Robinhood's Strategy Faces Regulatory Questions

Robinhood is in the news again for its marketing tactics. I featured the investment app in the 11th edition of Business Communication and Character for its aggressive communication, including gaming graphics, to lure young, inexperienced investors into trading.

When users open a Robinhood account, they receive a free share to get started. This requires a proxy statement to be delivered to the user, which costs small companies a lot of money—for very few purchased shares. New regulations may prevent companies like Robinhood from seeking reimbursement.

Users don’t get any great bargain. As a Wall Street Journal writer explains, “Customers have a 98% chance of receiving a share priced between $2.50 and $10.”

Robinhood has maintained its defense as it faces increased scrutiny. A spokesperson said, “Customers love our free-stock program, and we think it fits squarely into our mission to democratize finance for all.”

This situation is another example of how the company’s strategy benefits some but negatively impacts others. For that reason, the communication becomes an issue of character—failing to consider the effect of one’s actions.

New "Jeopardy!" Host Resigns

Just nine days after he got the job, Mike Richards resigned as the new host of ”Jeopardy!“ The Anti-Defamation League revealed comments that the host made on a podcast, “The Randumb Show,” between 2013 and 2014.

Although Richards was selected as a host without too much personality to overshadow the show, his reputation is now tarnished by these remarks.

What surprises me is that the show producers didn’t uncover the comments themselves. Or did they find them benign? Did they also discount litigation against him when he was a producer for “The Price Is Right” and “Let’s Make a Deal”?

Regardless, this is yet another warning to students and others to consider carefully what they say and post online; everything becomes a permanent digital record.

Below is Richards’ email to “Jeopardy!” staff about the previous litigation, including a version of the now-classic, “This is not who I am.” Below the email is his apology about the podcast comments, including versions of the old classics, “I’m a father” and “It was a joke.”

Team Jeopardy!

Recently, Jeopardy!, our host search and the possibility of me hosting has been all over the news. I want to take a moment so that you can hear directly from me. The last year has been the most challenging in the history of the show. I know we are all still dealing with the loss of our hero, Alex, while at the same time continuing to produce amazing shows for our millions of fans through the pandemic. Our success over that time with our guest-host rotation, including the more than $3 million we raised for charities, is a singular achievement and a testament to your talent and dedication. I’ve produced a lot of television over the years, and I could not be more impressed with team Jeopardy!

It is true that I was asked if I would consider hosting the show. I was humbled and deeply honored. No final decisions have been made and discussions with me and other potential hosts are still ongoing. I know I have mentioned this to you all before, but the choice on this is not my decision and never has been. Throughout this search, Sony’s top priority has always been to continue the incredible legacy you and Alex built. As you know, Alex always believed the game itself and the contestants are the most important aspects of the show, and that will continue to be the guiding principle as the decision is finalized.

I want to address the complicated employment issues raised in the press during my time at The Price is Right ten years ago. These were allegations made in employment disputes against the show. I want you all to know that the way in which my comments and actions have been characterized in these complaints does not reflect the reality of who I am or how we worked together on The Price is Right. I know firsthand how special it is to be a parent. It is the most important thing in the world to me. I would not say anything to disrespect anyone’s pregnancy and have always supported my colleagues on their parenting journeys.

I am very proud of my time on The Price Is Right and Let’s Make a Deal. During my tenure, our female cast members welcomed seven beautiful children. We embraced and celebrated each pregnancy and birth both in front of and behind the camera. It was a joy to watch their families grow and highlight their happiness as part of the show.

For us, I realize there is a lot going on right now as we ramp up for the new season. Please do not hesitate to reach out of you have any questions or concerns.

It is truly an honor to get to work with all of you to produce this amazing show, and I look forward to the days ahead as we get back into production.

Mike

---

"It is humbling to confront a terribly embarrassing moment of misjudgment, thoughtlessness, and insensitivity from nearly a decade ago. Looking back now, there is no excuse, of course, for the comments I made on this podcast and I am deeply sorry," Richards said in a statement to the Ringer. "The podcast was intended to be a series of irreverent conversations between longtime friends who had a history of joking around. Even with the passage of time, it's more than clear that my attempts to be funny and provocative were not acceptable, and I have removed the episodes. My responsibilities today as a father, husband, and a public personality who speaks to many people through my role on television means I have substantial and serious obligations as a role model, and I intend to live up to them."

