CEOs Speak Out

JPMorgan Chase published its Annual Report, leading with a letter from CEO Jamie Dimon. The introductory paragraph and corresponding callout quote reflect a leader’s and a company’s grappling with an extraordinary year.

Like many company leaders today, Dimon addresses societal issues directly. We’re seeing increasing employee and CEO activism, and this letter is a good example.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece questions when leaders are even more direct about political events, such as Black leaders in Georgia speaking out against the election law decision. The law restricts voting rights, which doesn’t affect the companies directly. The WSJ editorial board writes, “To wit, they are pitting themselves against the interests of their own shareholders.”

The open letter appeared as a full-page ad in The New York Times, signed by Black CEOs, former CEOs, and others of major U.S. companies.

In my view, the CEOs demonstrate leadership character, particularly authenticity, courage, and integrity. By definition, demonstrating character carries some personal risk.

AstraZeneca's Data Problems

AstraZeneca has been accused of presenting “outdated and potentially misleading” data about the vaccine that has suffered implementation trouble in Europe. In a press release and a CNBC interview with the president, the company reported a 79% effectiveness rate, despite later results between 69 and 75%.

A group of independent experts wrote a letter to U.S. government officials to express their concern, as The Washington Post reports:

The DSMB is concerned that AstraZeneca chose to use data that was already outdated and potentially misleading in their press release,” the letter states. The data “they chose to release was the most favorable for the study as opposed to the most recent and most complete. Decisions like this are what erode public trust in the scientific process.”

The company promised a review: “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data.” But damage is already done.

The Washington Post explains, “But it appears to be the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds from the team behind the vaccine, which has had months of stumbles involving messy science and bungled communication.”

This latest misstep only complicates a possible U.S. rollout and breeds more skepticism in those who fear the vaccine. Fears in some populations, such as Black Americans, are based on understandable mistrust of the healthcare system, and this news will not likely inspire more participation in plans for herd immunity.

As an issue of credibility, AstraZeneca is caught in a public quagmire. What might have been a small misstep is now viewed as part of a larger, potentially intentional plan to deceive, whether or not that is true. The company’s integrity is in question because they have not been fully transparent about the vaccine results.

Image source.

Comparing News Reporting About Shooting

How the media reports news reveals their political leanings and inherent biases. Compare the home pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal from screenshots taken the evening of March 17, 2021.

---

The New York Times led with the news and posted five stories at the top of the page. Stories focus on “Anti-Asian Hate in the U.S.” The Wall Street Journal posted one small article, and the headline makes no reference to the victims—six of the eight were Asian women.

I’m struck by the surrounding articles on the WSJ home page. The business and economy focus makes sense for the paper’s mission, but several other articles imply negative messages about Asians or Asian countries.

The headline about the Tokyo Olympics official, particularly, is quite inflammatory (or as a student in class said, “clickbait”). Although the news is notable given that this is the second official to resign for negative comments about women, the photo and headline, below news of the shooting is, as my partner said, “insensitive.” Do we need the actual negative statement?

Also in fairness to the WSJ, the shooter had not (and as of this writing, has still not) been charged with a hate crime, and he denies the association of bias. Perhaps the NYT is fueling the flames of xenophobia?

And yet, discrimination, bias, and violence against Asians and Asian Americans has been increasing in the U.S. Shouldn’t that be a significant part of any reporting about this terrible shooting?

Royal Family Responds to Racism Allegations

In an interview with Oprah, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle accused the British royal family of racism, and the fallout is severe. Markle talked about having suicidal thoughts and how she had been treated by the family, including plans for the couple’s baby. She said he wouldn’t have a title or security, and that the family had “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born.”

Prince Harry said that he a discussion with his grandmother and two with his father about the couple’s concerns until his father “stopped taking my calls.”

Victoria Murphy, a writer for Town & Country magazine, describes the family’s reaction:

So far, the royal family has remained tight-lipped. There have been no statements and, it seems, very little guidance offered. Perhaps they are retreating into a default “no comment” stance, or perhaps they are sensibly waiting to see what sticks before deciding whether to add fuel to the fire. In this war of words, there is a sense that we could go on and on.

Buckingham Palace did release a short statement, and the Queen took some time before signing off:

The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.

Of course, the issue is that the royal family is a public organization, with several public figures, whether they wish to be or not.

