Fake Firing of Stressed Employees as a PR Move

YesMadam, an Indian home salon company, faced criticism for what may have been a PR campaign. Reports showed the owner firing employees for responding, on a survey, that they’re stressed.

According to a three-page statement on LinkedIn, no one was actually fired. The original message was part of “a planned effort to highlight the serious issue of workplace stress.” People are skeptical about whether that’s true—or whether employees had been fired, and then the company changed course. To me, the original message sounds false and, after all, YesMadam promotes wellness, including reduced stress. So the “joke” fits the brand.

Either way, the incident doesn’t reflect well on the company. This may be one of those, any-press-is-good-press-situations, but I’m not so sure. The three-page statement is clearly promotional and includes language as though the company is considered a leader with “India’s first-ever De-Stress Leave Policy for employees.”

A marketing consultant told BBC:

It's crucial for brands to prioritise ethical marketing practices and avoid using people's emotions as a tool for self-promotion. While attention-grabbing tactics may work in the short term, they ultimately erode trust and damage brand reputation.

Related for student discussion: rage-baiting. Apparently, you get more clicks for rage than for joy.

Bluesky and, Once Again, "Safety Is Extremely Important"

This week, a new company used the old “safety is extremely important” expression after an incident that says otherwise. The CEO of Bluesky, quickly emerging as a popular X alternative, misstated the app’s minimum user age.

When Jay Graber was asked for the minimum age on Bluesky, she said, “When you sign up—I’ll have to check—I think it’s like 18 and above." That is not correct. She’s right that the app asks for a birthdate on the signup screen, but when I entered 2012 as my birth year, a message popped up about age 13, shown here. Here’s how the company responded, according to a BBC report:

Following the interview, Bluesky contacted the BBC to clarify that the minimum age is 13, not 18. A spokesperson said: "Child safety is extremely important for Bluesky. You must be at least 13 years old to sign up for an account, and anyone under 18 using Bluesky has additional settings applied to ensure that the content they see is safe for minors."

In a wide-ranging interview with presenter Rick Edwards, she [Graber] said Bluesky does not try to verify the identification of the user, to ensure people are not lying when signing up.

She said: "We don’t take IDs or anything like that. I know that’s proposed in some places. That’s very private information. I think companies like us would want to make sure we're handling that private user data very responsibly."

Framing verification as a privacy issue is a compelling argument but might contradict Bluesky’s knowledge of those between 13 and 18. What technology do they use to determine that age range? On a recent podcast episode, Scott Galloway asked Google Founder Eric Schmidt whether companies should practice “age gating”:

They should. And indeed Jonathan's [Haidt] work is incredible. He and I wrote an article together two years ago which called for a number of things in the area of regulating social media and we'd start with changing a law called COPA from 13 to 16. And we are quite convinced that using various techniques we can determine the age of the person with a little bit of work. And so people say, well you can't implement it. Well that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. And so we believe that at least the pernicious effects of this technology on below 16 can be addressed.

Schmidt recommends 16 as the minimum, and students might discuss whether Bluesky should change its policy. They also can discuss what the spokesperson could have said differently. One option is to omit that safety cliché entirely. It was an unfortunate mistake the CEO won’t likely make again—and a signal for the company to pay more attention to concerns about users’ age.

AI-Generated Coca-Cola Ads Face Backlash

Coca-Cola ads from 1985 were reimagined using AI, causing complaints of “ruining Christmas.” Students can weigh in on the uses and limitations of AI in marketing. The situation raises questions of integrity, both of the “Christmas spirit” and of the company brand.

The company issued a statement to the New York Times:

“The Coca-Cola Company has celebrated a long history of capturing the magic of the holidays in content, film, events and retail activations for decades around the globe. This year, we crafted films through a collaboration of human storytellers and the power of generative A.I. . . . Coca-Cola will always remain dedicated to creating the highest level of work at the intersection of human creativity and technology,”

The head of generative AI said, “If I want to go very realistic, maybe it’s difficult, but if I want to go hyper-realistic and fantastical, A.I. is actually a much better tool.”

For their part, the ad agency emphasizes “AI, combined with human creativity.” We read about Silverside’s “team of art directors, artists, animators, and musicians” with a clear view of the team leading and AI assisting, although they acknowledge reducing the creative time from 12 to 2 months, so staff does spend less time. Critics say the drive towards efficiency is causing bad decisions and fake-looking commercials.

