Disneyland Announces "Sunsetting" of Annual Pass Program

With economic uncertainty during the COVID-19 pandemic, Disneyland remains closed, and the company announced the end of its annual pass program. The 40-year-old program offered unlimited park visits, exclusive discounts, and other benefits.

Disney’s statement explains the reasons and offers customers ways to get a refund for existing passes. In the segment below and another for Premier Passholders, the writers use “sunsetting” three times. The euphemism is a curious choice, and I wonder why “ending” isn’t used instead. Perhaps “cancelling” sounds too harsh?

“Sunsetting” indicates phasing out, and some passholders can enjoy discounts for a limited time. But the program is clearly ending. Dictionary.com refers to a “sunset clause,” and a tech site provides this definition: “Sunsetting, in a business context, is intentionally phasing something out or terminating it.” Both have legal undertones and, in my view, should be avoided for a consumer audience.

Image source.

Twitter Announces Ban of President Trump

Two days after the riots on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter announced a “permanent suspension” of President Trump’s account after a temporary suspension.

Comparing Twitter and Facebook’s message, on January 7, about a temporary suspension, is a lesson in writing structure. Whereas Mark Zuckerberg used the indirect organizational plan, Twitter’s message states the news right up front. Zuckerberg starts with the rationale and announces the decision at the very end. Twitter starts with the decision, and then provides explanatory text, including sample tweets and the company’s assessment.

Another difference between these messages is the writer. The Twitter post is unsigned, whereas Zuckerberg signed the Facebook message himself. Additional rationale for the decision is posted on the Facebook site. Both approaches could work, and analyzing the communication is (almost) as interesting as the decisions themselves.

Random note: “Permanent suspension” sounds odd to me. A suspension is something temporary.

---

Company

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

By Twitter Inc.Friday, 8 January 2021

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. 

In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. 

However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. 

The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.

Overview

On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.

Assessment

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This determination is based on a number of factors, including:

• President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.

• The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.

• The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.

• The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.

• Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.

As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.

University Assistant Coach Fired Over Disparaging Comments

Assistant coach of the Mocs football program at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has been fired. Chris Malone posted a disparaging, racist, and sexist tweet about Stacey Abrams, who is credited for gaining democratic votes in the tight Georgia political races.

University Chancellor Steven Angel posted a video to explain the decision. He covers the basics of an apology but deserves credit for using video as a medium in addition to the athletics director’s and head coach’s written statements:

Mark Wharton – UTC Vice Chancellor & Directory of Athletics
"Last night, a totally inappropriate social media post by a member of our football staff was brought to my attention. The entire post was appalling. The sentiments in that post do not represent the values of our football program, our Athletics department or our University. With that said, effectively immediately, that individual is no longer a part of the program."

Rusty Wright – UTC Head Football Coach
"Our football program has a clear set of standards. Those standards include respecting others. It is a message our players hear daily. It is a standard I will not waver on. What was posted on social media by a member of my staff is unacceptable and not any part of what I stand for or what Chattanooga Football stands for. Life is bigger than football and as leaders of young men, we have to set that example, first and foremost. With that said, effectively immediately, that individual is no longer a part of my staff."

Comparing the three statements demonstrates what each leader focuses on and, perhaps, their emotional reactions to Malone’s post. This situation illustrates accountability and integrity, but I might want to see more authenticity and vulnerability. Do we know more about these leaders as a result of this situation?

Zuckerberg's Message About President Trump's Account

Facebook has decided that President Trump will no longer use its platform for his messages—at least for a while. The decision came after riots at the U.S. Capitol and after Twitter and Facebook suspended the president’s account. The tech companies said that the president violated its rules by inciting violence and/or making false claims about the election.

YouTube blocked a video of President Trump expressing sympathy for the protestors and calling them “special.” The tech platforms had tried labeling posts, but the president’s false claims were still believed.

