Learning From Ghosting During Job Selection

Ghosting while dating raises ethical questions that apply to the job search. In both cases, students learn compassion and resilience.

Psychologists say the uncertainty of not hearing anything can be more painful than rejection. One therapist said the consequence is that people “start to question their reality.” They doubt their interpretation of a “good” date or an interview, wondering how their perceptions were off.

Of course, this might not be the case. A date or an interviewer may have felt just as connected at the time, but other candidates were better matches. Some interviewers also seem positive and encouraging during the selection process just to be nice—to make candidates feel comfortable, to allow candidates to represent themselves well, and to represent the company well. The opposite also happens: A candidate thinks an interview went horribly because the hiring manager was inexpressive, but that could be their personality, or they may fear implying an job offer, a questionable approach I’ve heard from several managers.

This Forbes article posits several reasons an employer might ghost a candidate, including hiring an internal candidate, changing budgets or hiring priorities, or discomfort with giving bad news. None are valid reasons when a candidate is left hanging. Discomfort in conveying bad news is the most illogical because no news is worse than a rejection that allows students to move on emotionally as well as practically.

Our job as faculty is to help students take ghosting in stride. As the Forbes article states, “The reality is that ghosting has become unofficial standard operating procedures.” Redditors describe the emotional toll, but unfortunately, it’s expected, so students should do their best to brush it off and not take it personally.

We can coach students to follow up a couple of times with enthusiastic-sounding emails and voicemails, and then they have to practice letting it go. They certainly shouldn’t hold up their search waiting for a response. Resilience has its limits; knowing when to quit is also an important skill. Ruminating about what they did wrong could lead to losing hope or feeling resentments that could sour their search. Instead, reframing ghosting as an unfortunate but expected part of the selection process could help.

Image source.

What to Do When Not Speaking

The 2024 Presidential Debate is a treasure trove of presentation lessons for students. One (safer) topic for class is what to do when a presenter is not speaking.

The debate illustrated how “on” the candidates were when it wasn’t their turn. The same is true for business presentations: before people speak, as they pause to look at notes or change visuals, when they listen to questions, and after they finish. Students are also “on” as audience members—how they are perceived by presenters and classmates.

I have watched students in team presentations when others are speaking looking at their notes, moving their lips as they plan what to say or what they hope the presenter will say, looking disappointed by sneering or tilting their heads, and exchanging nonverbal messages with other team members. I haven’t quite seen the slaw-jawed look we saw during the debate, but all facial expressions are up for interpretation.

As faculty members, we ask students to be particularly attentive to how they appear. We encourage them to look open and supportive—smiling and nodding, as appropriate—when others speak and ask questions. Most important, they should look alert and engaged, whether on or off camera.

New Debate Rules With Mic Shutoff

Rules for the upcoming presidential debate have been announced, and the mic shutoff will be particularly interesting to watch.

CNN, which will host the debate, announced rules for the 90-minutes to which both candidates agreed to comply. Candidates will not make opening statements, must not confer with staff during the two commercial breaks, and may not bring notes with them (although they’ll receive a pen and paper). They’ll stand behind podiums and will speak into mics that will be on only when it’s their turn to speak. No live audience will be present to avoid what a Guardian writer called “the theatrical gladiatorial bloodsport element” of other debates.

I like the rules. They are, dare I say, more controlled (avoiding “professional”)—or maybe the better description is less circus-like and cringy. I was frustrated watching candidates speak over each other (recall “Will you shut up, man?”) and walking and standing too close in past debates. This seems to be a more equitable and civil way to focus on the issues—if that’s possible during any presidential debate and, particularly, this one.

I’m curious how well candidates will handle the mic cutoff. Will it reflect better on Trump, who might otherwise show his inability to reign in his reactivity? Or will it hurt Trump because supporters (and those on the fence) see his reactivity as a sign of strength and proof of his passion and commitment? Will both candidates continue talking without the mic, as if speaking into a void, and how will that appear? Will the silence temper their emotions—or visibly frustrate them? We’ll see.

Image source.

Boeing CEO's Rough Senate Hearing and Safety Plan

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun faced lawmakers during the senate committee hearing bluntly titled, “Boeing’s Broken Safety Culture.” The investigation offers lessons in answering difficult questions and demonstrating compassion, humility, integrity, and accountability. In addition, students can see a sample report: “Boeing’s Safety and Quality Plan.”