Students could watch this opinion video. I don’t see how one ad ruins Christmas no less “their entire brand.” An interesting class discussion could center around the differences among exaggeration, logical fallacies, and hyperbole.

The situation raises important questions about AI and nostalgia. Of note, the polar bear first appeared in a Coca-Cola print ad in 1922—and it was never a real polar bear.

Airbnb Criticized for "Touristification"

Airbnb is planning staged gladiator fights in the Roman Colosseum, which some consider disrespectful of the 1st century amphitheater. Students can discuss the ethics of similar types of tourism and how companies promote them.

The Event Promotion

Promoting a new movie, Gladiator II, Airbnb lures guests into one of its Experiences:

For centuries, the Roman Colosseum has been the stage for epic battles and legendary gladiators. Now, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years, the Colosseum returns to its original purpose as a venue for performances, inviting daring warriors to step foot inside the historic arena to forge their own paths and shape their destinies.

Language describing the event reminds me of what analysts are saying about the U.S. presidential election results:

• Suit up and unleash your inner gladiator inside Rome’s legendary arena.

• Discover if you have what it takes to conquer the Colosseum and emerge victorious.

Airbnb might have predicted criticism. The end of the promotion includes “Airbnb’s commitment to heritage”:

These special experiences at the Colosseum follow a series of measures and commitments by the platform to revitalize heritage tourism in Europe, including donations to heritage across Europe for over ten million dollars.

As part of this program, Airbnb is offering its support to the restoration and enhancement of Colosseum’s heritage, including an ongoing project to restore the permanent exhibition at the Colosseum.

The Response

Critics say, ”Rome is not Disneyland,” and call the event “a disgrace” and “touristification.” Local agencies, already struggling with tourism, called the event “a demeaning use of our historical-artistic heritage.”

Airbnb responded to criticism with a statement to news outlets, referring to “authorities in Rome,” who provided their own statement. The company promised to “enhance the historical and cultural heritage of the amphitheater through immersive activities in full respect of the monument, based on rigorous historical research,” with a focus on “conservation, education and innovation.” Federico Mollicone, a member of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy, describes his support:

The archaeological park of the Colosseum did well to sign a memorandum of understanding with the historical re-enactment associations also guaranteeing tourists a gladiator show of high scientific quality coordinated by ministry officials of Culture. . . . We reiterate our absolute favor for the agreement between public and private in culture, through partnerships or sponsorships, provided that they support initiatives that are of scientific and cultural value approved by the Ministry of Culture.

Airbnb deflected accountability, although the company’s name is still associated with the event, and anyone will recognize Airbnb’s “innovation” in developing the idea. Another relevant character dimension is integrity—upholding integrity of the Colosseum, an ancient ritual, and tourism-saturated Rome.

Overtourism

This is certainly not the only case of potentially problematic tourism. Students can discuss their views on “poverty tourism,” “dark tourism,” and even “eco-tourism,” which could include virtue-signaling and potential environmental degradation. Perhaps “degrading” is a good word to consider in these discussions. What accountability do companies—and tourists—have when planning such vacations?

A useful class discussion also might include the etymology of vacation: “freedom from obligations, leisure, release" and “state of being unoccupied.” Some tourism types do seem to include a disconnection, rather than an engagement, with the place and people. Some lead to cultural appropriation, which we might call a vacation from our good sense.

What drives people to want to experience Airbnb’s Gladiator challenge? Do they want to connect with the history of the Colosseum? That is not how Airbnb is communicating the event.

New CEOs: Lessons for Communicating Change

A Wall Street Journal article describes expectations for new CEOs at Boeing and Starbucks: communicating early and often. The article raises questions about communicating change.

Early communication represents a shift from the “listening tours” and roundtables CEOs held in the past. We seemed to expect a leader to hear from employees and learn the business before taking action. But now, maybe particularly for Boeing and Starbucks leaders, who are facing critical tests, people have little patience for the learning curve.

Boeing faces challenges of safety issues and labor strikes. Starbucks faces staffing issues and declining sales. But the CEOs have a similar message, as the WSJ reports:

“First, we need a fundamental culture change in the company,” Ortberg wrote to Boeing staff on Wednesday. A day earlier, as Starbucks suspended its financial guidance and disclosed weak results for its fourth quarter, Niccol said in a video message: “We need to fundamentally change our recent strategy.” 

Students might discuss the implications of these recent leaders determining a new direction or making promises before more investigation. Some questions are, how do they build trust and buy-in quickly, what is enough information, and how do they take decisive action while allowing for revision if a strategy fails?