New Research About Remote Work

A new study identifies advantages and challenges of working from home (WFH). A New York Times article cites little research in the area, but a recent paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics provides insights for companies and employees considering WFH arrangements.

The study was at Ctrip, a Chinese travel agency. The abstract follows:

Call center employees who volunteered to WFH were randomly assigned either to work from home or in the office for nine months. Home working led to a 13% performance increase, of which 9% was from working more minutes per shift (fewer breaks and sick days) and 4% from more calls per minute (attributed to a quieter and more convenient working environment). Home workers also reported improved work satisfaction, and their attrition rate halved, but their promotion rate conditional on performance fell. Due to the success of the experiment, Ctrip rolled out the option to WFH to the whole firm and allowed the experimental employees to reselect between the home and office. Interestingly, over half of them switched, which led to the gains from WFH almost doubling to 22%. This highlights the benefits of learning and selection effects when adopting modern management practices like WFH.

Remote employees seem to suffer bias. A study author put it simply, “They can get forgotten.” Informal conversations and other face-to-face interactions increase belonging—they create “in groups” and “out groups.” As a result, some people are better known and trusted, particularly by senior leaders, who are more likely to be in the office. These relationships lead to more mentoring, sponsorship, and promotion opportunities. With more women wanting to WFH than men, this issue could increase gender inequality at work.

WFH employees should aim to increase their social presence—reducing the perceived physical distance. A Forbes writer offers good advice for building relationships from afar:

• Share openly.

• Assume goodwill of others.

• Stay in close proximity.

• Be predictable.

• Be easy to read.

• Support others.

• Be selective about your relationships.

• Hold others accountable.

• Demonstrate integrity and tell the truth.

In the coming years, as more companies offer the option and more employees choose to WFH, we'll learn more about how to successfully WFH.

Image source.

Apple Clarifies Policy

Apple software chief Craig Federighi spoke with a Wall Street Journal reporter about a misunderstood policy related to child pornography. The company had announced new reporting guidelines for illegal content. As part of the same message, they described new guidelines about photos sent to and from children. User backlash concerned how the company was monitoring their phones.

Federighi said, “I do believe the soundbite that got out early was, ‘Oh my God, Apple is scanning my phone for images.’ This is not what is happening.” He clarified that, using algorithms, they’re looking at photos stored on iCloud—not on people’s phones. The company is flagging only those photos that meet criteria of child pornography.

During the published interview with the WSJ reporter (what made the final cut on the website), Federighi didn’t emphasize the end goal: protecting children. The reporter provided this context, but the message was not at the forefront’s of Federighi’s main points. His focus was on clarifying the initial message: “I think our customers own their phones,” again, distinguishing what we choose to post on Apple’s server.

Federighi also demonstrated humility by admitting that the message was garbled and that AI technology does make mistakes. In hindsight, it sounds as though Federighi would have announced these guidelines in separate messages with more detail about the photo search process.

Report Details Governor Cuomo's Pattern of Sexual Harassment

The New York State attorney general published a 165-page report detailing how Governor Andrew Cuomo has sexually harassed women for years and how a culture of “fear and intimidation” allowed his behavior to continue.

In addition to the report, other communications about the situation are interesting examples, particularly of persuasion:

• Governor Cuomo’s video response

• NY Times opinion calling for his resignation

• WSJ opinion calling on democrats to impeach

What makes each of these messages credible—or not—is a rich topic of discussion. The report and other messages use details and examples to prove their points. In his video message, the governor intersperses images of him hugging and kissing many people. His strategy is to “normalize” and de-sexualize his behavior. However, the report describes incidents that go beyond these displays and concludes that the governor violated federal and New York State sexual harassment law.

Update: Governor Cuomo resigns. In a video, he explains his decision, which seemed inevitable.

Millennials Talk Openly About Salaries

According to a Wall Street Journal article, millennials don’t carry the salary baggage of previous generations. Growing up in the open world of social media, this generation is used to sharing information about themselves that older people might consider taboo. In addition to salaries, millennials talk about credit card debt, savings, and other financials.

The transparency is helpful to other people their age. Employees can negotiate for fair salaries and, in some cases, not feel shame around money because they know that others are either in similar situations or have advantages that they don’t enjoy. The article also cites examples of people feeling better about their circumstances knowing that others carry a lot of debt, while they choose not to.

