BP Focuses on Misleading Statements, Not Relationships

BP is unusually blunt in publicizing the results of an investigation against the former CEO. But the focus is on misleading, not inappropriate relationships.

I analyzed a previous statement about this situation in which the Board used softer, ambivalent language:

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.

This recent statement holds little back:

Following careful consideration, the board* has concluded that, in providing inaccurate and incomplete assurances in July 2022, Mr Looney knowingly misled the board. The board has determined that this amounts to serious misconduct, and as such Mr Looney has been dismissed without notice effective on 13 December 2023. This decision had the effect of bringing Mr Looney’s 12 month notice period to an immediate end. [The asterisk refers to a note about the interim CEO.]

In detail, the board describes compensation decisions, which amount to the CEO forfeiting about $41 million. Some compensation from 2022 also will be clawed back.

I am curious about the board’s reasoning. “This amounts to serious misconduct” refers to his misleading the board, not the relationships. Are these not also considered misconduct? Or are they just harder to prove—or to talk about?

I also note that the board avoids saying Looney “lied,” which means making a false statement. Wasn’t that the case? “Providing inaccurate and incomplete assurances” sounds like lying to me—maybe not the “incomplete” ones but the “inaccurate” statements. “Mislead” sounds more professional, subtler, which makes the news release blunt, but not that blunt.

Missing Communications Prep in University Testimony

If students need an example of the value of crisis communication, the university presidents’ testimony this past week proves the point. An embarrassment to all three colleges, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, and MIT, the public hearing ended with apologies from two of the leaders and the resignation of Penn’s.

A New York Times article describes how a law firm prepared both the Harvard and Penn presidents. As business communication faculty know, legal advice protects the organization from litigation. But crisis communication advice protects the organization’s, and the leader’s, reputation.

To a PR expert, the lack of proper preparation, including practicing answering a range of difficult questions, is clear. NY Representative Elise Stefanik asked the most pointed question: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or No?“ Presidents focused on speech vs. conduct and said it “depended on the context.” Harvard President Claudine Gay gave vague answers about Harvard’s “commitment to free expression” and “rights to privacy.” Stefanik and other lawmakers accused Gay of not speaking with “moral clarity.”

To me, the character dimension most at issue is integrity—the universities’ commitment to DEI and free speech, yet what some see as an inconsistent application. All three presidents issued statements after the hearings:

• Harvard: President Gay issued a short statement, contradicting her response to Stefanik’s question: "There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.” In an interview with the Harvard Crimson, she apologized and demonstrated compassion, “I am sorry,” “Words matter,” and “When words amplify distress and pain, I don’t know how you could feel anything but regret.”

• MIT: In a statement, President Kornbluth linked to her opening statement and wrote generally about community and fighting against hate. She didn’t directly address the hearings or her responses to questions.

• Penn: Demonstrating humility in a video message, President Magill admitted that she should have responded differently: “In that moment, I was focused on our University’s longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It's evil—plain and simple.”

Magill has since resigned from Penn along with the Board chair. Alumni pressure at Penn was particularly strong even before the hearings. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, possibly the loudest voice, is calling for the other presidents to resign as well. A Harvard graduate, Ackman wrote an additional letter to his alma mater, a good example of persuasive communication if you’re prepared to manage fallout from a heated class discussion.

Image from source.

Goldman's PR Problem

On the podcast The Prof G Pod, Scott Galloway discusses how the media portrayed the end of an Apple-Goldman consumer finance partnership. He blames Goldman communication staff for the poor reflection on the company.

From about 19:15 to 25:00 on the segment, “Goldman and Apple Part Ways” [NSFW], Galloway and cohost Ed Elson describe how the story was framed in inflammatory headlines, for example, WSJ’s “Apple Pulls Plug on Goldman Credit-Card Partnership” and Business Insider’s “Apple Wants to Cut Ties with Goldman Sachs.” They say the headlines are surprising because Goldman initiated the split, not Apple.

Galloway provides two reasons for the slant. First, he blames Goldman for not managing the message. He said, “Quite frankly, the comms people at Goldman didn’t do their job.” He also said, “The core competence now of every CEO has to be storytelling.” Second, he said the media tends to favor Apple.

