KlearGear Charges Customer $3,500 for a Bad Online Review

A customer who didn't receive what she ordered from KlearGear wrote a negative review on a complaint site and was charged $3,500. KlearGear sells desk toys such as an LED shoelaces and something called a Splat Stan Coaster-a figure squashed by a coffee mug (not on my Christmas wish list).

Three years after the customer posted on the site RipoffReport, KlearGear contacted her husband and requested $3,500, based on a clause in the company's terms of service (which apparently wasn't included at the time): 

Non-Disparagement Clause

In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.

The clause, of course, is ridiculous. Trying to control social media conversation is a fool's game and can only hurt a company in the long-run. KlearGear made the situation worse when it closed its Twitter and Facebook accounts.

 

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of KlearGear's "Non-Disparagement Clause"? One writer calls it "contemptible, unethical, and un-American." Do those adjectives sum it up for you-or are others more appropriate?
• How would you advise KlearGear to handle the social media situation?
• Imagine that KlearGear reopened its Facebook page. Write an apology post on behalf of the company.

Reinforcing Advertising Rules for Bloggers

Bloggers who are paid by companies to advertise a product or service must come clean about the relationship, according to the U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). This should be just a reminder to bloggers because the rules aren't new-but apparently they aren't followed consistently.

The ASA article indicates that bloggers asked for clarification:

"Why are we doing this? We've received a steady stream of enquiries from bloggers wanting clarity on this issue and how the rules apply to their blogs."

Below are the rules:

Rules

2.1    Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such.

2.2    Unsolicited e-mail marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as marketing communications without the need to open them (see rule 10.6).

2.3    Marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession; marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context.

2.4    Marketers and publishers must make clear that advertorials are marketing communications; for example, by heading them "advertisement feature."

Part of the issue may be that bloggers are paid but asked by companies not to disclose the relationship. Although this puts bloggers in a difficult position, the rules-and ethics-are clear. Perhaps companies need the reminder, not bloggers.

Image source. 

Discussion Starters:

• What situations may be blurry for bloggers? Think of a few examples when the rules may not be clear.
• What are the U.S. rules for bloggers? Research the issue and compare the advice for U.S. blogger.
• What are the rules for people who tweet? Should celebrities, for example, reveal their relationships with companies they promote?

Lululemon Offends Again

After months of controversy over Lululemon's declining yoga-wear quality, the company is in the news for a new issue: mocking a shelter's fundraising strategy.

Reflecting what a Dallas website calls an "oddly aggressive stance against Dallas charity," Lululemon posted a sign on a local store window that reads, "We do partners yoga, not partners card." "Partners Card" refers to the work of The Family Place, a Dallas-based not-for-profit organization that provides housing, counseling, and other resources for people in abusive situations.  

The Family Place website describes the Partners Card:

"Partners Card is the signature fundraiser for The Family Place, Dallas' largest domestic violence agency. 100% of your Partners Card purchase goes directly to supporting survivors of family violence."

People who buy a $70 Partners Card through the organization receive a 20% discount at hundreds of local stores-a list that doesn't include Lululemon.

Responding to the criticism, Lululemon posted this message on its Facebook page:

"The intention behind the window decal was to share our love for yoga, not to offend our community. Although we choose not to participate in Partner's Card, we choose to give back in a different way. We are working in collaboration with Family Place to offer the gift of yoga, and what we can create together."

In another post-this one from the corporate headquarters in Canada-the company seemed to be taking action:

In response to an inquiry from Dallas Culture Map, The Family Place expressed appreciation to its supporters:

"Every Partners Card we sell at the Family Place provides a night of safety and shelter for victims of family violence. We understand that not every retailer can give the 20% discount, but we are thankful for the hundreds who do and for the thousands of donors who buy a card. We look forward to working out a way Lululemon can join our important mission to end violence in the homes of Dallas County."

 Discussion Starters:

• What were Lululemon marketers thinking when they put up this display? What do you think the store was expecting, and how was management misguided?
• How do you assess Lululemon's apology-both the store's post and the corporate headquarter's approach of working with Lululemon?
• In the headquarter's post, the company says it's creating a wellness program for staff. Is this an appropriate solution? Why or why not?

