Affirmative Action Decision in Charts

The New York Times published two charts to support the opinion that “in practice, affirmative action mattered a great deal for very few and very little for most.”

The first graphic is an interactive bubble chart (which you can hover over online) to show selectivity. The more selective schools are most highly impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to restrict affirmative action in admissions decisions. With the explosive number of schools at the bottom of the graphic, the designer illustrates how few schools currently use race in admissions decisions. As the article authors explain, “the ruling will make little difference for most college students.”

The second chart, below, is a classic column (or bar) chart, illustrating a related point: “Notice how relatively few Black and Hispanic students attend schools with an admission rate of 20 percent or less.” At a glance, we see the distribution of students, including the obvious divergence of Asian students, by level of selectivity.

Both charts work well for the purpose, but the authors’ main point, about educational justice, is more difficult to illustrate. Students might compare these charts to those of the Chronicle of Higher Education, which are simpler but not interactive or as easy to see at a glance.

Retracted Behavioral Science Studies

The process of discovering fraud—and the aftermath—in a Harvard Business School professor’s work is a lesson in evidence, data integrity, and ethics for business communication students. I’ve admired Francesca Gino’s work and cited her research on learning and authenticity in Building Leadership Character. But three of her studies are being retracted, and Harvard has placed her on administrative leave.

News outlets love headlines like NPR’s, “Harvard professor who studies dishonesty is accused of falsifying data,” and, this almost identical one from The Guardian, “Harvard professor who studies honesty accused of falsifying data in studies.” Fair enough, but her work is far broader—more about management decision making than honesty or ethics.

On their blog Data Colada, researchers describe how they discovered falsified data. Their sleuthing involves a fascinating dive into hidden Excel files that, the detectives say, proved that data was* moved and changed. Students might be interested to learn how much data Excel stores.

As examples of crisis communication, responses to the news are mixed. To date, Harvard hasn’t commented on reports or the decision to place Gino on leave. Announced in a blurb, at least one of her scheduled presentations has been cancelled. In a Chronicle article, collaborators and other behavioral scientists expressed their concern and/or defended their own work. Rational folks suggested waiting until more information is revealed, and work is ongoing to document the origins of all study data. Gino wrote nothing about the controversy on her own website, but she did post a short statement on LinkedIn. Her voice is reserved but clear, expressing humility and gratitude—both appropriate for the situation and early findings.

* Random: I use data as a singular noun, which is more common in business. This article explains my reasons well.

Comms Related to the Supreme Court Decision

Business communication faculty brave enough to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to restrict affirmative action in college admissions will find many communication examples for students to analyze. Here are a few to consider, and each requires careful facilitation. The first two are probably the easiest to manage and the most relevant to our courses.

• Corporate responses: This article provides a few examples for students to analyze, considering the industry, customer base, mission, and other factors driving the response.

• University responses: Cornell University’s president published a statement, and I imagine other university leaders have done the same. Students can analyze and compare messages.

• Full text of the decision: This 237-page document is a bit overwhelming, but the document, in its entirety, illustrates one persuasive genre for a professional group.

• Dissenting opinions: For more manageable reads, these two dissenting opinions serve as good examples of persuasive arguments.

• Opinion letters: The WSJ and NY Times editorial board opinions offer useful contrasts. Students might find their own opinion articles to analyze.

Image source.

Chronicle Recommendation for Full Disclosure Raises Character Questions

A Chronicle of Higher Education article suggests that academic leaders practice full disclosure when applying for jobs. The recommendation is to avoid issues later in the hiring process, and the decision tests candidates’ character, particularly integrity, courage, and authenticity. Our students face similar decisions.

Here’s the search consultants’ advice:

Be forthcoming and candid about any sensitive or confidential information that may affect your candidacy. Search committees and hiring managers—and I can’t stress this enough—hate surprises. So it’s critical to disclose a potential roadblock as soon as possible once you’ve decided to become a candidate.

Hiring managers “hate surprises” for a few reasons. First, no one wants to waste time. If a candidate, even at an entry-level, will be ruled out, HR wants to know early on. Students with a criminal record of theft should not bother applying for an auditing position. Second, employers want to hire people with integrity, which includes being honest up front. This takes courage, a worthy topic of discussion with our students. Yes, students risk missing out on a job offer, but better to remove themselves from the process early than wait until the third interview or, worse, after they’re hired. When I worked in HR, terminating hired employees after a discovery was a painful process, and this only makes it harder for someone to find another job.