Taking a page from Mark Zuckerberg’s impromptu facing of families during the senate hearing about social media harm, Calhoun began his opening statement by turning around and addressing families who lost people in Boeing plane crashes dating back to 2018. Like Zuckerberg, who was prompted by Senator Hawley, Calhoun had little choice. He was in room full of people holding photos of lost loved ones, with several shouting as we see and hear cameras flash. The pain is palpable, and Calhoun is visibly shaken, playing with his glasses, until the hearing is called into session.

Senator Richard Blumenthal begins by acknowledging families and asking them, by name, to stand with their photographs. He also acknowledges the family of the Boeing whistleblower who died by suicide. I cried. I believe we’re seeing a more compassionate approach to these hearings, keeping the focus on the impact of wrongdoing and on the responsibilities of our corporate and political leaders. But I wonder whether the face-the-victims’-families apology will become routine in these types of hearings and at what point—maybe already—it feels perfunctory.

Blumenthal had harsh words for Boeing, saying the “once iconic” company has “lost its way,” having put “stock price over people.” He said he’s pursuing prosecution and that Calhoun hasn’t kept the company’s promises. Predictable questions were about Calhoun’s salary and his decision not to resign. Throughout the hearing, Calhoun tried his best to convince lawmakers (and families, investors, airlines, and passengers) that they are making changes. Lawmakers didn’t seem to buy it.

Character was on display throughout the hearing. For example, demonstrating an issue with integrity, or inconsistency, at around 26:00, Blumenthal challenged Boeing’s nonretaliation policy with recent charges of threats and harassment against several whistleblowers. Calhoun said that he listens to people and that “something went wrong” [in these cases]. Without specific action on specific cases, his response sounded hollow. The follow-up question about firings based on retaliation elicits no specific information. Calhoun might have prepared this information, knowing it would be a major line of questioning.

Blumenthal’s criticism of Boeing’s data submission and Calhoun’s response, starting around 30:30, are worth watching. He asks whether Calhoun can make sense of the information—a page without any formatting—and he says, “No, sir,” and agrees when the senator says, “complete gobbledygook.” It’s shocking that Calhoun didn’t review what was sent. At first, he said not “line by line,” but it wasn’t clear he reviewed any of the documentation. One explanation is the stress and challenge of preparing for such a hearing, and I acknowledge that. But business communicators, both those preparing the documents and those standing up for them, can do better.

Analyzing the U.S. Surgeon General's Argument

Business communication students might be interested in analyzing the U.S. surgeon general’s argument for putting warning labels on social media platforms. His persuasive message uses several strategies faculty teach, and students can assess whether his approach and the proposal will achieve his goals.

Vivek H. Murthy conveyed his ideas in an opinion letter in The New York Times, also posted on X and explained during a PBS NewsHour interview (starting around 7:52). The audience is the public, and he has ideas for parents, schools, tech companies—and mostly congress, whose approval is required for his proposed warning label. His frustration is evident, as he points to recommendations made “a year ago.”

Murthy begins with a caveat up front, warding off criticism about the harm of social media, with Jonathan Haidt’s research at the current center. Murthy calls the moment an “emergency,” allowing for decisive action despite imperfect information. We could view Murthy’s proposal as a demonstration of accountability. As the surgeon general, he is responsible for the health and well-being of U.S. citizens, and in this sense, he must act, even as he acknowledges the controversy.

As part of his logical argument, he provides data with links to supporting research: “Adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of anxiety and depression symptoms, and the average daily use in this age group, as of the summer of 2023, was 4.8 hours. Additionally, nearly half of adolescents say social media makes them feel worse about their bodies.”

He offers analogies, which is where the PBS interview starts. When Amna Nawaz asks why he thinks a warning will work, he draws on tobacco labels, which he also writes in his article: “Evidence from tobacco studies show that warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior.” He conjures another analogy in the article: “There is no seatbelt for parents to click, no helmet to snap in place, no assurance that trusted experts have investigated and ensured that these platforms are safe for our kids.” In the last two paragraphs, Murthy asks biggest questions about society and morality: “Why is it that we have failed to respond to the harms of social media when they are no less urgent or widespread than those posed by unsafe cars, planes or food?” Here, too, he draws on analogies for common agreement.