Spy Convo Live Tweeted from Train

Spies: Don't talk on the phone while on a public train. A passenger on an Acela train near Philadelphia overheard former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden criticizing the Obama Administration during an interview.

At a certain point, Twitter monitors caught onto the situation, and passenger Tom Matzzie tweeted this: a photo of himself with Matzzie. Apparently, they became BFFs because they both like the Steelers. 

 

 Discussion Starters:

• What are the ethical considerations in this situation? Consider the position of the CIA/NSA, the American public, journalists, and other constituencies.
• Where did Hayden go wrong? How well did he recover?
• Matzzie seems to change his tune, so to speak, in later tweets. Why do you think this happened?

News Anchor Compares Shooting to "Breaking Bad"

Not quite as tasteless as the CEO of AIG comparing its bonus controversy to lynchings, but a news anchor was criticized for comparing Philadelphia shootings to the TV series "Breaking Bad."

Either really insensitive-or perhaps a bit dense-Evans replied with this general tweet and repeated it as a reply to a few naysayers:

It didn't take long for Twitter joksters to create #JoyceEvansTweets:

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of the reaction? Are people just too insensitive?
• How does the #JoyceEvansTweets help or hurt the situation?
• Write a more appropriate tweet response (an apology) of Evans' behalf.

AIG: Bonus Criticism "Just as Bad" as Lynchings

AIG's CEO has apologized for comparing criticism of employee bonuses to lynching.

In a Wall Street Journal article, Chief Executive Bob Benmosche was quoted as saying that anger about bonuses "was intended to stir public anger, to get everybody out there with their pitch forks and their hangman nooses, and all that -- sort of like what we did in the Deep South <decades ago>. And I think it was just as bad and just as wrong."

The criticism of bonuses began around 2009 during the financial meltdown when, in the midst of bailouts from the government, financial sector employees were collecting large bonuses. The banks' defense was that these employees were contractually due the bonuses, that the bonuses were essential to retain talent, and that only a few employees were responsible for bad decisions that caused the collapse. (I'm paraphrasing here.)

Reuters explains the lynchings in this way: "Thousands of people, mainly African-Americans and primarily in the South, were beaten, hanged and killed in the 19th and 20th centuries by racist mobs."

Do you see the analogy?

In a statement, Benmoshce later said, "It was a poor choice of words. I never meant to offend anyone by it."

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• Several news sources (Al Jazeera, Reuters, and others) called Benmoshe's statement an "apology." Is it? What does a apology typically include?
• Read an article in Rolling Stone discussing the comment and other perceived failings of Wall Street. Analyze the author's arguments. How does he use logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility to make his points? Which are strongest and which are weakest?

9/11 Marketing Failures

Companies are still learning the lesson: don't use tragic events to sell your products. AT&T and a golf course made this mistake on September 11.

AT&T tweeted an image of someone taking a photo of the World Trade Center. Calling the ad "cheesy," "tacky," and other choice words, tweeters caused the company to issue an apology.

Tumbledown Trails golf course offered a promotion on 9/11:

 

After quite a bit of backlash, management apologized-with increasing vigor in successive posts:

We would first like to apologize to everyone that we have upset or feels we have disrespected in anyway. By no means did we mean to do this.
Here is what we will do this Wednesday 9-11;
we will still let all that have tee times booked play for the previous rates we posted.
Then for all other golf that day we would like to donate the $ difference between our normal rate and the previous price for the day to the 9/11 Memorial.
We hope that everyone will now see this as a positive as we really meant it to be. Again we do sincerely apologize for offending anyone & hope that you do accept our sincere apology.
 Thank you
-------------
We are a family owned business & proudly support all local charities and have always gave 20% off everyday to all Police, Fire, Emergency, Military, etc. Please accept our apology.
-------------
Please stay tuned to see if we will be open on Weds 9/11.
We are now worried about what people will do/say to our staff & do not want anything to happen or get out of control.
Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused anyone.

David Berkowitz, CMO of MRY, offered this advice: "Unless you're bringing something of value, the easy thing is just to keep your mouth shut." In his view, a simple "We remember" or similar tweet, such as Shutterfly's, is probably most appropriate.

 

Discussion Starters:

• Assess the apologies from AT&T and Tumbledown Trails. What works well and what doesn't?
• Do you agree with David Berkowitz's advice, or should companies just avoid the observance entirely?

