Comms About USC Cancelling Valedictorian Commencement Speaker

In another difficult situation for university administrators, University of Southern California (USC) rescinded its plan for commencement speaker valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a first-generation South Asian-American Muslim.

In a statement, the university defends its decision. Administrators admit that the decision was based on fear of the “alarming tenor”:

The intensity of feelings, fueled by both social media and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, has grown to include many voices outside of USC and has escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement. We cannot ignore the fact that similar risks have led to harassment and even violence at other campuses.

The statement emphasizes “unprecedented risks we are seeing at other campuses and across the world” and advice from the university department of public safety as factors leading to the decision. In the middle of the statement, we read the decision: “After careful consideration, we have decided that our student valedictorian will not deliver a speech at commencement.” Administrators preempt criticism: “To be clear: this decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period.” The statement includes an FAQ and a link to the commencement selection process.

We could say that administrators lack courage, although they also demonstrate courage by, as they see it, protecting the 65,000 people who will attend the event—and, of course, the university’s reputation, possibly preventing bad press.

A student group’s statement refers to Tabassum’s writings as “antisemitic bigotry,” including, in quoted text, the “‘complete abolishment’ of Israel.” The USC statement doesn’t mention these specifics and, instead, focuses on safety.

Yet, in her statement, Tabassum denies hearing about “any specific threats against me or the university.” She defends her work and calls for courage: “And I urge us to see past our deepest fears and recognize the need to support justice for all people, including the Palestinian people.” The cancellation has an extra sting for Tabassum, who was the valedictorian of her high school but didn’t get to make a speech because of COVID-19.

Moral courage means accurately assessing risks and walking through fears. University administrators have made their assessment. The executive director of the Greater Los Angeles Area Office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) expressed his disappointment, calling the decision “cowardly”:

USC cannot hide its cowardly decision behind a disingenuous concern for “security.” Asna is an incredibly accomplished student whose academic and extracurricular accomplishments made her the ideal and historic recipient of this year’s valedictorian’s honor. The university can, should and must ensure a safe environment for graduation rather than taking the unprecedented step of cancelling a valedictorian’s speech.

I don’t envy university leaders, who may be trying to do the right thing but are finding it difficult to know exactly what that is.

UPDATE: USC has cancelled all commencement speakers, or as they say, they will “release our outside speakers and honorees from attending this year’s ceremony.” Four high-profile people had been invited. Another character dimension at play is integrity: withdrawing a commitment.

Image source.

Six Compliments

Let’s talk about positive messages for a change. A recent Time magazine article highlights research about giving compliments, something (almost) all of us like to receive.

Students can easily find ways to offer one of these six suggested compliments:

• “You handled that situation so well.”

• “You make even ordinary moments feel extraordinary.”

• “I’m really impressed with your ability to work under pressure.”

• “I love the way you bring out the best in people.”

• “Hey, great earrings!”

• “Your performance was brilliant.”

Research shows that we’re hesitant to give compliments, thinking they might sound insincere, but Vanessa Bohns and others say this is unlikely. Still, a worthy class discussion might focus on how students can use the above ideas but speak in their own natural voice. What would each sound like in particular situations and directed at friends compared to, for example, faculty, coworkers, or family members?

Also worth a discussion is the value of sincere compliments and avoiding them when we have ulterior motives. Students will probably have ready examples of when they have heard—and have given—compliments designed for a purpose other than elevating the receiver.

The article suggests saying “thank you” when we hear a compliment instead of dismissing it or disparaging ourselves, as some of us tend to do. This validates the giver and encourages them to give compliments to others.

Image source.

Discrimination Against Black Names on Resumes

Many studies have shown that employers are more likely to offer interviews to white than to Black applicants. New research may help prepare students.

Students have difficult decisions to make about how to present themselves in employment communications. In Chapter 13 of Business Communication and Character (11e), I wrote:

Applicants have a difficult choice in deciding whether to downplay their race and other affiliations. Some students choose to do so to avoid bias—to increase their chances of getting hired when they are at a disadvantage in the selection process. Others downplay their identities for a different reason: if an employer does want to increase diversity, they don’t want to be hired to “fill that quota.”