Two days later, Prince William gave an interview and said, “We’re very much not a racist family.”

Murphy sums up the situation: “Make no mistake, this is an interview that will go down in history as having rocked the British royal family to its core.”

Governor Cuomo Address Sexual Harassment Allegations

In a video statement, Governor Andrew Cuomo addressed sexual harassment allegations made by three women. He begins well, explaining his decision to speak directly to the public on the topic, although lawyers advised him to wait. To preserve his image, this is a good call: research shows that his apology is unlikely to negatively affect lawsuit outcomes—and may even have a positive effect.

But his apology goes awry. He uses language that is classic in non-apologies, for example, “It was not my intention” and “I certainly never meant to….” In sexual harassment law, intent does not matter—only the impact. Further, this type of language typically doesn’t land well. People don’t care. Instead, he should focus on the impact on these women and perhaps on the office.

He also says, “I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable.” This is problematic because first, as he says at the beginning, he is a lawyer. As a lawyer and as a political leader, he should know better. Such language is reminiscent of “I’m sorry if you were offended,” implying that it’s the receiver’s problem. A couple of days earlier, after the second allegation, the governor said, “To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

To his credit, he says, “I apologize” and “I’m sorry,” which people do want to hear in these types of statements.

We will see what results from these allegations, in the midst of calls for his resignation. Governor Cuomo also is embroiled in charges that he lied about the number of Covid deaths in nursing homes. So far, he says that he will not resign.

School Board Apologizes for Mocking Parents and Resigns

The Board of an elementary school in California resigned over embarrassing comments on a video call. Board members didn’t realize that they were public when they made disparaging comments about parents wanting schools to reopen. They mentioned that parents miss teachers as “babysitters” and want to be able to use marijuana again.

In response, several board members resigned, and the school district wrote a statement. Within the larger statement is a message from the board members who resigned:

We deeply regret the comments that were made in the meeting of the Board of Education earlier this week. As trustees, we realize it is our responsibility to model the conduct that we expect of our students and staff and it is our obligation to build confidence in District leadership; our comments failed you in both regards, and for this we offer our sincerest apology.

We love our students, our teachers and our community, and we want to be part of the remedy to help the District move forward, returning its full focus to students' needs. To help facilitate the healing process, we will be resigning our positions as Trustees of the Oakley Union Elementary School District, effective immediately. The Superintendent will be working with the Contra Costa County Office of Education to address the vacancies on the Board of Education.

This was a difficult decision, but we hear the community's concerns, and we believe yielding to your request that we step down will allow the District to move forward. Please do not let our failure in judgment cast a shadow on the exceptional work that our teachers, administrators and hard-working employees are doing for the students of this District. They deserve and will need your support as you move forward.

Business communication students will find ways to improve this message. The authors use passive voice in the first statement and weak subjects twice in the first paragraph (“it is”). As an apology, the statement also could do better. Sincere apologies include more about the impact of the act—the damage done. I don’t see that recognition clearly.

Image source.

Lincoln Project Statement

Frank Bruni is right his article, ”When You Don’t Have Trump to Hide Behind: There’s now space for other scandals. Witness the Lincoln Project.” I’ve been missing hearing about improprieties with the shadow of Trump for the past four years. Now trouble at the Lincoln Project, a political group started in 2018 by Republicans to prevent the re-election of the former president, has come to light.

The issue raises questions of integrity. As the organization criticized the former president for his actions, 21 young men accused one founder of sexual harassment, while organization leaders knew of but did nothing about their complaints. In addition, questions linger about whether group leaders misused funds for personal gain.

The one leader accused of “grooming young men online” responded in a statement:

I am so disheartened and sad that I may have brought discomfort to anyone in what I thought at the time were mutually consensual discussions. In living a deeply closeted life, I allowed my pain to cause pain for others. For that I am truly sorry to these men and everyone and for letting so many people down.

The Lincoln Project also issued an official statement. One, dated January 30, isn’t available because of a broken link on the homepage. But another, dated February 14, is below:

The Lincoln Project has retained the law firm of Paul Hastings to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior by John Weaver as part of a comprehensive review of our operations and culture. The review process is currently underway.