Students can assess the validity of these comparisons. For example, a print label is quite different from a pop-up, box, or other type of website display, and like seatbelts, parents do control their kids’ physical devices, at least theoretically.

He provides personal information, demonstrating his own investment and using emotional appeals. He writes, “As a father of a 6- and a 7-year-old who have already asked about social media, I worry about how my wife and I will know when to let them have accounts.” A short story about a mother whose daughter “took her life after being bullied on social media” also elicits emotion.

Is Murthy’s idea practical? He provides no specifics about how warnings might work and no evidence other than his analogies. But he might inspire congress to do something after years of tech company hearings and little movement.

Image source.

Data and Visuals Illustrate Tyson's Water Impact

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ report and related visuals show how Tyson Poultry pollutes U.S. waterways and offer teaching tools for class.

The online report is a good example of an interactive report. Unlike the traditional reports we typically teach, this one lacks organizational features that could be useful to a reader; we don’t see an executive summary or table of contents. A hyperlinked list early on could be useful to find, for example, the acknowledgments or references, which account for about one-third of the report. Oversized tables are clear but could convey more meaning with visuals and comparisons. Given the first sentence of the report, “If you have ever purchased meat or poultry from the grocery store or enjoyed chicken nuggets from a fast food restaurant, chances are you are a consumer of Tyson Foods (Miller 2018),” the audience seems to be the general public, but most people don’t know the significance of, for example, 138 million pounds of chloride (although I know it’s not good).

Still, the message is clear in the first paragraph, and the group doesn’t mince words with the report title, “Waste Deep.” After describing the scope of the company, the punchline is at the end of that paragraph: “However, that prosperity comes at a high price—especially for communities burdened by water pollution from Tyson processing plants.”

A Guardian article translates data for the public to better understand. As discussed in Chapter 9 of Business Communication and Character, comparing data to something the audience can picture provides context and relevance. The article includes images of Olympic-sized pools and Manhattan and provides an infographic of all meatpacking plants to show the scope of Tyson’s wastewater.

Later in the article, we see the pollutants grouped. A few major categories with brief descriptions are much easier to understand than the laundry list of pollutants in the Scientists’ report. Students will find other ways the Guardian helps us make sense of the Tyson data.

Harvard's New Stance

In a short report, Harvard has clarified when it will, and will not, speak out about world events. One question is what neutrality means in practice.

With this report, a faculty working group provides guidance to university administration. Other universities, such as Northwestern and Stanford, have taken similar positions—that is, to avoid having one. The Harvard group steers clear of condoning “institutional neutrality,” but their stance is similar to the others’: to weigh in only on matters related to the “core functions” of the university, for example, affirmative action and education taxation. This seems a bit obvious but may be important to specify.

The report is uncharacteristically short for an academic paper—a mere three pages including more than a half-page of credits. The main point is in the fifth paragraph: “The university and its leaders should not, however, issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.” At the center of the decision is the integrity of the university: speaking up in accordance with its values and mission. Otherwise, as administrators have learned the hard way, an administration can never represent all views; they don’t, and shouldn’t, speak for everyone. Students might analyze the report and interview responses from the faculty who chaired the committee.

As we might expect, the policy provides cover for administrators. The report authors are explicit about this benefit: “When pressure builds on the university to make an official statement, as will sometimes happen, the university should refer publicly to its policy.”

This quieter approach follows the practice of corporations and nonprofit organizations, who learned their lessons sooner and less publicly than universities did. Today, we hear little about world events from company leaders. During an interview this week with Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix, the interviewer observed, “corporate activism is on its way out.”

Vatican Press Emphasizes "Closed Door" in Apology

Pope Francis apologized for using an offensive term to refer to gay men. The statement sounds defensive.

Some say the pope misunderstood and misused the term, but others recall this isn’t the first time he used derogatory language to describe gay people—and, although he was raised in Argentina, Italian was spoken in his home.

Pope Francis apologized in a statement translated by the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Matteo Bruni:

Pope Francis is aware of the recent articles regarding a closed-door conversation with the bishops of the CEI [Italian Bishops' Conference]. As he has stated on many occasions, “There is room for everyone in the Church, for everyone! No one is useless; no one is superfluous; there is room for everyone. Just as we are, everyone.” The Pope never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologizes to those who felt offended by the use of a term, as reported by others.