In their list of disclosures, the search professionals include legal issues, negative publicity, barriers to relocating, and leaving previous employers on bad terms. Students might want to discuss gaps in employment, negative social media posts, family obligations, and job terminations—not all at once, of course. Depending on the situation, job market, industry, and so many other factors, students have difficult decisions to make about whether, how, how much, and when to disclose issues that might negatively affect their candidacy. Some of the advice in Business Communication and Character is rooted in Chalice Randazzo’s work: "A Framework for Resume Decisions: Comparing Applicants’ and Employers’ Reasons” (BPCQ, 2020).

Here’s an inspiring story about a researcher at Intel who decided to talk about his history of addiction during his job interview. In the end, what students choose to reveal reflects on their character. They might find this discussion and handout about the Character, Audience, Message (CAM) Model useful.

Image source.

Texts from 2012: Instagram Cofounder Considers Acquisition by FB

I feel like a voyeur reading texts between tech leaders, and this exchange doesn’t disappoint. In 2012 texts, we see Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom and investor Matt Cohler navigating Mark Zuckerberg’s initial gesture to acquire the company, which happened just two months later.

At some point during these 30 back-and-forth texts, they could have picked up the phone, which would have avoided the messages becoming public as part of The House Judiciary Committee’s anti-trust investigation. Such an important conversation seems worthy of a call if not an in-person meeting. But I guess I’m old school: in addition to my propensity to worry about what might go public, I don’t like spending half my day texting.

I’m always surprised at the casual nature of texts among executives. To start, Cohler quotes Zuckerberg: "i'm not sure if this is a good idea yet, but i think maybe facebook should buy instagram, what do you think?" Then, in Systrom’s concern about the company he founded, we see Zuckerberg’s power:

Kevin Systrom
got it
you know him better than I do
a) will he go into destroy mode if I say no
b) will he understand if we choose to raise instead
c) will he understand that I don't want to shutter the product and that doesn't align with what FB does with companies

Matt Cohler
a) probably (and probably also if we just don't engage at all)
b) no, he'll go harder into destroy mode then
c) what i think he would most likely want to see is for instagram to turn into a stand-alone mobile facebook photos app, like beluga turned into facebook messenger
(re c he hasn't indicated anything to me at all there, i'm just speculating)

Later, we see these two planning to lie (I’ll be blunt here) about other potential suitors, as Systrom has a meeting scheduled with Jack Dorsey of Twitter.

The exchange is fascinating—a window into how M&A and other strategic decisions are made, or, how they just seem to happen despite what executives want for their company. Early in the exchange, Systrom writes, “I'm not interested really - even at the right price I don't think so,” but we know he sold anyway.

New Twitter CEO's First Email

With much-needed advertising experience, Linda Yaccarino joined Twitter and wrote her first email to staff, a good one for students to analyze. In addition to the email, below, Yaccarino posted her message in a Twitter thread.

Here are a few notes about the email:

• Twitter employees are the primary audience. Secondary audiences might be Twitter users, the media, investors, and the public. As you’ll see, Elon Musk is significant too.

• Yaccarino started on June 5, so it took a while for her first email. One meme shows a skeleton waiting for her second email.

• She starts with a question designed to engage her readers. Then she compliments Elon Musk, her boss and a quite a force. For her first message, acknowledging him is probably important, although I found myself skimming this part. The next paragraph gushes on—in italics. Clearly, Yaccarino is speaking to Musk fans and free speech advocates with that last bit.

• I’m wanting to know more about her: who is Linda Vaccarino? After her opening question, I expected something more personal, maybe about her background or her experience as a Twitter user.

• The “global town square” refers to Musk’s goal for Twitter. After a quick mention, Yaccarino defines it after “Enter Twitter 2.0,” which, I guess, is a heading along with “The success . . .” That section loosely shifts to employees.

• Her tone is enthusiastic, as we would expect. Morale has been low, with mass layoffs, harsh communication, and falling ad revenue.

• As we see too often, her use of “literally” is colloquial and not quite right.

• She uses a couple of rhetorical devices that I find: “wrapping your arms” and “heels” (the latter, a defined metaphor) and an attempt at alliteration: “person, partner, and creator on the planet.” We could call the “global town square” an allusion.