I reference an Administrative Science Quarterly article. This new research identifies companies by name, with some companies, for example, Kohl’s, Lowe’s, and Hilton, not discriminating, but AutoNation and GPC coming out at the bottom. This study also tested age and LGBTQ status and found low penalties for those over 40 and applicants with Black names who mentioned affiliations with LGBTQ groups, although the penalty was larger for applicants with white-sounding names.

The resumes in this study seem to be for lower, service-level jobs. It would be interesting to evaluate the effect for professional- and management-level jobs for which our students might apply. I’m cautious about assuming the same results.

Activist Investor Letter and Railroad's Response

As activist investor Ancora tries to change Norfolk Southern railroad’s leadership, students can analyze persuasive communications from both sides.

The Ancora letter to shareholders itemizes what they consider “failures of governance” and "the Board’s poor judgment.” Many of the points relate to the hiring of a new COO—the third in the past two and a half years—whom they think is unsuitable, partly because of accusations about his “abusive behavior and serious misconduct.” The activists say the railroad held an insufficient search and overpaid the chosen candidate. Students can analyze the letter in terms of organization (main points in the introduction?), formatting (excessive underlining!), and evidence.

In an interview on CNBC’s Mad Money with Jim Cramer, Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw defended the decision. Cramer challenges him a bit about the COO but, overall, the interview is favorable. Clearly, he’s a fan, supporting what Shaw says about delivering on promises during his short time with the company. As any CEO would, Shaw minimized the February 2023 train derailment in Ohio, which released toxic chemicals. He said, “Yeah, we had a challenge last year, but we met that challenge head on.” Later, he refers to it as “East Palestine” (typonym rhetorical device?), which makes the incident feels unspeakable.

Cramer is indignant when he learns that the railroad offered Ancora two board seats, and the activists didn’t accept them. Ancora doesn’t mention this in its letter. The activists want what Shaw describes as “wholesale change,” which he believes would be too disruptive. Cramer compares the situation to Disney, which students also can research.

For more, see this “fireside chat” with Shaw, another interview ahead of the shareholders meeting on May 9.

Accenture Case About ADHD

A London lawsuit against Accenture raises issues of neurodiversity in the workplace. The nuance and ambiguity in the case touches on business communication.

Accenture’s Chair and Chief Executive Julie Sweet is accused of mistreating Peter Lacy, Accenture’s former head of sustainability and global management committee member. Lacy, who is diagnosed with ADHD, post-traumatic stress, and depression, claims that he was “shamed” and “belittled.” He gives examples of being cut off during senior-level and other large meetings, for example, by being told, “Peter you need to stop now.” Lacy says another executive “engaged in a 15-minute tirade against [Lacy] in respect of a piece of work . . . for no apparent reason.” Lacy says these situations, in addition to the long work hours and stressful work environment, exacerbated his symptoms and led to his wrongful termination. Accenture defends the dismissal as part as a larger layoff, as employers often do.

One sticking point is whether Lacy’s disability was apparent, which he claims but the Accenture team denies. This is an interesting question for business communicators: When does speech or presentation obviously convey a disability? A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about “professionalism,” which tends to box people into norms and excludes people who don’t fit conventional standards. Is this such a case? Or was Lacy simply out of line and inappropriate? Whether someone has a disability or not, how much leeway—or to use the legal parlance, accommodation—should an organization provide related to communication? Where’s the line to determine when disruption affects others or prevents business from moving forward?

It strikes me that business communication faculty deal with this issue every day in class. We expect students to behave in certain ways and accommodate those who don’t or can’t—to a point. This case seems to be about that tipping point. The case will be interesting to watch because of its implications for the increasing numbers of neurodiverse employees.

Image source.

Letter from Founder of World Central Kitchen

I’m posting this hoping it’s not perceived as “political” but as a beautifully written letter by an organization leader about his work and his staff. I know that the facts in the letter are disputed.

José Andrés is the founder of World Central Kitchen, whose seven aid workers were killed while trying to deliver food to the people in Gaza. His letter was published in The New York Times with the title, “Let People Eat,” and in ynetnews, an Israeli news source, with the title, “The Probe Into Death of WCK Volunteers Needs to Start From the Top.”

This is a persuasive message, as we define it in business communication, but to me, it’s more usefully viewed as an example of leader integrity and compassion. Andrés demonstrates integrity by focusing on his own and the organization’s mission and values, which he says transcend particular groups or situations. He demonstrates compassion by giving names to those lost and describing his personal connections and appreciation of them and their work.