The article reminds me of the idea of “radical transparency” practiced at Bridgewater Associates and, to a lesser degree, some other companies. Being open about employees’ performance and compensation can cause hard feelings but may encourage a greater degree of fairness.

Facebook Responds to President Biden's Criticism

Facebook is on the defensive after President Biden said the company is “killing people.” The president blamed Facebook for not managing misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and, as a result, causing more deaths: “Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated. And they’re killing people.”

President Biden later softened his message, saying that information from about a dozen people is wrongly influencing people’s decisions: “Facebook isn’t killing people; these 12 people are out there giving misinformation. Anyone listening to it is getting hurt by it. It’s killing people. It’s bad information.”

In response, Facebook published a statement on its website, “Moving Past the Finger Pointing.” The writer, Guy Rosen, VP of Integrity, offers several points of evidence. He mentions partnerships with universities, the high vaccination rate among Facebook users (85%), and measures the company has taken, including promoting “authoritative information” and labeling “debunked” content.

Rosen disputes what is perhaps President Biden’s implied claim: that Facebook is the reason he missed his goal of having 70% of Americans vaccinated by July 4.

A New York Times Daily podcast analyzes the arguments and finds strengths and weaknesses on both sides. The reasons people don’t get vaccinated are complicated. At the same time, the reporter concludes, Facebook could do more to prevent the spread of misinformation.

This story is a good example of persuasion—and politics and business.

Clear Line Charts

A New York Times opinion article illustrates the power of the line chart. With the title, “This Is Tax Evasion, Plain and Simple,” the author describes the U.S. corporate rate over time and compared to other countries.

The authors argue that countries have reduced corporate rates to compete for businesses, and over time, the rate has become too low. The chart at right compares the U.S. to other countries, while the chart below shows the change in U.S. wage and corporate taxes since 1950.

Additional charts show that companies have moved money to tax havens abroad, but economies and workers have not benefitted.

An economist and a writer and graphics editor paired up to produce the article. We see the influence of both—the data, plain language, and charts paint a vivid picture.

Persuading Wall Street

The Wall Street Journal describes a hedge-fund manager’s decision to convince Wall Street investors to improve Exxon’s board oversight. A former coal mine owner, Christopher James spent $250 of personal funds to rally support from other fund managers and win three board seats to encourage environmental, social, and governance (ESG) changes at the company.

Exxon was vulnerable, and the timing was right. James created an organization, Engine, which wrote an open letter to Exxon and shareholders. The demands include “putting the Company on a path to net zero total emissions by 2050.”

James says his inspiration came from a conversation with his children:

The hedge-fund manager’s school-aged sons asked him how he could consider himself an environmentalist if he invested in energy companies, and Mr. James said he struggled with his explanation.

“As I was listening to myself talk, I thought `I am really splitting hairs on this.’” One of his sons, he said, “had this look on his face where his forehead wrinkled. He didn’t buy it.”

James also said, “I can get rid of this compartmentalization. I could realign my values with an investment thesis.”

This story is a great example of integrity and courage character dimensions. James is living his values and took action despite risks.

Grubhub's Goodwill Message

Grubhub is demonstrating gratitude with an ad directed primarily toward restaurants. The company benefitted greatly during a tough year for restaurants. During COVID restrictions, food delivery services did well, raising prices and cutting into restaurants’ margins. Grubhub and others have been criticized for hefty commissions and for listing restaurants on their sites when they weren’t affiliated with the service.

Now that restrictions are lifting, analysts predict that delivery services will continue to thrive. Still, an AdAge author notes that Grubhub needs to “remain relevant as in-person dining comes back.”

In the commercial, Grubhub speaks to restaurant workers:

“Here’s to you, restaurant. Thank you, from the bottom of our stomach. . . . Without you, we wouldn’t be Grubhub. We’d just be ‘hub.’”

Will the commercial ring false? Will it feel to restaurant owners and staff that Grubhub is manipulative or insincere? I don’t know. Obviously, the secondary audience is diners.

Senders of true goodwill messages, for example, messages of appreciation, don’t expect anything in return. Thank-you messages may bring about favor, but they are not intended for future reciprocation.

Popeyes Publishes Diversity Scorecard

Popeyes fast-food chain is publishing its diversity data related to marketing. The company will provide data about females and ethnic diversity among those represented in ads and members of creative teams, marketing departments, and external ad agencies.

