University-Related Communications and the War

If you’re speaking with students about communications around the Israel-Hamas war, here are a few ideas, and students will probably have their own examples that didn’t make national news.

Protests and Free Speech

In addition to student protests at universities, a few well-publicized examples have raised questions about faculty and staff behavior—and about free speech. Students can analyze one or more of these situations and the university’s response. This is a particularly good activity to challenge students to evaluate their sources and to consider all the possible choices and repercussions for the university.

• Yale: A professor of American studies, tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”

• Cornell University: An associate professor of history says on video that the “challenge” by Hamas was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” (See his apology, which students can compare to criteria in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character.)

• Stanford: A lecturer apparently separated Jewish students in class as an example of what Israel does to Palestinians and called an Israeli student a “colonizer.”

Criticism of Ivy League Statements

Some universities have revised or supplemented their original statements. Students can analyze messages to identify changes, for example, taking a clearer stand, including more emphatic language, adding personal reflections, more clearly distinguishing between Palestinian support and the Hamas attacks, etc. Students can discuss how effective the revisions or add-ons are and whether they satisfied critics. Students also may consider what character dimensions are illustrated, or not. Here are a few statements:

Stanford University
“Statement about support and resources for students as crises unfold worldwide” (Oct. 9)
“An update for the Stanford community” (Oct. 11)

Cornell University
”Response to the terrorism in Israel” (Oct. 10 and updated later that day)
”Supporting one another as we stand against hatred (Follow up on events in Israel)” (Oct. 16)

Harvard University
See the series of statements, including the original on Oct. 9, the follow-up on Oct. 10, and the president’s video on Oct. 12 (shown here).

Donors Pulling Funding

Related to the criticism of elite colleges, this article provides examples of donors pulling funding based on universities’ responses. Discussion questions could include the following: How do funders explain their decision? What reasoning or evidence do they provide? What do funders say they want in return? How effective do you believe this strategy will be?

Joint University Statement

Leaders of Yeshiva University, University of Notre Dame, United Negro College Fund, Baylor University, and others issued a joint statement, “We Stand Together with Israel Against Hamas.” Discussion questions could include an analysis of the statement (what’s said and what’s missing), why some leaders would choose to sign this statement and others would not, and how Baylor’s fuller response provides context for the university’s decision to sign.

Firms Denying Jobs

Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman called for Harvard students who signed the pro-Palestinian statement to be revealed, so he wouldn’t “inadvertently hire” them. The CEO of Sweetgreen and others agreed. A law firm rescinded job offers to three students who had signed statements. Discussion could include students’ thoughts about these decisions. What ethical questions are involved? What character issues are at play? What are the possible positive and negative consequences to leaders who make these public statements—and decide not to hire certain job applicants? Here’s one opinion on Ackman for students to discuss.

Bruno Mars Is Quiet About Israel Concert Cancellation

Not surprisingly, a Bruno Mars concert scheduled for Tel Aviv was cancelled because of the Israel-Gaza Conflict that already left hundreds dead. In times of tragedy, celebrities are often at a loss. Mars seems to be keeping quiet.

Live Nation posted an announcement in Hebrew, which translates roughly as follows:

Dear Customers,
Bruno Mars concert scheduled to take place tonight is cancelled. All ticket purchases to the show will receive an automatic refund to the credit card through which the purchase was made.

The concert schedule on his website shows the next performance on October 8, in Qatar, with no explanation for October 7, although this is as of 9:45 pm on October 7. The website is bare-bones and out of date, with only one promotional “news” item dating back to 2021, so we wouldn’t expect more to be written here.

However, Mars is active on X, with posts on October 5 and 6. This would be a place to say something.

His Instagram also shows a picture from the October 6 concert, and some fans are asking for his support. One wrote, “Please share to all your fans what is happening in Israel right now. We love you.”

Mars might not want to weigh in on the political situation, but he could simply express regret for not performing as planned. The previous night was his first concert in Israel, and the Tel Aviv location would have been his second. Would a statement of regret raise questions about why he doesn’t support one side or the other?

