Ikea Bungles Recall

Ikea has finally recalled dressers in China that could tip over if not properly anchored. In June, the company recalled 36 million dressers in the United States and Canada after reports that six children were killed. But Ikea skipped China because, according to a WeChat post, the dressers met local regulations.

Chinese news agency Xinhua criticized Ikea, referring to the company's "arrogance":

"The behavior shown contradicts to the 'Ikea spirit' that founder Ingvar Kamprad talks about, being helpful and responsible" and "China is a huge market, and should not be deprived of the high standards that the brand promises." 

In a turnaround a few days after the WeChat post, Ikea recalled all dressers, which includes about 1.7 million in China. On a page on its Chinese website, the company announced the recall and reinforced its campaign, "Firmly Fixed," which encourages people to anchor certain products to the wall. Consumers also can read the recall FAQ. 

Image source.

Discussion Starters: 

• What is Ikea's responsibility to communicate installation instructions? What is the consumer's responsibility to install furniture properly?
• Should Ikea have recalled all products? Did the company do the right thing after the criticism? What are the consequences of each decision?

Plagiarism by Trump Institute

In addition to Trump University, which is taking heat for defrauding students, Trump Institute is now criticized for plagiarism and other issues.

Donald Trump promoted the $2,000 institute in an infomercial to wannabe real estate investors, but his claims fell short. He said instructors were handpicked, but at least one person connected with the program said she responded to a Craigslist ad. And the Institute's organizers were Irene and Mike Milin, who The New York Times describes as "a couple who had been marketing get-rich-quick courses since the 1980s." In April, The Daily Beast wrote a long piece about the Milin's history of "legal entanglements," including promising government loans that no one received. 

The Times offered this comparison between Trump's materials and a 1995 book published by Success magazine. 

This example is part of the 20 pages that were copied from the original book.

Discussion Starters: 

• What is Trump's ethical responsibility to check the organizers' past? What responsibility does Trump Institute have to prospective students? Finally, what responsibilities do prospective students have? How could people avoid being hoodwinked into paying $2,000 for a program that doesn't deliver? 
• What plagiarism guidelines would you like to share with Donald Trump? 

Outrage Over Stanford Sexual Assault Case

A Stanford student's light sentence and father's appeal have outraged thousands. Brock Turner was a Stanford University student who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and fought the case in court. Turner received a six-month sentence in county jail and probation, although the maximum allowable was 14 years.

The victim read a long letter to the judge, which has received almost 9 million views as of this writing. Her speech was impassioned and told her story: how she didn't know what happened to hear until she read it on the internet, how damaged she has been since the attack, and so on. It is an emotional, gripping speech that is difficult, but important to read.

Turner's father didn't help his son or the public outrage with his defensive letter, including, "That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life." ThinkProgress calls the letter "impossibly offensive," and most people agree. 

A letter to Brock's father challenges him to recognize: 

I need you to understand something, and I say this as a father who dearly loves my son as much as you must love yours:

Brock is not the victim here.
His victim is the victim.
She is the wounded one.
He is the damager.

In a statement, Stanford assured the public that the university did everything within its power.  

Discussion Starters: 

• Optional: Read the victim's letter. What makes her statement so compelling? 
• What's your view of the father's response? The public response? 

Zoo Defends Killing Gorilla

Although reports say a boy "fell" into a gorilla cage at a the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, the zoo says the boy "climbed through a public barrier." Harambe the gorilla was shot and killed on the spot. A YouTube video showing part of the incident received more than 14 million views so far, and people on both sides of the argument are outraged. 

With the hashtag #JusticeforHarambe, animal activists and others question the zoo's decision and blame the parents.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) says this situation is another example of why people shouldn't gawk at animals in captivity.

The zoo explained the decision in a media statement, in a Facebook post, and during a press conference. The director scolded people who dispute the decision, saying they don't understand silverback behavior and weren't there to assess the situation. He has a point: people view a one-minute clip on YouTube and decide that the gorilla was holding the boy's hand and helping him to safety. But what do we know? 

Discussion Starters: 

• What's your view, given what you have read about the situation? Did the zoo act appropriately? What else would you like to know in order to make a judgement call?  
• Assess the zoo's three communications:  media statement, Facebook post, and press conference. What, if anything, can management do differently to address the criticism? 

Discovery Girls Responds to Controversial Swimsuit Advice

Readers didn't appreciate the Discovery Girls article telling young girls which bathing suit will make their bodies more perfect.

 

Criticism was harsh on Twitter and Facebook, with parents already struggling to help their children have a positive body image, regardless of their shape and size. Discovery Girls' readers are between 8 and 13 years old.