Some call this time an “inflection point": “Hey Mark Zuckerberg, @jack, @SusanWojcicki and @sundarpichai -- Donald Trump just incited a violent attack on American democracy. Is that FINALLY enough for you to act?!" At this point, Twitter has not yet permanently banned the president from tweeting.

Zuckerberg uses the indirect style for his post, with the main point in the very last sentence. He makes his argument first, and then we read the decision. It’s an interesting choice, which might not convey the courage that people would like to see.

Additional analysis and rationale for the decision are posted on the Facebook site.

CEOs Respond to Capitol Riots

Several business executives are speaking out after riots at the U.S. Capitol. Rioters stormed the building as Congress was certifying (and debating) Joe Biden as the next president. President Trump ignited the crowd by claiming, without evidence, that he won the election “by a landslide” and that it was “stolen” from him.

CEOs have been joining political conversations in the past several years, and today is another example. One of the most significant is Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwartzman, a Trump supporter and loyalist. He said, “The insurrection that followed the president’s remarks today is appalling and an affront to the democratic values we hold dear as Americans” and “There must be a peaceful transition of power.”

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan tweeted his view of the riots, and other leaders represented Salesorce, JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock, Google, Apple, and many more.

Political conservatives also weighed in, for example, Jay Timmons, president and chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers. Timmons suggested that Vice President Pence invoke the 25th amendment, meaning President Trump would be removed from office:

“This is not the vision of America that manufacturers believe in and work so hard to defend. Across America today, millions of manufacturing workers are helping our nation fight the deadly pandemic that has already taken hundreds of thousands of lives. We are trying to rebuild an economy and save and rebuild lives. But none of that will matter if our leaders refuse to fend off this attack on America and our democracy.”

Riots image.

Workers Want to Stay Home

Employees aren’t anxious to return to an office, which may forever change communication. Studies show that, since the pandemic, 61% of people would prefer to work from home full time, compared to 27% before the pandemic. Also, although about 32% didn’t want to work from home at all before the pandemic, 4% now have the same sentiment.

Employees report positive results from working from home, including greater efficiency. Although many have been challenged with children at work, overall, the unintended experiment has been successful.

Because more people will work from home, at least part time, teams need to be better collaborators, and managers need to be better managers. We have relied too heavily on simplistic measures, such as time spent in the office, with no better measures of accountability, output, and impact.

Leaders will need to find ways to keep employees connected to their organizations and to each other. Many employees are feeling “Zoomed out,” but we’ll need ways to socialize and build informal connections that help develop trust and make work easier to manage.

Cover image source.

Phrases of 2020

Research firm Sentieo scoured investor calls to identify increases in certain phrases. The following represents the number of transcripts in which the word or phrase was used—not the number of times they appeared.

“Unprecedented times” was the phrase that increased the most from the previous year: 2,218 this year compared to only 3 last year. The second highest increase was “work from home.” Others were “furlough,” “challenging,” “technical difficulties,” “new normal,” and of course, “you’re on mute.”

This study reminds me of a farcical YouTube video, “Every Covid-19 Commercial Is Exactly the Same.” Both are good lessons in overused words that quickly become tiresome to hear. Let’s try to be more original in 2021.

Companies Leave Ad Agency Over Founder's Remarks

Several companies dropped ad agency Richards Group after the founder referred to a proposed Motel 6 ad as “too Black.” Stan Richards, the firm’s 87-year-old, white founder, also said the ad might alienate the chain’s “white supremacist constituents.” Although the agency created Motel 6’s slogan, “We’ll leave the lights on for you,” the company—along with Cracker Barrel, Home Depot and Keurig Dr Pepper—have ended the relationship. Another customer, The Salvation Army, said it were “deeply concerned” but “encouraged by the fact that Mr. Richards has made an apology.”

The founder made the comments during a Zoom meeting with more than 36 employees and referred to an ad with Black, latinx, and white motel guests. Richards apologized on another Zoom call, and he has been replaced as CEO by Glenn Dady, his planned successor. The company issued a statement on its website, including this quote from Richards:

“If this was a publicly held company, I’d be fired for the comments I made. But we’re not public, so I am firing myself. Our employees, first and foremost, deserve that.”

