BCom Lessons From the VP Debate

The U.S. vice presidential debate offers business communication lessons in reporting, delivery style, evidence, and answering questions.

A large, top-of-page Wall Street Journal heading claims victory for J.D. Vance and highlights delivery skills: “Vance Confident, Walz Uneven in Debate Heavy on Policy.” Students might discuss how “confident” and “uneven” are assessed. What makes Vance sound “confident”? Does “uneven” refer only to Walz’s delivery style or to his overall performance?

The beginning of the debate (before I fell asleep) offers obvious examples of delivery. Tim Walz, the first to respond to a question, spoke slowly and hesitated during the first few sentences, repeated words (said “fundamental” four times in four consecutive sentences), and said “Iran” instead of “Israel.” Vance came out strong. Before answering the first question, he gave a mini-bio, including his difficult upbringing—relating to voters who also find themselves in difficult life circumstances.

Unlike the right-leaning WSJ, the left-leaning New York Times homepage requires scrolling past five articles about the war in the Middle East on the left-hand side before we see the headline: “Takeaways From the Vance-Walz Debate: Civility and Then a Clash Over Jan. 6.” If I recall correctly, the placement on each publisher’s webpage was about opposite for the presidential debate, which analysts reported as a victory for Kamala Harris.

Students can analyze CBS News’s fact-checking, presented in a video. The video allows for clips from the debate and nuance. We see a slider—not a yes/no—assessment of four points. The first, about opioid deaths, receives a “partially true” rating with an explanation of when data started to be collected and the percentage claimed. We don’t hear the sources of the claimed or the fact-checked data, and students might question the source of the fact-checking itself. Like any source, CBS News demonstrates bias, if not in the analysis, then in the selection of issues to check. Another news source would choose different “facts” to check. Regardless, the video—only 8 minutes to fact check the entire debate—could make for good class viewing.

Another relevant topic is how the candidates responded to questions. Three examples might be interesting to explore with students. First, Vance’s responses to the question about immigrants in Springfield, OH, which caused his mic to be turned off. Second, Walz’s response to his claim of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. And third, that last question from Walz: “Did Trump lose the 2020 election?” For this question, Vance chose the classic communication strategy of deflecting the question, saying he wanted to stay “focused on the future,” and then transitioning to, “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?" Of course, that is also is the past. Walz called his response a “damning non-answer.” Students might analyze what “damning” means in this case. Damning for what or whom?

Otherwise, the debate was more civil than many, with candidates pointing out areas of agreement throughout. This is worth students’ attention as well.

Bud Light Ad, Demographics, and Visual

An AdAge article describes a new Bud Light ad and references a movie from the 70’s, raising questions about the target demographic.

The scene is a dean’s office, with a student being accused of plagiarism. The joke is that others admit to failings just to get a cold bottle of Bud Light.

The AdAge writer describes “a scene recalling Dean Wormer admonishing the Deltas in Animal House.” Although the movie is of my generation, I have no memory of that scene and wonder whether others do. It was a cult film at the time, but still, the cohort is in their 60s now. Maybe students know the movie—or think the ad is funny regardless.

Bud Light’s target demographic is younger, according to this report:

While among Baby Boomer beer drinkers Bud Light has a brand popularity score around 30 percent, it’s almost 40 percent among Gen Z consumers. Similarly, around 40 percent of Millennials have consumed Bud Light in the past 12 months, as compared to 24 percent of Baby Boomer respondents.

According to this Statista chart, Baby Boomers consume less Bud Light than the other demographic groups. Students might redesign the chart. To be fair, the main point isn’t about consumption but is about all key performance indicators (KPIs) of the brand. Still, one obvious problem with the chart is the similarity of colors, which makes them difficult to distinguish in the legend. We’re also missing the total, which is greyed out in the legend. In addition, students might question the order of the KPIs on the x-axis, which, at first glance, appear to be in rough numerical order, but that doesn’t hold when we see the Buzz group. Maybe a radar or bubble chart would work better—or at least a horizontal bar.

U.S. Committee Report About Amazon

Few people think about the impact of Amazon Prime Days on employees, but the U.S. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee produced a report worth reviewing in class.

Although the report format doesn’t follow all business communication principles, students will see several they could include in their own reports:

• Clear title and subtitle: With repetition and strong language, the titles conveys the main point: “PEAK SEASONS, PEAK INJURIES: Amazon Warehouses Are Especially Dangerous During Prime Day and the Holiday Season—and the Company Knows It.”