Compassion seems warranted. Maybe fans would like to hear Mars’ disappointment and some version of “thoughts and prayers.” How about, “I’m as disappointed as fans that I can’t perform in Tel Aviv. I wish for peace for all.” Or would that cause a social media firestorm?

Of course, he could express his opinion if he feels strongly about the situation. That would take courage—taking action despite the risks, in this case possible backlash and, eventually, loss of fans or endorsement agreements. Students will have opinions on this topic.

Analyzing BP's CEO Resignation Announcement

BP’s communicators addressed sensitive “relationship” issues in the company’s announcement about the CEO resignation. I’ve analyzed the British energy company’s message by paragraph.

BP plc announces that Bernard Looney has notified the Company that he has resigned as Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect. 

Murray Auchincloss, the Company’s CFO, will act as CEO on an interim basis. 

The message—some might call it “bad news,” others “positive”—is intended to be persuasive, with the goal of convincing audiences (likely investors primarily and the press/employees secondarily) that BP is an ethical company that stands by its values. The news is right up front, with an interesting few extra words.: “BP plc announces that” seems superfluous, and yet, the company intentionally leads with its own action, if only “announcing.” This reflects an attempt to demonstrate accountability, a subtle way of saying that the “resignation” is more of a technicality and likely was demanded.

The CEO replacement, even an interim one, is announced immediately to convey confidence and smooth operations.

In May 2022, the Board received and reviewed allegations, with the support of external legal counsel, relating to Mr Looney’s conduct in respect of personal relationships with company colleagues. The information came from an anonymous source.

A little history is good, but this seems misplaced. At first, I misread that it took the Board more than a year to take action. A short statement about the recent situation, which led to the resignation, before this part would be clearer. Also, “personal relationships with company colleagues” sounds icky, but I can’t think of anything better. It is icky. Stating “anonymous source” is relevant because the report didn’t come from Looney, increasing the ethical questions about his behavior and supporting the Board’s actions.

During that review, Mr Looney disclosed a small number of historical relationships with colleagues prior to becoming CEO. No breach of the Company’s Code of Conduct was found. However, the Board sought and was given assurances by Mr Looney regarding disclosure of past personal relationships, as well as his future behaviour.

“A small number” raises more questions than it answers. Whatever the number is, I’m thinking of something higher. “Historical” is an attempt to create greater distance than “prior to becoming CEO” implies. Mentioning the Code of Conduct is important—both that the company has one and that Looney didn’t, for example, have a relationship with someone who reported to him (which is what this implies). The last sentence uses “the Board” again as the actor, emphasizing its due diligence. But “However” seems misplaced after the previous sentence, and “given assurances . . . regarding . . .” is vague. More precise wording would convey that he said he had disclosed ALL past relationships (but hadn’t) and committed not to pursue additional relationships (which is odd and could probably be omitted).

Further allegations of a similar nature were received recently, and the Company immediately began investigating with the support of external legal counsel. That process is ongoing.  

Here’s the real reason for his “resignation.” Using passive voice for the first independent clause of the sentence, the company downplays the Board. With active voice in the second independent clause, the Company springs into action. But despite an “ongoing” investigation, they have apparently, finally, had enough.

Mr Looney has today informed the Company that he now accepts that he was not fully transparent in his previous disclosures.  He did not provide details of all relationships and accepts he was obligated to make more complete disclosure.

In other words, he lied by omission. The language choices are odd here too: he “informed” the Company that he “accepts” (twice) that did not fully disclose information. In case it wasn’t clear earlier, at this point, we might conclude that his resignation was, indeed, forced. Or, in today’s parlance, he was “released.”

The Company has strong values and the Board expects everyone at the Company to behave in accordance with those values.  All leaders in particular are expected to act as role models and to exercise good judgement in a way that earns the trust of others.

Well, of course. But without this assurance, the statement would be incomplete. This is the kind of boilerplate we expect to see in these situations.

No decisions have yet been made in respect of any remuneration payments to be made to Mr Looney.  In accordance with section 430(2B) of the Companies Act 2006, particulars of any such decisions will be disclosed at such times as, and to the extent that, any such decisions are made.