This Change Management Toolkit from Berkeley staff shows how communication is too often an afterthought, is only in service of the project as already defined, and considers little of what we know about emotional reactions to change. The chart mentions communication during the first stage, Pre-Implementation: “Communicate expected project benefits to impacted stakeholders.” But who determined the benefits? Were stakeholders involved in the goal setting and planning? During the second stage, Implementation, again, the communication seems to be about telling people and getting input on what was already done. Post-Implementation, once again, “celebrate[s]” benefits.

Where are those affected by change? What about their ideas about changes and their potential reactions? Without addressing employees’ fears and concerns about change, leaders might not get the buy-in they desire.

The toolkit does include a “Change Communications Plan Overview,” starting on page 41 of the 50-page document, but it feels like an afterthought, as communication often does during organizational change. In fairness, a section before this offers suggestions for getting feedback, but still, this is all after the change is implemented.

Students might discuss their own experiences of a new manager and an organizational change. They also might consider what the new Boeing and Starbucks CEOs should communicate—before they implement initiatives to “fundamentally change” anything.

How Presidential Candidates Are Using TikTok

Students might be interested in a Financial Times article about the presidential candidates’ TikTok strategies. The article recalls that the 2016 election was all about Facebook. This time, it’s TikTok, particularly for rallying young voters.

With 6.2 million followers, VP Harris’s page includes a video with 4 million views. She talks on the phone to a man’s granddaughter, Evie, and President Biden (still handsy!) joins in.

With 12.4 million followers, Former President Trump’s page includes a video with 13.8 million views. It’s a compilation of people I don’t know but students probably do endorsing him in Las Vegas. The song is by Nettspend, a 17-year-old rapper.

Of course, I’m cherry picking just two examples here that aren’t representative of the candidates’ social media strategies or presence. Students can draw their own conclusions based on their views.

The FT article quoted a get-out-the-vote creator: “Harris’s TikTok strategy is ‘aspirational for any brand, let alone a politician,’ where Trump’s feels ‘less native’ to TikTok and closer to traditional campaign material.” Students might identify the implications for (other) brands—a relevant topic for business communication classes.

This chart shows numbers of views, with more for Harris, despite having half the followers of Trump. This is at least partly because Harris is posting 20 times the number of videos. However, like the polls, I’m not sure their strategies or this data tell us anything about who will win the election.

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.

FEMA Website and “Rumor Response”

As southern parts of the United States manage through two recent hurricanes, students might find it useful to analyze the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website, including its response to criticism.

Students can start by identifying the audience and communication objectives for the website. They might identify the primary audience as people in immediate need and the secondary audience as other U.S. citizens. One main goal is to help people find assistance, and another is to encourage preparation. When I attended a New York emergency preparedness training a few months ago, the speaker was clear about the purpose: to build our confidence, with the theory that we’ll fare better in a crisis if we have some tools (e.g., a to-go bag, a LifeStraw) and a positive mindset that we can help ourselves and others.

On the upside, the FEMA website is kept current. Milton gets top billing, with Helene, just days earlier, on a second screen. I question the graphic choice on this home page. Do we need to see what a hurricane looks like? Two other photos on the carousel seem like better choices: people talking, presumably being helped by FEMA agents.

The next section shows ways FEMA can help. The icons and actions are all clear. Students might compare the current site with former versions at the Internet Archive (currently down because of a hack—another post on that communication is coming). Farther down the page, we see how people affected by Helene, by state, can apply for assistance. Soon, I’m sure we’ll see links for those affected by Milton.

Politicians have criticized FEMA’s response to Helene, and the agency defends itself on a separate page titled, “Hurricane Rumor Response,” a curious title that could also be, “Hurricane Response Rumors.” Either way, “rumor” is a clever framing, clearing some political muck by downgrading the issue to office gossip or a child’s bullying.

The rumors are so plentiful that FEMA apparently has a database searchable by text or topic (two hurricanes so far). Someone spent some time on this, and a worthwhile class discussion would ask students why. Officials have talked about rumors preventing people from getting available help they need—and about morale issues within the agency (which I’m guessing is already feeling beleaguered). It’s, indeed, a strange time when the agency deployed for a crisis faces one itself.

Perhaps writing them as positive actions people can take instead of as negative rumors would more likely achieve the agency’s purpose, as in this example:

Why not surface the second part first? I would hate for someone, reading quickly, to take away that “FEMA only provides loans.” The point is to get people to apply for assistance, not to highlight the rumor.