• I’m not a fan of what I call random font enhancements: bold and italics in the middle of paragraphs or at the ends of sentences. Could she use better organization to emphasize key points?

• I wonder how employees responded. Are they motivated? I’m not sure what anyone would do differently after reading the email? What was the purpose?

---

Building Twitter 2.0 Together

Hello Twitter!

People keep asking me: Why Twitter? So, I’ll tell you.

From space exploration to electric vehicles, Elon knew these industries needed transformation, so he did it. More recently it has become increasingly clear that the global town square needs transformation—to drive civilization forward through the unfiltered exchange of information and open dialogue about the things that matter most to us.

Have you ever been talking with someone particularly insightful and thought, You’re brilliant—everybody should get the chance to hear this. Or, I’m learning so much from you—can we do this again? Or maybe it’s as simple as, You should have the freedom to speak your mind. We all should.

Enter Twitter 2.0.

Twitter is on a mission to become the world’s most accurate real-time information source and a global town square for communication. We’re on the precipice of making history—and that’s not an empty promise. That’s OUR reality. 

When you start by wrapping your arms around this powerful vision, literally everything is possible. You have to genuinely believe—and work hard for that belief. And in this moment of complete reinvention, we have the opportunity to reach across aisles, create new partnerships, celebrate new voices, and build something together that can change the world. And from what I can tell so far, you’re built for this. 

The success of Twitter 2.0 is all of our responsibility. 

We need to think big.

We need to transform.

We need to do it all together.

And we can do it all by starting from first principles – questioning our assumptions and building something new from the ground up. It’s rare to have the chance to put a new future into the hands of every person, partner, and creator on the planet.

That’s exactly why I’m here – with all of YOU.

So, let’s dig our heels in (4 inches or flat!) and build Twitter 2.0 together.

Linda

Negotiating Salary for "Mission-Driven" Organizations

Applicants are hesitant to negotiate higher salaries when organizations use “social impact framing” in job ads, but using business communication principles, students can get more pay. New research published in Organization Science found that candidates feared seeming selfish and reducing their chance of an offer. You never know how managers will perceive salary negotiations, but we know that people in majority groups are more likely to negotiate and that taking the first offer can lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost pay over someone’s career.

In Business Communication and Character, I recommend the following process to help students muster up the courage to negotiate. I hope these suggestions are useful for your students:

• Consider the entire package. Negotiating an increase in salary is best because annual merit increases will build on a larger base every year. But the compensation and benefits package also could include bonus and equity (company stock) pay, healthcare benefits, relocation assistance, tuition reimbursement, sign-on bonus—and other aspects of the job that you may value, such as, how much time you can work from home, the start date, and so on. Think about what is most important to you and where the company might have flexibility. For example, vacation time and retirement plans may be fixed for every new hire at your level, but a hiring manager might have more leeway with relocation, a sign-on bonus, and remote work options.

• Know your value. Review your resume and focus on your skills and accomplishments related to the job and company. Be confident about what you bring to the table. People in dominant identity groups may have an easier time with this idea, which is part of the explanation for the gender pay gap in the United States and elsewhere.

• Research starting salaries. Explore your college’s career management office, Glassdoor, PayScale, Salary.com, and other sites to determine the likely range for the position and location. You might share your offer with other students; people are surprisingly willing to talk about their finances, and transparency helps reduce the pay gap. Keep your expectations realistic. You can ask a recruiter about a salary range—but not too early in the process. Negotiations typically don’t start until after you have a job offer. If asked about your requirements, try to get a salary range from the employer first, so you don’t “low-ball” yourself.

• Highlight your assets. When you begin to negotiate, give concrete examples, for example, similar work and accomplishments at other companies. Think about why the employer should pay you more. Often, they are looking for your motivation level. In other words, how can you prove—with evidence—that you’ll work harder than other employees and, therefore, be worth the extra compensation? Avoid talking about your needs, for example, student loans; other than relocation, an employer will pay more for what you can contribute—not for your expenses.

• Decide on your approach. Include all your requests up front so the employer doesn’t get frustrated and feel manipulated when you negotiate each term separately. If you don’t get the salary or other terms you request, what will you do? Be clear about what you’re willing to compromise and at what point you will decline the offer.