Update: Here is IDF’s response to the incident.

Chick-fil-A's New "Chicken Commitment"

Chick-fil-A had a difficult announcement to make, changing its No Antibiotics Ever (NAE) policy to some antibiotics. Students can analyze the message for its audience focus, persuasive strategies, and issues of integrity.

The message begins with the reason: “To maintain supply of the high-quality chicken you expect from us.” The opening implies that, without this new strategy, consumers might not get good chicken, setting the reader up to agree with whatever the company needs to meet that standard.

The change is right up front: from no antibiotics to some. Although this is jarring at first—“No Antibiotics Ever (NAE)” is quite a “commitment”—the message is clear. Chick-fil-A admits and focuses on the change. Maybe the NAE plan wasn’t realistic to begin with. They could say more explicitly that NAE was established in 2014, and new threats require reevaluating the policy.

But the message audience is likely not consumers. The acronyms NAE and NAIHM mean something only to Chick-fil-A and industry insiders. I wonder how much consumers even care about the decision. Do they choose Chick-fil-A because they don’t (or haven’t until now) used antibiotics in the chicken, or do they go because it tastes good, and they like the service, speed, or fries and other sides?

Regardless, the frame is now about “restricting the use of those antibiotics that are important to human medicine”; in other words, only the necessary kinds for chicken. The focus is on limiting, and the message downplays that yes, they will now use antibiotics. They also don’t explain the difference between human medicine and other animal antibiotics. In this Northeastern University article, a food expert describes concerns about using any antibiotics and calls the move a “dangerous precedent for other food companies to follow.” He also challenges Chick-fil-A’s focus on supply and says the decision is, no surprise, really about profits:

They’re saying that the availability of the supply is not there; it is there, apparently. It’s just the availability at the price point they’re willing to pay is not there to maintain their profit margins. When they’re trying to defend their actions, they’re not talking about science and medicine and health.

The message raises issues of integrity because of what’s missing—lying by omission. Without more explanations, the company fails to acknowledge the potential downsides of the decision and focuses on restrictions instead of actual use. And yet, this is what we expect companies to do: to present themselves in the best possible light.

After the introduction shown above, the message identifies three short explanations about quality, animal well-being, and continuous evaluation. I admire Chick-fil-A’s candor in lines like this: “Like other chicken in the United States, ours contains no added hormones.” They’re not trying to distinguish themselves. On the contrary, the entire message, with large font, is so short and colorful that the words draw little attention.

Annual Letter as Business Communication Genre

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink published an annual letter that’s gaining popularity like Warren Buffet’s letters. The letter is a good example for students to analyze for its organization, persuasive strategies, lack of visuals, and evidence.

Fink’s letter is long, and the audience is stated as BlackRock investors. But of course, he has broader ambitions, which are realized as we see the extensive media coverage. He wants to attract investors to BlackRock, but he also wants to change policy and company practices to fund retirement.

Fink explains “energy pragmatism” and “energy security,” giving up on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) language that first was embraced and then drew cries of “wokeism.” Instead, he focuses on retirement as a broader, more acceptable crisis: an aging population with not enough saved. Fink also quit the threatening approach for CEOs to disclose more about their practices.

The main message of the letter is clear: “We focus a tremendous amount of energy on helping people live longer lives. But not even a fraction of that effort is spent helping people afford those extra years.” Fink argues that people are woefully unprepared for retirement. From a business communication perspective, the letter takes a while to get to the main point. Fink starts with emotional appeal, describing how his parents invested throughout their lives. This could be more effective if their behavior shaped his own thinking, but he admits that he had been at BlackRock for 25 years before discovering their surprisingly large nest egg. Still, the family connection feels relevant to his point.

In addition to the hidden main point, the letter could be better organized to reflect his recommendations. A class assignment could ask students to provide a bulleted list (which The New York Times summarized).

With only one confusing visual, shown here, the letter is meant to be read—as a letter. This genre seems particular to a few high-profile investment managers. The extensive footnotes are important to support Fink’s points but make this an unusual example for business communicators. It’s not quite the letter we see to introduce a company’s annual report. We might call it something like a personal report for the use of “I,” family stories, and observations plus citations and recommendations.