The publisher responded in a Facebook post saying that the article was a mistake and contrary to the magazine's views. She also took the opportunity to promote the Discovery Girls' book. 

An open letter from Catherine Lee, Publisher of Discovery Girls

First, I want to thank all the parents and my amazing readers who brought this swimsuit article to my attention. As the founder of Discovery Girls magazine, and even more importantly, the mother of the first Discovery Girl in 2000, I am in total agreement with all of you regarding this article, so much so that I wanted to make this letter as public as possible. We want to make sure that our girls know that any article that makes you feel bad about your body is not a good article, and should be questioned.

It's still hard for me to believe that an article so contrary to our magazine's mission could have been published on our pages. I have been a loss for words for days. The article was supposed to be about finding cute, fun swimsuits that make girls feel confident, but instead it focused on girls' body image and had a negative impact. Nobody knows better than Discovery Girls how impressionable our girls are at this age and we are ALWAYS mindful of this. We've received hundreds of thousands of letters over the years from girls sharing their insecurities about their bodies. We've been so concerned about helping girls have a healthy body image that we wrote an entire book, Growing Up, on puberty and body image.

The book, which took over five years to write, was a labor of love. We worked with so many writers, editors, and over 20,000 girls and their parents, too. We invested so much time and effort into it because we knew how important it is to get it right. Our girls need resources to provide them with the guidance they need to develop a healthy body image and love all that they are.

As much we like to think that something like this would never happen to us, it did. We're not immune to making mistakes, but we are always willing to get better and learn from our mistakes. We'd like to thank the readers who contacted us to let us know they couldn't believe we could make such a mistake. It means a lot to us, because it means you hold us to a higher standard, which we hope you will continue to demand from us. And for those of you who don't know us as well as our regular readers, our reader's comments are what keeps us improving. This is what makes Discovery Girls the magazine that we're all so proud to be a part of. I know with certainty, if you hang in there, you'll find that no magazine works harder to ensure the well-being of your daughters than Discovery Girls.

Catherine Lee

Chicago Tribune article, in my opinion, doesn't help. The author does a great job criticizing Discovery Girls, but the article photo shows girls will similar, thin bodies. 

Discussion Starters: 

• How well does Lee's response work? How could it be improved? 
• How does a "mistake" like this happen? What do you think went wrong, and how can the magazine avoid it in the future?

Joe Paterno Back in the News

It's been a while since we heard about Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, who was in the news in 2011 because his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, had been sexually abusing young boys. Some questioned who knew and for how long, and recent court papers reveal Paterno's possible awareness since 1976.

The current dispute is over whether Penn State or its insurance company should pay the $60 million in damages sought by 26 people who Sandusky abused. According to the insurance company, one sentence in the case revealed an important piece of evidence: "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky." In addition, the evidence shows other cases reported in the 1980s.

Joe Paterno died of lung cancer in 2012, only two months after he was suspended from Penn State and within a year of the story breaking. His family is denying the evidence and calling for a full review of the facts. 

Sandusky was sentenced to between 30 and 60 years, but he's filing for a new trial. Three university leaders-the former president, athletic director, and a senior vice president-still face charges for failing to report incidents. 

Discussion Starters: 

• This is based on just one sentence in the report-and it's the insurance company's perspective, obviously to avoid claims. What do you think? 
• Research the case in 2011. The university took a while to suspend Joe Paterno. Why? And was the suspension the right decision?

Mitsubishi Admits Deception

Just as Volkswagen is agreeing on ways to settle its emissions scandal, Japanese car manufacturer Mitsubishi has admitted to reporting false data for car emissions for the past 25 years. The company said about 625,000 of its mini-cars sold in Japan had been tested incorrectly; regulations changed in 1991 to include driving in urban areas, but Mitsubishi didn't adjust its data.

Mitsubishi Motors President Tetsuro Aikawa said, "We don't know the whole picture, and we are in the process of trying to determine that. I feel a great responsibility." Like Mary Barra, GM's CEO, Aikawa is a new president as the scandal is unfolding. Barra was GM's CEO for only a few months before the ignition issues came to light.

As of now, Mitsubishi's website "Press Room" doesn't include a statement about the news, but Aikawa has given a press conference in Japan. During the conference, Aikawa said, "We've discovered that improper tests were being used designed to show fuel consumption better than it actually was. It was also found that the fuel economy testing methods were not in line with Japanese regulations. We offer our profound apologies to customers and shareholders."

Cue deep bow...