• Practice. Practice what you’ll say with friends and others to address counterarguments and hold your ground. You don’t need to apologize (“Sorry to bother you with this. I know you’re busy”). Instead, adopt a confident, persuasive, yet friendly tone (“I’m very excited about the position and joining the team, and I know I’ll bring a lot of value to the table, particularly because of my experience at ___ [or something relevant you accomplished]. I'm wondering if we can explore a slightly higher starting salary of $ ___”). Your goal is to convince the employer, without sounding too demanding, that you’re worth the extra compensation.

“Rainbow Capitalism” and Integrity

Brands walk fine lines this month, perhaps genuinely wanting to show support for the LGBTQ+ community, but finding critics at all turns. June is Pride Month, when some companies engage in what may be called “rainbow capitalism” or “rainbow washing,” advertising or selling merchandise without any substance behind it. Memes joke about companies’ gratitude at the end of the month.

This year, Target and other companies removed merchandise, for example, as a swimsuit for trans women, after conservative backlash. Target published this statement after receiving bomb threats:

For more than a decade, Target has offered an assortment of products aimed at celebrating Pride Month. Since introducing this year's collection, we've experienced threats impacting our team members' sense of safety and well-being while at work. Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior. Our focus now is on moving forward with our continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community and standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.

In other words, we’ll support people, as we always have, but can’t risk safety. They could say more about the threats and their “commitment” to convince customers that removing merchandise was the right decision and is still in line with their “inclusivity” values.

Ford, GM, and other companies’ plans are described in this article, which might make good class reading. Students could choose a brand and compare its Pride products and advertising to its policies and determine whether behavior matches ideology—an issue of integrity, or doing what they say they’ll do. Critics say companies will wave a flag but not offer employees gender-affirming insurance or allow employees to use preferred pronouns.

Students also can discuss why this year is different from others. Although a political topic, the context is important to assessing why brands may have scaled back their participation and whether that was the right thing to do. Of course, industry, location, product mix, customer base, and other factors are relevant too.

Press Conference About School Shooting

This may be too raw to share with students, but this video serves as a good example of a crisis communication press conference. Officials from Richmond, VA, describe a shooting after a high school graduation that killed two and left five injured. The conference is just hours after the incident, so little is known at this point, but authorities say, with confidence, that a suspect is in custody.

In the video, we see principles for a crisis communication news conference. Some of the following are out of order or are covered by different speakers: the police chief, Mayor Levar Marcus Stoney, and the school superintendent. The Q&A also illustrates these principles, despite a pending investigation:

• Introduce yourself

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

• Provide a preview (list of topics you’ll cover)

• Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources

• Never lie or misrepresent the truth

• Emphasize the aspects of business that will continue (instill confidence)

• Provide investigation process/status

• Mention your appreciation of support (e.g., fire department, police)

• Say we will provide updates when we know more

• Give crisis hotline information and other resources, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Mayor Stoney’s section is a particularly good example of an inspiring speech. He demonstrates courage with his stand about guns, which is controversial. I don’t have good evidence for this opinion, but I remember, years ago, officials avoiding criticism of guns immediately after shooting incidents because it was “too soon.” That seems to have shifted.

Untimely "Welcome to Hell" Ad

As orange haze was filling New York, a billboard appeared in the foreground: “Welcome to Hell, New York.” Creators of the “Diablo IV” video game ad didn’t realize the poor timing, and the coincidence may have worked in their favor. The launch date on the billboard is 6.6.23, the same day air quality alerts began. Of course, if marketers used the news of smoke from Canadian wildfires to promote the ad, that would have been in poor taste.

On Twitter, the EVP Corporate Affairs and CCO, Activision Blizzard, responded to questions:

I would like to clarify that Blizzard has no affiliation or partnership with the wildfires in Canada. In fact we are firmly against wildfires and condemn them in the strongest terms.

Funny? Maybe they could have done better. Some humor is acceptable in this situation because the smoke was eerie and could be harmful but didn’t cause widespread devastation, at least in New York. If that had been the case, for example, if the ad appeared in Quebec, the company response would need to be quite different.

This story reminds me of the adage (P. T. Barnum), no publicity is bad publicity, which is no longer true. But in this case, Activision Blizzard got recognition beyond the billboard.

PGA Commissioner Address Criticism Directly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI Risk Communications

Two new messages about risks associated with AI are good examples for students to analyze.