Baltimore Bridge Crisis News Conferences

The collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore offers crisis communication examples for students to analyze. Sadly, the incident cost the lives of six workers from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras who were working on the bridge at the time.

Typical news conferences for crisis situations cover the following points, against which students can analyze this one:

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

• 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, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Compassion typically comes first, and then explanations and plans.

The news conference also illustrates the players’ roles and responsibilities—and their audience and communication objectives—when a public crisis happens:

• Governor Wes Moore: First up, Moore’s focus is on local response. His primary audience are local responders and Baltimore residents. His attention is on gratitude to those working on rescue. He also wants to reassure people that they are safe. He says that this is most likely an accident and that “we haven’t seen any credible evidence of a terrorist attack.” This surprised me given that the ship pilot reported lost power, but he is warding off potential conspiracy theories. At the end, he expresses sympathy for the victims and their loved ones, which might have also come at the beginning. As expected, he talks about “Maryland spirit” (“We are Maryland tough, and we are Baltimore Strong”) with some nice anaphora at the end too: “That’s what we’ve always done. That’s what we’ll continue to do. And that’s what we’re doing to get done together.”

• Senator Chris van Hollen: Although he adds little substance, he expands the gratitude and demonstrates the response of the federal government. His sympathy is first, and he talks about all the agencies that are already on the scene or will be soon. He admits his limited role: “I’m just here to say, together with [other senators and congressmen]. . . . we’re with you, we love you, and we’ll get through this together” (more anaphora). Like a lot of tragedies for politicians, this one is a photo op. He does what’s expected.

• Next up are the secretary of transportation and representatives from FBI and the Coast Guard.

The Q&A portion is predictable for this early conference. “We have no further information” and “We have no estimates on time lines” are common themes. The focus is on rescue at this point. However, the governor gets a bit emotional around 11:30 talking about the Key Bridge and the impact of the bridge loss on local lives. The questions, and the answers, are a bit of a dance at this point. The governor talks about rebuilding, but people died and are still missing, so he’s balancing hope for the future with compassion.

Other communications are of interest to business and crisis communicators:

• Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott: In a separate news conference, we see the chief of police introduce the mayor. He is brief and all about compassion and gratitude, asking people to pray for everyone affected.

• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chair Jennifer Homendy: The only woman I’ve seen in the communication mix, Homendy is responsible for investigating the crash. Her objectives are to reassure the public that they will determine the cause. She emphasizes the work of her team—24 investigators, which I guess is supposed to sound like a lot, or at least, enough to do the job.

• Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg: He’s asked about bridge safety across the country, and his job is to reassure us that infrastructure is strong. He says, “This is a unique circumstance. I do not know of a bridge that has been constructed to withstand a direct impact of a vessel this size.” This is a classic communication strategy: to isolate the situation.

• The ship’s captain will be under scrutiny in the coming months. The head of the American Pilots’ Association is already defending the pilot: “These are among the most highly trained mariners in the world.”

• President Biden spoke about the tragedy, and political leaders have begun to question bridge safety as part of larger, political infrastructure issues, which Buttigieg (somewhat) addressed.

Kate Middleton's Health Announcement

After weeks of silence and the predictable conspiracy theories, the Princess of Wales announced her cancer diagnosis in a video. Students can analyze the message and discuss issues of privacy and integrity, which I raised last week.

Kate Middleton likely chose a video message instead of the typical written statement because of rumors about her failing marriage and death. Royal family PR experts view the message positively, a way to take back the narrative. In part, her message explains her silence:

As you can imagine, this has taken time. It has taken me time to recover from major surgery in order to start my treatment. But, most importantly, it has taken us time to explain everything to George, Charlotte and Louis in a way that is appropriate for them, and to reassure them that I am going to be ok.

Where are the lines between privacy and public responsibility? We might see an analogy to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s reluctance to disclose his health issues. Like most analogies, this one is imperfect. Secretary Austin has, dare I say, clearer job responsibilities with greater potential consequences than does Kate Middleton. The royal family’s silence seems to hurt only themselves, similar to the situation when Princess Diana died. Still, they are all public figures, paid by taxpayers.