United Airlines’ Response to Passenger Death

United Airlines is doing damage control after a passenger flying from Orlando to Los Angeles was rushed to a hospital in New Orleans and died. The cause of death hasn’t yet been reported, but the airline confirmed that the passenger had Covid-19 symptoms.

Customer response is fierce, partly because the passenger’s wife told others that her husband had Covid, and partly because the airline continued to fly the plane with passengers. Like most airlines, United asks passengers about their symptoms before flying, but they do not verify.

Communications are scant. I see nothing on United’s home page but found a news release dated December 16, two days after the passenger death, titled, “United and CDC Work Together on Contact Tracing Initiative for All International and Domestic Flights.” Recent tweets mention nothing about the situation, although one conveys the same message as the news release: “comprehensive, voluntary contract tracing.”

Some might feel that this is the least the airline can do in the situation.

Robinhood's Misleading Communications

Investment app Robinhood will pay $65 million in fines for misleading customers. The 2013 start-up has grown rapidly, attracting younger, inexperienced investors with no-fee accounts and no minimums. But Robinhood generates revenue through “payment for order flow,” essentially a kickback from Wall Street firms and the same practice Bernie Madoff used to defraud investors.

Robinhood uses behavioral nudges and notifications to push users to invest in riskier stocks, resulting in higher trading volume, sometimes dramatic losses—and more revenue for the company. An NBC article describes the visuals:

When smartphone owners pull up Robinhood’s investment app, they’re greeted with a variety of dazzling touches: bursts of confetti to celebrate transactions, the price of bitcoin in neon pink and a list of popular stocks to trade.

Charles Schwab, meet Candy Crush.

A competitor compared the design to Las Vegas.

Of course, all is well when stocks go up, but when stocks decline, users have to make up the loss. For one 20-year-old man, his bill appeared to be $730,000, and he committed suicide.

Trader Joe's Criticized for "Racist Packaging"

A 17-year-old started a petition to encourage Trader Joe’s to “Remove Racist Packaging From Your Products.” Briones Bedell explains her perspective:

The grocery chain labels some of its ethnic foods with modifications of “Joe” that belies a narrative of exoticism that perpetuates harmful stereotypes. For example, “Trader Ming’s” is used to brand the chain’s Chinese food, “Arabian Joe” brands Middle Eastern foods, “Trader José” brands Mexican foods, “Trader Giotto’s” is for Italian food, and “Trader Joe San” brands their Japanese cuisine. 

She received 5,956 signatures and was aiming for 7,500.

The company responded in a series of statements, including this one:

We want to be clear: we disagree that any of these labels are racist. We do not make decisions based on petitions. 

In addition, the LA Times reported, “More than 80 of the 100-plus readers who responded to The Times’ call for opinions said the labels would not change their feelings about Trader Joe’s or its product.”

Bedell claims that her petition was a success and cites this NY Times article with a quote from a company spokesperson: “Labels such as Arabian Joe’s and Armenian Joe’s were no longer in use, and that the label Trader Joe San is currently used on only about three products.” Bedell’s latest post is titled, “Trader Joe’s Discontinues ‘Arabian Joe’ and ‘Armenian Joe’ Labels.” The NY Times article explains, “The supermarket chain said it was in the process of phasing out names, including Trader Ming’s and Trader José, that have appeared on its international food products.”

Discussion:

• What’s your view of the labels: racist, fun, or something else?

• Read Bedell’s post, Trader Joe’s statements, and the NY Times article. Can she claim credit for a decision?

• How do you assess Trader Joe’s response, particularly the statements on its website? What, if anything, should the company have done differently?

Fauci: "Numbers Don't Lie"

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the lead infectious disease expert in the U.S., was asked whether the nation has the worst COVID outbreak, and he said, “Numbers don’t lie.”

CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta interviewed the doctor at a Harvard School of Public Health forum. Dr. Gupta asked, “We're not quite 5% of the world's population, yet represent 20-25% of the world's infections ... I mean, that has to be the worst. Is it not the worst?" 

Dr. Fauci responded, “Yeah, it is quantitatively if you look at it, it is. I mean the numbers don't lie.”

The doctors are looking at infections per capita. Of course, we could look at other measures. In this interview, President Trump considers the number of deaths as a percentage of those infected.

Discussion:

• Do numbers lie? Can they? What about this book: How to Lie with Statistics?

• Find evidence to both support and dispute the claim that the U.S. is the “worst.” What measures can you find? Which do you find more meaningful?

Wishing Someone Well

News outlets are reporting that President Trump wishes Ghislaine Maxwell “well.” An associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell is charged with child sex-trafficking and has pleaded not guilty.

President Trump knew Epstein and Maxwell and met them “numerous times over the years.” according to his interview with Axios. When an Axios interviewer questioned the president’s previous statement that he wishes her well, he explained what he meant:

"Her boyfriend died in jail, and people are still trying to figure out how did it happen. Was it suicide, was he killed? And I do wish her well.”

“I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad [sic] for anybody.”

“I do. I wish her well.”

“I wish her well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well.”

Discussion:

• What does it mean to “wish” someone “well”?

• What's your view of President Trump’s comments? Appropriately empathic towards Maxwell, compassionate, insensitive towards victims of sexual abuse, polite, or something else?

• The president defended his initial comments. Should he have done so or changed his approach? Why?

How to Check in on People in Difficult Times

A New York Times article, “How to Ask if Everything Is OK When It’s Clearly Not,” suggests ways to offer compassion. Here are Anna Goldfarb’s recommendations:

• Check for signs of distress: moodiness, unkempt appearance

• Check yourself first: Are you in a good place to engage?

• Be specific about your observations: What behavior could indicate a problem?

• Ask general or specific questions, depending on your relationship:

  • “Is anything on your mind?” or

  • “How are your kids adjusting to so many changes at school?”

• Or just make a statement: “I’m wondering how you are.”

• Talk about your own challenges; be vulnerable

• Just listen; you don’t have to solve anyone else’s problem

• Set a time to follow up

This article reminds me a model for appraising whether we offer compassion. This version is in Building Leadership Character, adapted from Jennifer Goetz, whose article was published in Psychological Bulletin.

Discussion:

• How comfortable would you feel engaging someone in this way during the pandemic? What might prevent you from doing so?

• Think of a time when you offered someone compassion. How does the appraisal model apply? How about a time when you didn’t offer someone compassion?

Zuckerberg Testifies About 2012 Emails

Mark Zuckerberg faced one particularly tense moment during the U.S. Congressional Antitrust Hearing. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) accused Facebook of antitrust activities in its acquisition of Instagram:

“Facebook, by its own admission ... saw Instagram as a threat that could potentially siphon business away from Facebook. So rather than compete with it, Facebook bought it. This is exactly the type of anti-competitive acquisition the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”

Nadler’s conclusion is based on 2012 emails among Zuckerberg and his staff. In one email he wrote about Instagram:

“One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again. Within that time, if we incorporate the social mechanics they were using, those new products won’t get much traction since we’ll already have their mechanics deployed at scale.”

Within an hour, Zuckerberg sent a second email, which some say proves his guilt:

“I didn’t mean to imply that we’d be buying them to prevent them from competing with us in any way.”

During the hearings, Zuckerberg defended the acquisition:

“I think the FTC had all of these documents ... and unanimously voted at the time not to challenge the acquisition. In hindsight, it probably looks obvious that Instagram would have reached the scale that it has today. But at the time, it was far from obvious.”

Discussion:

• Research and describe relevant U.S. antitrust laws.

• Read more about the 2012 emails and watch the hearings. How well did Zuckerberg defend the Instagram acquisition?

• Did Zuckerberg’s follow-up email prove his guilt? Why or why not?
  

