McDonald's President Reassures Us After E. Coli Outbreak

McDonald’s president illustrates crisis communication strategies after the E. coli outbreak that, as of now, killed one person, left 49 sick, and contributed to a 5% drop in stock price, the biggest loss since 2020.

On a webpage titled, “Always Putting Food Safety First,” McDonald’s posted a video of President Joe Erlinger explaining the steps the company has taken. He focuses on isolating the crisis: listing in which products (only the Quarter Pounder) and states (only a few) where E. coli was found and blaming the onions. This strategy achieves two communication objectives: encouraging consumers to return to McDonald’s and shifting responsibility to a supplier.

The video is odd in that Erlinger demonstrates no compassion and offers no apology. Business communication students know that being a bit more human doesn’t imply culpability. His approach is strictly "an update . . . because food safety is so important to me and to everyone at McDonald’s.” Isn’t it time for companies (looking at you, Boeing) to stop saying how important safety is?

Erlinger also appeared on the Today show, saying, three times, that they took swift and decisive action—twice with active and once with passive voice. “Top priority” also got four plays during the short interview but was more appropriately used as anaphora. Clearly he received coaching. Following well-worn media strategies, he avoided speculation about other products impacted, and he transitioned a couple of times to “what’s important today” (the action they took).

The interview ended with a question about inflated prices and reputational damage. Erlinger recalled advice from McDonald’s founder, “If you take care of our customers, the business will take care of itself.” His objective is to inspire confidence, a word he uses twice at the end. But students will notice that he doesn’t sound or appear very confident. He’s a man managing through a crisis, and it shows.

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.

Comms Around OpenAI Exec Departures

Three OpenAI leaders—the CTO and two research executives—join several others leaving the company just as it shifts from a nonprofit to a for-profit model. Students might analyze a resignation message and CEO Sam Altman’s response.

Most significant is Mira Murati’s resignation, posted on X. Murati is OpenAI’s CTO who, you might remember, was interim CEO for a hot minute when Altman was ousted for a weekend last year. Students might note that her post is entirely positive: She demonstrates grace and gratitude and mentions no company-related reason for leaving. But the three resignations came within hours of each other, and the timing is suspicious.

For his part, Altman responded in kind—with only good things to say about Murati’s leadership and contribution to the company during the past 6.5 years. But when he answers a question about the resignations during Italian Tech Week, he seems uneasy and a bit clumsy.

A Wall Street Journal article puts it plainly:

Turning OpenAI Into a Real Business Is Tearing It Apart

Executives and researchers have left this year amid disputes over the company’s values and fights among its leaders.

Do students buy Altman’s enthusiasm for the staffing change: “I have not been as involved in the tech recently as other things, because there's been so much going on, I'm excited to do that”? Feels like a stretch. But he did well transitioning to the company’s “new generation of leaders,” trying to refocus on the future.

The Debate and BCom Principles

The U.S. Presidential Debate is ripe with topics to discuss in class. Without getting into political alignments, students can analyze the following:

• The initial greeting: VP Harris approached former President Trump to shake his hand. Was this a good choice? How did the greeting appear?

• Voice: VP Harris’s voice was unsteady at the beginning but improved during the debate. How did that affect her message?

• Presence and nonverbals: How did the candidates’ appearance affect their positions? Some commenters wondered how they would appear on stage because of their height difference—and cited evidence about past election winners. How did they compare?

• VP Harris’s “baiting”: Analysts said VP Harris baited Trump, for example, by talking about people leaving his rallies. They said this was intentional to rattle him, and that it worked—he became more emotional and said things that hurt his position. Did students detect this strategy when it happened?

• Gun ownership: VP Harris said that she and Governor Walz own guns. How would students verify this? What are they used for—and does that make a difference? What was the purpose of this statement?

• CNN verification: A couple of times, reporters contradicted claims on the spot (e.g., about pets and abortion extended beyond birth). How did students perceive these moderator interruptions? Did they seem fair or biased?

• Answering questions: VP Harris was asked about changing her positions, for example, on fracking. She evaded the question. How did her approach work?

• Audience: The debate was held in Pennsylvania. How did that audience affect what the candidates said? Did they adapt their message? Was that appropriate, given that no audience response was allowed and the program was televised nationally?

• Memes: What memes have students seen after the debate? How do they react to them? Are they funny? Do students believe they influence voters?