This legalese is likely for investors who want to understand the financial impact. Or maybe it’s for people like me, shaking my head as I think about the millions in compensation that might accompany his departure.

This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 of 16 April 2014 (MAR) as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Ditto about the legalese. This would be an unusual ending for an American company’s statement, which might end on a more forward-looking, positive note.

---

This crisis communication example raises issues of integrity (honesty and transparency in communication) and humility (learning from mistakes). Maybe this story offers a lesson for others, as a university communication professional once told my Corporate Communication class: “The truth will come out.” As these cases often go, covering up unethical behavior is often worse than the behavior itself.

Airbnb Shifts Communication About NYC

A NYC law that dramatically limits the number of short-term rentals has taken effect, and Airbnb is left to communicate requirements to hosts. The news is bad, but the communication focuses on action because the decision was made back in June. Here’s the gist:

Hosts (whether owners or tenants) cannot rent out an entire apartment or home to visitors for fewer than 30 days, even if the host owns or lives in the building.

The Sept. 5 deadline came after years of complaints and litigation, which the company explained to hosts and to the public. Now, messaging has turned to action: Airbnb is taking responsibility for getting hosts to follow registration guidelines now that the law is being enforced.

When the legal case was decided in June, messages expressed Airbnb’s disappointment and the effect. Theo Yedinsky, global policy director for Airbnb, provided this statement to the press, focusing on hosts: "New York City's short-term rental rules are a blow to its tourism economy and the thousands of New Yorkers and small businesses in the outer boroughs who rely on home sharing and tourism dollars to help make ends meet." He also explained the effect on NYC visitors: “The city is sending a clear message to millions of potential visitors who will now have fewer accommodation options when they visit New York City: ‘You are not welcome.’”

In a recent message to hosts, who are now Airbnb’s primary audience, the company explained what hosts need to do. The message is under “Help Center” and, appropriately, reads like a checklist. Unfortunately, the time to fight is over, and now hosts need to follow the law. Of course, Airbnb takes the opportunity to include a short introduction about how hard the company tried to avoid this situation—and how the decision rests with the city.

Instructions are clear and, significantly, the message starts with this ominous statement, implying that similar rules may come to other regions:

When deciding whether to become an Airbnb host, it is important for you to understand the laws in your region or city. As a platform and online marketplace we do not provide legal advice, but we want to provide resources that may help you better understand applicable laws and regulations. This list is not exhaustive, but it may give you a good start in understanding your local laws. If you have questions, visit the short-term rental homepage or other government agencies directly, or consult a local lawyer or tax professional.

As expected, the number of short-term rentals has taken a nosedive. Wired reports that the number of Airbnb properties dropped 70%—and that doesn’t include laggards who still need to either register or delist, and other short-term rental properties such as those on VRBO.

Image source.

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.

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.

Improving a JetBlue Email for Writing Style

A JetBlue email announcing a program change uses a conversational writing style but could use more “you” focus. Students can analyze the message and might identify the following:

• The main points are up front in both the subject line (above the blue bar) and first sentence.

• Although technically correct, the comma after “Hi” and before “Amy” is not conventional. I gave this up after seeing hundreds of business emails without the comma.

• The tone is reassuring and tells customers what they need to know.

• Mostly, the tone is conversational with natural language, for example, “wanted to let you know about a couple upcoming changes.”

• More use of “you” would make the email sound more natural, as in the example below.

• Some language choices sound odd, for example, “To the extent any individual customers are impacted, JetBlue will reach out individually for any required re-accommodation or refund.” I thought airlines learned the “re-accommodation” jargon lesson after United dragged a man out of his seat and off the plane in 2017. How about, “You’ll hear from us separately with options for changing flights.”

• The president and COO signed the letter—always a good example of accountability.

• The president appropriately blames federal action for the change, without being too snarky or getting into the details, which would not be relevant to customers: “We've had so much great member feedback on this partnership and are bluer than usual to see it end, after a federal court ruled that the Northeast Alliance could not continue.”

Overall, this bad-news message sounds neutral and might be the best approach for the situation.