Business communicators might identify at least two issues with this apology. First, the squirrely language focuses on the intent rather than the impact, failing to acknowledge the harm caused and apologizing to “those who felt offended,” as though “those” people might just be super-sensitive.

Second, twice this statement references the private meeting: “a closed-door conversation with the bishops” and “as reported by others,” as though the real offense is the press leak. But, in some ways, the exclusive nature of the meeting makes the comment worse, leading us to believe it represents the pope’s true feelings despite more generous comments he has made in public—illustrating a lack of integrity, or consistency. In addition, although the news may have been leaked by one person, news agencies cite “numerous sources,” perhaps a swell of people within the walls who felt it was wrong.

Slur aside, this report may align with the pope’s views about gay men: They are welcomed at church but not in seminary to train for the priesthood.

Image source.

OpenAI CTO's Video Introducing ChatGPT 4o

On a small living-room stage, Mira Murati, OpenAI’s chief technology officer, describes the company’s latest products. Students can analyze the video, “Spring Update,” against principles for business presentations.

We see no sign of Sam Altman, which is probably a good choice given his more political presence. This presentation is about the technology and allows Murati to shine.

Structure

Murati starts right in with her main points: “Today, I’m going to talk about three things. That’s it.” A few people laugh nervously, and I’m not sure why. Maybe she usually talks about a lot more and for longer than this 26-minute video? Or maybe it’s just the way she said it. She could have restarted because it feels awkward. Regardless, for the life of me, I cannot list what her three things are.

Visuals

The slides look odd to me. They are black and white, which is a fine choice, but they are so bare. Also, the alignment on the first slide, shown above, causes me to read down: Mira Chief, Murati Officer. Then, as Murati reviews her three points, we see five items on the slide, at left, which could cause the confusion in her structure.

Other slides are tech-cool minimalist, but the eye GIF looks creepy, and others seem unnecessary. Instead, visuals should support the message. Also, when I pause the video, I’m hoping to see a screenshot, but the video reverts to two guys sitting at a table. Around 5:15, a full-screen slide appears—entirely unnecessary because we see it clearly enough on the visuals to Murati’s side. Maybe this covers something to edit out? Did Murati sneeze? Trip? It doesn’t appear so.

The setting looks nice: tan with plants. It’s appropriate as a background that doesn’t detract from the speaker. In addition, the audience serves as cheer team, with only the back of their heads showing at times. Again, the focus is on Murati.

Content

Murati reinforces key points throughout her presentation: easier, more natural, free, collaborative. She repeats these words several times throughout. She also repeats the “big news” of releasing ChatGPT 4o to cheers among the crowd, who already heard this during the agenda, so obviously, the team was sitcom-audience prompted (“APPLAUSE!”).

At times, I want to see more, for example, when, for the first and only time, we see actual content and color on slides. Murati gives a couple of examples of using GPT for custom solutions, and apps scroll by quickly.

At about 8:15, Murati discusses the challenges of safety and how they’re working with partners. It sounds like a throwaway couple of lines, a mere nod, before the live demo starts next. Now we see the guys from the video-still table. Mark Chen starts by addressing a potential question, as we teach students to do: the wire is for “consistent internet”—easily understood.

Scarlett Johansson (or someone else) interacts with Chen during a conversation demo. The voice cuts in and out, which no one addresses, hoping, I guess, that it will even out since it’s impossible not to notice. At this point, Murati purses her lips, possibly a sign of nervousness. Fortunately, the voice does smooth out, and the demo achieves the purpose, which Chen explains as, for example, the ability to interrupt.

The next demo is math help, obviously to disprove the common thinking that GPT is bad at math. The beginning is a bit awkward, with another audio cut, GPT ready without seeing the equation, and Murati touching her knees. Berret Zoph handles this well, joking that he hasn’t written anything yet. The demo is simple but works well, showing GPT’s ability to tutor math students. A more complex coding example illustrates GPT’s advanced abilities, including vision, for example, seeing charts. GPT 4o can create charts, which isn’t covered, but would interest our students.

The demo also illustrates interpreting facial expressions as emotion and language translation—an Italian example, which Murati speaks.

Delivery

Murati’s delivery style is natural. She doesn’t appear to be working off a script and neither do the two researchers. We don’t know how many times their presentations were rehearsed or whether the video was edited, but they seem comfortable, using an appropriate style for the company, product, and purpose.

