Facebook Responds to Video of a Murder

Facebook is on the defense after a video of a murder was posted to the site. Steven Stephens filmed himself shooting a 74-year-old man for no reason except a dispute with his girlfriend, and he said it was his fourteenth killing. Stephens shot himself as police where closing in after a tip from McDonald's drive-thru employees.

Facebook is criticized for taking more than two hours to remove the video. CEO Mark Zuckerberg extended his sympathy to the victim's family: "Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Robert Godwin Sr., and we have a lot of work - and we will keep doing all we can to prevent tragedies like this from happening."

On its website, the company posted an article, "Community Standards and Reporting," about the incident and included a message from Zuckerberg. "Mark Zuckerberg, speaking at F8, Facebook's developer conference said today, 'We have a lot more to do here. We're reminded of this this week by the tragedy in Cleveland. Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Robert Godwin Sr. We have a lot of work and we will keep doing all we can to prevent tragedies like this from happening.'" The article also listed a timeline of events:

Timeline of Events
11:09AM PDT - First video, of intent to murder, uploaded. Not reported to Facebook.
11:11AM PDT - Second video, of shooting, uploaded.
11:22AM PDT - Suspect confesses to murder while using Live, is live for 5 minutes.
11:27AM PDT - Live ends, and Live video is first reported shortly after.
12:59PM PDT - Video of shooting is first reported.
1:22PM PDT - Suspect's account disabled; all videos no longer visible to public.

Here's Facebook's commitment to improving its process: 

In addition to improving our reporting flows, we are constantly exploring ways that new technologies can help us make sure Facebook is a safe environment. Artificial intelligence, for example, plays an important part in this work, helping us prevent the videos from being reshared in their entirety. (People are still able to share portions of the videos in order to condemn them or for public awareness, as many news outlets are doing in reporting the story online and on television). We are also working on improving our review processes. Currently, thousands of people around the world review the millions of items that are reported to us every week in more than 40 languages. We prioritize reports with serious safety implications for our community, and are working on making that review process go even faster.

Keeping our global community safe is an important part of our mission. We are grateful to everyone who reported these videos and other offensive content to us, and to those who are helping us keep Facebook safe every day.

Image source.

Discussion:

• In the post, Facebook says it disabled the man's account 23 minutes after the video was reported. What do you think of that time frame?
• According to the post, the first video, in which Stephen says he plans to kill, wasn't reported until 1 hour and 50 minutes after it was posted. Why do you think it took so long?

United CEO Speaks Out

After an insufficient apology, United CEO Oscar Munoz has changed his tune. In an interview with ABC News, Munoz said, "This first thing I think is important to say is to apologize to Dr. Dau, his family, the passengers on that flight, our customers, our employees. That is not who our family at United is. You saw us at a bad moment."

Munoz also changed his view of the passenger. In a letter to employees, he seemed to blame the passenger, but in the interview, he said Dr. Dau wasn't at fault at all, although he did pause before saying so.

When asked why he didn't communicate "that shame" (he said he was "ashamed"), Munoz said he wanted to get the "facts and circumstances first." He also said his words didn't reflect what they were really feeling.

He explained that the incentive model needs to be re-evaluated because it clearly works better before people have boarded. For the future, Munoz said they will never bring a law enforcement official on a flight to remove a paying passenger again.

Discussion:

• How did Munoz do in the interview? What principles of crisis communication did he demonstrate, and where did he fall short?
• What else should Munoz have said?
• Analyze Munoz's delivery skills. How would you advise him to approach future interviews?
• Southwest and other airlines are taking full advantage of the situation. What are the potential downsides of ads like the one here?

United Drags a Man Off the Plane

United tail

I'm not sure United thought this one through; people have cell phones. The airline needed to free up four seats so their employees could to get to Louisville. Attendants offered $400 and $800 but couldn't get people to relinquish their spots. Four people on the plane were approached; three left "without incident," as The New York Times reports.

United CEO

But the fourth wouldn't budge. He said, "I'm not getting off the plane. I'm a doctor; I have to see patients in the morning." The Times reports the airline's perspective:

Charlie Hobart, a United spokesman, said in a telephone interview on Monday that "we had asked several times, politely," for the man to give up his seat before force was used.