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.

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.

PGA Commissioner Address Criticism Directly

Golf tournaments PGA and LIV, which is backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, announced a merger and faced backlash. Part of the controversy is how the decision was communicated: primarily during a CNBC interview of LIV Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan and PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan.

Players complained openly, shown here. As we teach business communication students, a thoughtful communication plan could prevent negative reactions—at least about how the news is delivered. Players should have been informed before any public announcement was made. Even in the CNBC video title, the news is called a “surprise deal.”

Monahan addressed personal criticism directly. In his statements, he demonstrates courage by acknowledging a perceived lack of integrity:

I recognize that people are going to call me a hypocrite, Anytime I said anything, I said it with the information that I had at that moment, and I said it based on someone that's trying to compete for the PGA Tour and our players. I accept those criticisms. But circumstances do change. I think that in looking at the big picture and looking at it this way, that's what got us to this point.

Monahan loosely acknowledged the impact on tour players, but he could have demonstrated more compassion, particularly for those who had turned down generous Saudi money to stick with the PGA:

This is an awful lot to ask them to digest, and this is a significant change for us in the direction that we were going down. We just realized that we were better off together than we were fighting or apart, and by thinking about the game at large and eliminating a lot of the friction that's been out there and doing this in a way where we can move forward and grow the PGA Tour.

Of course, Monahan’s explanation didn’t convince everyone that the merger is the right decision. A news release on the PGA website, which claims that the merger is “for the benefit of all stakeholders,” is another example for students to analyze.

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.”

Netflix Anti-Sharing Message

On its website and in an email, Netflix communicated what people already know: sharing passwords is not OK. Business communication faculty would consider these messages bad news, although users must have known this was coming, so the approach is straightforward and direct. On its website, under a clever, intentionally misleading heading, “Share Netflix with someone who doesn’t live with you,” the company says, actually, you can’t, even though sharing has been an open secret for years.

Netflix sent an email to people who share accounts outside their household, which tells us that they knew all the time and didn’t take action. In the message, the company offers alternatives. You can transfer your account, which is a nice way of saying boot someone off your plan and tell them how to get their own for full price. Or you can buy an extra member, which might be a good solution for family and close friends, who have been seeing each other’s lists for years. For $7.99, you can add one member, but that’s only if you pay $15.49/month for the standard plan; you can add two members if you pay $19.99 for the premium plan.

The “Plans and Pricing” page could be clearer. Compare that page to Max’s “Choose Your Plan” table (formerly HBO Max). Why have a separate category for prices? The language is an obvious sales tactic: the “standard” plan is now the third highest of four levels. Like other streaming services, what used to be the regular plan without ads is now sub-standard with ads. The 99-cent strategy is well worn, giving the impression that people are paying significantly less. However, this USA Today article rounded up.

For many years, Netflix has been losing subscriber revenue, an estimated 100 million use shared accounts. With increasing competition among streaming companies, this move isn’t surprising—and shouldn’t be to those who have benefited for so long.

Boarding School Admits Responsibility in Suicide

In a written statement one year after a student’s death by suicide, a New Jersey boarding school took responsibility for its role and committed to action. Some call the admission “rare,” which is true, and “courageous,” or taking action despite risks, and I disagree. The statement announces a settlement with Jack Reid’s parents, so its liability is already determined. In other words, administrators suffer few risks by confessing what is obvious.

Statements at the time of his death are typical. After a trigger warning pop-up, we see condolences, vigils, counseling, and other support, and a separate message to alumni.

The recent message, under a tab labeled “Anniversary Statement,” describes a clearer picture about the circumstances surrounding Reid’s death. He was bullied, the victim of a false rumor. News reports say he was called a rapist and was subjected to cruelty as a result.

Providing specific examples of how the school failed Reid and the community is rare in settlement messages and a big step forward. Although the statement isn’t signed by anyone in particular, which would have been a nice touch, the school identifies specific missed opportunities in the third and fourth paragraphs.