Overall, the video is a good example of a business presentation with a demo. The company certainly achieved its objective of conveying significant updates for GPT. Comparing this to Apple and Facebook demos from years ago could inspire a useful class discussion.

Bad-News Lessons from Kabosu

Business communication students probably won’t write an obituary for a dog, but messages about the Dogecoin icon offer lessons for conveying bad news.

Kabosu, a Shiba Inu, inspired “doge” memes starting in 2010, after Atsuko Sato, a kindergarten teacher near Toyko, posted her picture. Dogecoin, created as a joke, became a popular cryptocurrency.

Messages announcing Kabosu’s illness and death are clear and simple, nodding to those she impacted:

• Dogecoin posted on X about the joy Kabosu brought. In what might be a stretch, the writer says she “knew only happiness and limitless love.”

• Sato announced Kabosu’s death on Instagram:

  “Kabochan passed away in a deep sleep on the morning of May 24th. She passed away peacefully,
  without any pain, as if she was sleeping, while being stroked by me. Thank you so much to everyone who loved Kabosu for so long . I think Kabochan was the happiest dog in the world. And I was the happiest owner in the world. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who gave me so much love. To all of you who loved Kabosu, on the morning of the 24th of May, Kabosu crossed the rainbow bridge. Thank you all so much for your support over the years. She went very peacefully without suffering, as if falling asleep while feeling the warmth of my hands petting her. Thank you all so much for loving Kabosu all these years. I am certain that Kabosu was the happiest dog in the world. That makes me the happiest owner in the world. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to everyone who has sent us much love to us. #WalkingwithKabosu #Doge #ShibaInu # ShibaInu18yearsold #SeniorDog #Cat #Pet #LivedoorInstablogger”

• Translated, Sato’s blog post is titled, “Thank you, Pumpkin!,” and describes her passing poetically.

• Sato’s posts during the past two years prepared Kabosu’s fans, letting them know that she was being treated for leukemia and liver disease.

Kabosu’s death is sad to those who followed her (and used her image). But her age (18 years old) and Sato’s posts ease the bad news. Deaths are often easier to accept when we’re prepared for them.

Image source.

OpenAI and Johansson Comms

In what The New York Times refers to as a “lengthy statement,” actress Scarlett Johansson describes OpenAI’s use of a voice that sounds like hers. This situation offers much to explore with students, for example, integrity, brand reputation, voice recognition, deepfakes/synthetic media, and of course, writing.

Apparently, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman asked Johansson whether the new ChatGPT could use her voice. She declined, but the company may have used it, anyway. Altman seemed to confirm doing so in a post that refers to the movie Her, which starred Johansson as an affectionate virtual assistant. OpenAI agreed to pull her voice, and Altman tweeted, “also for clarity: the new voice mode hasn't shipped yet (though the text mode of GPT-4o has). what you can currently use in the app is the old version. the new one is very much worth the wait!”

A few days later, OpenAI published a statement about how voices are selected and explained that the likeness to Johansson’s was just that, a likeliness, recorded by an unnamed actor. Even so, Altman’s post seems to fuel the controversy.

I’m stuck on the NYT description of Johansson’s statement as “lengthy.” It’s 312 words. Business communication students can identify the communication objectives and decide whether they agree with this characterization. If it’s too long, what could be omitted? I’m not finding much fluff in her explanation of what happened and the significance.

Maybe the comparison is to Altman’s single-word Her, which might be enough to hit his own communication objectives. One writer’s view is that this situation illustrates OpenAI as ”a company with little regard for the value of creative work led by a scheming, untrustworthy operator.” The story may have raised the profile of ChatGPT but hasn’t helped OpenAI’s reputation.

Lawyer Speaks Out Against Musk Pay

A lawyer who spoke against Elon Musk’s Tesla salary claims he was ousted by the company as a result. The situation illustrates persuasive communication and character.

Retired law professor of corporate governance Charles Elson of the University of Delaware planned to submit a legal brief to dispute a $56 billion package for Musk. Students can analyze the legal brief, which the judge referred to as “persuasive.” For a legal document, it’s an unusually fun read, including the footnotes, the first of which clarifies, “Musk did not actually found Tesla, but he was a very early investor and its fourth CEO.”