They also discussed what gets read. Ed Elson asked for ChatGPT’s help in writing headlines to get clicks, and the results were similar to those published.

Despite Galloway’s usual cursing, the segment is useful for students to learn about corporate communication, particularly the importance to company valuation.

Chevy Ad Makes People Cry

Emotional appeal as a persuasive tactic is fully evident in a new Chevrolet ad. Grandma has dementia, but a Chevy helps her remember.

In the video, a granddaughter takes grandma for a ride in her 1972 Chevy Suburban, tarped in the garage for who knows how long but running flawlessly. During the five-minute commercial, we hear John Denver playing on the car’s ill-fated 8-track tape.

Grandma awakens during the journey, remembering the old days and speaking in complete, cogent sentences. She returns to her family, seemingly fully recovered.

Chevrolet’s head of marketing said the ad was created “with help” from the Alzheimer’s Association:

We talked a lot about reminiscence therapy—not that it's a cure or a solve, but the power of music, the power of memories are things that can enable the person going through it to feel more comfortable. And the people that are the caregivers that are surrounding them, to also feel more comfortable.

A clinical chaplain tells me it’s not uncommon for people with dementia to get reoriented in familiar situations (like listening to “Sunshine on My Shoulders”), although the extremes in this case are unlikely. Chevy tries to avoid this problem by calling it a “good day,” but we might consider it a “miraculous day.” A Yahoo! article also points out, “It’s worth noting, though, that people with Alzheimer’s may not recall short-term memories, as the ad’s grandmother does when she realizes she’s due back for Christmas dinner.”

I wonder how folks at the Alzheimer’s Association feel about the ad. They might worry about false expectations for people with dementia. But I get it: It’s a fantasy. That’s what Christmas—or advertisements—are often about. I teared up when grandma and grandpa reunited too.

Maybe Chevy can change the title. The generic, “A Holiday to Remember,” appeases those who don’t celebrate Christmas. But the lights, red and green decorations, pinecone wreath, and that Lands’ End sweater all scream Christmas. Even grandma says at the end, “Merry Christmas.”

Avoiding Shopping Scams and Other Online Deception

Talking about online retail scams is one way to remind students to evaluate websites critically. A Wall Street Journal quiz shows that younger people are susceptible to shopping fraud, despite what students might think about older people’s vulnerability.

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) describes signs of consumer fraud:

• Fake websites and apps

• Email links

• Making payments on unsecure sites

• Using public wifi to shop or access sensitive information

• Package delivery confirmation scams

These traps seem obvious—until we fall for them. If students don’t admit being duped, maybe they’ll talk about someone who was or a fraudulent site or message they avoided.

If you cover Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion (including a new one—unity), students might identify how online retailers use each. They can find examples on their favorite shopping websites and discuss how ethically the principle is used. Students will easily find examples of scarcity (Cyber Monday! Giving Tuesday! Black Friday!).

Image source.

He's Back: OpenAI Announces Sam Altman's Return

After more than 700 employees threatened to quit, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman agreed to return to OpenAI. The news was announced on X, where most of the communications have taken place—perhaps symbolic of the company’s losing control of the message. Nothing yet appears on the OpenAI blog, where Altman’s termination was first announced.

On the OpenAI X account, we see the smiling, reunited group and an announcement of the new board:

We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam Altman to return to OpenAI as CEO with a new initial board of Bret Taylor (Chair), Larry Summers, and Adam D'Angelo. We are collaborating to figure out the details. Thank you so much for your patience through this.

Formal announcements are missing from Microsoft’s blog too. Instead, posts by Altman and Nadella are chronicled with Nadella’s two previous posts about the situation. Two tired to press the shift key, Altman restated his commitment to the company and the team:

Sam Altman: i love openai, and everything i’ve done over the past few days has been in service of keeping this team and its mission together. when i decided to join msft on sun evening, it was clear that was the best path for me and the team. with the new board and w satya’s support, i’m looking forward to returning to openai, and building on our strong partnership with msft.