The statement is a good model. During the bullying, school officials lacked both accountability and compassion for what was happening to Reid, and they admit this failure. The school is already vulnerable, so why not allow leaders to admit vulnerability. The statement also expresses humility by identifying wrongdoings and the willingness to learn from mistakes.

But is it courageous? The specific examples may open opportunities for more criticism, which is a risk, but the lack of action at the time is fairly obvious. Despite Reid’s complaints, little or nothing was done. A lead bully was suspended but for unrelated reasons. Then, all students saw him return to school—back to Reid’s same dorm. Reid died by suicide that night.

---

We experienced the tragic loss of Jack Reid on April 30, 2022 and through great sorrow, came together in meaningful ways as a community. The Special Oversight Committee of the Board of Trustees conducted a five-month review of the circumstances surrounding Jack’s death by suicide, and produced a summary of findings that were shared with the community in December 2022.

April 30, 2023

The Lawrenceville School and William and Elizabeth Reid, parents of Jack Reid, have reached an agreement in the wake of the tragic loss of Jack, a Fourth Former in Dickinson House, who died by suicide on April 30, 2022. Jack was universally regarded as an extremely kind and good-hearted young man, with an unwavering sense of social and civic responsibility and a bright future. We continue to mourn this loss.

As we seek to improve as a community, we have examined our role and take responsibility for what we could have done differently. Lawrenceville’s top priority is the physical, social, and emotional health, safety, and wellbeing of our students. We recognize that in Jack’s case, we fell tragically short of these expectations.

Jack was a victim of bullying and other forms of cruel behavior at Lawrenceville over the course of a year, including in the form of false rumors in person and online. When these behaviors were brought to the attention of the School, there were steps that the School should in hindsight have taken but did not, including the fact that the School did not make a public or private statement that it investigated and found rumors about Jack that were untrue. There also were circumstances in which the involvement of an adult would have made a difference.

In addition, on April 30, when the student who previously had been disciplined for bullying Jack was expelled for an unrelated violation of School rules, the School allowed him to return to Dickinson House largely unsupervised where students gathered, including some who said harsh words about Jack. School administrators did not notify or check on Jack. That night, Jack took his life, telling a friend that he could not go through this again. The School acknowledges that bullying and unkind behavior, and actions taken or not taken by the School, likely contributed to Jack’s death.

In the ensuing months, the School undertook an investigation of the circumstances leading up to Jack's death. Reflecting on those findings, and discussing them with the Reid family, we acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.

Today's multi-faceted settlement with the Reids is aimed at honoring Jack, taking appropriate responsibility, and instituting meaningful changes that will support the School’s aspirations of becoming a model for anti-bullying and student mental health.

Over the past year, we have focused on four broad lines of action: training and educational programs, House culture and healthy socializing, the structure of our Dean of Students office and disciplinary protocols, and general health and wellness. In addition to efforts undertaken over the past 12 months, we are planning the following:

• Lawrenceville will contract with a specialist on school bullying to help construct policies and training to identify and effectively address the behaviors that lead to bullying and cyberbullying.

• Lawrenceville will contribute to the Jack Reid Foundation, a foundation established by the Reid family focused on education and prevention of bullying.

• Lawrenceville will hire a Dean of Campus Wellbeing. This will be an endowed position focused on the variety of student mental health issues educational institutions face.

• Lawrenceville faculty, professional staff, and students will participate in trainings and workshops to raise awareness and promote better understanding of adolescent mental health.

• Consulting with outside experts as needed, Lawrenceville will continue to review and make improvements to its emergency response protocols and crisis response plans; it similarly will review the safety training it provides to faculty and staff to assure it aligns with best practices.

• Lawrenceville will make a recurring gift to a mental health organization to support research and best practices for suicide prevention in school environments.

There is, of course, nothing that will ever make up for the tragedy of losing this promising and beloved young man. But it is the hope of all of us that Jack's memory is honored.

Bed Bath & Beyond Communicates Bankruptcy

After years of closing stores, Bed Bath & Beyond communicated its decision to file for bankruptcy and what it means for customers. Messages follow typical bad-news announcements.

A short message on its website, shown here, thanks loyal customers. Perhaps the most important part is that stores are still open: the company needs to sell its remaining inventory.

