and relaxation, while the partner wants “to get drunk in public and ignore the laws.” This is the city’s way of warning people to expect curfews, extra security, restricted beach access, and parking fees. The message seems clear, although the headlines in the middle go quickly.

In addition to the plans mentioned in the video, the Miami Beach website lists far more restrictions, including fines for short-term Airbnb rentals and extensive traffic deterrents.

A few interesting projects emerge from this situation. I’m curious why fewer students went to Miami Beach, which seems to be the case. Were they concerned about the restrictions, or could they not get a place to stay? Students could assess Airbnb hosts’ response to the campaign.

Students also could identify measures to evaluate whether the campaign is working. In this CBS report, two aerial shots of the beach compare this year and last, but students might question whether the videos were taken on the same day of the week, at same time of day, and with the same weather conditions. Business owners say sales are significantly down, but how do we know whether this is a common experience or the experience of only the two interviewed? Students should be able to find more data to assess whether the campaign achieved its goal.

If the campaign was successful in Miami, the impact on the rest of Florida might be negative. Spring breakers in Ft. Lauderdale have caused the city to increase security. Perhaps students should consider this and other negative consequences, in addition to the business impact, to advise Miami on future campaigns.

---

(Thanks to Bambi Van Horn at University of Nebraska at Kearney for sending this example—and last year’s.)

Does a Brand Have a Soul? Does Starbucks?

Starbucks Founder Howard Schultz wrote a letter to Board about preserving the “soul” of the brand. Students can analyze his letter and discuss whether a company or a brand has a soul. Does Starbucks?

The context of Starbucks’ unionization efforts likely drove Schultz’s thinking. (All three Starbucks in Ithaca, NY, have come and gone because of unionization efforts, the company’s response, and local backlash. Costco may be a better role model for accepting and negotiating with unions. A useful project for students would be to analyze the effects of unions in the past several decades.)

Schultz writes that this definition of soul is from Webster, but it doesn’t match what I see in the dictionary listing, which is worth comparing. Here’s his list:

a) the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b) the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c) spiritual or moral force

Schultz then writes, “Webster did not anticipate the necessity to define soul in business terms for the very reason I am addressing it. It rarely exists, and it’s almost impossible to define.” Or, perhaps a business or brand cannot have a soul. Perhaps his view is an overreach, reflecting the exact arrogance for which Starbucks is criticized. After all, the company sells coffee. This is a cynical view, and students may believe, or feel, otherwise.

Also worth analyzing is the purpose of the letter. What are Schultz’s communication objectives? In addition to the Board audience, he forwarded the letter in an email to those of us on his former Schultz-for-president distribution list. After reading the letter, will the Board feel inspired, and if so, to do what, exactly?

Image source.

Yale's "Test-Flexible" Policy and Rationale

Like other schools after the pandemic-era hiatus, Yale is again requiring a test in the admissions process. But the school will accept AP or IB scores instead of the SAT or ACT. Yale’s rationale is worth analyzing.

Yale’s explanation is carefully considered in a message posted on the website. Because tests, particularly the SAT, have been so controversial, school officials explain the evidence they gathered about the effect of not requiring scores during the past four years. They write that the elimination of scores placed emphasis on other parts of an application, which we might expect to favor students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, but the opposite happened. They theorize that these students tend to be from lower-resourced schools, with fewer advanced courses and extracurricular options and more taxed teachers who write generic recommendation letters (my paraphrase, particularly noted here). The message includes goals of increasing diversity, without mentioning specific demographics, for obvious reasons.

Officials acknowledge: “Students’ out-of-school commitments may include activities that demonstrate extraordinary leadership and contributions to family and community but reveal nothing about their academic preparedness.” They seem to admit that, for example, working or taking care of younger siblings, doesn’t count for much—or at least not enough. They conclude:

[T]est scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s future Yale grades. This is true even after controlling for family income and other demographic variables, and it is true for subject-based exams such as AP and IB, in addition to the ACT and SAT.

Students might be interested in evaluating Yale’s recommendations to applications, including the following:

Advice on Selecting Scores to Include

When considering which scores to include with your application, consider the following questions:

• Do the scores indicate my preparation for college-level coursework?

• Do the scores reflect areas of academic strength?

• Do the scores help showcase my academic range?

• Do the scores supplement the courses and grades on my high school transcript?

• Do the scores stand out as especially notable in my secondary school?

• Am I proud of the scores as a reflection of the effort I put into preparing for the test(s)?

The admissions team does offer quite a bit of guidance, including these podcasts.

President Biden's Foray Into TikTok

President Biden needs to connect with younger voters and prove wrong the justice department’s label of him as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” But is TikTok the right platform?