"We had a customer who refused to leave the aircraft," he said. "We have a number of customers on board that aircraft, and they want to get to their destination on time and safely, and we want to work to get them there. "Since that customer refused to leave the aircraft, we had to call" the police, and they came on board, he said.

The man was removed by force, dragged down the aisle, and eventually carried out on a stretcher. A video shows the man, somehow, back on the plane, clearly upset, saying, "I have to go home." In this video, we see that his mouth is bleeding.

United issued a short statement from CEO Oscar Munoz on Twitter. Although Munoz apologizes for "re-accommodating" passengers, no public apologies have been made to the man or other passengers as yet.

UPDATE: Munoz issued a longer statement and, as NBC News tweeted, "found new words like 'disturbed' and 'horrific event'": 

"The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way."

Spokesperson Megan McCarthy also said, "We recognize that our response yesterday did not reflect the gravity of the situation," Ms. McCarthy said. "And for that we also apologize. Our focus now is looking ahead and making this right. Judging from a letter Munoz sent to his employees, he may have been supporting them, protecting them. But customers must come first in a situation like this. Meanwhile, the passenger, Dr. Dao, has hired lawyers, four senior senators wrote United a chastising letter, and the company has lost $255 million in value. What may be worse (or perhaps, all for the best) are grumblings about potential disruptors for the commercial airline industry.

Discussion:

• What leadership lessons would you like to teach United's staff? What crisis communications lessons could they learn?
• Where did the airline go wrong? Try to identify all steps in the process.
• What's your view of the response so far? Should United say more?

Penn State Trustee Resigns After Putting Foot in Mouth

Penn-State-Indiana-2

Five or so years after the scandal at Penn State involving a football coach, young boys, and an inactive Administration, the university is still in the news for bad behavior. Former coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted of rape and child molestation and is serving prison time. You may remember that Joe Paterno was also accused of cover-ups, but he died of cancer soon after the scandal broke and he was dismissed from the university.

Al Lord

Last week, the former university president, Graham Spanier, was convicted of child endangerment. FBI director Louis Freeh wrote in a report that for more than 12 years, Spanier and other Administrators, "actively protected a notorious pedophile who inflicted irreparable harm on countless child victims on the campuses and locker rooms at PSU. Although these men had multiple opportunities to stop this vicious, serial predator from continuing to sexually assault children who trusted the PSU campuses and programs as safe havens, they decided together to protect this monster rather than report him to the police."

After the verdict, one of the Penn State trustees, Albert L. Lord, said, "Running out of sympathy for 35 yr old, so-called victims with 7 digit net worth," and "Do not understand why they were so prominent in trial. As you learned, Graham Spanier never knew Sandusky abused anyone."

Lord has since resigned from the board, and it's unclear whether he was asked to leave. He also issued an apology statement.

Image source.

Discussion:

• If the board of trustees didn't ask Lord to resign, should they have?
• Analyze Lord's statement. How well does this work to explain the comment, apologize, and rebuild Penn State's image?

Trouble for Pepsi's Kendall Jenner Ad

Backlash is fierce after a Pepsi commercial featuring Kendall Jenner, Caitlyn Jenner's daughter. Critics say it's disrespectful of important issues today and mocks activism. The short version of the commercial, now unavailable, shows Jenner at a photo shoot, smiling at a man, throwing off her blond wig, wiping off her lipstick, grabbing a Pepsi, giving it to a police officer, and then joining the cheering crowds.

The description on the YouTube video reads, 

A short film about the moments when we decide to let go, choose to act, follow our passion and nothing holds us back. Capturing the spirit and actions of those people that jump in to every moment and featuring multiple lives, stories and emotional connections that show passion, joy, unbound and uninhibited moments. No matter the occasion, big or small, these are the moments that make us feel alive.

Tweeters criticize the simplification of complex issues, with one tweeting, "Can't believe Kendall Jenner just solved institutionalized racism and oppression by giving a cop a Pepsi. Groundbreaking."