An email to customers, below, conveys the news upfront, expresses appreciation, and answers questions customers might have. In three of the four bullets, we see “we expect,” communicating uncertainty that might be off-putting to customers with outstanding merchandise, gift cards, or orders. But bullets are clear (use those coupons fast!), and the separate section for registries make sense for worried brides and grooms and shower planners.

This is a sad ending for a former Fortune 500 company with 1,530 stores in 2019. Despite changing consumer preferences and other issues, critics say the company’s demise was caused, in part, by bad management decisions. But none of that matters now; the time for accountability is long gone. Instead, as they should, messages focus on the nostalgia that, for better or worse, kept Bed Bath afloat longer than some expected.

---

To Our Valued Customers:

Earlier today, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. filed for voluntary Chapter 11 protection.

We appreciate that our customers have trusted us through the most important milestones in their lives – from going to college, to getting married, to settling into a new home, to having a baby – and we wanted to reach out to you to explain what this means.

Our stores are open and serving customers. However, we have initiated a process to wind down operations.

What This Means for Our Customers

We wanted to make you aware that several of our programs and policies may be changing soon. As of today:

• We expect to process returns and exchanges in accordance with our usual policies until May 24, 2023, for items purchased prior to April 23, 2023

• We expect Gift Cards, Gift Certificates, and Loyalty Certificates will be accepted through May 8, 2023

• We will no longer accept coupons or Welcome Rewards+ discounts beginning April 26, 2023

• We expect all in-stock orders placed online both prior and after our bankruptcy filing to be fulfilled at this time

Registry
Your registry data is safe. You can still view your registry at this time. We expect to partner with an alternative platform where you will be able to transfer your data and complete your registry. We will provide details in the coming days.

We Are Here for You
For Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and additional information, please visit
https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/bbby. Stakeholders with questions can email
BBBYInfo@ra.kroll.com or call at (833) 570-5355 or (646) 440-4806 if calling from outside the U.S. or Canada.

Thank you for your loyalty and support.

Bed Bath & Beyond | buybuy BABY

PRIVACY POLICYUNSUBSCRIBEVIEW ONLINE

Please add bedbathandbeyond@email.bedbathandbeyond.com to your address book.
Please do not reply to this email. Contact us here.
©2022 Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved.
Corporate Headquarters - 650 Liberty Avenue, Union, New Jersey 07083

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.

New Conventions for Layoff Messages

Guidelines for communicating layoffs are shifting, which may have implications for other bad-news messages. A Wall Street Journal article discusses which day of the week (now Wednesday instead of Friday), how deep to cut, how much severance to offer, and how to decide who goes.

The most obvious shift is away from the business communication wisdom of delivering bad news in person. Why call remote workers into the office only to fire them?

We could say the same for other types of bad news: cutting bonuses or benefits, giving a “below-expectations” performance review, or ending a project. Maybe the best wisdom is to follow communication norms. If a weekly one-on-one meeting is in person, then that would be an appropriate place and time to talk about negative customer feedback. The medium might raise bigger questions about typical communications. If the most typical communication is by text, then, maybe a text is best, but why is that the most typical way of communicating?

Of course, timing is an issue, so these regularly scheduled meetings might not be ideal. Then, what’s the secondary way to communicate? By phone? By email? The decision also depends on the severity of the news—a career-ended change or a minor setback? The guiding principle in articles seems to be that employees could complain publicly; perhaps a better guide is compassion—being humane and prioritizing employees’ feelings over our own reluctance to give bad news.

Back in 2015, in the 9th edition of Business Communication, I softened the “indirect style” recommendation for bad-news messages—adding a “buffer” and giving reasons before the main point. Research hasn’t supported this organizational strategy, and corporate messages that follow this “soften-the-blow” approach are ridiculed. Employees typically know when bad news is coming—or they should if managers have been doing their job.

In the past, faculty spent too much time worrying about sequence within a message; this is a non-issue in articles about layoff message like the Wall Street Journal’s. Companies need to worry more about the sequence and timing of multiple messages, which are often posted online because they wind up there anyway. No spoiler alert, but Episode 3 of Succession on HBO, Season 3, is an interesting example.