• Taylor Switch endorsement: How do students perceive Taylor Swift’s endorsement? Why did she choose the timing, approach, and signature line? What could be the effect?

• Winner: Who “won” the debate? What does it mean to win the debate? Will it matter for the voters who already have a preferred candidate—or for those who were undecided?

My hope is that these questions are neutral, but my own political views may have seeped in—and I understand this is a challenging class discussion. The Southeast region of the Association for Business Communication hosted a Teaching Circle for faculty to explore whether and how to discuss election communications in our classes. I presented with my Cornell colleague, David Lennox, and we’ll present at the Annual International Conference in October with Christy McDowell. More to come.

Image source.

VP Harris Gives Presentation Advice

I’m looking for neutral (non-political) communications related to the U.S. presidential election and believe this fits. VP Kamala Harris offers young people advice about delivering a presentation.

In the video, VP Harris suggests, “It’s not about you.” Then she offers an analogy to the Titanic: If you’re the only one who knows the ship is sinking, you’re not going to worry about “how you look and how you sound.” It’s most important that people “know what you know.”

Clearly, she’s focusing on content, and I like the approach for these young people, who are typically self-obsessed. VP Harris is also offering a lesson in humility. (By the way, the girls are adorable in how they respond to her asking whether they learned about the Titanic. They launch into whether they saw the movie or it was their favorite—as though the Titanic is just a movie.)

Students could watch this clip and offer their own advice or analogies for young people to improve their public speaking. They also can use the tool I created, How To Feel Confident for a Presentation and Manage Speech Anxiety, to identify strategies to use before, during, and after a presentation.

Crisis Comms After CrowdStrike Failure

Tech outages affected businesses worldwide, and students can analyze responses by CrowdStrike, which caused the issue.

CrowdStrike begins its statement by including what has not been affected:

CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted. This was not a cyberattack.

The message is designed to be helpful and reduce worries—and to limit the scope of the crisis. Using a similar crisis communication strategy, Microsoft limits its role in the crisis by blaming the third party and mentioning its name twice:

We are aware of a scenario in which customers experience issues with their machines causing a bug check (blue screen) due to a recent CrowdStrike update. We recommend customers to follow guidance provided by CrowdStrike.

The “blue screen of death” that people saw during this outage evokes bad memories from early Microsoft days. Although Microsoft isn’t to blame, the software and the company are likely taking a reputational hit.

CrowdStrike President and CEO George Kurtz posted on X:

CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted. This is not a security incident or cyberattack. The issue has been identified, isolated and a fix has been deployed. We refer customers to the support portal for the latest updates and will continue to provide complete and continuous updates on our website. We further recommend organizations ensure they’re communicating with CrowdStrike representatives through official channels. Our team is fully mobilized to ensure the security and stability of CrowdStrike customers.

Users responded by asking, “Where’s the apology to users, George?” and by calling it “corporate speak.” They have a point, and Kurtz got the memo later, appearing on the Today Show and immediately saying, “We are deeply sorry.” At that time, later in the day, his main purpose was to assure people that they fixed the problem and that systems are coming back.

Kurtz emphasized the importance of CrowdStrike’s work, focusing on how updates like the one that caused the outage are essential to safety—to prevent cyberattacks. Still, how a bug in a minor update wreak such havoc? He doesn’t quite quell concerns about future issues, although he does take responsibility for the outage. Then again, he has little choice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lyft CEO Takes Responsibility but Is Casual About Typo

Lyft CEO David Risher said “My bad” for a typo that caused shares to lift dramatically, and then fall. The error is a good example for students to see the importance of proofreading, and the company response illustrates accountability, to a point.

An extra zero found its way into a quarterly earnings release, so the company reported growth of 500 basis points (5%) instead of 50 basis points (.5%) for the year, indicating a higher margin from bookings. The error still appears on the release. A statement was added to the top, which is an appropriate way to correct an error, rather than simply changing the original:

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Fifth bulleted list, third bullet of release should read: Adjusted EBITDA margin expansion (calculated as a percentage of Gross Bookings) of approximately 50 basis points year-over-year. [instead of Adjusted EBITDA margin expansion (calculated as a percentage of Gross Bookings) of approximately 500 basis points year-over-year.].