Pepsi is making no apologies: "This is a global ad that reflects people from different walks of life coming together in a spirit of harmony, and we think that's an important message to convey."

UPDATE: Pepsi decided to pull the ad and issued this statement: "Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly we missed the mark, and we apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are removing the content and halting any further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in this position."

Discussion:

• What's your reaction to the ad? What was Pepsi trying to do, and where did the ad fall short?
• Should Pepsi apologize? If so, what should the company say?
• Did the company do the right thing in pulling the ad? Why or why not?

Ackman Apologizes for Valeant

Activist investor and hedge fund manager William A. Ackman made a surprise apology for an investment in Valeant Pharmaceuticals that didn't turn out well. The New York Times reports on an annual letter sent to investors of the hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital Management: 

It is rare that William A. Ackman, the brash activist investor, apologizes for anything. As a successful hedge fund manager, Mr. Ackman has made billions of dollars for himself and his investors with bold and counterintuitive bets.

But this week he conceded that his firm's biggest wager yet - on Valeant Pharmaceuticals International - was "a huge mistake" that has cost his hedge fund firm, Pershing Square Capital Management, "a tremendous amount."

Valeant was in the news for drug price hikes, including a drug taken by AIDS patients that increased 5,500% in one day. The stock dropped from $257 in 2015 to $12.11, leaving Ackman's firm with a $4 billion loss. 

Here are two significant quotations from the letter:

Clearly, our investment in Valeant was a huge mistake.  The highly acquisitive nature of Valeant's business required flawless capital allocation and operational execution, and therefore, a larger than normal degree of reliance on management.  In retrospect, we misjudged the prior management team and this contributed to our loss.  We deeply regret this mistake, which has cost all of us a tremendous amount, and which has damaged the record of success of our firm.

"My approach to mistakes is that I personally assume 100 percent of the responsibility on behalf of the firm while sharing the credit for our success. While I and the rest of the Pershing Square team have suffered significant losses from this failed investment as we are collectively the largest investors in the funds, it is much more painful to lose our shareholders' money, and for this I deeply and profoundly apologize.

Discussion:

• Why do you think Ackman took this approach in his annual letter? Research the history of Valeant. Why didn't he apologize earlier?
• Read the entire letter. What is the context for the apology, and how well does it fit?
• What principles of an authentic apology, discussed in Chapter 7 of the book, does Ackman's apology demonstrate? Where does it fall short?

Leggings Cause Trouble for United

Two teenage girls wearing leggings weren't allowed on a United Airlines flight. A passenger overheard the exchange, and you know the rest: cue the Twitter mob. Mentions of United went from an average of 2,000 to 174,000 (and no, it's still not true that "any publicity is good publicity"-in this case, 70% of the tweets were negative).

For some reason, celebrities got into the discussion too. Patricia Arquette, for example, tweeted, "@United. Leggings are business attire for 10 year olds [sic]. Their business is being children." (Isn't Arquette's business being an actress?)

What people didn't realize is that the girls were flying on free passes for family of United employees, and the company's policy includes a dress code for representatives of the airline. United explained the situation in a statement on its website.

Although American Airlines has a policy similar to United's, Delta asks passengers to use their "best judgment" when deciding what to wear. Delta took advantage of the situation with a sarcastic tweet. 

Discussion:

• How well did United handle the situation? What points did the company emphasize in its statement?
• What's your view of Delta's tweet: clever, playful, schadenfroh (look it up), or something else?

Signet CEO Responded to Criticism, But Is Silent Now

Signet Jewelers, the largest U.S. jewelry retailer and owner of Zales and Kay, is facing criticism from investors, employees, and customers. The stock fell 25% at the beginning of 2016-a notable decline in a rallying market.

Complaints about missing and swapped jewels and sexual harassment of employees are the latest to cause trouble for the company. But CEO Mark Light disputes these claims in an interview with CNBC.