Satya Nadella: We are encouraged by the changes to the OpenAI board. We believe this is a first essential step on a path to more stable, well-informed, and effective governance. Sam, Greg, and I have talked and agreed they have a key role to play along with the OAI leadership team in ensuring OAI continues to thrive and build on its mission. We look forward to building on our strong partnership and delivering the value of this next generation of AI to our customers and partners.

Both messages say just enough, without blame or regret. Any explanation, for example, of a lost Microsoft venture, would only raise more questions. Clearly, they both want to move on, which is a theme: employees seem done with the drama, and even some of us watching have had enough.

Emmett Shear, who served as the second interim CEO for about a minute and a half, also expressed his gratitude on X:

I am deeply pleased by this result, after ~72 very intense hours of work. Coming into OpenAI, I wasn’t sure what the right path would be. This was the pathway that maximized safety alongside doing right by all stakeholders involved. I’m glad to have been a part of the solution.

For now, the drama is over. But OpenAI is a changed company, with new, self-imposed hurdles. Communication will need to be a top priority, and perhaps more of it will take place through more traditional channels. The new, experienced board members likely will have ideas for how to rebuild the company’s reputation, and they might, at some point, address whatever rifts caused Altman’s termination to start this chain of events.

---

Random: I’m laughing at the Microsoft Teams jokes. People reacted to Brockman’s first post that Altman was fired over Google Meet. Here are a couple of recent clever posts:

In response to Altman’s post about returning:

The lengths this man will go to not use Microsoft teams (@isroprisdead)

In response to Brockman’s post about returning:

blink twice if it’s bc of ms teams (@gajeshnaik)

Is Snoop Dogg Vulnerable or Self-Promoting?

Snoop Dogg’s November 16 announcement that he’s quitting “smoke” sounds as though he’s struggling with a marijuana addiction. But further inspection raises questions about his intentions.

Snoop Dogg has a few cannabis-related businesses. He owns the marijuana brand Leafs by Snoop and Uncle Snoop’s, which launched Snazzle Os, onion-flavored, infused crispy snacks. Other planned projects include virtual cannabis items “authenticated by non-fungible tokens [NFTs].” A partnership with Martha Stewart produced Best Buds Bags, fancy bags to hold the duo’s BIC EZ Reach lighters on the outside.

One day (November 15) before his giving-it-up announcement, Snoop was quoted about the bag:

“This bag’s got it all. From my favorite lighter, favorite color, and dime-sized secret stash pockets to stash my favorite herbs.”

On November 19, he announced that he’s partnering with a smokeless fire pit maker, Solo Stove:

I love a good fire outside, but the smoke was too much. Solo Stove fixed fire and took out the smoke. They changed the game, and now I’m excited to spread the love and stay warm with my friends and family,

Vulnerability is great unless it’s used for personal gain; then, it’s inauthentic and more like persuasion or manipulation. To be fair, he didn’t specify what kind of smoke he was quitting, but X replies indicate I’m not the only one who drew the cannabis conclusion. Maybe this was intended as a joke, but I didn’t find it funny.

Botched Comms About Altman's Departure from OpenAI

After backlash following the sudden termination of CEO Sam Altman, the OpenAI board is in a bind. Their minimal communications and what seems like an impulsive decision caused problems inside and outside the company. The latest news is that Altman may return because of investor pressure—and because he and a few employees who resigned in protest started, within hours, setting up a competitive company.

The Board’s initial statement cites “safety concerns tied to rapid expansion of commercial offerings.” Although his termination seems shocking, we don’t know the level of friction between Altman and the board. This article describes the possible ideological differences between Altman and the board, which are more subtle than what some describe as differences between “doomers” and “accelerationists,” with more focus on how to rather than whether to expand generative AI

The company statement doesn’t say much, yet is “unusually candid,” as a Wall Street Journal writer put it:

Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.

“Candid” seems to be the word of the day. The WSJ writer means frank or forthcoming, while the board writer means truthful—both relate to integrity.