Center for AI Safety published a short, joint statement about AI risks. The introduction, which explains the statement, is longer than the 22-word message itself. Unlike a longer statement published two months ago to encouraged a pause, this one is bold and focused:

Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.

The authors use analogies as emotional appeal to persuade their audiences. They also rely credibility, with more than 350 distinguished signatories, including current AI leaders and two Turing Award AI pioneers.

The second message is a blog post written by OpenAI founders to provide guidance for regulators and others wanting to mitigate risk. Titled, Governance of Superintelligence, the post distinguishes between current AI technology and the next generation. The authors’ strategy is to create a sense of urgency about an “existential” threat but prevent overregulation of current technology (like OpenAI, of course). In this statement, they use the analogies of nuclear energy and synthetic biology. The latter might be a better parallel than the pandemic, although a pandemic is more current and may be more universally understood.

Students can edit the governance post for clarity and conciseness. They’ll find overuse of “there is/are” and an abundance of “it,” for example, in this last sentence:

Second, we believe it would be unintuitively risky and difficult to stop the creation of superintelligence. Because the upsides are so tremendous, the cost to build it decreases each year, the number of actors building it is rapidly increasing, and it’s inherently part of the technological path we are on, stopping it would require something like a global surveillance regime, and even that isn’t guaranteed to work. So we have to get it right.

Employees Protest RTO Policies

As companies push for employees to return to the office after working remotely during the pandemic, employees are pushing back. In their arguments, we see different approaches—some more effective than others.

Here are a few employee messages against return to office (RTO) plans:

Apple: This powerful message directly argues against points the executive team made to inspire people back to work. It’s a compelling persuasive example. One of the strongest arguments is that the RTO policy “will make Apple younger, whiter, more male dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied, in short, it will lead to privileges deciding who can work for Apple, not who’d be the best fit.” Although the writers don’t provide a lot of evidence, the potential impact reflects reasons employees give for refusing to go back to an office. Less diversity as a result of RTO is clearly inconsistent with Apple’s inclusion and diversity mission, but the employees don’t mention that. This is a good lesson for our students who cite a company’s mission in their presentations; this approach may be too obvious and pedantic for internal arguments.

Starbucks: This message also disputes claims made by senior management and more explicitly identifies contradictions with the company mission, “One cup, one person, and one neighborhood at a time.” The logic is loose, and it sounds shallow. Later, employees hit hard: “Morale is at an all-time low, and the brand reputation and financial value of this publicly traded company are at risk.” Those are big, bold statements that might cause executives to be less, instead or more, sympathetic.

Black & Veatch: Writers of this petition for a construction engineering company use survey data as their primary source of evidence. The message cites the “Working in New Ways” policy that allowed for remote work. Employees use criteria reasoning (and question the executives’ integrity): “Positions were advertised and professionals hired with the expectation their positions would remain permanently virtual.” Sadly, this message highlights the dangers of an employee survey: the data could be used against the company.

I can’t find an employee statement, but Amazon made news this week when they resisted CEO Andy Jassey’s RTO message. Jassey makes the usual arguments about culture, collaboration, learning, and connection, relying on what he and the rest of the “s-team” (senior management team) has observed. Students can analyze his argument and may find weak evidence.

At Amazon, employee walkouts may or may not influence the decision, but solidarity among corporate and warehouse employees is refreshing. Although warehouse employees never had remote work options, they seem to support the corporate staff’s flexibility, with one explaining, “It’s just showing us that Amazon has a problem with workers and listening to us.”

ChatGPT's Legal Trouble

ChatGPT might pass the bar exam, but it created havoc in a lawsuit. As we tell our business communication students, authors are responsible for their content, and that applies to lawyers who submit legal briefs.

In his documentation against Avianca Airlines, Steven Schwartz included six previous court decisions that didn’t exist. As we know, ChatGPT is a large language model and cannot be trusted to, for example, cite legal cases; it “hallucinates.”

Schwartz now faces sanctions. The American Bar Association requires competence, which includes supervising other lawyers’ and nonlawyers’ (including nonhuman) work. Another issue is confidentiality. Although some legal AI tools keep client data confidential, ChatGPT does not. In a court response, Schwartz apologized, saying he didn’t realize ChatGPT could give false information (!) and that he “had no intent to deceive this Court nor the defendant.”