He defends the company by saying, "We are all about trust." Reporters asked Light about customer credit and the "unusual amount of financing," which raises the question of what happens if customers default on their loans. To counter these concerns, Signet points to the company's 30-year history and their knowledge of customers. Light sees financing as a competitive advantage and says they are happy with their credit book.

Light does talk about continuous improvement and says they will "look at protocols going forward," but he also says, "We don't believe we have a serious problem."

This quarter, Signet earnings are up, but the controversy remains. The Motley Food reports, "CEO Mark Light continues to maintain his silence."

Discussion:

• What's your view of the situation? Is criticism about the company too harsh, is Mark Light in the dark, or what?
• How well goes Light address concerns about the company in this interview? What could he do differently to rebuild the brand? What should he do now?

Supporting a Claim with Evidence

Business Communication students learn the importance of supporting claims with evidence in order to persuade an audience. President Trump's claim that former President Obama wiretapped his phone is being questioned by many reporters and the FBI.

FBI Director James Comey, in the news most recently for identifying more of Hillary Clinton's emails days before the election, seemingly without evidence, has asked the Justice Department to rebut the President's claims and to deny an investigation. This is an extraordinary request because, as The New York Times reports, this action "would be a major rebuke of a sitting president."

The Times also traces the claim, which started on a conservative radio show:

It began at 6 p.m. Thursday as a conspiratorial rant on conservative talk radio: President Barack Obama had used the "instrumentalities of the federal government" to wiretap the Republican seeking to succeed him. This "is the big scandal," Mark Levin, the host, told his listeners.

That was enough for President Trump to tweet his disgust.

I sometimes compare headlines in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Today, they are both running this story as front page news, and even the more conservative WSJ says President Trump made this claim without evidence. The subtitle reads, "The president has said, without providing evidence, that he was wiretapped by his predecessor."

Discussion:

• What's your view of the president's response? Is it hasty, or did he have enough to go on?
• What should the Justice Department do with the president's request and James Comey's recommendation?
• What's the danger of the president's accusation? What if he's wrong? On the other hand, what's the danger of ignoring the potential violation? What if he's right?

NYT Ad Promotes Truth

We don't expect The New York Times to advertise during the Academy Awards, but the company will for the first time this year. The topic is, "The Truth Is Hard."

The striking, 30-second black-and-white ad displays sentences starting with "The truth is our nation is more divided than ever." We see only words but hear multiple voices in the background increasing in intensity until The New York Times logo shows at the end, after a dramatic pause and blank screen.

An AdAge article called the spot "the publication's first-ever brand campaign in a decade" and quotes NYT Head of Brand David Rubin about the strategy:

"Picking a program that was high-profile and that would get people talking made sense for us," said New York Times Senior VP-Head of Brand David Rubin. "If one of our objectives was to insert ourselves in the debate that's going on that, frankly, we've been a part of, a high-profile media buy made sense."

And why a new brand campaign, now? "There's a national dialogue going on now about facts and truth and how does one know what the truth is," he said. "We saw an opportunity to be part of that dialogue. We also found in our research that people don't always understand what it takes to do quality original reporting, but when they do, when that becomes part of the dialogue -- about how one finds the truth and about the role journalists can play, they are more interested in supporting it."

An executive on the ad agency team, Droga5, said, "the truth is hard . . . It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you're on politically." The ad comes in the midst of President Trump's criticism of the media as "fake news" and "an enemy of the American People!"

The commercial complements a print ad, shown here.  

Discussion:

• What are the publication's objectives for this ad campaign? Consider company branding and the current political climate.
• How effective do you find the spot? How well does it achieve its objectives?
• Why did the company choose the Oscar's for the ad? Why not, for example, the Super Bowl?

More Ethical Questions for Uber

Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, has blasted the company for what she describes as sexual harassment, a sexist environment, and HR's failure to respond. Fowler also reports that only 3% of engineers are women at Uber, which she claims has fallen over time.

When she reported sexual harassment, she was given a choice to move to another department or stay and likely receive a poor performance review. This is a basic "don't" in HR, from my experience: you don't move the victim and put him or her at a disadvantage. According to Fowler, no further action was taken in the case, although other women received similar treatment by the same manager.