Is Kenneth Cole Trolling?

How is it possible for Kenneth Cole to write yet another offensive tweet capitalizing on an international conflict? This time, the apparel designer is making no apologies.

In 2011, Cole used the hashtag #Cairo during the Egyptian uprisings:

Cole apologized for that tweet, and Ad Age did a fun summary of events (which I converted into a PowerPoint presentation), showing how quickly the hoopla emerged-and passed.

This time, Cole chose the controversy about Syria to hook into. "Boots on the ground" is a common reference to whether the United States will proceed with a military strike on Syria.

Reactions on Twitter were swift and harsh, but Cole isn't sorry at all. He issued this statement to CNBC and posted a video to Instagram: 

"For 30 years I have used my platform in provocative ways to encourage a healthy dialogue about important issues, including HIV/AIDS, war, and homelessness. I'm well aware of the risks that come with this approach, and if this encourages further awareness and discussion about critical issues then all-the-better."

Discussion Starters:

• Did Kenneth Cole do as he says and purposely promote "a healthy dialogue"? Did he forget? Is he insensitive? Too proud to apologize a second time? Or, as some suspect, was he trolling?
• What's your view of Cole's statement and video? What do you make of his creating a video in this situation?
• This is Cole's Twitter description: "Designer, Aspiring Humanitarian, Frustrated Activist, Social Networker In Training." Should he change it?

AOL CEO Fires Employee During a Conference Call

Tim Armstrong, AOL CEO, may have acted impulsively during a conference call when he terminated an employee on the spot. Frustrated with Patch, a division of AOL that hosts websites with local news and information, Armstrong was explaining the future of Patch to about 1,000 employees. Part of the plan is to reduce the number of sites from 900 to 600.

At about 2:00 into this clip, Armstrong tells Abel Lenz, Patch's creative director, to "put that camera down." Apparently, Lenz regularly recorded meetings and posted pictures on AOL's intranet. Then Armstrong said, "Abel, you're fired. Out." After a few seconds of silence, Armstrong continued, "If you guys think that AOL has not been committed to Patch, and won't stay committed to Patch, you're wrong. The company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, the board of directors is committed, I'm committed...."

According to sources, the call lasted one hour and forty minutes; it's unclear at what point during the call this segment took place.

SFGate explains Armstrong's position:

"A few minutes later, Armstrong complained about leaks to the media. He said the leaks were making Patch seem like 'loser-ville' in the press.

"He said, 'That's why Abel was fired. We can't have people that are in the locker room giving the game plan away.'"

Lenz has been quiet about the incident. He gave a "No comment" response to PR Daily and told Jim Romenesko, "I appreciate the interest, Jim, but I have nothing to share. Go Patch!"

Two days later, Armstrong sent this email to all AOL staff: 

AOLers -

I am writing you to acknowledge the mistake I made last Friday during the Patch all-hands meeting when I publicly fired Abel Lenz. It was an emotional response at the start of a difficult discussion dealing with many people's careers and livelihoods. I am the CEO and leader of the organization, and I take that responsibility seriously. We talk a lot about accountability and I am accountable for the way I handled the situation, and at a human level it was unfair to Abel. I've communicated to him directly and apologized for the way the matter was handled at the meeting.

My action was driven by the desire to openly communicate with over a thousand Patch employees across the US. The meeting on Friday was the second all-hands we had run that week and people came to Friday's meeting knowing we would be openly discussing some of the potential changes needed at Patch. As you know, I am a firm believer in open meetings, open Q&A, and this level of transparency requires trust across AOL. Internal meetings of a confidential nature should not be filmed or recorded so that our employees can feel free to discuss all topics openly. Abel had been told previously not to record a confidential meeting, and he repeated that behavior on Friday, which drove my actions.

We have been through many difficult situations in turning around AOL and I have done my best to make the best decisions in the long-term interest of the employees and the company. On Friday I acted too quickly and I learned a tremendous lesson and I wanted you to hear that directly from me.

We have tough decisions and work to do on Patch, but we're doing them thoughtfully and as openly as we can. At AOL, we had strong earnings last week and we're adding one of the best companies in the world to the team. AOL is in a great position, and we'll keep moving forward.