Despite ChatGPT’s failings in this situation, AI can benefit law firms, as the Bar Association explains. And yet, law remains one of the top fields expected to be impacted by AI, as this NY Times article describes:

One new study, by researchers at Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania and New York University, concluded that the industry most exposed to the new A.I. was “legal services.” Another research report, by economists at Goldman Sachs, estimated that 44 percent of legal work could be automated. Only the work of office and administrative support jobs, at 46 percent, was higher.

This case is a good example for students to know—a lesson in accountability for their own work.

{Random: I’m surprised to see that the NY Times include periods after “A” and “I.” This seems to be a conversative approach losing ground. “AI” is easily recognized these days. Then again, the Times was a slow in dropping the hyphen in email, in my opinion.)

Netflix Anti-Sharing Message

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

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

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

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

Showing Donation Amounts Increases Giving

A recent study confirms what fundraisers typically do: writing a list of possible donation amounts increases what people give. According to the study, “Giving Suggestions: Using Quantity Requests to Increase Donations,” published in the Journal of Consumer Research, fundraising letters or web pages with “donate” buttons will bring in more if they include specific amounts. This is relevant to students developing campaigns for nonprofit organizations and other ventures.

Alice Moon, the first author and an assistant professor of operations, information, and decisions at The Wharton School, explains the phenomenon: “They might just not want to appear stingy by giving a lower amount than they should. But unlike the other types of requests, [quantity requests] clarify those amounts by providing some norm about how much to give.” Other types of requests include offering a list of organizations.

This research parallels tipping research in restaurants, which suggests that servers receive higher tips when customers have higher tip options. But too much inflation could affect online reviews negatively. We could expect the same for donation requests.

Shell Protester and Company Comms

Protester and Shell Oil communications illustrate rhetorical devices, reasoning, and evidence. Dutch activist investor Follow This, which owns Shell stock, pushed for a shareholder resolution to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. As protesters stormed the annual meeting, they illustrated rhetorical devices communication faculty might teach as a way to appeal to emotion and make speech more memorable. “Hit the Road Jack,” and “Go to hell, Shell, and don’t you come back no more” illustrate an allusion to a popular song and assonance, or vowel rhyming.

On page 8 of the annual investor meeting notice, Shell executives explain three reasons for shareholders to reject the resolution:

• Against shareholders’ interests: The company claims it would give up profits, but protesters say the company has had record profits (and, I suppose, can give some up?). The company argues that the proposition “would not help to mitigate global warming,” but evidence is not provided.

• Against good governance: The company argues that the proposition is “unclear, generic, and would create confusion as to Board and shareholder accountabilities.” With criteria reasoning, executives say that Shell already has a shareholder-approved strategy in place, so this new guidance would conflict. They also claim that any change is merely advisory and that “the legal responsibility for approving or objecting to Shell’s strategy lies with the Board and Executive Committee.”

• Negative consequences for customers: This section includes causal reasoning that hasty shifts “could cause disruptions to the world’s energy system, with the risk of shortages and high energy prices.” Skeptics might say this is a slippery slope fallacy. Then, the next two confusing paragraphs have footnotes to Shell's own site (not an external source):

  • As an energy user, Shell has set a bold target to reduce absolute emissions from its operations (Scope 1 and 2), by 50% by 2030, compared with its 2016 reference year. Shell delivered a 30% reduction at the end of 2022, compared with 2016 on a net basis. Global energy-related carbon emissions increased by around 4% in the same period. [A]

  • As an energy provider, Shell has set a target to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products it sells by 20% by 2030. It has achieved a 3.8% reduction since 2016. Our analysis, using data from the International Energy Agency, shows the net carbon intensity of the global energy system fell by around 2% over that same time. [B]

On its website, Follow This announces that the proposition was voted down. However, in a press release, the group emphasizes a relatively high percentage of supporting votes: “One-fifth of Shell shareholders maintain demand for emissions reductions to meet Paris by voting for Follow This climate resolution.” The group founder puts this figure in context, a common persuasive tactic: “Considering that up to 99% of shareholders voted along with the board on the other 25 resolutions, 20% of support and a significant number of abstentions in spite of a negative board recommendation clearly indicates shareholder discontent.” As an example of synecdoche, the group refers to “Paris,” meaning the U.N. Paris Agreement to limit average temperature increases.

Students will find other examples of rhetorical devices and methods used to persuade in both organizations’ communications.