At this point, Fowler's complaints are getting attention. CEO Travis Kalanick wrote that he would look into the situation:

"I have just read Susan Fowler's blog. What she describes is abhorrent and against everything Uber stands for and believes in. It's the first time this has come to my attention so I have instructed Liane Hornsey our new Chief Human Resources Officer to conduct an urgent investigation into these allegations. We seek to make Uber a just workplace and there can be absolutely no place for this kind of behavior at Uber -- and anyone who behaves this way or thinks this is OK will be fired."

Ariana Huffington, an Uber board member, jumped into the conversation on Twitter:

Image source.

From interviews and messages from Uber employees, a New York Times article reports an "aggressive, unrestrained workplace culture." Kalanick further addressed the controversy in an email to employees that begins: "It's been a tough 24 hours. I know the company is hurting, and understand everyone has been waiting for more information on where things stand and what actions we are going to take."

Discussion:

• Read Fowler's blog post. What persuasive strategies does she use (logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility)? Which parts are most and least convincing? 
• How should the company respond? An investigation is a good start: what should this include, how should it be carried out, and what result would you expect?

Fallacies in Recent Politics

I'm teaching a module on fallacies on Monday and will present a few related to politics-wish me luck: 

• Ad hominen: President Trump's tweets are an obvious example, but I'll use Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" for this example. It's an attack without evidence.

  If it's not too charged (and a bit complicated), I may talk about Senator Elizabeth Warren's reading of Coretta Scott King's 1986 letter about Jeff Sessions, the attorney general nominee. An LA Times opinion piece explains the ad hominen issue well: 

"The original intent of the rule, if you will, was to preserve comity and focus the attention senators on substance rather than ad hominem arguments. But Warren was commenting on Sessions not as a colleague but as the nominee to a position in the executive branch; his character (as perceived by Mrs. King) was central to her argument."

• False analogy: This one will be a question to students. Nordstrom dropped Ivanka Trump's brand, and President Trump criticized the decision on Twitter (although The Wall Street Journal reports a 32% sales decline). This may have been an ethics violation itself, but the false analogy came in the reporting. Kellyanne Conway was charged with an ethics violation for, as a member of the White House staff, promoting Ivanka Trump's products on Fox & Friends:

  "Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I was [saying] - I hate shopping and I'm going to go get some myself today."

  "This is just...it's a wonderful line. I own some of it... I'm going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."

A Breitbart article agrees with the charges, but is this "wildly disproportionate"? The article discusses a SiriusXM interview and includes a few comparisons to democrats' promoting for-profit companies: 

"Obama administration directly involved government in vastly larger business dealings, most dramatically by using the Internal Revenue Service to force Americans to buy products from preferred insurance companies under Obamacare."

"President Obama's pushing green energy technology and electric cars, such as the Chevy Volt."

"...Clintons' case...pushing the Clinton Foundation and using their government power to get people to donate to the Clinton Foundation as a form of quasi-bribery."

NFL Rejects GNC Ad

GNC, the vitamin store company, is trying to improve its image, but the company won't get a spot in this year's Super Bowl. Although Fox News accepted the ad, the NFL pulled the plug.

According to AdAge, "Jeff Hennion, exec VP-chief marketing and e-commerce officer at GNC, said the NFL objected to its commercial because fewer than 3% of its products include two of the 162 substances banned by the league. According to Mr. Hennion, the NFL has approval rights over commercials in the big game." NFL also wanted GNC to change its logo, which has the name on a pill bottle. The company was working on that, but the commercial was still rejected.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Why do you think the NFL rejected GNC's ad? Is it about the banned substances or something else? Related question: What's your view of the ad?
• I can't find a statement from the NFL. Should the company make a comment? What are the advantages and potential downsides?
• GNC makes an interesting argument with the 3% claim. Do you find it convincing? Consider principles from Chapter 9.