Since the news broke, Mitsuibishi's stock has dropped about 50%. 

Discussion Starters:

• So far, what are the similarities and differences between this situation and Volkswagen?
• What should Mitsuibishi publish on its website at this point?
• Should we expect more car models to be affected, as we saw with Volkswagen?

Suing Glassdoor for Bad Reviews

In addition to poor customer reviews online, companies are feeling the pinch of negative employee comments, and they're taking action. Glassdoor has been targeted as the largest site for employee reviews about company management, interview processes, benefits, and pay. The site has been issued subpoenas for the names of people who posted views thought to be anonymous.

A lawyer arguing the case against Glassdoor claims, "The right to anonymous speech also extends to the Internet and those constitutional principles [of free speech], but at the same time the Constitution does not protect defamation. It does not protect statements that are false or could give rise to other claims, for example, false light or tortious interference."

At issue is whether comments are true or "maliciously false." If true, comments may be protected, but if they are false, the author may not be protected. The National Labor Relations Board (NLBR) has a role, as I've written about before on BizComintheNews. An attorney James R. Redeker, at Duane Morris explains:

"If an employer tried to take action against an employee who it found published something in either social or public media anonymously-and/or published something that was false and misleading-the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] general counsel and the board take the position that an employee is entitled to and protected in making statements with regard to the working conditions of their employer."

Glassdoor has refused hundreds of employers' requests for content to be removed and for identities to be revealed. The company argues, "Glassdoor is an anonymous community and we will vigorously fight on behalf of our users to protect their identities and right to free speech, provided they adhere to our community guidelines and terms of service."

Discussion Starters: 

• What is an employee's responsibility when posting to sites such as Glassdoor?
• Do you agree with Glassdoor's resistance to reveal identities and remove posts? Why or why not?
• The attorney quoted in one of the articles said that companies can respond to comments online, but "...that's very unsatisfying. And sometimes it exacerbates the problem." What's your view? That's certainly how companies manage customer comments. How might this differ?

Illinois College Bans Yik Yak

Illinois College President Barbara Farley made the tough call to block students from using the app Yik Yak. Posts are anonymous and can be seen by location. The app is notorious for attracting mean and sometimes racist comments, which has caused complaints by students and faculty. At Illinois College, the Student Senate, Black Student Union, and faculty members have been particularly vocal about Yik Yak problems. 

Students joke that the ban isn't really a ban at all because they can continue to access the app through their data plans. Although a handful of universities have banned the app, others refuse, partly for this reason. According to the vice president for student affairs at Duke University, "Since it can always be accessed via cell signal, no institution could truly eliminate it from their campus. For any institution to seek to silence it plays right into [Yik Yak's] hands...since what they seek is notoriety."

Several feminist and civil rights groups have urged the Department of Education to take action against Yik Yak. However, a Slate writer also argues that Yik Yak is helpful to students adjusting to college and struggling with mental illness. She says a university ban hurts some of the students they are trying to protect.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your opinion of Yik Yak: is it more helpful to students or harmful?
• How do you use the app?
• Should universities ban the app? What are the considerations and possible consequences?

Brief Conversations Change Opinions

A retracted study is getting new life. Researcher Michael J. LaCour had published a widely cited political science study in Science, claiming that short conversations changed people's minds about gay marriage. However, two scientists, wanting to replicate his work, found problems and published in a paper, "Irregularities in LaCour." 

Although the issues stand, those who fought to get the study retracted have since been able to replicate some important findings, after all. The new study focuses on attitudes about transgender people: 

...well-trained canvassers walked around Miami neighborhoods, knocking on doors and having 10-minute conversations with voters about legal discrimination against transgender people. The activists showed the residents a brief video describing both sides of the debate, encouraged them to talk about their personal experiences of prejudice, and asked where they stood on the issue. The researchers surveyed the same residents three days later, three weeks later, six weeks later, and three months later to see how their convictions had changed.

About 10 percent of respondents expressed more-positive feelings toward transgender people after talking to canvassers. Those changes in attitude were substantial, and they held up through the follow-up surveys. Both transgender and nontransgender canvassers were able to change minds - a difference from Mr. LaCour and Mr. Green's retracted study, which claimed that voters had found gay canvassers more persuasive on gay rights.

Discussion Starters: 

• What does the situation tell us about research and publications?
• What are the implications of this study for other political issues and persuasive arguments? 
• These conversations included a 55-second video. To what extent do you think this video affected attitudes? 

Emory Chalk Writing About Trump: Free Speech or Intimidation?