Here’s an excerpt:

Elon Musk is not unique. Musk is an archetype that we have seen before and will see again: a confident, charismatic founder¹ with world-class sales ability and a “reality distortion field”² that inspires outsized enthusiasm in customers and employees alike. Musk is very special, but he is not a one of a kind.

Bill Gates. Jeff Bezos. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Brin. Sergey Page. Not one was an “ordinary executive” or “typical CEO.”³ Each was “intimately involved in all aspects of [their companies’] operations,” and “instrumental in transforming” it.⁴ Each had “a proven track record of visionary, transformational leadership[.]”⁵

None was paid like Elon Musk.

Elson says that Tesla threatened to drop him as a legal consultant if he filed the opposing letter. Elson struck back, calling the move “extraordinary and appalling” and “a fig leaf for Musk, acting through Tesla, to try to bully a law professor by making a serious economic threat to a law firm with which the professor had a consulting relationship.” He also said, “I was shocked by the whole thing,” but if you have to choose between your job and your integrity, you choose your integrity every time.” The law firm denies being pressured by Tesla to remove Elson, instead staying that his views were “inconsistent with the firm’s obligations to its client.”

For his part, Musk threatened to move the business to Texas if his compensation isn’t approved. Musk is not known for his humility.

Image source.

Crop Tops at the Office

Students might be interested in debating whether crop tops are acceptable work attire. Of course, the decision depends on the industry, company, culture—and students’ own ideas about professional dress.

A Wall Street Journal article explains the importance of pairing. A crop top with high-waisted, wide pants or a pencil skirt might look better than, say, leggings. Also, a button-down crop might stand alone on top, but a tight-fitting one is safer with a jacket. Students might agree with the informal dress code I remember at school: no belly buttons.

Women interviewed for the article say the top makes them feel taller, cooler, and a little rebellious.

Images source.

Bumble Apologizes for Celibacy Joke

Dating app Bumble apologized for ads that offended women. Students can assess the company’s response against principles for apologies.

In addition to the billboard shown here, an ad tells women, “Thou shalt not give up on dating and become a nun.” Women are not amused, with some feeling as though their choice of celibacy is being mocked and their autonomy questioned. Others question why the ad targets women’s behavior and not men’s.

Bumble responded on Instagram (text below). The company hits several of the marks for an effective apology identified in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character, 11e. Although they didn’t explicitly write, “We’re sorry,” they take responsibility upfront (“We made a mistake”). They also identified what they did wrong in the first paragraph and humbly list the reactions—how people were affected—in the second paragraph. Pulling the ads is the only rational thing to do.

For me, the donation seems patronizing and trivial, particularly without knowing whether the amount is significant and without evidence of a previous relationship with the organization. Offering the billboard space is at least relevant to the situation.

Students might speculate on how this happened. Did an external ad agency get carried away? If so, Bumble, appropriately, doesn’t blame them. Did they fail to test the ads with focus groups? We may never know, but Bumble seems to have learned the lesson and, overall, responded well.

---

TO OUR BELOVED BUMBLE COMMUNITY:

We made a mistake. Our ads referencing celibacy were an attempt to lean into a community frustrated by modern dating, and instead of bringing joy and humor, we unintentionally did the opposite.

Some of the perspectives we heard were: from those who shared that celibacy is the only answer when reproductive rights are continuously restricted; from others for whom celibacy is a choice, one that we respect; and from the asexual community, for whom celibacy can have a particular meaning and importance, which should not be diminished. We are also aware that for many, celibacy may be brought on by harm or trauma.

For years, Bumble has passionately stood up for women and marginalized communities, and their right to fully exercise personal choice. We didn't live up to these values with this campaign and we apologize for the harm it caused.

So, here's what we're doing:

We're removing these ads from our global marketing campaign. Bumble will be making a donation to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, among other organizations, as a part of our ongoing efforts to support the work being done around the world to support women, marginalized communities, and those impacted by abuse.

We will also be offering these partners this billboard space to display an ad of their choice for the duration of our reserved billboard time.

Please keep speaking up and telling us how we can be better. We care about you and will always be here for you.

With love and sincere appreciation,

Bumble

Nutrition Labels as Visual Persuasion

As the U.S. government considers new labels on packaged food, students can analyze arguments about this visual communication.

The latest idea is to show large, front-of-package (FOP) labels, possibly without the numbers and percentages we’re used to seeing. Consumers would see information more easily, albeit with some interpretative descriptions (options shown here). The goal is for consumers to make healthier choices.