Discussion Starters:

• Defend Armstrong's actions. What else could be happening at the company to justify the firing?
• What are the potential dangers of an employee intranet site, where news and other company information is shared among employees?
• How do you asssess Armstrong's email to staff? What works well, and what could be improved?

Food Truck Employee Gets Fired for a Tweet

Unhappy about not receiving a tip, a food truck employee let loose on Twitter:

 

Employees at Glass Lewis & Company, a consultancy specializing in corporate governance, ordered $170 worth of grilled cheese sandwiches and milkshakes but didn't leave a tip. Brendan O'Connor, the Milk Truck employee, chronicled the incident on his blog:

"I was making sandwiches, another worker took the order and a third made the milkshakes and watched the grills. A line grew while we worked, and we had to tell other customers that their lunch orders would take longer than usual. They paid; I asked my co-worker who was dealing with the money how much of a tip they'd left. They had left actually no tip at all. (They had paid with a card so we checked the cash tips to see if there'd been a bump. There hadn't.)

"I asked some of the group as they were picking up their orders if they had intended to not tip. They hemmed and hawed and walked away.

"Well. I could have not said anything. I could have made it a subtweet. I probably should have made it a subtweet. But I didn't, because of some misguided notions about having 'the courage of your convictions,' or whatever."

O'Connor explains that he was fired by the owner after someone from Glass Lewis complained about being "tip-shamed." O'Connor's argument is that his employer uses social media feedback to monitor employees' performance, so why shouldn't he use social media to "advocate for a more civil exchange between worker and consumer?"

Well, no companies want their customers embarrassed publicly, and many have policies in place to this effect. Milk Truck managed to restore its credibility with an apology tweet, accepted by Glass Lewis:

But Twitter is still abuzz with the ethics of the situation. Did Milk Truck do the right thing by terminating O'Connor? Was O'Connor's tweet  justified? Does Glass Lewis owe an apology? What's your view?

Images source. 

George Takei's Ghost Writer Fesses Up

George Takei, 1960s Star Trek cast member, is highly popular on Facebook. But his posts have been written, at least in part, by someone paid $10 per joke. With 4.1 million likes, Takei's Facebook page is a mix of cartoons, jokes, and other lighthearted posts.

Rick Polito came clean in an email to Jim Romenesko's blog but seemed to have regretted the decision after a few days' rest:

"Polito tells Romenesko readers today: 'I wrote an apology to George and Brad and their guy said he'd pass it on. I just said that I'd been looking for any mention of my book I could get and that I hadn't meant to expose anything.

"He adds: 'I don't update his page. I've had no direct contact with George. I've sent him some memes, as have other comedian types and I was happy for the exposure.'"

In an email to Wired, Takei doesn't share his fans' concern:

"What is this hoo-ha about my FB posts? I have Brad, my husband, to help me and interns to assist. What is important is the reliability of my posts being there to greet my fans with a smile or a giggle every morning. That's how we keep on growing."

Discussion Starters:

• Compare this situation to that of Mark Davidson, whose tweet writer exposed him on his own Twitter feed. What are the similarities and differences? 
• How do you assess this situation? Under what circumstances is it acceptable for someone to write social media posts on another's behalf? 

Papa John's Apologizes for Racial Slurs

A Papa John's delivery person left a racist voice mail, and the company has taken action.

Apparently, the driver dialed the customer's number by accident, leaving the customer to hear an incredibly insulting message intended only for the employee's coworker. (You can listen to the voice mail here, but I don't recommend it; a slur is repeated a ridiculous number of times.)

Keith, the Papa John's manager, said, "We were made aware of the video, and it's under investigation. We're sorry that it happened." He confirmed that the employees involved have been terminated.

In addition, CEO John Schnatter posted this message on the company's Facebook page:

Schnatter also replied to one of the many Facebook posts about the situation:

"I, too, am extremely appalled by these former employees' actions and sincerely appreciate it being brought to our attention. The thinking of these people is counter to mine and my company's values and we will not tolerate it. We immediately terminated those involved and will continue to educate all on our team. I personally have reached out to the customer to share my deepest apology.

"We thank you for allowing us to correct this horrible situation."

 Discussion Starters:

• Asssess the company's response. What's your reaction to the termination decision and the two posts? What works well about the company's response and what, if anything, could be improved?
• What else, if anything, should Papa John's do in this situation?