Image source.

Intel Honors Gordon Moore

Intel’s home page links to several communications about the co-founder’s death. Like all obituaries for older people, the articles about Gordon Moore, age 94, were clearly prepared ahead of time. The news is technically bad, but it was expected, so these communications are opportunities to demonstrate respect—and for company PR.

With the primary audience as members of the press, the webpage includes an obituary, downloadable photos, a tribute, and more. The obituary acknowledges the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for the announcement and includes a link to the organization. This is a promotional opportunity for the foundation as well.

The tribute, titled, “He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans: Never the loudest guy in the room, Intel’s co-founder commanded huge respect,” is a more personal look at Moore’s life. Three interviews tell us more about Moore’s “character,” as the author writes.

A visual timeline shows his major accomplishments and recognitions. One of Moore’s most significant contributions is what came to be known as “Moore’s Law,” a prediction that the “number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years.” Intel’s tribute describes Moore as a humble man. He told his biographer that he was embarrassed to have the law named after him.

The press kit lists the following, including the three links above:

• Obituary: Gordon Moore, Intel Co-Founder, Dies at 94

• Tribute: Gordon Moore: He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans

• Visual Tribute: A Look Back at the Life of Intel's Co-Founder

• Timeline: Celebrating Gordon Moore

• More on Moore: Five Things to Know About Gordon Moore

• Video: The Gordon Moore Effect 

• Gordon Moore Park at Ronler Acres: Intel Marks Grand Opening of $3 Billion Factory Expansion in Oregon | Event Replay

Zuckerberg Frames Layoffs in the “Year of Efficiency”

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s note to employees is a study in bad-news messages. In a 2,188-word message note posted on Meta’s news site and his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg explained his strategy for the “Year of Efficiency.” This frame for operational changes is good for investors, who are concerned with financials, but not for employees who will be laid off.

In the first paragraph, Zuckerberg reiterates Facebook’s initial mission of “building the future of human connection,” and he identifies two broad goals: becoming a better technology company and improving financial performance. He doesn’t wait too long—the third paragraph—to confirm layoffs, which are obvious from the start. With some compassion, he acknowledges “uncertainty“ and “stress” and identifies the timeline, so people know what to expect. In the fourth and sixth paragraphs, he writes:

This will be tough and there's no way around that. It will mean saying goodbye to talented and passionate colleagues who have been part of our success. They've dedicated themselves to our mission and I'm personally grateful for all their efforts. We will support people in the same ways we have before and treat everyone with the gratitude they deserve. . . .

I understand that this update may still feel surprising, so I'd like to lay out some broader context on our vision, our culture, and our operating philosophy.

Zuckerberg outlines additional changes, including hiring freezes, technology investments, and more in-person time, which may not be popular either. Students could analyze evidence Zuckerberg provides for his claims, for example, “leaner is better,” “flatter is faster,” and working in-person improves performance. For the in-person claim, he does acknowledge, “This requires further study, but our hypothesis is that it is still easier to build trust in person and that those relationships help us work more effectively.” Still, this could be a contentious issue, and he could offer external research to support his points. But perhaps academic research would have less credibility than the internal data, which he uses for his other claims.

Zuckerberg demonstrates some humility and highlights changes based on employee feedback:

I recognize that sharing plans for restructuring and layoffs months in advance creates a challenging period. But last fall, we heard feedback that you wanted more transparency sooner into any restructuring plans, so that's what I'm trying to provide here. I hope that giving you a timeline and principles for what to expect will help us get through the next couple of months and then move forward as we implement these changes that I believe will have a very positive impact on how we work.

The post illustrates a CEO’s difficult decisions and how he communicates them to employees. These changes are in addition to last year’s layoffs—13% of the workforce—which Zuckerberg mentions towards the end of the long post. Despite his communication efforts, uncertainty prevails—not only in employees’ wondering who will have a job in a few months but in whether the metaverse vision will be as successful as Zuckerberg hopes.