We are committed to creating a positive, diverse, and inclusive workplace environment at The Lincoln Project and inappropriate behavior by anyone associated with the organization will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We have already taken decisive action to address internal concerns. Additionally, we are releasing staff and former staff from the confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements to discuss their workplace environment. Based on the findings of this review we will take all necessary action to correct any issues or deficiencies that are identified.

Concurrently, we are also working with outside counsel and professional consultants to strengthen our corporate governance, finance and operational structure, human resources, and leadership to position The Lincoln Project to further maximize our impact and lean into our important mission advancing democracy.

The Lincoln Project was founded to combat political forces who seek to undermine our democracy. We revolutionized how political action committees operate and spent $81 million last cycle to create and place more than 300 advertisements, host national town halls, conduct voter outreach, and launch a podcast and streaming video network that engaged millions of voters. Eighty percent of our funds went to voter contact and content production. Our historic results speak for themselves.

Moving forward, we have important work ahead of us and we have created a nationwide movement of Americans who support our objectives.

In order to continue fulfilling our promise to our millions of supporters and contributors, we must address any and all internal organizational issues immediately and put in place a governance and diverse leadership structure that reflects our core values and ensures we will continue to attract the best talent available.

The Lincoln Project will continue producing and distributing our popular content and commentary while these reviews are being conducted and we are operating at full capacity.

The statement start is unfortunate and squirrely. Perhaps an apology might be more appropriate? As an apology, if this is the intent, the statement doesn’t work very well. Apologies admit specific wrongdoing, acknowledge the impact, and describe positive steps planning for the future. I don’t see that here.

Tokyo Olympics Head Resigns Over Sexist Comments

Former Japanese Prime Minister and president of the Tokyo Olympics made sexist comments about women and has resigned. This turmoil further complicates the games, which are already delayed because of COVID-19.

Yoshiro Mori said, “On boards with a lot of women, the board meetings take so much time,” “Women are competitive. When someone raises his or her hand and speaks, they probably think they should speak too. That is why they all end up making comments,” and “You have to regulate speaking time to some extent, or else we’ll never be able to finish.”

Several Japanese leaders spoke against Mori, and it’s interesting to compare their statements, particularly from companies that typically avoid public controversy. Few board members called for his resignation, but pressure was too great, including that from about 100 volunteers who quit.

In response to criticism, Mori said, “I didn’t mean it in that way, although it was said to be discrimination against women,” he said. “I have been praising women, promoting them to speak out more.” Mori also spoke of age discrimination. He is 83 years old. He said, “Old people are also doing well for the sake of Japan and the world. I feel extremely unhappy that older people are said to be bad. But it may go nowhere if I complain.”

An ABC writer calls the press conference “hastily prepared.” His apology wasn’t good enough to stave off the criticism, and he was forced to resign.

McKinsey Pays Settlement for Work with Purdue Pharma

Management consulting company McKinsey will pay almost $600 million to settle several lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis, including offering marketing advice to Purdue Pharma. The largest settlement is for $573 million, which Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey describes in a video.

Healey’s presentation and delivery are interesting because she represents families and is speaking for 47 attorneys general in several U.S. states. Her anger is evident, but her audience is small: only 53 views one week after it’s posted, and at least three of those are me. What are the communication objectives? This will make a good class discussion.

McKinsey’s response is also interesting for students studying business communication and character. In an email to staff, Global Managing Partner Kevin Sneader describes “setting a higher standard.” Whereas the governors consider McKinsey’s actions unlawful, Sneader does not agree:

“Indeed, while our past work with opioid manufacturers was lawful and never intended to do harm, we have always held ourselves to a higher bar. We fell short of that bar. We did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction, and for that I am deeply sorry.”

The Massachusetts court filing explains the legal argument.

At some point in 2019, two McKinsey executives debated in emails “eliminating all our documents and emails.” These executives have been terminated. (See McKinsey communications.)

Amazon Announces New CEO

In a news release, Amazon announced that CEO and Founder Jeff Bezos will be stepping down, transitioning to role of Executive Chair of the board. He will be succeeded by Andy Jassy, currently CEO of Amazon Web Services. The change won’t take place until the third quarter of 2021.

The news is announced in two short paragraphs within the company’s fourth quarter results:

Amazon is also announcing today that Jeff Bezos will transition to the role of Executive Chair in the third quarter of 2021 and Andy Jassy will become Chief Executive Officer at that time.