• Message titles (or “talking headings”): The authors create a clear argument with full-sentence subheadings.

• Executive summary: Although not labeled, the first four paragraphs function as an executive summary. This part explains the complaint well.

• Data and stories: The report mixes data and employee quotes to balance a logical argument with emotional appeal.

• OSHA warnings: The second paragraph of page 5 and top of page 6 are particularly strong, giving evidence from OSHA reports about inaccurate and missing reports. To me, these are stronger than the first paragraph on page 5, which accuses Amazon of treating minor cuts and bruises and not reporting them as injuries—which isn’t required.

To meet business communication standards, the report could be improved:

• The report could be more visually interesting. The underlined heading, to start, is a 1990s throwback.

• This line chart is a mess. Purple highlighting is helpful, but students would find better ways to present this data.

• The argument seems to be simply about volume. Yes, Amazon’s injury rate on Prime Days is far above industry averages, but so is its volume. What about on other days? Before Prime Day, when volume is lower, injuries are lower. Perhaps they average out? This doesn’t excuse high rates, but it does explain them. Prime Day is an example of cherry picking data and is employed as a marketing frame for the argument—not the problem itself.

• The inflammatory language may detract from the report. “But Amazon does not stop there” is unnecessary to make the argument and might harm the writers’ credibility.

• The company’s admission of staffing issues may be inappropriately raised in the report. Using an Amazon safety training video that includes an example of an injury caused partly by lack of staffing seems unfair.

• An entire section is dedicated to staffing, but other solutions might be more realistic. More of the report could be dedicated to actions Amazon might take. The few listed on page 8 could be expanded.

• I’m never convinced by arguments like this one: “But those investments over four years are less than 3 percent of the company’s $36.9 billion in profits in 2023 alone.” I have often seen these calculations—percentages of revenue or profit—in students’ presentations, and they mean little. What do similar companies spend, or what is the industry average? Without a target, this is not a compelling reason to spend more.

This is an interesting report with good reasons for Amazon to reduce workplace injuries. A consultancy’s report, which students might write instead, could make a more useful, convincing argument.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

The Visual Pull of Tech Stocks

Line charts show how the “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla—affect the S&P 500. Students can analyze the potential audience and objective of each of these visual displays, find others, or create their own. Hover over for comments about each, and click on the slide for the original source. The data represents different timeframes, so the charts aren’t quite comparable.

This simple line chart compares returns of the total S&P 500 to that of the seven and the other 493 stocks. Note the typo in the first date on the X axis.

Dating back to October 2022, this line chart shows the downward pull of the seven in addition to the recent upswing. We can almost feel the effect both ways—the drag and the lift.

With this detail, we see the contribution of each stock. This would work better without the separate legend.

This tree map shows the market value of each stock, which explains why a rise in, for example, Microsoft, more significantly affects the S&P.

The donut is more graphical but conveys less than the tree map does.

This infographic/bubble chart has visual appeal (but weird color combinations) -- and does convey more information (including both market cap and return) than the others do.

This one is pretty but conveys little.

Students also might be interested in evaluating whether Tesla should remain part of the Magnificent Seven. Some believe it’s lackluster performance makes it unworthy of the designation.

China Changes Youth Unemployment Measure

After a five-month lapse, China reported youth unemployment data, which looks better because of new metrics. The change raises questions about data integrity and reporting.

According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the unemployment rate of people between 16 and 24 years old dropped from a high of 23.1 in June to 14.9 in December. But the rate doesn’t mean more young people are employed. The Bureau now excludes students enrolled in school, even if they’re seeking part-time employment. Reports also will now separate people between 25 and 29 from those between 25 and 59. A record number of college graduates are having a particularly difficult time finding jobs, partly because of restrictions on tech, real estate development, and education fields and because of a slow recovery from the pandemic, which Chinese officials seem reluctant to admit.

The youth data change might not have been as alarming if China hadn’t stopped reported data after that record high in June.

Students might discuss the significance of these changes and compare how China reports jobless data to U.S. methodology (see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). This situation is a good project for students to dig into the data and also analyze, for example, differences between urban and overall rates.

Students also can find or create charts to visualize the change over time. They’ll likely find mostly line charts like the one at right that shows the urban rate over the past two years. As many do, this chart has a truncated Y axis, exaggerating the differences (and yet, one percentage point is a lot of people out of work).