OpenAI President Greg Brockman was excluded from the meeting and resigned shortly after, writing on X that he was shocked too. Messages from Brockman and Altman to staff were short and professional. Other researchers resigned soon after. Altman has been posting his gratitude and potential plans regularly on X.

Microsoft tried to contain the damage. Without prior notice, CEO Satya Nadella posted a short statement expressing his continued confidence in the company. He referenced “Mira,” Interim CEO Mira Murati, and said nothing else about leadership changes. Still, Microsoft shares fell 1.7% by Friday’s close.

The OpenAI COO also tried to control damage in an email to staff that confirmed the decision was about a “breakdown in communications” (no kidding!) and not about “malfeasance.”

Students might be interested to learn more about the unusual governance structure of OpenAI. As a nonprofit board (in this case, only six members), they have more control over OpenAI’s leadership and operations than do investors of the subsidiary. Still, investors—and employees and the public—can and certainly are voicing their opinions. Whether or not Altman returns, the messaging will be interesting to watch.

Emotions Drove a Football Manager's Comments

A football writer offers a lesson for all business communicators: “Maybe managers shouldn’t give interviews straight after games.” Similar to other business situations, emotions run high, and people need to take a beat before they speak or write. Student athletes and fans will be particularly interested in this story, but the example is for anyone who reacts before thinking through the consequences.

Arsenal Football Club (soccer to Americans) manager Mikel Arteta took an interview after a disappointing game. He disputed a goal call:

We have to talk about the result because you have to talk about how the hell this goal stands up and it’s incredible. I feel embarrassed, but I have to be the one now come here to try to defend the club and please ask for help, because it’s an absolute disgrace that this goal is allowed. . . .It’s an absolute disgrace. Again, I feel embarrassed having more than 20 years in this country, and this is nowhere near the level to describe this as the best league in the world. I am sorry.

Critics called Arteta’s reaction “disproportionate.” Such language as “how the hell” and “absolute disgrace” reflect a far greater injustice. I’ll leave the analysis to sports enthusiasts, but it seems like a questionable call—not an outrage.

The trouble worsens when the Arsenal Football Club defends Arteta in a statement, which included unequivocal support: “Arsenal Football Club wholeheartedly supports Mikel Arteta’s post-match comments.” The Athletic describes what business communication faculty would conclude, comparing the response to a crisis situation:

But for a football club to release an “official statement,” once upon a time the sort of thing reserved for managerial dismissals and so forth, about a marginal refereeing decision they disagree with, is extraordinary.

Over-reactions are difficult to withdraw. Arsenal supported the manager, which generally is a good corporate practice, but doubling-down on exaggeration makes management look defensive and lacking humility, as if they know a wrong was committed but are stuck.

Of course, a better approach for Arteta is to have waited a bit, as the writer suggests. It’s the same for business communicators. Write an email while angry but don’t send it until a day or so later. During a difficult interaction, pause and step away if you need to. Most often, an immediate response, as this situation shows, isn’t needed.

"Open to Work" and Other Desperations

Although LinkedIn offers an “open to work” option, at least one recruiter says it’s the “biggest red flag" for employers. This reminds me of other ways students inadvertently appear desperate to recruiters.

LinkedIn explains the feature, which offers the option to show the banner to all LinkedIn members or only to recruiters. Users might select all members, thinking about networking strategies, but this might increase the look of desperation. LinkedIn also explains, “[W]e can’t guarantee complete privacy” because, if someone is still employed, recruiters at the company might find out from other recruiters that they’re on the market.

One recruiter compares job seeking to dating and encourages “exclusivity.” Business communication faculty may refer to Cialdini’s scarcity principle: people want what they can’t have.

We coach students to be more selective in their search. When a recruiter or hiring manager asks, “What’s your ideal job?,” students should have one in mind—not too narrow, but not too broad either. “I’ll do anything. I just want to work for xx” likely won’t inspire an offer. This reminds me of reading applications for the Cornell Nolan School of Hotel Administration. Many students would write that they applied because “it’s the best” program. That answer says little about the applicant’s decision process—or maybe the answer says it all.

On the other hand, students who lie about multiple job offers are playing a dangerous game. In addition to the obvious issues of integrity, college recruiters talk.