Kraft Heinz Gets Mixed Reviews for Holiday

Kraft Heinz won't have a commercial in this year's Super Bowl, but the company will give employees Monday off. Joking that the day after, #SMunday, should be a national holiday, Heinz started a petition on change.org:

"We can all agree that going to work the Monday after the ‘Big Game' on Sunday is awful," the petition states. "So as far as we're concerned at Heinz, we as a nation should stop settling for it being the worst work day of the year. We don't settle for that awesome football Sunday to be just like every other day of the year."

They're certainly getting mainstream press, for example, in The Washington Post, but the article refers to the move as a "Super Bowl stunt."

The company recently laid off thousands of workers, and the day off isn't available to factory employees. Some social posts call the campaign "pandering" and one tweet reads, "I think we have bigger things to worry about." 

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of the campaign: pandering, clever, inappropriate, or something else?
• What about the timing? News from the Trump Administration is heavy is week.

Dippin' Dots Responds to Spicer

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has periodically blasted Dippin' Dots via tweets over the years. Now the company has responded in an open letter.

In an NPR interview, the CEO of the ad agency said they were concerned about getting in the political mix, but people were expecting the company to respond, so they had little choice. The company executives decided how to respond: "Scott Fischer, the CEO of Dippin' Dots, and his executive team wanted to openly address the issue in a way which was transparent and stayed true to their brand values – fun, community, and camaraderie."

Dippin' Dots offered to serve the White House and press, but Spicer suggested treating the military and first responders. It's not clear how this might happen. 

Discussion:

• How well did Dippin' Dots handle the situation? What were the risks?
• It sounds as though Dippin' Dots responded because of the social outcry. Should the company have  jumped into the conversation with Spicer earlier? How could they have done this?

Uber Pays $20M for Misleading Drivers

Uber has been in the news several times for questionable business practices. Now, the company will pay $20 million to drivers because of a suit by the US Federal Trade Commission.

Ads on Craigslist and promotions on the Uber website boasted, "the potential income a driver on UberX can make in a year is more than $90,000 in New York and more than $74,000 in San Francisco." Boston drivers, Uber said, could make $25 per hour. But that is rarely the case: less than 10% of drivers in Boston earned that much, and drivers in NY and SF made, on average, $61,000 and $53,000.

Critics say Uber shifts risk and other expenses, such as car purchases, gas, and repairs to drivers, who don't reap the advertised benefits. 

The company disputes how the FTC calculated income and responded to the settlement:

"We're pleased to have reached an agreement with the FTC

"We've made many improvements to the driver experience over the last year and will continue to focus on ensuring that Uber is the best option for anyone looking to earn money on their own schedule."

Image source.

Discussion: 

• What is your experience with Uber as a company? How does this news factor into your view of Uber?
• What could be the discrepancy between how Uber calculates income and how the FTC sees the situation? How credible do you find Uber's argument?

VW's Winterkorn Responds to Questions

Martin Winterkorn, Volkswagen's former CEO, responded to what the The New York Times calls "polite grilling" by the German government about the emissions scandal.

Winterkorn has a tough time defending himself when the company already admitted using software to cheat emissions tests. Several executives were indicted, including many who reported directly to him. As the Times reports, "Volkswagen's plea agreement with the Justice Department in Washington last week left no doubt that the fraud was the work of dozens, if not hundreds, of employees, rather than the result of a handful of rogue engineers as the company had first claimed."

But Winterkorn said he didn't know about the "defeat device" and "never did I have the impression that anyone was afraid to speak an open word with me." The Times article further questions the likelihood that Winterkorn knew nothing:

There is some reason to doubt Mr. Winterkorn's assertion. Mr. Gottweis, a Volkswagen executive who specialized in solving technical emergencies around the world, warned in a memo in May 2014 that American regulators were likely to investigate "whether Volkswagen implemented a test detection system in the engine control unit software (so-called defeat device)."

The memo was included in a stack of weekend reading given to Mr. Winterkorn at the time, but Volkswagen has said it was not clear if Mr. Winterkorn had read it. Mr. Gottweis reported directly to Mr. Winterkorn, however, and it is deemed unlikely that a warning from an executive known internally as "the fireman" would have been ignored.

Image source. 