Yet speculation about Kate Middleton has been brutal, and no one deserves that. Her appearance takes speculators to task. She demonstrates vulnerability as a strength, owning her illness and asking for what she and her family needs:

We hope that you will understand that, as a family, we now need some time, space and privacy while I complete my treatment. My work has always brought me a deep sense of joy and I look forward to being back when I am able, but for now I must focus on making a full recovery.

Her request is reasonable and, now that she has broken the silence, should be respected, but we’ll see.

U.S. Marines Change Outdated Dress Policy with Outdated Message

In a decision that feels so 1990s, the U.S. Marine Corp is allowing women to choose whether they wear hosiery with their long skirts. The announcement may sound strange for those of us outside the military and might interest both military and civilian students.

A spokesperson admits, “Within the spirit of common sense, our Uniform Board recommended a change to the policy that required women to wear hosiery with skirts. Hosiery is now optional." The message looks like what it is: a military communication. With what appears to be a typewriter font, the message uses no pronoun and scarcely an actor, for example, “Effective immediately, the wear of hosiery with skirts is optional.” The numbering, which we also see in legal briefs, is odd, with paragraphs lined up as though they have equal weight and no relation to one another. I wonder how this message was distributed.

Although we encourage business communicators to explain the reason for changes, I find this one a bit defensive and obvious: “When hosiery is not worn, shoe liners or no-show socks will be to be worn [sic] for hygienic purposes and to avoid abrasions or blisters caused by direct contact and rubbing between the foot and shoe.” For color guidance, no explanation is given and perhaps none is needed: “Hose, when worn, should harmonize with the natural skin tone of the individual.” Maybe “blend” would be a better word choice?

The Marines are the last to cave to such lax standards. In 2022, the Air Force made hosiery optional for women and softened other rules, such as allowing scalp tattoos (for men only, which seems inconsistent to me). In 2021, the Navy changed its standards (with photos!) in 2021. Students may enjoy comparing these messages.

The Navy photos, at right, look funny to me, something out of a 1960s Sears catalog. But they use “flesh tone” for color, which seems a better choice than “harmonizing.” I find the message format—showing a series of entire “deleted” policies and then the “added” policies—inefficient and confusing. A better choice would be simply showing the revised text highlighted or in another color (not necessarily flesh tone). Students will have other ideas.

Problems with Medical "Professionalism"

The challenge of what professionalism means and how definitions affect different groups has met the medical profession. The topic may interest business communication students, who will see similar issues in their own fields.

Professionalism as a work standard has been criticized for some time for its vagueness and disparate impact. Ideas about professionalism, for example, focusing only on work and not bringing personal (non-work) issues into the workplace, vary by culture and may be unevenly applied to women and men. Others think of professionalism as sameness or conformity and lash out at the inherent privilege and impact of demands about “image, dress, politeness and emotional regulation” on the working class. Some view professionalism as a racial construct, for example, in the legal profession: “While professionalism seemingly applies to everyone, it is used to widely police and regulate people of color in various ways including hair, tone, and food scents.”

A retracted article illustrates the issue in the medical profession. The October 2019 Journal of Vascular Surgery article, “Prevalence of Unprofessional Social Media Content Among Young Vascular Surgeons,” was retracted in August 2020. The retraction notice includes this explanation:

In addition, the methodology, analysis and conclusions of this article were based on published but not validated criteria, judging a series of behaviors including attire, alcohol consumption, controversial political and religious comments like abortion or gun control, in which significant conscious and unconscious biases were pervasive. The methodology was in part predicated on highly subjective assessments of professionalism based on antiquated norms and a predominantly male authorship supervised the assessments made by junior, male students and trainees. The authors did not identify biases in the methodology, i.e., judging public social media posts of women wearing bikinis on off-hours as “potentially unprofessional.” The goal of professionalism in medicine is to help ensure trust among patients, colleagues and hospital staff. However, professionalism has historically been defined by and for white, heterosexual men and does not always speak to the diversity of our workforce or our patients.

If students don’t relate to the potentially discriminatory impact of a professionalism standard, they might feel the effect of their social media accounts being used to determine whether they measure up. As we encourage students to be their authentic selves, this story highlights some of the potentially negative consequences.

Image source.

Topoi in the Business Communication Class

My friend and colleague, Christy McDowell, has an article in Business and Professional Communication Quarterly about using topoi in class. With Annette Holba, they describe topoi as a framework for arguments—different ways to “use logic so that an audience can follow our reasoning.”