Diet Mountain Dew Debate Ad Skirts Politics

Diet Mountain Dew capitalized on the VP debate but cleverly avoided any political opinions.

Apparently another area of agreement between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz is their love of the sugary stuff. So, “of course,” as a Forbes article says, Diet Mountain Dew placed an ad during the VP debate.

The ad effectively highlights the product’s moment of fame without choosing sides. Most Americans now think brands should stay out of politics, with Republicans and Independents feeling most strongly about the issue.

The 15-second commercial is simple and fun, with the bright green bottles in the limelight against grey tones. Guards want some but can’t have it, as though the product is exclusive, which students may recognize as the scarcity effect.

The ad is a good example of brands connecting with current events—to show their relevance and cultural sensitivity—without causing controversy. This reminds me of Marco Rubio’s awkward dip for water, which gave Poland Springs an easy advertising opportunity. The response was delayed, but the company eventually posted a cute picture of the famous water bottle on Facebook. This feels so old-timey now, before brands were expected to, and then shunned for, commenting on political issues.

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.

Employees Unhappy After Amazon's RTO Message

Andy Jassy’s latest message to employees is a good example for students to see a CEO’s update—a mix of good news, bad news, and of course, persuasion. Employees aren’t happy with the part that most affects them: a return-to-office (RTO) plan.

News reports highlight that most signification part—requiring staff to work five days a week in the office—but the message starts neutrally:

Hey team. I wanted to send a note on a couple changes we’re making to further strengthen our culture and teams.

Jassy provides his goals and views of the company, and then lays out two points:

Two areas that the s-team and I have been thinking about the last several months are: 1/ do we have the right org structure to drive the level of ownership and speed we desire? 2/ are we set up to invent, collaborate, and be connected enough to each other (and our culture) to deliver the absolute best for customers and the business that we can? We think we can be better on both.

The first directive comes in paragraph 8:

So, we’re asking each s-team organization to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025.

The second comes in paragraph 10:

…we’ve decided that we’re going to return to being in the office the way we were before the onset of COVID.

He acknowledges, “We understand that some of our teammates may have set up their personal lives in such a way that returning to the office consistently five days per week will require some adjustments.” To solve this problem, he says, the implementation date will be January 2, 2025, which doesn’t seem like much time for families to reconfigure their lives.

Several surveys show employees’ negative reaction to the news. About 75% are “rethinking” their Amazon careers or looking for a new job. Speculators say attrition is a goal of returning to the office. If that’s the case, then Jassy’s message makes more sense. Presenting the change as insignificant and providing little support for employees to make the transition could be part of the plan. Employees can sign on for full-time office work—or leave.

Students might imagine a different message, one that encourages employee retention. Paradoxically, the news might be frontloaded—presented as the main point, with details following about potential paths and highlighting the benefits of RTO. Would employees have more positive reactions to the news? I’m not sure, but the messenger might seem more compassionate and sincere.

Image source.

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.

Is Print Back? The J.Crew Catalog Is.

Inc. calls the return of J.Crew’s print catalog after seven years “old school” and “banal.” Students might relate to nostalgic brands and could expand their thinking about communication media choices.

Print rarely comes to mind as a go-to communication channel, but J.Crew is bucking a trend, hoping to attract new consumers. After filing for bankruptcy in 2020, sales are up, and the company is hoping they aren’t a fad like disposable cameras and vinyl records. The Inc. article explains the sales value of a catalog:

In 2023, direct mail advertising had the highest return on investment compared to other ad campaign mediums, including email and paid search. And increased privacy restrictions have made it harder—and therefore more expensive—for brands to see payoff from paid social campaigns.

Can students think of other ways to use print as a stand-out communication method? An interesting class exercise could invite students to observe print messages around campus: flyers, table cards, newspapers, etc. What is their value compared to online messages? How can print be part of a presentation—handouts, note cards, etc.?

The J.Crew catalog looks more like a magazine. Featuring people from the 80s like Demi Moore (do students know who she is?), it has a classic feel, which seems “old money” and attractive to young consumers. One page is titled, “At Home on the Coast,” and a collection is called “Sussex.” Sort-of related: This reminds me of the social media trend, “I’m looking for a man in finance, trust fund, 6’5”, blue eyes.” (More here.)

Poppi Soda's Prebiotic Claims

Students can analyze Poppi’s claims to see whether they pan out. Spoiler alert: You can find better ways of getting fiber into your diet than drinking soda.