Discussion:

• Do you believe Winterkorn's stance? Why or why not?
• How does Winterkorn benefit from continuing to deny knowledge of the defeat device? If he is lying, what are the potential consequences to him personally and professionally of admitting the truth?
• Some see this testimony as a missed opportunity for Volkswagen. Can you explain this point of view?

APA Responds to Book Controversy

Japanese Hotel Group APA placed copies of a book written by the company CEO in all hotel rooms. Sounds nice, but the book calls the 1937 Nanjing massacre of 300,000 Chinese troops and civilians by the Japanese a "fabrication."

APA Founder Toshio Motoya wrote under a pen name but admitted to writing the book and having them distributed throughout the group's 370 budget hotels. A hotel guest's video showing the book content went viral on Weibo with 95 million views, according to Skift. At least one Chinese travel company in Japan stopped booking guests in APA hotels.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying, said, "This once again shows that some forces in Japan are still reluctant to look squarely at history, and even try to deny and distort history."

APA responded in a statement, translated here. In this excerpt and throughout the statement, the company makes no apologies:

Although we acknowledge that historic interpretation and education vary among nations, please clearly understand that the book is not aimed to criticize any specific state or nation, but for the purpose of letting readers learn the fact-based true interpretation of modern history. Therefore, we have no intention to withdraw this book from our guest rooms, no matter how many denounces may be made about it from whatever viewpoint. Japan constitutionally guarantees freedom of speech and no one-sided pressures could force any assertion made get repealed.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Did the company make a mistake by placing the books in hotel rooms? What are the rationale and consequences?
• How do you assess the company's response? Consider principles of responding to customer complaints in Chapter 7.
• Would you stay at an APA hotel? How, if at all, does this situation influence your decision?

SeaWorld Responds to Tillikum's Death

Featured in Chapter 7 of the 10th edition, SeaWorld has not responded well to controversy about keeping orcas in captivity. Tillikum, an orca with a starring role in the movie Blackfish, died on January 6. In response, SeaWorld updated its Tillikum page with news about his "life and care," which, of course, have been in question for the 25 years he lived and worked at the park. The company also produced a video, "In Memory of Tillikum."

In a statement on its website, the company does acknowledge Dawn Bradshaw's death. However, the recent approach seems to blame Tillikum, while previous communications blamed Bradshaw and her wayward ponytail. 

While today is a difficult day for the SeaWorld family, it's important to remember that Tilikum lived a long and enriching life while at SeaWorld and inspired millions of people to care about this amazing species.

Tilikum's life will always be inextricably connected with the loss of our dear friend and colleague, Dawn Brancheau.  While we all experienced profound sadness about that loss, we continued to offer Tilikum the best care possible, each and every day, from the country's leading experts in marine mammals.

In December, PETA named Tillikum its first "animal of the year." When he died, PETA president and founder Ingrid Newkirk wrote an opinion article for Time Inc. titled, "Tillikum Died for His Freedom."

Image source.

Discussion:

• How well is SeaWorld handling communications around Tillikum's death? Should the company do something differently now?
• How well is PETA capitalizing on the chance to get its message out? What persuasive strategies does Newkirk use in her Time Inc. op-ed? Was a Time article a good choice? What other channels did PETA use?

WSJ's Best and Worst Ads of 2016

The Wall Street Journal rounds up the best and worst ads of the year under the article title, "The Things We Can't Unsee." Among the winners are Sprint's ad starring Paul Marcarelli, a long-time Verizon promoter ("Can you hear me now?") and, of course, Mountain Dew's Puppymonkeybaby.

The Mountain Dew video garnered almost 28 million views on YouTube. I wonder how many people are watching it multiple times.

On the loser list are a Wells Fargo pitch, which BizCom in the News featured, discouraging teens from pursuing the arts, and one I missed this year: a short Sprint ad that calls T-Mobile "ghetto."

Another offensive ad was on a billboard for "X-Men Apocalypse." The ad showed Jennifer Lawrence's character being strangled. People don't take domestic violence references lightly.   

Discussion:

• What's your view of The Wall Street Journal's list? Which ads do like?
• Do you find the Sprint and X-Men ads offensive?