Students could research arguments about the change. For example, one study showed household reductions in sugar, fat, and sodium after Chilean policies mandated front-side labels. Tony the Tiger was banned from this “Frosties” (Frosted Flakes) box. The Food and Drug Administration also describes focus groups and experimental studies in favor of the change.

The food industry argues that FOP labeling won’t have the desired effect, removes responsibility from consumers, and could infringe on products’ trademarks because of changes to the packaging. One older study showed mixed results of front-of-package labeling, including in a “halo effect” for “vice products,” for which any label—even one showing excessive sugar—made the product look more credible. Students will find more research on both sides and might consider how new weight-loss drugs could affect consumer choice.

Domino's Website About Tipping

A new tipping program at Domino’s illustrates reciprocity, one of Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion, and students can analyze the webpage and functionality.

With the title “You Tip, We Tip,” Domino’s clever program gets at the heart of frustration with tipping since the COVID-19 pandemic. In exchange for a tip of $3 or more, customers get a $3 coupon. Of course, the company benefits by getting another order and can avoid paying workers more than the ridiculously low federal minimum wage of $2.13 per hour (higher in some states and localities). A website explains the program in three sections: How It Works, Videos (which includes only one), and FAQs.

Domino’s explains how the program works in simple terms on an interactive screen. Personally, I find the repeated clicking unnecessary on the last screen, which could show all four boxes under “How It Works” at once. The “gamification” seems overplayed.

The video is funny, including an officiant presenting a tip screen in the middle of a wedding ceremony. Anyone can relate to feeling awkward when seeing that screen.

For a simple program, the website lists a lot of FAQs. Also, almost all answers are only one or two sentences, so the content could be presented more efficiently. Each question is a drop-down, but answers could be incorporated into the question, for example, the one below.

Overall, the program is easy to understand, and the website is clear. But I find it overdone for the purpose, which could contradict and complicate the simplicity of the program.

Wells College Closing Statement

If your school is vulnerable, this could be a painful topic. Otherwise, Wells College offers an example of a bad-news message, closing the school. Wells is just up the road from me in Aurora, NY, set above Cayuga Lake, where I hunt for sea glass near the boathouse. With a population of less than 14,000, Aurora is dominated by the school and may suffer great economic loss as a result of the closing, at least in the short term.

The decision is terrible for students. Although only 357 are currently enrolled, they will finish their degree at “teach-out” partners such as Manhattanville University, 250 miles away with its own financial struggles. The college will close in just two weeks, after students were admitted for the fall and possibly too late for them to accept other college offers.

A letter from the board chair and president announces the news. As it should be, the news is upfront—both in the heading and in the first sentence. Delaying the obvious would serve no one. Administrators blame “financial challenges,” which they write were “exacerbated by a global pandemic, a shrinking pool of undergraduate students nationwide, inflationary pressures, and an overall negative sentiment towards higher education.” As we might expect, the statement includes a list of attempts to save the college—the “strategic plans,” “fundraising campaigns,” and “innovative new programs.” They don’t mention the most controversial decision specifically: to accept men starting in 2005 to try to increase enrollment. Perhaps that is too obvious to state, and of course, it wasn’t enough.

The letter serves its purpose. The news isn’t terribly surprising for the 156-year-old school, which has seen enrollment steadily decline. With a decisive tone and a good dose of compassion for those affected, the writers take responsibility for the decision, explain reasons for the bad news, describe plans for current students, and communicate as much as they know. They meet their objectives for their main audiences. Although they don’t mention effects on the town, residents aren’t a primary audience of the school; I suppose that group will be addressed separately in collaboration with local officials.

The website that includes the letter is well organized. FAQs address questions, for example, Why weren’t alumni notified earlier in order to raise funds to save the college? and What steps did Wells College take to address its financial challenges? In addition, buttons link to more detailed information clearly organized by affected group: students, staff, faculty, alumni, and teach-out partners. The FAQs for faculty reflect common questions about pay, benefits, grades, graduation, etc., but the responses are vague. A question about how to get more information instructs faculty to “Please watch for communications coming out from HR and the FAQ for employees and faculty. The VPASA office will also reach out with additional faculty-specific information.” Clearly, many details are still unknown, and administrators are trying to stave off contact for now. I don’t blame them.

Image source.