Lyft leaders do what we expect leaders to do: They are accountable for errors. The CFO first announced the mistake on an earnings call, and the CEO took a Bloomberg Technology interview.

Risher’s word choices and speech patterns are interesting to watch. He uses colloquial speech to say, “My bad,” but then, within a second, transitions with the time-honored “but” to enthusiastically compliment the company’s good work. He also uses the classic crisis communication strategy of downplaying, as though the error is no big deal. Apology criteria include acknowledging the impact of the mistake, which he failed to do. People made investment decisions based on bad information and lost money. Typos happen, but this one caused an errant $2 billion in market cap.

The first interviewer pushed, asking whether they used AI to create the release. Risher laughed and said “no way.” Another interviewer asked whether the CFO “is safe.” Risher responded, “It’s an unacceptable error, but . . . the team is taking it super-seriously.” That’s good, but Risher didn’t present it that way initially: His word choice and demeaner don’t match the seriousness of the event.

Of course, Risher’s response could be worse. He could not take an interview, or he could blame the CFO or others, who are ultimately responsible for proofreading. Instead, he said he’s ultimately responsible for all company communication, which is true.

Niecy Nash Thanks Herself in an Emotional Speech

The Emmy award audience and viewers love watching emotional speeches. Niecy Nash thanked herself in her acceptance speech, which students can analyze, given the context.

Nominated for five Emmys for her work in 2023, Nash won for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie for Dahmer—Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. When we assess character, particularly an aspect of character like humility, we consider the entire context. Nash is crying as she begins her speech, saying, “I’m a winner, baby!” She was nominated for several Emmy awards over the years and won the last one in 2010. It’s been a while.

During her interview with Gayle King and Charles Barkley on CBS, she got emotional describing the work it took for her to be successful and how she felt proud of herself. Her difficulty is clear from her speech, too, when she thanks her “better half, who picked me up when I was gutted from this work. Thank you.” Then she says, “And you know who else I want to thank? I want to thank me.” She describes believing in herself and closes by acknowledging Black and brown women who went “unheard but over policed.” She mentions a few by name.

The context of her speech also is the historic underrepresentation of women of color in film, in TV, and as entertainment award winners. Humility can be defined as being neither below or above others. Nash expresses gratitude for being at a high competitive level and for being rewarded as she deserves to be. From another actor, the speech could certainly sound arrogant. But hers is taken well, and we see the audience enthusiastically applauding her.

Jelly Roll Speaks Out and Demonstrates Character

Not often do we see a rapper turned country music artist in front of congress. Students might be interested in discussing Jelly Roll’s character and analyzing his persuasive statement.

With a history of addiction, selling drugs, and jail time, Jelly Roll is open about his past. His hit “Save Me” (and others), his inspiring speech when he won the Country Music Award for New Artist of the Year, and his tearful video when he learned he received two Emmy nominations demonstrate his vulnerability and gratitude for his new life. We learn more about Jelly Roll during a CBS Sunday Morning interview, when he talks about being in therapy and says, “I think it’s cool to think about vulnerability that way—that we can all grow together, and that it’s OK to not have it figured out. . . .” Correspondent Kelefa Sanneh also noted his authenticity, among other character dimensions: “Songs like ‘Song of a Sinner’ and ‘Need a Favor’ make fans feel as if they really know him and believe in him.”

In his testimony to encourage lawmakers to pass a bill to sanction drug traffickers, Jelly Roll uses several persuasion strategies we teach in business communication classes. With a tattooed face, Jelly Roll started with a joke about having a microphone for performing. Then he captures attention with data about the number of people who will die from drug overdose during his five-minute testimony. He uses other logical appeals, including this poignant analogy about the average number of people who die every day in the United States of fentanyl overdose:

Could you imagine the national media attention it would get if they were reporting that a plane was crashing every single day and killing 190 people?

Students may have a lot to say about the speech, which demonstrates credibility, logical argument, and emotion appeal. In some respects, he risks little. He is vulnerable, speaking of his wife’s addiction and a past he might prefer to forget, but his advocacy is unlikely to affect his career negatively: he’s getting positive publicity and his role might endear people toward him. Still, he demonstrates integrity by being consistent in his music and in his life. He is making “living amends,” as people do in Twelve Step programs: taking positive steps when apologies aren’t possible or enough.

Image source.

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.