With vivid colors and eye-catching graphics, the “scorecard” shows demographics at-a-glance. The chart is easy to understand and shows clearly where the company has more work to do. Text on the webpage admits deficiencies:

“We acknowledge our own lack of diversity and our commitment to be better, more diverse, and more inclusive. So today, we want to share our starting point.”

Text also draws conclusions for each group, for example, the ad teams:

“Our agency teams demonstrate the highest gender diversity of any pillar, but continue to lack in racial and ethnic diversity amongst Black/African-Americans.”

Popeyes’ approach is solid for improving diversity—and getting publicity. The Wall Street Journal article reflects well on the company. For the webpage, the “mandates” work well to identify targets, although they seem easily achievable. I don’t see on the webpage why diversity is important. Beyond the obvious—to increase market share—so what?

The scorecard is a good example of transparency but can be improved in other ways. A summary would give an overall percentage that can be tracked more easily over time. Also, I wonder about employees and partners who don’t identify as either male or female. Maybe that non-binary group could be represented as well.

Amazon’s Statement About the Failed Union Attempt

Employees at Amazon’s Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse voted against forming a union. Of 5,876 employees, 1,798 voted against and 783 for the union—not enough. The New York Times presents a simple, clear graphic of the vote.

Critics say that Amazon used aggressive tactics to deter workers from favoring the union. For example, union organizers approached employees at a traffic light, which the city changed based on a request from Amazon management. The change led to longer green lights and shorter red lights based on traffic. Before the vote, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that two employees were fired illegally for their union-organizing activity.

In messages to employees, the company used a slogan, “Do it without dues,” meaning employees should negotiate with their managers and not through a union, which charges fees. The slogan was also the URL for a website, which has since been removed.

Amazon posted a statement about the win. The company denies intimidation charges and reinforces its $15 wage and starting benefits. Although the statement indicates that 16% of employees at the facility voted for the union, a higher percentage of those who voted were favorable towards the union.

CEOs Speak Out

JPMorgan Chase published its Annual Report, leading with a letter from CEO Jamie Dimon. The introductory paragraph and corresponding callout quote reflect a leader’s and a company’s grappling with an extraordinary year.

Like many company leaders today, Dimon addresses societal issues directly. We’re seeing increasing employee and CEO activism, and this letter is a good example.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece questions when leaders are even more direct about political events, such as Black leaders in Georgia speaking out against the election law decision. The law restricts voting rights, which doesn’t affect the companies directly. The WSJ editorial board writes, “To wit, they are pitting themselves against the interests of their own shareholders.”

The open letter appeared as a full-page ad in The New York Times, signed by Black CEOs, former CEOs, and others of major U.S. companies.

In my view, the CEOs demonstrate leadership character, particularly authenticity, courage, and integrity. By definition, demonstrating character carries some personal risk.

AstraZeneca's Data Problems

AstraZeneca has been accused of presenting “outdated and potentially misleading” data about the vaccine that has suffered implementation trouble in Europe. In a press release and a CNBC interview with the president, the company reported a 79% effectiveness rate, despite later results between 69 and 75%.

A group of independent experts wrote a letter to U.S. government officials to express their concern, as The Washington Post reports:

The DSMB is concerned that AstraZeneca chose to use data that was already outdated and potentially misleading in their press release,” the letter states. The data “they chose to release was the most favorable for the study as opposed to the most recent and most complete. Decisions like this are what erode public trust in the scientific process.”

The company promised a review: “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data.” But damage is already done.

The Washington Post explains, “But it appears to be the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds from the team behind the vaccine, which has had months of stumbles involving messy science and bungled communication.”

This latest misstep only complicates a possible U.S. rollout and breeds more skepticism in those who fear the vaccine. Fears in some populations, such as Black Americans, are based on understandable mistrust of the healthcare system, and this news will not likely inspire more participation in plans for herd immunity.

As an issue of credibility, AstraZeneca is caught in a public quagmire. What might have been a small misstep is now viewed as part of a larger, potentially intentional plan to deceive, whether or not that is true. The company’s integrity is in question because they have not been fully transparent about the vaccine results.

Image source.

Comparing News Reporting About Shooting

How the media reports news reveals their political leanings and inherent biases. Compare the home pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal from screenshots taken the evening of March 17, 2021.