Abercrombie CEO Faux Pas

CEO Mike Jeffries has surprised and disturbed people with his alleged comments about customers in 2006, which just became public:

"We go after the attractive all-American kid...A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes] and they can't belong. Are they exclusionary? Absolutely."

The comment has been interpreted to mean that plus-sign people aren't welcomed in the store, and this may be substantiated by the retailer's inventory: no pants size is larger than 10.

Public reaction has been strong. As of yesterday, about 1,000 people signed an online petition to boycott Abercrombie. And a nine-year-old in Plano, TX, altered her T-shirt to express her feelings:

 Discussion Starters:

• As yet, the company has not responded to requests by ABC news. Should the corporate communication people say something? If so, what?
• What's your reaction to the CEO's alleged comment? Do you find it offensive, his right to define his customer, or something else?

Offensive Ad of the Day: Mountain Dew

Mountain Dew pulled an ad that was deemed racist and sexist. This one seems to jump, rather than cross, the line. A badly bruised woman is asked to identify someone in a police line-up of African-American men-and a goat.

Felicia the Goat, with the voice of rapper Tyler The Creator, made his first appearance in Mountain Dew commercials in March. In an earlier episode, the goat beats up the waitress for failing to give him enough soda. As one might expect, the ad was criticized for being misogynistic. Because bad things come in threes, Mountain Dew has another commercial set to air on May 24.

In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, PepsiCo has taken responsibility for the ad:

"We apologize for this video and take full responsibility. We have removed it from all Mountain Dew channels and Tyler is removing it from his channels as well."

A representative for Tyler The Creator released a statement to The Hollywood Reporter:

"It was never Tyler's intention to offend however, offense is personal and valid to anyone who is offended. Out of respect to those that were offended the ad was taken down," it said. "For those who know and respect Tyler he is known for pushing boundaries and challenging stereotypes through humor. This is someone who grew up on David Chappelle. This situation is layered with context and is a discussion that Tyler would love to address in the right forum as he does have a point of view."

"Contrary to what many may discern from this Tyler is the embodiment of not judging others, his delivery may not be for everyone (which is true for anyone who pushes boundaries) but his voice is nonetheless important to the conversation since his demographic understands what he ultimately stands for and sees the irony of it all," continued the statement.

"He absolutely never intended to spark a controversy about race," it read. "It was simply an again admittedly absurd story that was never meant to be taken seriously. Again we apologize if this was taken out of context and would never trivialize racism, especially now in America where voting and civil rights are being challenged at the highest level."

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of the first two commercials? Do you find them offensive, funny, or something else?
• PepsiCo's response differs from the recent McDonald's and Hyundai situations, where the companies said ads were created without their approval. Does PepsiCo's response work better?

Nike Pulls "Boston Massacre" T-Shirts

A "Boston Massacre" T-shirt showing splattered blood stains will mean only one thing to people now: the bombing tragedy at the Boston Marathon. But this Nike T-shirt is a reference to the Red Sox/Yankees baseball games in 1978 and 2006. 

Still, some people feel the T-shirts should have been removed from the outlet store before being spied (and photographed) by a producer for the "David Letterman Show."

A Nike spokesperson emailed a response to the Huffington Post:

"The shirts being referenced are older baseball shirts that were predominantly being sold through our Factory Stores Outlets. In light of the tragedy in Boston we took immediate action last week to remove this product from distribution. We conducted this process as quickly as possible and are confident the product has been removed from distribution."

The situation is reminiscent of Nike T-shirts in a Boston store window sporting slogans such as "Dope" and "Get High." In this situation, the mayor of Boston wrote a complaint letter, but the company denied that it promoted drug use. 

Discussion Starters:

• In what ways does the "Boston Massacre" T-shirt differ from the "Dope" and "Get High" T-shirts? How are they similar?
• How do you assess Nike's response? Should the company have done anything differently, or is this an understandable mistake?

Hyundai's Ad Mocking Suicide: Not Funny

Hyundai is apologizing for an ad that pokes fun at a failed suicide attempt. Proud of its new ix35 model that uses water rather than carbon monoxide emissions, the company played on a way that some people end their lives. But the ad didn't go over well, particularly for one woman, who lost her dad to this method of suicide.