Arguments About the Noncompete Clause

As students sign employment agreements, they might be interested in researching arguments for and against the noncompete clause. Here are a few sources for students to explore:

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated a new rule that U.S. employers can no longer include noncompete clauses:

  • The 570-page “Final Rule” document

  • Summary “Fact Sheet” that quantifies benefits of reducing healthcare costs, allowing new businesses, increasing innovation, and increasing worker earnings

  • CNN interview with FTC Chair Lina Kahn, who claims that the FTC has “clear legal authority” to institute the ban

The FTC rule distinguishes between “senior executives” (who earn more than $151,164 per year and make policy decisions) and the rest of us. Noncompete clauses may remain for executives and not for the many bartenders, hairstylists, and others who are currently subjected to these contract restrictions. Still, business associations aren’t happy with the FTC rule.

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit against the FTC. The organization focuses on “reasonable noncompete agreements,” not those that, for example, limit people from working within “hundreds of miles away or many years after leaving a job.” The suit questions the FTC’s authority and claims “irreparable harm to businesses and employees” and argues for delaying implementation.

• Ryan, a tax company in Texas, also filed suit, announced in this news release. The firm’s focus is on damage to “IP protections and talent development and retention.”

Students will find additional arguments—and will have their own experiences and ideas to share. If they have signed employment contracts, they could compare the noncompete clauses, and they might reconsider signing such an agreement in the future.

Image source.

Audience Shift Practice: New Airline Rules

Adapting messages to different audiences is a foundation of business communication, and recent changes to air travel guidelines offer good examples that might interest students and provide more practice.

Two similar messages communicate the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) expansion of consumer protection for cancelled flights and hidden fees. Both are intended for the press—not specifically a consumer audience.

A White House Administration Fact Sheet is designed to win political favor. “Historic steps” and “historic record” emphasize the Biden-Harris Administration’s work, and this paragraph, in particular, downplays and subordinates the DOT’s work:

Both of these actions were suggested for consideration by the DOT in the Executive Order on Promoting Competition and build on historic steps the Biden-Harris Administration has already taken to expand consumer protections, promote competition, and protect air travelers. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, DOT has advanced the largest expansion of airline passenger rights, issued the biggest fines against airlines for failing consumers, and returned more money to passengers in refunds and reimbursements than ever before in the Department’s history.

A U.S. Department of Transportation announcement, of course, is also about winning political favor, but it’s more subtle and more closely aligned with the U.S. transportation secretary. The second paragraph includes boldface type for no discernible reason other than to give a shoutout to the chief:

“Passengers deserve to get their money back when an airline owes them - without headaches or haggling,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “Our new rule sets a new standard to require airlines to promptly provide cash refunds to their passengers.”  

It’s fun to compare both statements to see how the DOT and Secretary Buttigieg, former and perhaps future presidential candidate, are elevated in the DOT statement. Students will find other examples.

An interesting class assignment could challenge students to write a message directly to consumers. What are the communication objectives? How should the political message change with this audience? How could the message be disseminated?

Soon we’ll see how airlines respond, and students could compare their drafts to new messages on airline sites.

VW's “Neutral” Response to Union

Volkswagen’s communication is another example of the changing tide in favor of unions. Students can compare messages from companies during and after unionization efforts.

The positive vote at the Chattanooga, TN, plant is significant because it’s the first union in an international automaker located in the South. Twice since 2010, when the plant opened, employees voted against the United Auto Workers (UAW), but this time the vote was overwhelmingly positive.

Management’s “neutral” stance is also significant. A CNN article explains:

The company said it is neutral in the election, only urging workers to vote however they want. That’s relatively rare in union representation elections, where management often lobbies workers to vote no at mandatory meetings, and sometimes takes action against union organizers. Even union supporters acknowledge that hasn’t happened in this case, however.

The company’s statement about the vote wasn’t exactly steeped in humility, as we saw in the Costco response earlier this year. But management isn’t antagonistic either; when a decision is clear, they might as well accept it. The statement is short, simply reporting the vote and closing with, “Volkswagen thanks its Chattanooga workers for voting in this election.”

Cultural differences may be at play. About half of German workers belong to unions, and trust in unions is twice as high in Germany as it is in the United States (see JEP_German_Model_of_Industrial_Relations_Primer.pdf). Whatever the reasons, the UAW is emboldened to pursue more unions as planned.

Image source.