---

The New York Times led with the news and posted five stories at the top of the page. Stories focus on “Anti-Asian Hate in the U.S.” The Wall Street Journal posted one small article, and the headline makes no reference to the victims—six of the eight were Asian women.

I’m struck by the surrounding articles on the WSJ home page. The business and economy focus makes sense for the paper’s mission, but several other articles imply negative messages about Asians or Asian countries.

The headline about the Tokyo Olympics official, particularly, is quite inflammatory (or as a student in class said, “clickbait”). Although the news is notable given that this is the second official to resign for negative comments about women, the photo and headline, below news of the shooting is, as my partner said, “insensitive.” Do we need the actual negative statement?

Also in fairness to the WSJ, the shooter had not (and as of this writing, has still not) been charged with a hate crime, and he denies the association of bias. Perhaps the NYT is fueling the flames of xenophobia?

And yet, discrimination, bias, and violence against Asians and Asian Americans has been increasing in the U.S. Shouldn’t that be a significant part of any reporting about this terrible shooting?

Royal Family Responds to Racism Allegations

In an interview with Oprah, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle accused the British royal family of racism, and the fallout is severe. Markle talked about having suicidal thoughts and how she had been treated by the family, including plans for the couple’s baby. She said he wouldn’t have a title or security, and that the family had “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born.”

Prince Harry said that he a discussion with his grandmother and two with his father about the couple’s concerns until his father “stopped taking my calls.”

Victoria Murphy, a writer for Town & Country magazine, describes the family’s reaction:

So far, the royal family has remained tight-lipped. There have been no statements and, it seems, very little guidance offered. Perhaps they are retreating into a default “no comment” stance, or perhaps they are sensibly waiting to see what sticks before deciding whether to add fuel to the fire. In this war of words, there is a sense that we could go on and on.

Buckingham Palace did release a short statement, and the Queen took some time before signing off:

The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.

Of course, the issue is that the royal family is a public organization, with several public figures, whether they wish to be or not.

Two days later, Prince William gave an interview and said, “We’re very much not a racist family.”

Murphy sums up the situation: “Make no mistake, this is an interview that will go down in history as having rocked the British royal family to its core.”

Governor Cuomo Address Sexual Harassment Allegations

In a video statement, Governor Andrew Cuomo addressed sexual harassment allegations made by three women. He begins well, explaining his decision to speak directly to the public on the topic, although lawyers advised him to wait. To preserve his image, this is a good call: research shows that his apology is unlikely to negatively affect lawsuit outcomes—and may even have a positive effect.

But his apology goes awry. He uses language that is classic in non-apologies, for example, “It was not my intention” and “I certainly never meant to….” In sexual harassment law, intent does not matter—only the impact. Further, this type of language typically doesn’t land well. People don’t care. Instead, he should focus on the impact on these women and perhaps on the office.

He also says, “I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable.” This is problematic because first, as he says at the beginning, he is a lawyer. As a lawyer and as a political leader, he should know better. Such language is reminiscent of “I’m sorry if you were offended,” implying that it’s the receiver’s problem. A couple of days earlier, after the second allegation, the governor said, “To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

To his credit, he says, “I apologize” and “I’m sorry,” which people do want to hear in these types of statements.

We will see what results from these allegations, in the midst of calls for his resignation. Governor Cuomo also is embroiled in charges that he lied about the number of Covid deaths in nursing homes. So far, he says that he will not resign.

School Board Apologizes for Mocking Parents and Resigns

The Board of an elementary school in California resigned over embarrassing comments on a video call. Board members didn’t realize that they were public when they made disparaging comments about parents wanting schools to reopen. They mentioned that parents miss teachers as “babysitters” and want to be able to use marijuana again.

In response, several board members resigned, and the school district wrote a statement. Within the larger statement is a message from the board members who resigned:

We deeply regret the comments that were made in the meeting of the Board of Education earlier this week. As trustees, we realize it is our responsibility to model the conduct that we expect of our students and staff and it is our obligation to build confidence in District leadership; our comments failed you in both regards, and for this we offer our sincerest apology.

We love our students, our teachers and our community, and we want to be part of the remedy to help the District move forward, returning its full focus to students' needs. To help facilitate the healing process, we will be resigning our positions as Trustees of the Oakley Union Elementary School District, effective immediately. The Superintendent will be working with the Contra Costa County Office of Education to address the vacancies on the Board of Education.