Holly Brockwell wrote a touching blog post about her father's suicide and how the ad affected her. As a creative advertising director, Brockwell has good credibility for her reaction:

"I understand better than most people the need to do something newsworthy, something talkable, even something outrageous to get those all-important viewing figures. What I don't understand is why a group of strangers have just brought me to tears in order to sell me a car. Why I had to be reminded of the awful moment I knew I'd never see my dad again, and the moments since that he hasn't been there. That birthday party. Results day. Graduation."

Brockwell also posted her father's suicide note, which has gone viral.

A week before Brockwell's blog post, AdWeek had criticized the ad. Apparently, a reporter contacted Hyundai but received no response. That was a warning the company should have heeded.

Now, after more bad press, Hyundai has pulled the ad from YouTube and issued these statements:

Hyundai Motor America Statement:

"We at Hyundai Motor America are shocked and saddened by the depiction of a suicide attempt in an inappropriate European video featuring a Hyundai. Suicide merits thoughtful discussion, not this type of treatment."

Hyundai Motor Company Statement:

"Hyundai Motor deeply and sincerely apologizes for the offensive viral ad.

"The ad was created by an affiliate advertising agency, Innocean Europe, without Hyundai's request or approval. It runs counter to our values as a company and as members of the community. We are very sorry for any offense or distress the video caused. More to the point, Hyundai apologizes to those who have been personally impacted by tragedy."

Discussion Starters:

• Hyundai's defense is similar to McDonald's, which was criticized for the subway ad mocking mental illness: the ads were created "without Hyundai's request or approval." Do you buy it?
• We haven't seen a response from Innocean, the ad agency. What, if anything, should they do?

Ethical Social Media Marketing After the Boston Bombings

An article by Augie Ray, director of social media for a Fortune 100 company, describes the ethics of social media marketing, and gives us several interesting examples from the Boston Marathon tragedy. In contrast to these companies that perhaps crossed an ethical line, recall El Pelon Taqueria, the restaurant that offered help and asked for nothing in return.

Calling it a "desperate attempt to trade on people's feelings," Ray described an NBC Facebook picture of a boy in a hospital bed. The post asks people to "'LIKE' this to wish him a continued speedy recovery." Ray points out that "liking" a post does nothing to help the boy recover.

In another example, Ray criticizes Ford for muddying a message with its products. According to Ray, "Ford's use of brand imagery not only reduced the sincerity of the message but demonstrated questionable ethics." For comparison, Ray presents Ford's actual post, at right, next to one without branding, at left. The difference is fairly obvious.

 

Individuals made mistakes as the tragedy was unfolding, too. Author Guy Kawasaki was criticized for continuing to post promotional tweets, as others were suspending theirs. Clearly, he didn't agree with the criticism. He responded, "Loving how people with less [sic] than 1,500 followers are telling me how to tweet."

Discussion Starters:

• How do you assess these three situations? Do you agree with the criticism of each?
• Augie Ray offers a sound suggestion for modifying the Ford post. Can you think of something similar for the NBC post? What might make this one more acceptable (read: more compassionate)?

False Tweet Rocks the Stock Market

A fake tweet on Associated Press's Twitter feed sent the blue-chip Dow down about 145 points in two minutes. The market quickly recovered, but the incident reminds us how reactive we are to potentially false information.

Associated Press confirmed that its feed had been hacked, although no individual or group has yet taken responsibility. The false tweet is below.

This is certainly not the first case of hacking. Facebook and Twitter both admitted security breaches over the past few months. In a February blog post, Twitter outlined plans to improve security.

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• What are the ethics of this situation? Analyze the behavior of those who acted and those affected.
• Are the hackers responsible for the effect of the tweet, or should investors be smarter about using information to make trades?

NYU Prof to Student: "Get Your Sh** Together"

An NYU professor's email response to a student is going viral. The dispute started when a student walked into Scott Galloway's brand strategy class an hour late, and the professor dismissed him based on a policy of not allowing students who arrive more than 15 minutes late to stay in the class.

The student wrote an email to Prof. Galloway, explaining his position:

Prof. Galloway,

I would like to discuss a matter with you that bothered me. Yesterday evening I entered your 6pm Brand Strategy class approximately 1 hour late. As I entered the room, you quickly dismissed me, saying that I would need to leave and come back to the next class. After speaking with several students who are taking your class, they explained that you have a policy stating that students who arrive more than 15 minutes late will not be admitted to class.