Tech CEOs Testify Before Congress

CEOs of four major tech companies—Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon—answered U.S. lawmakers’ questions about potential abuses of power. Themes from both Democrats and Republicans included relationships with third-parties, social media monitoring, advertising, search results, and other potential antitrust moves.

The CEOs joined by video and started with an opening statement. After that, no one was spared tough questions. Sundar Pichai was grilled about search engine results and Google’s business in China. Mark Zuckerberg defended its acquisition strategy. Jeff Bezos responded to accusations of using vendors’ data to build competitive products. And Tim Cook, who received the fewest questions, defended practices for developers, including fees charged through the App Store.

Discussion:

• Watch the CEOs’ opening statements. Which were the strongest and weakest? On what criteria do you base your analysis?

• Which leadership character dimensions do the CEOs exhibit or fail to exhibit.

• Assess the CEOs’ delivery skills. What differences and similarities do you notice?

• Now assess the technology set-up: lighting, background, camera angle, eye contact, and so on. What lessons do you learn for your own video meetings?

Should I Go Outside? A Visual

Researches created a visual to help people make informed decisions as communities re-open during the pandemic. The group has a consulting firm that helps organizations assess risk, and the visual is a representation of their work.

The COVID-19 Risk Index uses color coding to identify the likelihood that you’ll contract the virus during various activities, such as visiting the hospital, grocery shopping, or going to the dentist (which I did yesterday).

Discussion:

• How effective do you find the visual for helping you assess risk? On what criteria do you base your analysis?

• What, if anything, is missing from the index? How could you adapt the tool for local regions?

Developing Trust During the Pandemic

In his opinion piece, “How to Actually Talk to Anti-Maskers,” New York Times writer Charlie Warzel focuses on developing trust. He provides examples from previous pandemics and ways to encourage people to reduce spread of the disease.

Warzel explains the importance of empathizing with people and “meeting people where they are.” To meet resistance from people who don’t want to wear masks—and from those who may not get a vaccine when one is developed—Warzel emphasizes character and communication:

You cannot force public trust; you have to earn it by being humble and transparent, and by listening. And you can’t fake that care and maintenance — it’s the grueling and deeply human work of democracy, which is never finished.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What persuasion strategies does Warzel describe? Consider logical argument, emotional appeal, and credibility.

• Think about a time when you persuaded someone by first empathizing with their point of view. How did it work? What effect did your approach have on your relationship? You might also think about a time when someone persuaded you in this way.

• Which leadership character dimensions are illustrated in Warzel’s article?

Comparing Company Messages About Masks in Stores

Several companies have implemented policies for customers to wear masks in their stores during the pandemic.

Here are a few of these messages to compare. For some, the requirement is hard to find; search for “face” or “facial.”

• Best Buy

• Costco

• Starbucks

• Apple

• Walmart

• BJ’s

• Home Depot

Image source.

Discussion:

• What are the communication objectives of these statements? Who are the primary and secondary audiences?

• In what ways are these messages similar and different? How do you explain the differences? Consider customer demographics, locations, products/services, etc.

• Which do you consider most and least effective and why?

• In addition to the Starbucks tweet here, find other social media company posts about customers wearing face coverings. Apply the same questions to these posts.

Redskins Drop Their Name

Add The Washington Redskins to the growing list of organizations that are changing their name following the killing of George Floyd and protests around the world. The NFL team has been under pressure from fans and sponsors but, until now, has resisted changing the 87-year-old name.

Redskins owner Dan Snyder said he would never change the name, but requests could no longer be ignored from FedEx, Bank of America, PepsiCo, and Nike, the NFL’s apparel partner, which removed Redskins products from its website.

A team statement announced the decision, with no replacement name or logo yet.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Did the team do the right thing by changing the name? Why or why not?

• What are your thoughts about announcing the changing without a new name a logo? Should the team have announced both simultaneously? Why or why not?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/sports/football/washington-redskins-new-name.html