This was a difficult decision, but we hear the community's concerns, and we believe yielding to your request that we step down will allow the District to move forward. Please do not let our failure in judgment cast a shadow on the exceptional work that our teachers, administrators and hard-working employees are doing for the students of this District. They deserve and will need your support as you move forward.

Business communication students will find ways to improve this message. The authors use passive voice in the first statement and weak subjects twice in the first paragraph (“it is”). As an apology, the statement also could do better. Sincere apologies include more about the impact of the act—the damage done. I don’t see that recognition clearly.

Image source.

Questions Are Different for Women in Economics

A working paper shows that women in economics receive more and tougher questions than do their male counterparts. Researchers analyzed data from 462 presentations at seminars and job talks, when candidates present their research to prospective faculty colleagues.

Controlling for fields, types of seminars, and other factors, the researchers found that women receive 12% more questions and more “hostile” or “patronizing” questions. One concern is that woman might be discouraged from presenting their work or applying for positions, which hurts the field of economics.

The authors note that less than one percent of presenters were Black or Hispanic, so no conclusions could be drawn about how these groups are treated.

The authors acknowledge that these questions may not result from ill intent but may be a result of implicit bias or part of a more systemic male-dominated culture. Sadly, the authors say that some comments are “demoralizing,” and again, they warn of the negative impact on the field:

“Many of us have heard stories of friends and colleagues whose bad experiences in seminars have led them to re-evaluate whether a career in economics is really the best choice for them.”

Lincoln Project Statement

Frank Bruni is right his article, ”When You Don’t Have Trump to Hide Behind: There’s now space for other scandals. Witness the Lincoln Project.” I’ve been missing hearing about improprieties with the shadow of Trump for the past four years. Now trouble at the Lincoln Project, a political group started in 2018 by Republicans to prevent the re-election of the former president, has come to light.

The issue raises questions of integrity. As the organization criticized the former president for his actions, 21 young men accused one founder of sexual harassment, while organization leaders knew of but did nothing about their complaints. In addition, questions linger about whether group leaders misused funds for personal gain.

The one leader accused of “grooming young men online” responded in a statement:

I am so disheartened and sad that I may have brought discomfort to anyone in what I thought at the time were mutually consensual discussions. In living a deeply closeted life, I allowed my pain to cause pain for others. For that I am truly sorry to these men and everyone and for letting so many people down.

The Lincoln Project also issued an official statement. One, dated January 30, isn’t available because of a broken link on the homepage. But another, dated February 14, is below:

The Lincoln Project has retained the law firm of Paul Hastings to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior by John Weaver as part of a comprehensive review of our operations and culture. The review process is currently underway.

We are committed to creating a positive, diverse, and inclusive workplace environment at The Lincoln Project and inappropriate behavior by anyone associated with the organization will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We have already taken decisive action to address internal concerns. Additionally, we are releasing staff and former staff from the confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements to discuss their workplace environment. Based on the findings of this review we will take all necessary action to correct any issues or deficiencies that are identified.

Concurrently, we are also working with outside counsel and professional consultants to strengthen our corporate governance, finance and operational structure, human resources, and leadership to position The Lincoln Project to further maximize our impact and lean into our important mission advancing democracy.

The Lincoln Project was founded to combat political forces who seek to undermine our democracy. We revolutionized how political action committees operate and spent $81 million last cycle to create and place more than 300 advertisements, host national town halls, conduct voter outreach, and launch a podcast and streaming video network that engaged millions of voters. Eighty percent of our funds went to voter contact and content production. Our historic results speak for themselves.

Moving forward, we have important work ahead of us and we have created a nationwide movement of Americans who support our objectives.

In order to continue fulfilling our promise to our millions of supporters and contributors, we must address any and all internal organizational issues immediately and put in place a governance and diverse leadership structure that reflects our core values and ensures we will continue to attract the best talent available.

The Lincoln Project will continue producing and distributing our popular content and commentary while these reviews are being conducted and we are operating at full capacity.

The statement start is unfortunate and squirrely. Perhaps an apology might be more appropriate? As an apology, if this is the intent, the statement doesn’t work very well. Apologies admit specific wrongdoing, acknowledge the impact, and describe positive steps planning for the future. I don’t see that here.