Networking requires more effort than a banner. Years of curating a network, which develops from supporting and being helpful to others, results in people who care about an applicant and want to see that person succeed. For students, this is more challenging but starts during school.

John Oliver Blasts McKinsey

Last Week Tonight produced a 26-minute segment criticizing management consultancy McKinsey. Students can decide whether John Oliver was fair in his conclusion that, “McKinsey’s advice can be expensive but obvious, its predictions can be deeply flawed, and it’s arguably supercharged inequality in this country.” He contrasts these conclusions with the CEO saying, “Our purpose is to create positive, enduring change in the world.”

Here are a few areas to explore, or you can just show the fake recruiting ad starting at 23:00, which is pretty funny.

Timing

I’m curious why Oliver created this segment now. McKinsey’s role in the opioid crisis, which he covers at around 12:00, was most highly litigated back in 2021 - 2022. He doesn’t point to anything specific since then.

Evidence

To make his points, Oliver uses a variety of evidence but mostly examples in the form of stories. If this were a serious rebuke of McKinsey, students might expect more data. I also question the many references to a 1999 film. Maybe things have changed since then? The inexplicable timing contributes to the segment feeling like the attack that it is, rather than a balanced piece. But I forget: This is “late-night news,” not actual news.

The Example of Eliminating Signatures

The example of identifying cost savings for an energy client is just silly (at 7:30). I wonder whether this is just a terrible example—or whether more information about the situation, or more examples in the original video, would make it less embarrassing. We don’t see the context.

Oliver’s Indignance

Oliver jokes about his British accent sounding “smug” (6:33), but his style is part of the reason I don’t watch him or other talk-show hosts. I’m guessing a lot of students find him funny because of his style. This might start an interesting discussion about delivery styles.

McKinsey’s Response

I don’t see any response from McKinsey, and I don’t think it would be wise. But it’s a worthy discussion point with students. Why wouldn’t the company respond? What are the arguments for responding? What, if anything, could the company say or do?

Other Perspectives

Business communication faculty—and journalism faculty—teach students to offer multiple, sometimes conflicting perspectives. At around 21:00, Oliver does present other sides. He acknowledges that other consulting firms sometimes act unethically or have questionable client relationships, which (sort-of) addresses criticism that he’s singling out McKinsey. Oliver also describes how McKinsey responded to an inquiry from the show a few days before airing and admits that he’s presenting examples, which McKinsey would say don’t represent their work. But he argues against these claims by saying that the harm McKinsey has done outweighs the good.

Character

Starting at around 22:30, Oliver calls out the character dimensions students will associate with this story. He calls for greater accountability and transparency, which I describe as part of integrity. That cues up the parody McKinsey recruiting video, which starts at 23:00 for students’ enjoyment.

Of course, the entire segment raises questions about Oliver’s own integrity. Then, again, the show is what it is intended to be: entertaining.

Visuals About SAT Disparities

Charts showing SAT scores by family income provide useful data visualization examples for students to analyze. A New York Times report concludes, “New data shows, for the first time at this level of detail, how much students’ standardized test scores rise with their parents’ incomes—and how disparities start years before students sit for tests.”

Progressive column charts show the increasing likelihood that a student will earn an SAT score of 1300 or higher as family income increases. The first chart shows students in the top 20% of income earners, and the second shows those in the top 1%, with dramatically higher chances of scoring 1300 or above.

One topic for discussion is the visual itself. Is a column chart the best representation for the data? It works well and is clear. Untraditionally, the X-axis labels are on the right side, but we don’t see much “chart junk,” although the horizontal lines seem superfluous. The X-axis is truncated (maxing out at 30%), so differences are exaggerated, but the data labels are clear. Data labels would be useful above all columns for consistency but would interfere with the text—and the author’s point of comparing the highest to the lowest. The chart shown here follows a previous one identifying the top 20%; this one “compares apples to oranges” (1% to 20%), but makes more sense with the earlier one for comparison. You’ll see more charts in the article, showing greater disparities still.