“Amazon is what it is because of invention. We do crazy things together and then make them normal. We pioneered customer reviews, 1-Click, personalized recommendations, Prime’s insanely-fast shipping, Just Walk Out shopping, the Climate Pledge, Kindle, Alexa, marketplace, infrastructure cloud computing, Career Choice, and much more,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO. “If you do it right, a few years after a surprising invention, the new thing has become normal. People yawn. That yawn is the greatest compliment an inventor can receive. When you look at our financial results, what you’re actually seeing are the long-run cumulative results of invention. Right now I see Amazon at its most inventive ever, making it an optimal time for this transition.”

In a longer message to employees, Bezos writes in the same conversational style, but he is more inspirational. The email is also posted on the Amazon public site.

The change is big news and garnered the lead Wall Street Journal story today with the headline, “Amazon CEO Change to Come Amid Regulatory Scrutiny.” The article cites Amazon’s 44% profit increase in the fourth quarter of 2000 as well as the challenges ahead:

“But Amazon also faces the biggest regulatory challenges in its history, with multiple federal investigations into its competitive practices and lawmakers drafting legislation that could force Amazon to restructure its business. Tension with regulators and lawmakers has directly embroiled Mr. Bezos, who was called to testify in front of Congress last summer for the first time.”

Bezos also was in the news recently because his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, donated $5.9 billion in the past year. A New York Times article contrasts her philanthropy with criticism about Bezos’s extraordinary wealth and lack of attention to environmental issues and employees’ concerns. A Vanity Fair author writes, “She got even [for his having a public affair] by doing what he does not: sharing his unbelievable, unconscionable, indescribable wealth with those he makes his money off of, i.e. everyone else in the world.”

Image source.

GM CEO's Letters to Environmental Leaders

General Motors has changed its position on climate change. The company, led by CEO Mary Barra, had supported President Trump’s efforts to eliminate California’s ability to set its own strict environmental standards.

With a new incoming president, Barra communicated that the auto industry will likely support President Biden’s environmental policies. The news came in the form of a letter to environmental leaders and encouraged “customer adoption of electric vehicles.” Barra also touted GM’s ability to meet the demand. She ends on a positive note: “This effort is critical to addressing climate change, and we look forward to working together.”

A New York Times writer calls the move a “maneuvering” and “a public humiliation to Mr. Trump” since he was still in office at the time. A public policy professor noted, “This is about as bold as it gets. This huge pivot, so closely following an election result, particularly from a firm like General Motors, is a big, big deal.”

Twitter Announces Ban of President Trump

Two days after the riots on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter announced a “permanent suspension” of President Trump’s account after a temporary suspension.

Comparing Twitter and Facebook’s message, on January 7, about a temporary suspension, is a lesson in writing structure. Whereas Mark Zuckerberg used the indirect organizational plan, Twitter’s message states the news right up front. Zuckerberg starts with the rationale and announces the decision at the very end. Twitter starts with the decision, and then provides explanatory text, including sample tweets and the company’s assessment.

Another difference between these messages is the writer. The Twitter post is unsigned, whereas Zuckerberg signed the Facebook message himself. Additional rationale for the decision is posted on the Facebook site. Both approaches could work, and analyzing the communication is (almost) as interesting as the decisions themselves.

Random note: “Permanent suspension” sounds odd to me. A suspension is something temporary.

---

Company

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

By Twitter Inc.Friday, 8 January 2021

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. 

In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. 

However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. 

The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.

Overview

On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.

Assessment

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This determination is based on a number of factors, including:

• President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.

• The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.

• The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.

• The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.

• Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.

As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.

University Assistant Coach Fired Over Disparaging Comments

Assistant coach of the Mocs football program at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has been fired. Chris Malone posted a disparaging, racist, and sexist tweet about Stacey Abrams, who is credited for gaining democratic votes in the tight Georgia political races.

University Chancellor Steven Angel posted a video to explain the decision. He covers the basics of an apology but deserves credit for using video as a medium in addition to the athletics director’s and head coach’s written statements:

Mark Wharton – UTC Vice Chancellor & Directory of Athletics
"Last night, a totally inappropriate social media post by a member of our football staff was brought to my attention. The entire post was appalling. The sentiments in that post do not represent the values of our football program, our Athletics department or our University. With that said, effectively immediately, that individual is no longer a part of the program."