His new account, bidenhq, is managed by his campaign staff, not by him personally (in case that isn’t obvious). The profile picture of Biden—with explosive, red-light glasses—might not be the image he wants to portray. If I didn’t know this was real, I might think it was a parody account.

The account is a strange mix of videos. Of the 20 videos posted so far, 12 are about former President Trump, and two compare Trump and Biden. Some of them show Trump “confused on stage” and describe Trump as “rambling incoherently.”

In the first video posted on the account, Biden is doing his best to be cool. In a clearly edited, fast-paced Q&A, Biden answers popular-culture questions. The caption reads, “lol hey guys."

During his first show back as The Daily Show host, John Stewart found his target. In addition to multiple jokes about both candidates’ age, he showed a clip from that first TikTok video. When asked whether he prefers Jason Kelce or Travis Kelce, Biden said, “Mama Kelce. I understand she makes great chocolate chip cookies.” Stewart made him look silly and, as always, the clip out of context looked worse.

At this point, the account has 156.2k followers, not a great showing compared to, for example, Taylor Swift with 24.8 million. Although Biden wants to reach younger voters on TikTok, the medium is an odd choice. The app is banned on government-issued devices so, in a way, this feels like an integrity issue. Despite security concerns that prevent the president himself from having the app on a phone, he’s using the app for his campaign.

Stanley Responds to Lead Concerns

Stanley cups are all the rage, but a recent lead scare caused the company to respond. People are posting their home lead tests online, which raises questions about evidence.

The company responded to concerns with a short statement on its website, which students can analyze. The main point is somewhere in the middle, after the explanation. They acknowledge using lead according to industry standards but assure us that it’s “inaccessible.”

TikTokers and others are showing positive home tests, but a BBC article quotes NYU Public Health Professor Jack Caravanos, who confirms Stanley’s claim:

“There appears to be lead, according to the report, but I had trouble detecting it and wasn’t able to detect it using state-of-the-art equipment." He says this is probably because the lead was "too deep inside the unit," meaning it would be very tough to be exposed to it or ingest it.

He does express disappointment that Stanley is using lead at all. The company isn’t complying with California’s Proposition 65, which requires companies to disclose any amount of lead. In the statement and on the website FAQs, Stanley attests, “all Stanley items comply with Prop 65 and FDA requirements,” but they didn’t specifically disclose that products use lead—until they posted the statement addressing concerns.

Students might have their own experience with Stanley cups and can discuss how they reacted to videos. Are they swayed by them? Has fear driven them to discarded their custom-engraved, nail-polish-matched Quencher? Does a public health professor’s test change their opinion?

Despite the company’s lack of complete transparency, it would be unfortunate if sales take a hit because of false information. Maybe the dramatic sales increase for Stanley—a little-known thermos company turned $750-million internet craze—made it vulnerable to deceptive claims.

Image source.

Zuckerberg Impromptu Apologizes, Defends Progress

Tech CEOs faced senators’ tough questions and accusations about child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their platforms. Rarely do we see an impromptu apology, but Mark Zuckerberg directly faced families during the hearings.

Lawmakers held little back with the CEOs of six major tech companies. One of the harshest was Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said, “You have blood on your hands.” Several families were present, holding photos of children who were harmed or killed as a result of online abuse.

At one point, Sen. Josh Hawley asked if Mark Zuckerberg “would like to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your platforms. [To the audience] Show him the pictures. [Back to Zuckerberg] Would you like to apologize for what you have done to these good people?” Understandably, Zuckerberg looked hesitant and awkward, as photographers swarmed around him. He turned around to face the families and said, “I’m sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered, and this is why we invested so much.” The scene is both heartbreaking and farcical.

Parents didn’t seem to appreciate the apology; one said, “He had a gun to his head,” meaning it wasn’t sincere. But after Hawley’s insistence, he would have looked callous to refuse an on-the-spot apology. He was set up. Considering the situation, he did OK.

Although Zuckerberg’s view is that they have “invested so much,” people want to see more. An internal email revealed that Zuckerberg rejected a request to add 45 staff to the effort.

At least a couple of lawmakers blamed themselves for not passing legislation after dozens of hearings. Some blamed the tech companies’ resistance and lobbying efforts. Zuckerberg’s position is that the data, “on balance,” shows positive outcomes of the platforms. He also said, “Overall, teens tell us this is a positive part of their lives.” As we teach in business communication courses, averages are not always the most useful information.

The conversation is tiring after all these years. Zuckerberg’s integrity is damaged because of his failed promises and because internal documents are inconsistent with them. But the senate hearings aren’t inspiring much movement—and are becoming a circus.