Another topic is data collection. The Times cites the original source, which includes more extensive reporting worth evaluating.

Of course, the Big Topic for discussion with students is the cause of this disparity. The article provides several reasons: kids attend preschool, attend better-resourced schools, etc. Asked for their opinions, students might identify the same reasons—or they might have different ideas that they should be prepared to support with evidence.

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.

Tax Credits: Persuasive Comm and Ethics Case

One company’s approach to the U.S. government Employee Refund Credit (ERC) serves as a case in communication ethics. Using communication frameworks, students will easily find ways Innovation Refunds persuaded customers. The website getrefunds.com redirects to this page, which students can analyze.

The classic rhetorical triangle of logical argument (logos), emotional appeals (pathos), and credibility (ethos) examples:

• Logos: “We make claiming the payroll tax refund easier.” (logical, step-by-step process for results)

• Pathos: “The ERC offers a welcome cash infusion as owners struggle.” (appeal to emotion)

• Ethos: Wall Street Journal quote and link to the IRS website. (credibility)

Robert Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion examples:

• Reciprocity: With “no upfront costs,” the company inspires business owners to apply in return.

• Scarcity: “Time is running out!” and “don’t let your business miss its chance to make a claim” convey a limited timeframe during which to apply.

• Authority: “[O}ur team of independent tax attorneys and tax professionals” boasts the staff’s credentials.

• Consistency: Users who complete the “check your eligibility” form are more likely to follow through.

• Liking: The company presents its staff as likable and reliable—people business owners would want to work with: “Our team will guide you every step of the way, from eligibility to claiming and receiving refunds.”

• Social Proof: Testimonials and the scrolling list of amounts and company logos show how others have succeeded in getting refunds.

• Unity: I don’t see an example of unity, Cialdini’s additional principle, but maybe you or your students will.

Although the company denies wrongdoing, aggressive marketing tactics have resulted in far more claims—and much higher government costs—than expected.

Comparing University Statements About Israel

As an in-class activity or assignment, students can analyze and compare what university officials are saying about the conflict in the Middle East. Here are a few statements and, below, possible questions for discussion. The Harvard situation is particularly charged. The university is facing criticism because, despite issuing a statement supporting Israel, so far, it hasn’t responded to a post by 34 student organizations: “Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine.” (Update: The president posted a response on October 10.)

Statements

Brandeis University
Harvard University
Hunter College
New York University
The Rockefeller University
University of Connecticut
University of Miami
University of Washington

Questions for Discussion

• Who are the primary and secondary audiences for the statement?

• What are the communication objectives?

• For each statement:

  • How does the writer describe the issue; for example, is it called a “war,” “conflict,” “tragedy,” “attack,” or something else?

  • What’s the significance of how the issue is described? In other words, how clearly does the university support a position?

  • How might the university’s mission, student population, location, and other factors affect the message?

  • How would you describe the tone? What language illustrates your characterization?

  • How do connections to the region affect the credibility of the message and the writer?

  • What resources are offered for students?

  • What does the message say about campus conduct and safety?

  • What, if any, action does the university promise?

  • How does the writer illustrate character dimensions, for example, compassion, accountability, integrity, or courage?

  • What else distinguishes one statement from another?

• What universities are missing statements? Why might they choose to stay out of the conversation? Or are they just slower in responding, and why might that be?

Image source.

"Booster" Vaccine Communications

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended simplifying COVID-19 vaccine use, including nixing the term booster. The change is an uphill climb and offers lessons in change communication.

The FDA’s deck from January 2023 explains the rationale. The goal is “harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster.” In other words, to eliminate the need for and complications of multiple shots. Instead, the FDA and Center for Disease Control (CDC) want people to think of the COVID vaccine like a flu vaccine and to get a new one each year. The push to avoid the term booster started even earlier, when Stanley Plotkin, renowned physician who developed the Rubella vaccine, suggested the change:

My point, basically, was that calling them boosters implies that the first doses were failures.

Calling the third dose a booster is immunologically incorrect and also gives the wrong impression that somehow the vaccines failed when they could not really have been expected to give a long-lasting immunity from the first doses.