Hasan Minhaj Defends Embellishing Stand-Up Comedy

The comedian Hasan Minhaj isn’t cowering after a New Yorker reporter fact checked and criticized his Netflix series Patriot Act and other performances. His response is an unusual approach for crisis communication. Students might discuss issues of integrity and analyze evidence in this situation.

In her article, “Hasan Minhaj’s ‘Emotional Truths’,” Clare Malone wrote,

[A]fter many weeks of trying, I had been unable to confirm some of the stories that he had told onstage. . . . Still, he said that he stood by his work. “Every story in my style is built around a seed of truth,” he said. “My comedy Arnold Palmer is seventy per cent emotional truth—this happened—and then thirty per cent hyperbole, exaggeration, fiction.”

In part, Malone’s focus was on the consequences of Minhaj’s fabrications (he might say “embellishments”). When comparing his stories to George Santos’s, Minhaj says Santos’s are "pointless,” whereas his have societal value, which gives him moral standing. Students can discuss how much is too much “stretching the truth.” How might standards of integrity differ for comedians, politicians, organizational leaders, entrepreneurs, job applicants, etc.?

People make difficult decisions about whether and how to respond to criticism. Minhaj fought back. A New York Times writer summarizes Minhaj’s response well:

Typical crisis management dictates you should move on, not fixate. But in our attention economy, where the most popular Netflix specials of the past year featured Chris Rock talking about the Slap and John Mulaney joking about going to rehab, comedians are wise to consider Rahm Emanuel’s famous political advice: Never let a good crisis go to waste. Minhaj split the difference. He did not linger on the story but dedicated a solid chunk of jokes to it that got one of the biggest responses of the night. There were moments when I even thought this scandal might be the best thing that ever happened to him.

During a recent Beacon Theater show, Minhaj quipped to the audience, “Don’t fact check me.” He said of the New Yorker report, “I got caught embellishing for dramatic effect,” and said it was too bad it was such “a dorky scandal” and not one involving, for example, child abuse.

In a 21-minute video watched, so far, 1.9 million times, Minhaj addressed criticism head-on, showing headlines and a Bill Maher clip. He apologized to those hurt by his routines and addressed three stories in detail. He distinguished between what really happened and how he changed details to create a funny/poignant story. Supporting his points, Minhaj played audio from the interview with the New Yorker reporter. As he acknowledges during the video, his explanations are a bit much (saying at one point, “If you’re still here,” and, I admit, I dropped off soon after). But he does provide good evidence of the reporter ignoring or missing information. (For a deep dive of disputed facts, read this Slate analysis.) Naturally, Malone posted a short statement on X, defending her reporting.

To his credit, Minhaj has enough perspective to conclude with a main point (direct organization plan—up front!): he didn’t “fake racism.” Students can draw their own conclusions and whether they are convinced by Minhaj’s presentation of the evidence.

This situation gives students a different perspective on crisis communications. Minhaj highlighted rather than downplayed criticism, which may have avoided his getting “cancelled” and might even elevate his reputation.

Missing Communications Prep in University Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image from source.

John Oliver Blasts McKinsey

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

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

Timing

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

Evidence

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

The Example of Eliminating Signatures

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

Oliver’s Indignance

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

McKinsey’s Response

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

Other Perspectives

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

Character

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

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

Visuals About SAT Disparities

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

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

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

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

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

PwC Report for Students to Analyze

If you’re looking for a sample report with mixed text and graphics, “PwC’s 26th Annual Global CEO Survey: Winning today’s race while running tomorrow’s” is a good one for students to analyze. With open access, the report is designed as a webpage built around survey questions. Here are a few points to explore with business communication students:

Audience Analysis and Communication Objectives: As a public document, the report provides information for business leaders, but the primary objective is to market PwC’s work. The report starts with a hook: “Evolve or die, say 4,410 chief executives in our 2023 CEO Survey. But are they spending enough time on business reinvention? Many tell us no.” In other words, hire PwC to help you survive.

Organization: The introductory paragraph follows classic business writing principles: convey the main point (the conclusion or recommendation) and preview up front. The organization is clear in the last paragraph: “We’ve organised this year’s survey summary into nine tough questions—which naturally fall into three groups—about what it takes to operate in our dual-imperative world.” However, the sequence of groups and questions within them don’t follow a logic I can follow.