Poppi’s marketing campaign embraces the "soda” label. If we believe the ads, Poppi has “none of the bad stuff.” Previously, the can label read, “Be Gut Happy (and) Be Gut Healthy.”

A lawsuit argues that Poppi is essentially sugary water. According to the plaintiffs, with only a few grams of prebiotics in each can, someone would need to drink multiple cans to get the dietary benefit. The sugar content, which is unhealthy and causes digestive issues for some people, offsets any potential benefits. To be fair, 5 grams of sugar is much better than the 39 grams in a Coke, but it’s still 5 grams more than, say, water.

The company responded:

We are proud of the Poppi brand and stand behind our products. We are on a mission to revolutionize soda for the next generation of soda drinkers, and we have diligently innovated to provide a tasting experience that millions of people have come to enjoy. We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we will vigorously defend against these allegations.

Notice no mention of gut benefits in this statement—or in the ad, which is post-lawsuit. The suit is still pending, and Poppi may be downplaying previous claims, focusing instead on the taste, which is good. After all, it’s soda.

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.

Proposed New Rules on Political Robocalls and Texts

The Federal Communications Commission is proposing tighter guidelines for AI-generated political campaign messages. Students can identify the objectives and assess whether they think the plan will work.

With the U.S. presidential election three months away, candidates are sending more robocalls and robotexts. According to FCC rules, these require consent, but messages sent manually do not.

New proposed FCC guidelines include the following areas:

The proposal seeks comment on the definition of AI-generated calls, requiring callers to disclose their use of AI-generated calls and text messages, supporting technologies that alert and protect consumers from unwanted and illegal AI robocalls, and protecting positive uses of AI to help people with disabilities utilize the telephone networks.

Of particular interest to the FCC are technologies used to mislead, for example, voice cloning and caller ID spoofing, which falsifies a caller’s origin.

Citizens can eliminate (or maybe just reduce) unwanted calls:

• Reply “STOP”

• Forward texts to 7726 (or "SPAM")

• Silence unknown callers

• Report texts as junk

I’ve been doing the latter on political texts to no avail. I imagine that robotext comes from a different source, so my efforts are equal to deleting each without the “report junk” part.

Students might have other ideas and their own experiences to share. Do they get a barrage of messages? Are they concerned about election misinformation?

Image source.

Ingrid Andress's Apology

Country singer Ingrid Andress promises to go to rehab after her off-key national anthem rendition at a Major League Baseball event. Are her apology and commitment enough?

Andress’s statement came quickly on Instagram. Looking at the criteria for apologies, students will see that Andress hit many of them—briefly: showing remorse (for example, saying, “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” instead of “I regret”), accepting responsibility (for example, saying, “It’s my fault,” or “I failed to”), saying what you did wrong, explaining what happened, acknowledging the impact, offering to fix it, saying what you’ll do differently, and requesting forgiveness.

She uses conversational language, which is probably appropriate in this situation. A legalistic statement never goes over well, and Andress sounds authentic. However, “that wasn’t me” isn’t typically well received. In a sense, this is the classic crisis communication strategy of distancing oneself, as we saw Microsoft do in the CrowdStrike situation this week. We could say that someone inebriated “isn’t herself,” but this part weakens her apology.

In response to Andress’s post, we see the expected, mean comments questioning her singing ability without alcohol and criticizing her quip about rehab being fun. Does the joke at the end diminish the seriousness of her message? I don’t think so, but students may have a different view.

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.

PNC Bets on "Boring”

PNC Bank is betting on boring to attract customers. The campaign illustrates persuasive strategies, and a CEO interview is on-brand.

With an ad labeled “Boring Is Essential,” PNC is appealing to customers living in turbulent times. Given the recent inflation, tight housing market, political uncertainty, and climate change, it’s a compelling message.

During a Bloomberg interview, Chairman and CEO Bill Demchak said, “Banking shouldn’t be drama for our clients. It ought to be predictable, consistent, stuff works, their money’s safe. . . .” Although he also says, “I don’t necessarily like to think of myself as a boring person,” his office setting and demeanor might communicate otherwise—and maybe that’s not a bad thing these days.

PNC is not alone. During the interview, we see a chart showing the number of times bank management used the word “boring” during calls in the past couple of years.

Students will draw connections with business communication course concepts, for example, credibility and trust. PNC is selling its history and stability, ensuring customers that their money will be safe.