(Here’s an Atlantic article for a fuller linguistic discussion.)

Last month, CDC vaccine advisor Keipp Talbot said, "Bye bye, booster. We are no longer giving boosters, and it's going to be very difficult to stop using that word because that word has become pervasive.” The CDC’s and FDA’s latest webpages about COVID-19 vaccines don’t mention boosters but refer to “updated vaccines.” On New York’s site, we’re instructed to “Make an appointment for an updated COVID-19 vaccine,” but a page titled, “Booster Doses” still exists, likely for people searching for the old term. As Talbot warned, the change will take some time.

Lawsuits About Writing Used for AI Training

The list of authors suing AI companies for copyright infringement is growing, and students should understand the implications. One of the latest to file suit is George RR Martin, who might interest students because his novels inspired Game of Thrones.

An earlier petition, addressed to the heads of OpenAI, Meta, Alphabet, Stability AI, Microsoft, and IBM, explains writers’ position. In this open letter, hundreds of members of the Authors Guild call out the “inherent injustice in exploiting our works as part of your AI systems without our consent, credit, or compensation.” Similar to the striking screenwriters, this group is concerned about compensation and job loss.

What’s relevant to students is how their own work is used and where it might end up. A conversation about posting online isn’t new to students, but AI raises new questions about copyright and privacy issues. Students probably don’t need to worry about a investment report or customer-service letter developed for class, but they might think twice about uploading creative work that could be copied or a resume or cover letter that could be misused.

As the makers of ChatGPT, OpenAI leaders seem to be sympathetic to authors’ concerns. A spokesperson said, "We're having productive conversations with many creators around the world, including the Authors Guild, and have been working co-operatively to understand and discuss their concerns about AI. We're optimistic we will continue to find mutually beneficial ways to work together." We’ll see.

Adidas CEO Inflames a Crisis

Illustrating how not to handle a crisis situation, Adidas CEO Bjorn Gulden might regret his comments about Kanye West (aka Ye). He renewed a conversation that could have been left behind and, instead, left the company to contain the damage.

During an interview on a Norwegian investment bank podcast, Gulden, appointed CEO in January, reflected on Ye’s antisemitic remarks, which caused the company to cancel its Yeezy partnership, along with several other brands, in October 2022. Gulden said the following about the situation and Ye:

“This is before my time,” Gulden told Tangen. “I think Kanye West is one of the most creative people in the world, both in music and what I’d call street culture. . . . And then, as creative people, you know, he did some statements that wasn’t that good and that caused Adi[das] to break the contract and withdraw the product.”

This was “unfortunate,” the CEO continued. “I don’t think he meant what he said, and I don’t think he’s a bad person. It just came across that way and that meant we lost that business, one of the most successful collaborations in the history. Very sad. But when you work with third parties it can happen, and it’s part of the game.”

Why did Gulden respond in this way? The interviewer had merely nudged: “But sometimes, um, the disadvantage of going with the big names is that they become very dominant, and you kind of had this issue with Kanye West. So, what happened there?”

Gulden could have spoken more generally about the dissolved partnership. But he defends Ye’s statements as something that “creative people” do. The interviewer agrees that these things happen in other industries, too, and Gulden laughs. The more appropriate response would be to support, not disagree with, the company decision—even though it was before his tenure. Otherwise, he raises questions of integrity, or consistency, with company values.

He could have said something like, “That was a terrible loss for the company and for customers. Kanye West is such a creative guy. But the company can’t tolerate inflammatory comments that conflict with the brand and values.” Of course, I would have preferred that he acknowledge the comments for what they are: antisemitic. But he could have said that much.

Gulden might also do more research about Ye’s comments, particularly what they mean for the Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee explains five of them, including the worst, about, “going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE.”

Adidas responded well. With a concise statement, communicators reiterated the company’s decision: “Our position has not changed. Ending the partnership was appropriate.” News outlets won’t let this pass so quickly, but Gulden would do best to stay out of it at this point.

Image source

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.

Protecting Students from Loan-Forgiveness Scams

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

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

• Never pay for help with your student loans.

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

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

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

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

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