Rusty Wright – UTC Head Football Coach
"Our football program has a clear set of standards. Those standards include respecting others. It is a message our players hear daily. It is a standard I will not waver on. What was posted on social media by a member of my staff is unacceptable and not any part of what I stand for or what Chattanooga Football stands for. Life is bigger than football and as leaders of young men, we have to set that example, first and foremost. With that said, effectively immediately, that individual is no longer a part of my staff."

Comparing the three statements demonstrates what each leader focuses on and, perhaps, their emotional reactions to Malone’s post. This situation illustrates accountability and integrity, but I might want to see more authenticity and vulnerability. Do we know more about these leaders as a result of this situation?

Zuckerberg's Message About President Trump's Account

Facebook has decided that President Trump will no longer use its platform for his messages—at least for a while. The decision came after riots at the U.S. Capitol and after Twitter and Facebook suspended the president’s account. The tech companies said that the president violated its rules by inciting violence and/or making false claims about the election.

YouTube blocked a video of President Trump expressing sympathy for the protestors and calling them “special.” The tech platforms had tried labeling posts, but the president’s false claims were still believed.

Some call this time an “inflection point": “Hey Mark Zuckerberg, @jack, @SusanWojcicki and @sundarpichai -- Donald Trump just incited a violent attack on American democracy. Is that FINALLY enough for you to act?!" At this point, Twitter has not yet permanently banned the president from tweeting.

Zuckerberg uses the indirect style for his post, with the main point in the very last sentence. He makes his argument first, and then we read the decision. It’s an interesting choice, which might not convey the courage that people would like to see.

Additional analysis and rationale for the decision are posted on the Facebook site.

CEOs Respond to Capitol Riots

Several business executives are speaking out after riots at the U.S. Capitol. Rioters stormed the building as Congress was certifying (and debating) Joe Biden as the next president. President Trump ignited the crowd by claiming, without evidence, that he won the election “by a landslide” and that it was “stolen” from him.

CEOs have been joining political conversations in the past several years, and today is another example. One of the most significant is Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwartzman, a Trump supporter and loyalist. He said, “The insurrection that followed the president’s remarks today is appalling and an affront to the democratic values we hold dear as Americans” and “There must be a peaceful transition of power.”

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan tweeted his view of the riots, and other leaders represented Salesorce, JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock, Google, Apple, and many more.

Political conservatives also weighed in, for example, Jay Timmons, president and chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers. Timmons suggested that Vice President Pence invoke the 25th amendment, meaning President Trump would be removed from office:

“This is not the vision of America that manufacturers believe in and work so hard to defend. Across America today, millions of manufacturing workers are helping our nation fight the deadly pandemic that has already taken hundreds of thousands of lives. We are trying to rebuild an economy and save and rebuild lives. But none of that will matter if our leaders refuse to fend off this attack on America and our democracy.”

Riots image.

United Airlines’ Response to Passenger Death

United Airlines is doing damage control after a passenger flying from Orlando to Los Angeles was rushed to a hospital in New Orleans and died. The cause of death hasn’t yet been reported, but the airline confirmed that the passenger had Covid-19 symptoms.

Customer response is fierce, partly because the passenger’s wife told others that her husband had Covid, and partly because the airline continued to fly the plane with passengers. Like most airlines, United asks passengers about their symptoms before flying, but they do not verify.

Communications are scant. I see nothing on United’s home page but found a news release dated December 16, two days after the passenger death, titled, “United and CDC Work Together on Contact Tracing Initiative for All International and Domestic Flights.” Recent tweets mention nothing about the situation, although one conveys the same message as the news release: “comprehensive, voluntary contract tracing.”

Some might feel that this is the least the airline can do in the situation.

Robinhood's Misleading Communications

Investment app Robinhood will pay $65 million in fines for misleading customers. The 2013 start-up has grown rapidly, attracting younger, inexperienced investors with no-fee accounts and no minimums. But Robinhood generates revenue through “payment for order flow,” essentially a kickback from Wall Street firms and the same practice Bernie Madoff used to defraud investors.

Robinhood uses behavioral nudges and notifications to push users to invest in riskier stocks, resulting in higher trading volume, sometimes dramatic losses—and more revenue for the company. An NBC article describes the visuals:

When smartphone owners pull up Robinhood’s investment app, they’re greeted with a variety of dazzling touches: bursts of confetti to celebrate transactions, the price of bitcoin in neon pink and a list of popular stocks to trade.