Topoi can deepen students’ understanding of logical arguments, and Christy and Annette provide examples and a class activity for instructors to use. I like the framework because it’s easily applied. Students could identify topoi used in a recent business message. As the authors explain, when you bring an example for students to analyze, in addition to the audience, communication objectives, and use of logos, ethos, and pathos, analyzing topoi is a deeper dive into how the writers use logic to reach the audience and what other approaches might be more effective.

Students also could develop their own argument, choosing relevant topoi for the context and audience. The authors provide several examples for this assignment.

I see topoi introduced in any class that includes rhetorical approaches and, particularly, in persuasive communication classes.

Miami Beach Tries to Break Up With Spring Breakers

Like last year, Miami Beach is trying humor to avoid the deluge of college students during spring break. Students will have fun analyzing this one. If they traveled, what was their decision process for spring break? Does the Miami Beach humor work for them? Did it affect their decision?

The video is a parody of a break-up, with a few characters explaining, “We just want different things.” It’s a cute concept: The actors (presumably representing Miami Beach residents) prefer quiet and relaxation, while the partner wants “to get drunk in public and ignore the laws.” This is the city’s way of warning people to expect curfews, extra security, restricted beach access, and parking fees. The message seems clear, although the headlines in the middle go quickly.

In addition to the plans mentioned in the video, the Miami Beach website lists far more restrictions, including fines for short-term Airbnb rentals and extensive traffic deterrents.

A few interesting projects emerge from this situation. I’m curious why fewer students went to Miami Beach, which seems to be the case. Were they concerned about the restrictions, or could they not get a place to stay? Students could assess Airbnb hosts’ response to the campaign.

Students also could identify measures to evaluate whether the campaign is working. In this CBS report, two aerial shots of the beach compare this year and last, but students might question whether the videos were taken on the same day of the week, at same time of day, and with the same weather conditions. Business owners say sales are significantly down, but how do we know whether this is a common experience or the experience of only the two interviewed? Students should be able to find more data to assess whether the campaign achieved its goal.

If the campaign was successful in Miami, the impact on the rest of Florida might be negative. Spring breakers in Ft. Lauderdale have caused the city to increase security. Perhaps students should consider this and other negative consequences, in addition to the business impact, to advise Miami on future campaigns.

---

(Thanks to Bambi Van Horn at University of Nebraska at Kearney for sending this example—and last year’s.)

British Royal Family and the "Information Vacuum"

The British royal family (which, I just realized, has its own website), is facing pressure because of edited photos and secrecy about health issues.

News outlets have retracted a photo of the Princess of Wales, aka Kate Middleton, hugging her three children on U.K. Mother’s Day. The princess is an amateur photographer, as she explains in her apology, which came more than a long day after the news broke. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the retraction is unusual but happened because the photos were so obviously edited. The family didn’t share the original photo, raising questions about what exactly was changed.

The reporter described the family’s secrecy regarding recent health issues as well. The princess underwent “abdominal surgery,” while the king is undergoing treatment for cancer. The vague descriptions seem only to fuel speculation. As the WSJ reporter says and business communicators know happens, in an “information vacuum, conspiracy theories have come to rest.”

He also raises ethical and regulatory issues, reminding us that “this is a partly taxpayer-funded monarchy, and they have constitutional roles . . . to uphold.” They need to balance individual privacy with their obligation to keep the public informed about their health.

A Princeton sociology and public policy professor has a different take, questioning the “We pay, they pose” mentality. She also challenges a double standard between calls for Catherine’s privacy and no similar respect for Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex. These differences could be explored with students as well.

Still, the princess’s photo was an attempt to show that everything is alright, perhaps even perfect, which is why people doctor images—to delete imperfections. But her editing has revealed the opposite: that everything is, literally, not right. The situation raises issues of integrity and trust, integrity meaning wholeness and consistency. When the family releases photos in the future, they will be scrutinized more closely.

Does a Brand Have a Soul? Does Starbucks?

Starbucks Founder Howard Schultz wrote a letter to Board about preserving the “soul” of the brand. Students can analyze his letter and discuss whether a company or a brand has a soul. Does Starbucks?