Writing Style: As expected for this type of report, the tone reflects a strong sense of urgency (“The race for the future”). Still, I find myself tripping over some sentences, like this one:

Last year’s optimism, reflecting hope that economic conditions would continue improving as the global pandemic eased, was dashed in 2022 by shocks such as Europe’s largest land war since World War II, knock-on effects like surging energy and commodity prices, and accelerating general wage and price inflation.

“Dashed,” “shocks,” “knock-on effects,” “surging,” “accelerating”—that’s a lot to take. Students also might have fun omitting extraneous words, for example, “Last year’s optimism, reflecting hope . . .”

Graphics: Of about 15 charts in the report, only one is a line chart. The other are rather traditional versions of bar and column charts but offer lessons in choosing stacked and other formats—ways to incorporate multiple data points.

Site Functionality: Report navigation is clear with the organizational structure in table format, shown above, and right-side mouse-over links. You might consider a report assignment that includes bookmarks within Word documents or PDFs that students can create easily. The downloadable graphics are a nice touch. Users get pages—with the PwC logo, of course—they can slip into any deck.

You’ll find other lessons in the report. Overall, it’s a good example of clear content, but, for me, the marketing purpose overshadows the message.

Analyzing Data Visualizations for Rent or Mortgage

Charts about U.S. rents and mortgages provide good examples of visualizing data. The topic might interest students who will likely rent but could consider buying a home someday. Depending the city, rent money put towards a mortgage could buy a lot or very little square footage. Here are a few charts from the NY Times and from the original source—data from Point2, a real estate analysis company, which provides a few visualizations and clear explanations.

List of Cities. In this NY Times chart, which is essentially a table, the winners and losers are clear in chronological order. But students might see better graphics: a line chart, horizontal bar, or vertical (column) bar chart might be too much with so many data points, but including fewer cities would work well. I’m also wanting to see percentages, which I often miss in data visualizations. In the Point2 article, you’ll see a bar chart within a table that’s a bit more visual.

Map. For a bigger picture, The Point2 article (not shown here) provides two U.S. maps with pinpoints showing the most affordable cities. Curiously, they present separate maps with most and least, and I wonder whether they could be combined, particularly to see the obvious geographic spread between eastern and western cities.

Tree Map. Shown here, this tree map is a great at-a-glance visual with mouseovers for more detail (see Point2 for the functionality). In addition to the proper sizing for each box, the designer added color to show in which cities you get the most space for the rent money.

Point2 makes the data practical by including insurance and property taxes. However, the researchers admit, “[W]e assumed a 20% down payment was covered.” Unfortunately, despite getting more space, buying instead of renting is still impossible for a lot of people. The article clarifies this obstacle and others. Overall, the article is a good example of presenting useful data for decision making.

Quantitative Data Needs Context

A Wall Street Journal interview illustrates the importance of context when presenting quantitative data. The segment, “95,000 Hours Saved: Unique Ways Companies Are Tackling Worker Frustration,” describes several ways efficiency can be quantified, but some of them invite questions.

Two examples illustrate lessons from Chapter 9 of Business Communication and Character about comparing and explaining data. What do the numbers really mean? Why do they matter? To help students think more critically about data, consider discussing these examples from the WSJ story, posted as a podcast on YouTube:

• 1:58: To reduce meeting time, Shopify eliminated 12,000 events and saved 95,000 hours. I have questions, and students should too. What percentage of events does this represent? What types of events? What is the context for 95,000 hours: how many employees work how much time total? What was the result? What was gained? What was lost? Are employees doing something productive with their new-found time, or are they working fewer hours, or have jobs been eliminated? In other words, so what?

• 6:35: AT&T reduced time by eliminating a process that sounds insane: listing on an expense report everyone who came to an employee celebration (e.g., an anniversary). The company saved 28,500 hours. As of January 2023, AT&T had about 161,000 employees (down from 280,000 in 2017!). I’m curious about the number of parties and how much time people spent entering names. Also, with 161,000 employees working, let’s say, a 35-hour week for 50 weeks per year, that’s 281,750,000. 28,5000 represents 0.0101% of the total work hours. Is that significant? Maybe.
  Regardless, the data point seems a bit silly when extrapolated, but the process was silly too. I wonder why the process existed and whether employees do similar tasks that might reflect management’s distrust. That seems to be a more useful question for the company to address.

Without a fuller picture of the “efficiencies,” these numbers seem more like sound bites than meaningful statistics for decision making. This is a news report, so let’s hope companies are clearer about why this matters when they communicate with employees and shareholders.

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.