Charles Schwab, meet Candy Crush.

A competitor compared the design to Las Vegas.

Of course, all is well when stocks go up, but when stocks decline, users have to make up the loss. For one 20-year-old man, his bill appeared to be $730,000, and he committed suicide.

Trader Joe's Criticized for "Racist Packaging"

A 17-year-old started a petition to encourage Trader Joe’s to “Remove Racist Packaging From Your Products.” Briones Bedell explains her perspective:

The grocery chain labels some of its ethnic foods with modifications of “Joe” that belies a narrative of exoticism that perpetuates harmful stereotypes. For example, “Trader Ming’s” is used to brand the chain’s Chinese food, “Arabian Joe” brands Middle Eastern foods, “Trader José” brands Mexican foods, “Trader Giotto’s” is for Italian food, and “Trader Joe San” brands their Japanese cuisine. 

She received 5,956 signatures and was aiming for 7,500.

The company responded in a series of statements, including this one:

We want to be clear: we disagree that any of these labels are racist. We do not make decisions based on petitions. 

In addition, the LA Times reported, “More than 80 of the 100-plus readers who responded to The Times’ call for opinions said the labels would not change their feelings about Trader Joe’s or its product.”

Bedell claims that her petition was a success and cites this NY Times article with a quote from a company spokesperson: “Labels such as Arabian Joe’s and Armenian Joe’s were no longer in use, and that the label Trader Joe San is currently used on only about three products.” Bedell’s latest post is titled, “Trader Joe’s Discontinues ‘Arabian Joe’ and ‘Armenian Joe’ Labels.” The NY Times article explains, “The supermarket chain said it was in the process of phasing out names, including Trader Ming’s and Trader José, that have appeared on its international food products.”

Discussion:

• What’s your view of the labels: racist, fun, or something else?

• Read Bedell’s post, Trader Joe’s statements, and the NY Times article. Can she claim credit for a decision?

• How do you assess Trader Joe’s response, particularly the statements on its website? What, if anything, should the company have done differently?

Wishing Someone Well

News outlets are reporting that President Trump wishes Ghislaine Maxwell “well.” An associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell is charged with child sex-trafficking and has pleaded not guilty.

President Trump knew Epstein and Maxwell and met them “numerous times over the years.” according to his interview with Axios. When an Axios interviewer questioned the president’s previous statement that he wishes her well, he explained what he meant:

"Her boyfriend died in jail, and people are still trying to figure out how did it happen. Was it suicide, was he killed? And I do wish her well.”

“I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad [sic] for anybody.”

“I do. I wish her well.”

“I wish her well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well.”

Discussion:

• What does it mean to “wish” someone “well”?

• What's your view of President Trump’s comments? Appropriately empathic towards Maxwell, compassionate, insensitive towards victims of sexual abuse, polite, or something else?

• The president defended his initial comments. Should he have done so or changed his approach? Why?

Zuckerberg Testifies About 2012 Emails

Mark Zuckerberg faced one particularly tense moment during the U.S. Congressional Antitrust Hearing. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) accused Facebook of antitrust activities in its acquisition of Instagram:

“Facebook, by its own admission ... saw Instagram as a threat that could potentially siphon business away from Facebook. So rather than compete with it, Facebook bought it. This is exactly the type of anti-competitive acquisition the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”

Nadler’s conclusion is based on 2012 emails among Zuckerberg and his staff. In one email he wrote about Instagram:

“One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again. Within that time, if we incorporate the social mechanics they were using, those new products won’t get much traction since we’ll already have their mechanics deployed at scale.”

Within an hour, Zuckerberg sent a second email, which some say proves his guilt:

“I didn’t mean to imply that we’d be buying them to prevent them from competing with us in any way.”

During the hearings, Zuckerberg defended the acquisition:

“I think the FTC had all of these documents ... and unanimously voted at the time not to challenge the acquisition. In hindsight, it probably looks obvious that Instagram would have reached the scale that it has today. But at the time, it was far from obvious.”

Discussion:

• Research and describe relevant U.S. antitrust laws.

• Read more about the 2012 emails and watch the hearings. How well did Zuckerberg defend the Instagram acquisition?

• Did Zuckerberg’s follow-up email prove his guilt? Why or why not?