The context of Starbucks’ unionization efforts likely drove Schultz’s thinking. (All three Starbucks in Ithaca, NY, have come and gone because of unionization efforts, the company’s response, and local backlash. Costco may be a better role model for accepting and negotiating with unions. A useful project for students would be to analyze the effects of unions in the past several decades.)

Schultz writes that this definition of soul is from Webster, but it doesn’t match what I see in the dictionary listing, which is worth comparing. Here’s his list:

a) the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b) the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c) spiritual or moral force

Schultz then writes, “Webster did not anticipate the necessity to define soul in business terms for the very reason I am addressing it. It rarely exists, and it’s almost impossible to define.” Or, perhaps a business or brand cannot have a soul. Perhaps his view is an overreach, reflecting the exact arrogance for which Starbucks is criticized. After all, the company sells coffee. This is a cynical view, and students may believe, or feel, otherwise.

Also worth analyzing is the purpose of the letter. What are Schultz’s communication objectives? In addition to the Board audience, he forwarded the letter in an email to those of us on his former Schultz-for-president distribution list. After reading the letter, will the Board feel inspired, and if so, to do what, exactly?

Image source.

Wendy's Bungles Pricing Announcement

During an earnings call, Wendy’s CEO announced a new “dynamic pricing” strategy. The media spun it as “surge pricing” and riled up consumers.

Sherri Kimes, a former Cornell colleague analyzed the communication issue in a blog post and referred to the initial statement as “pretty innocuous.” In addition to the brief mention during the earnings call, the strategy is a small part of the earnings visuals—just a few words on one slide about several ways to use technology for higher margins.

Kimes describes prospect theory and suggests companies frame these decisions as benefits to consumers—in this case, saving during certain times of the day rather than paying more at peak times. Her advice is consistent with corporate communication strategies.

We have an issue of audience, as we typically see in business and corporate communication. The earnings call was intended for investors, and the language was appropriate for that audience. But Wendy’s leadership failed to consider how the media might retell the story.

Here’s the earnings call text:

We expect our digital menu boards will drive immediate benefits to order accuracy, improve crew experience and sales growth from upselling and consistent merchandising execution. Beginning as early as 2025, we will begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing and day-part offerings along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling. As we continue to show the benefit of this technology in our company-operated restaurants, franchisee interest in digital menu boards should increase further supporting sales and profit growth across the system. We will continue setting the pace in generative AI and now have rolled out Wendy’s Fresh Ai in several restaurants where we see ongoing improvement in speed and accuracy.

Good Morning America offers one of many examples of the media spin. The story opens with the headline, “Wendy's announces Uber-like surge pricing model,” and ends with, “Some experts say customers could see more menu pricing changes ahead at other fast food chains, including McDonald’s and Burger King, especially if Wendy’s sees a boost in its bottom line after implementing dynamic pricing.” This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy, as though Wendy’s will start an inevitable sequence of events. Of course, this may be true, but the conclusion also supports the media’s hysteria.

Context matters. Inflation is high, and people are particularly price sensitive, an important topic for the upcoming election. The media draws attention by inciting fear about yet higher prices, even at fast-food restaurants, where we expect prices to be low.

In a statement, Wendy’s is doing damage control. They focus on menu display and discounts, which may follow the prospect theory, but will the impact on consumers still be higher prices? They promise, “We have no plans to do that and would not raise prices when our customers are visiting us most.” But will they raise all prices, and then provide a discount during low-demand times? If that’s the case, the media reports are not entirely wrong. Reports used inflammatory language, but the result is the same for consumers. Or, on average, will customers pay less, as comments on Kimes’ LinkedIn post suggest, with increased volume bringing more revenue to the company?

Still, I’m curious about the impact on different demographics, for example, for those with a less-flexible schedule. Low-wage workers have fixed times for lunch and dinner and might not be able to choose when they go to Wendy’s. Many workers eat between two jobs and grab something quickly for themselves or their families. Although this impact might not be the company’s concern, it could cause media—and consumer—backlash.

Regardless of the pricing impact, from a corporate communication perspective, Wendy’s should have been more careful and followed Kimes’ good advice.

ChatGPT Accepted My Apology

New research shows that being polite to LLMs gets better responses. I’ve struggled with prompts that don’t include “please” but reminded myself that AI wasn’t influenced by niceties. I was wrong.