As of yesterday evening, I was interested in three different Monday night classes that all occurred simultaneously. In order to decide which class to select, my plan for the evening was to sample all three and see which one I like most. Since I had never taken your class, I was unaware of your class policy. I was disappointed that you dismissed me from class considering (1) there is no way I could have been aware of your policy and (2) considering that it was the first day of evening classes and I arrived 1 hour late (not a few minutes), it was more probable that my tardiness was due to my desire to sample different classes rather than sheer complacency.

I have already registered for another class but I just wanted to be open and provide my opinion on the matter.

Regards,
xxxx

-
xxxx
MBA 2010 Candidate
NYU Stern School of Business
xxxx.nyu.edu
xxx-xxx-xxxx

In response, Prof. Galloway took the opportunity to teach what some may call a life lesson:

From: scott@stern.nyu.edu
To: "xxxx"
Subject: Re: Brand Strategy Feedback

         xxxx:

Thanks for the feedback. I, too, would like to offer some feedback.

Just so I've got this straight...you started in one class, left 15-20 minutes into it (stood up, walked out mid-lecture), went to another class (walked in 20 minutes late), left that class (again, presumably, in the middle of the lecture), and then came to my class. At that point (walking in an hour late) I asked you to come to the next class which "bothered" you.

Correct?

You state that, having not taken my class, it would be impossible to know our policy of not allowing people to walk in an hour late. Most risk analysis offers that in the face of substantial uncertainty, you opt for the more conservative path or hedge your bet (e.g., do not show up an hour late until you know the professor has an explicit policy for tolerating disrespectful behavior, check with the TA before class, etc.). I hope the lottery winner that is your recently crowned Monday evening Professor is teaching Judgement and Decision Making or Critical Thinking.

In addition, your logic effectively means you cannot be held accountable for any code of conduct before taking a class. For the record, we also have no stated policy against bursting into show tunes in the middle of class, urinating on desks or taking that revolutionary hair removal system for a spin. However, xxxx, there is a baseline level of decorum (i.e., manners) that we expect of grown men and women who the admissions department have deemed tomorrow's business leaders.

xxxx, let me be more serious for a moment. I do not know you, will not know you and have no real affinity or animosity for you. You are an anonymous student who is now regretting the send button on his laptop. It's with this context I hope you register pause...REAL pause xxxx and take to heart what I am about to tell you:

xxxx, get your shit together.

Getting a good job, working long hours, keeping your skills relevant, navigating the politics of an organization, finding a live/work balance...these are all really hard, xxxx. In contrast, respecting institutions, having manners, demonstrating a level of humility...these are all (relatively) easy. Get the easy stuff right xxxx. In and of themselves they will not make you successful. However, not possessing them will hold you back and you will not achieve your potential which, by virtue of you being admitted to Stern, you must have in spades. It's not too late xxxx...

Again, thanks for the feedback.

Professor Galloway

The professor told Business Insider that he's "getting an email about every three minutes from people (all over the world) voicing support/anger (about an 8:1 ratio)."

Discussion Starters:

• This email exchange is three years old. What took so long for it to go viral?
• What's your reaction to each email? How could both the student and the professor possibly have changed their behavior, language, or perspective?

Emails Reveal Legal Bill Padding

Lawyers should know better than to send joke emails they want to keep private. Emails among attorneys at DLA Piper, the world's biggest law firm, have become public in a lawsuit about overbilling.

The suit is a counterclaim by an energy executive who has $675,000 in unpaid bills with DLA Piper. In the suit, Adam H. Victor accuses DLA Piper of inflating billable time by performing unnecessary tasks and taking too long to complete them with too many staff.

The emails seem to confirm his claims. Here are two examples, captured by The New York Times. In the first, an attorney says that "random people" were working on the case "for whatever reason" to "churn that bill, baby!" 

 

In a second email, an attorney gloats about going $200,000 over the firm's estimate.

Read more emails.

Discussion Starters: 

• Describe what you perceive to be the working environment that supports these types of emails. In other words, what makes these acceptable-perhaps even encouraged?
• How do emails become public in such situations? Aren't they private-just sent to one or two people?