OpenAI CEO Sets a Different Tone

In contrast to how SVB's former CEO handled his U.S. government testimony this week, OpenAI's CEO demonstrated humility, a willingness to learn and an acknowledgment that he doesn’t know everything. Sam Altman talked about the incredible potential of large language models, yet admitted risks. He asked for "regulatory intervention," which, to be fair, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned when he testified, but the tone of this US Senate committee hearing was entirely different from previous tech companies' interactions with regulators.

In his opening statement (starting at 20:45), Altman said, "But as this technology advances, we understand that people are anxious about how it could change the way we live." Later, Altman said, "I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong . . . we want to be vocal about that," and, "We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening."

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chaired the committee panel, also demonstrated humility by admitting “mistakes of the past”:

"Our goal is to demystify and hold accountable those new technologies to avoid some of the mistakes of the past. Congress failed to meet the moment on social media.”

Unlike the E.U., which has already proposed AI legislation, skeptics say U.S. government officials’ limited knowledge makes moving quickly unlikely. But admission of their failings and current risks could inspire action, although it’s unclear how that might happen.

SVB's Former CEO Deflects Blame for Bank Failure

Silicon Valley Bank’s former CEO, Gregory Becker, testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (starting at 18:55). As the New York Times reported, Becker “pointed the finger at pretty much everybody but himself.”

Becker blamed the bank’s demise on regulators for failing to manage inflation and interest rates, the media for raising questions about the bank’s financials, and depositers for withdrawing money in a panic. Critics blame SVB management for the high percentage of uninsured deposits, the lack of client diversification, and the lack of liquidity because of overinvestment in long-term bonds and other government securities.

In his opening statement, Becker gave a nonapology; he didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Notice the subject of the following sentence and the pronoun reference for “this”:

"The takeover of SVB has been personally and professionally devastating, and I am truly sorry for how this has impacted SVB’s employees, clients and shareholders."

In other words, he apologizes for how the takeover—the regulators’ actions—affected people. The Wall Street Journal ran this headline: “'I'm Truly Sorry': Former Silicon Valley Bank CEO Apologizes for Failure.” But he didn’t apologize for his failure.

The word of the day—and of the past three years—is “unprecendented,” which Becker used three times in his 5.5-minute speech. His strategy was to persuade senators that the failure was out of his control. In his written statement, we see “unprecendented” six times.

Senators were unforgiving, and we’re left to wonder whether they would have been more sympathetic if Becker had taken any responsibility for the damage. A CNN article reported harsh critism from both Republicans and Democrats, with one saying, “It sounds a lot like my dog ate my homework.”

Becker’s testimony is a good example for students to see a lack of accountability and humility, or learning from mistakes. He uses crisis communication strategies, such as distancing himself from the failure, but his testimony didn’t reflect well on the bank or on himself.

Opting Out of Mother's Day Ads

Mother’s Day is a painful reminder for some people, and companies are letting customers opt out of ads. The holiday can exacerbate grief for people who have lost mothers or children or have other reasons to avoid the day. Some messages, particularly, seem to jab at the heart, for example, the subject line, “Laura, your mum is waiting for her surprise . . .”

Several companies send messages before the holiday to give customers options. For example, Canva sent the email shown here. The global head of communications explained, "Our core values are about being a force for good, and we, in this instance, prioritize being a good human and showing sensitivity to our community. Mother's Day seemed like one that really does have a lot of emotions around it, and so we started with that holiday, but have expanded into other areas as well." Company leaders and customers call the move “sensitive” and “inclusive” and emphasize “empowering” customers to chose which messages they receive.

For some, an email about opting out of Mother’s Day emails is, in itself, triggering, and a few critics say these messages are anti-family. But most are favorable about the approach.

Students could compare company messages. Every one of those below mentions the “difficult time.”

• Canva (above)

• M.A.C. Cosmetics

• Pandora

• Boisson

• DoorDash

• Etsy

• Pashion Planner

• Fable & Eve

These diverge only slightly with “sensitive time,” which sounds odd to me.

• Ink Cards

• Prezzybox

OpenTable got really creative with “difficult holiday.” Perhaps “difficult time” and these slight variations are best. The language is general enough and doesn’t label feelings too much. No points for originality; simple and clear is best—the least amount of time people need to engage with holiday reminders, the better.