The study explores a range of responses in different languages. Authors conclude that rude prompts yield poor responses—or refusals to answer. But “overly polite” prompts don’t necessarily yield better responses.

In one regard, the conclusion isn’t a surprise. Humans train AI, after all. But Ethan Mollick, who writes extensively on AI, suggests more research to test more examples of politeness. One LinkedIn commenter on Mollick’s post suggests that overly polite prompts might not be clear, and she could be right. When we look at the study prompts, the prompt rated most highly for politeness doesn’t ask for reasons.

Of course, I never called it names, but I apologized to ChatGPT for failing to say “please” in my prompts. It was gracious, as proven by the multiple exclamation marks:

No need to apologize! As an AI, I don't have feelings or emotions, but I'm here to assist you in the best way possible. Politeness can indeed influence human interaction positively, even if it's just with an AI. If there's anything else you'd like assistance with, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to help!

By coincidence, my next prompt was about ingratitude for a new book I’m working on. I did say “Thank you.”

Comms Around Capital One's Discover Acquisition

If the deal is approved by regulators and shareholders, Capital One’s acquisition of Discover Financial will create the largest credit card company. Here are two positive-news messages for students to analyze, as much for what’s said as for what’s not said:

• Capital One press release. As expected, the release explains the benefits primarily to investors. A few throw-away lines are included for other stakeholders: something about “making a positive difference in our communities” and “great deals for consumers.”

• Capital One CEO’s video message to employees. Posted on Capital One’s website under “Newsroom,” the video is as much an external as an internal statement. Students might comment on the CEO’s big arm movements and natural, well-paced delivery (although they might think it’s too slow and too long).

As of now, nothing is posted on Discover’s website, which is surprising. When the Marriott Starwood merger was announced, Starwood associates received a separate email and a video message from both CEOs.

Messages are consistent, but other reasons help us understand the decision. The acquisition is a protective move for Capital One. New regulations might make it difficult for credit card companies to enjoy the high fees they’re accustomed to charging. Discover’s payments network helps Capital One compete against larger players and growing fintechs that offer greater convenience and charge lower fees. Instead of paying “tolls” across Visa and Mastercard networks, Capital One would charge fees from all transactions over Discover’s network.

Real benefits to consumers are unclear. Other than more places that accept the cards and a few extra perks, the acquisition bets on increasing credit card debt. Capital One already has a large share of high-interest-paying customers who are among the most likely to default.

Yale's "Test-Flexible" Policy and Rationale

Like other schools after the pandemic-era hiatus, Yale is again requiring a test in the admissions process. But the school will accept AP or IB scores instead of the SAT or ACT. Yale’s rationale is worth analyzing.

Yale’s explanation is carefully considered in a message posted on the website. Because tests, particularly the SAT, have been so controversial, school officials explain the evidence they gathered about the effect of not requiring scores during the past four years. They write that the elimination of scores placed emphasis on other parts of an application, which we might expect to favor students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, but the opposite happened. They theorize that these students tend to be from lower-resourced schools, with fewer advanced courses and extracurricular options and more taxed teachers who write generic recommendation letters (my paraphrase, particularly noted here). The message includes goals of increasing diversity, without mentioning specific demographics, for obvious reasons.

Officials acknowledge: “Students’ out-of-school commitments may include activities that demonstrate extraordinary leadership and contributions to family and community but reveal nothing about their academic preparedness.” They seem to admit that, for example, working or taking care of younger siblings, doesn’t count for much—or at least not enough. They conclude:

[T]est scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s future Yale grades. This is true even after controlling for family income and other demographic variables, and it is true for subject-based exams such as AP and IB, in addition to the ACT and SAT.

Students might be interested in evaluating Yale’s recommendations to applications, including the following:

Advice on Selecting Scores to Include

When considering which scores to include with your application, consider the following questions:

• Do the scores indicate my preparation for college-level coursework?

• Do the scores reflect areas of academic strength?

• Do the scores help showcase my academic range?

• Do the scores supplement the courses and grades on my high school transcript?

• Do the scores stand out as especially notable in my secondary school?

• Am I proud of the scores as a reflection of the effort I put into preparing for the test(s)?

The admissions team does offer quite a bit of guidance, including these podcasts.