Emory students and administrators are debating whether chalkings on campus about Donald Trump are appropriate. In a letter to the school community, President James Wagner discussed both sides of the argument:

Dear Emory Community,

Yesterday I received a visit from 40 to 50 student protesters upset by the unexpected chalkings on campus sidewalks and some buildings yesterday morning, in this case referencing Donald Trump. The students shared with me their concern that these messages were meant to intimidate rather than merely to advocate for a particular candidate, having appeared outside of the context of a Georgia election or campus campaign activity. During our conversation, they voiced their genuine concern and pain in the face of this perceived intimidation.

After meeting with our students, I cannot dismiss their expression of feelings and concern as motivated only by political preference or over-sensitivity. Instead, the students with whom I spoke heard a message, not about political process or candidate choice, but instead about values regarding diversity and respect that clash with Emory's own.

As an academic community, we must value and encourage the expression of ideas, vigorous debate, speech, dissent, and protest. At the same time, our commitment to respect, civility, and inclusion calls us to provide a safe environment that inspires and supports courageous inquiry. It is important that we recognize, listen to, and honor the concerns of these students, as well as faculty and staff who may feel similarly. . . .

The letter goes on to identify actions the university will take, including clarifying policies and providing more opportunities for dialogue. The president also chalked a message of his own, shown here.

In related news, a Chronicle story reports the results of a Gallup survey about students' view of free speech on campus:

Nearly half of college students believe in curtailing the news media's access to campus events in certain scenarios, such as when protesters want to be left alone (48 percent), when they believe a reporter will be biased (49 percent), and when they want to tell the story themselves on social media (44 percent), a new Gallup survey has found.

At the same time,

While more than 75 percent of students believe colleges should expose students to all types of speech and viewpoints, a majority of students believe campus climates prevent people from saying what they believe out of fears of offending others.

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• Describe both sides of the issue in this situation. Image you're a student on either side of the argument: defend your position.
• How well did President Wagner's letter address the controversy?

Former Trump Communications Director Quits and Reveals Strategy

So much for loyalty. A communication director for Trump's Make America Great Again Super PAC has quit the campaign and written an open letter about her experience. Most significant, Stephanie Cegielski says that Trump wanted to hit double digits and perhaps hit second place, but he never wanted to nor expected to be in the lead. 

In her letter, Cegielski wrote, "His candidacy was a protest candidacy," and she describes her history:

"Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it."

She describes her initial excitement representing an alternative candidate but writes, "It wasn't long before every day I awoke to a buzzing phone and a shaking head because Trump had said something politically incorrect the night before. I have been around politics long enough to know that the other side will pounce on any and every opportunity to smear a candidate." 

Cegielski, like many, was surprised at his continuing success. She eventually got disillusioned and now fears a possible win: 

"What was once Trump's desire to rank second place to send a message to America and to increase his power as a businessman has nightmarishly morphed into a charade that is poised to do irreparable damage to this country if we do not stop this campaign in its tracks.

"I'll say it again: Trump never intended to be the candidate. But his pride is too out of control to stop him now."

Cegielski's credibility is at stake. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal haven't taken up the story, and a Washington Post writer calls the article a successful "exercise in reputation management."

Discussion Starters: 

• Read Cegielski's entire open letter. How do you assess her credibility? Consider The Washington Post perspective. Part of the writer's criticism is "She was literally the P.R. person for the Public Relations Society of America," and she "took a position teaching a class at New York University's School of Professional Studies" on Reputation Management.
• What, if any, loyalty does Cegielski have to Donald Trump and his campaign? 

Kellogg's Responds to Employee Urination Incident

Kellogg's is responding to a video showing a man urinating onto a conveyor belt at one of its factories. The video was taken in Memphis, Tennessee, in 2014 during a labor dispute, so any affected products are past their expiration date. In other words, it's too late to worry whether your box of Rice Krispies was tainted.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has started a criminal investigation, and the company is investigating internally. Of course, customers are furious.

Kellogg's has issued a statement and is addressing questions on its Facebook page. To CNN, Kris Charles, a Kellogg's spokesman, said the company is "outraged by this completely unacceptable situation." He also said, "We were shocked and deeply disappointed by this video that we just learned of yesterday. We immediately alerted law enforcement authorities and regulators." 

Kellogg's also posted a notice on its website.

Discussion Starters:

• What would lead an employee to take this action? Imagine the scene at the factory. Would other employees see this and not take action? In other words, how does something like this happen?
• Are people over-reacting, or is this a serious issue?
• Assess the company's response. How well did the social media manager address the Facebook post? Could he or she have said anything different?
• In addition to the statement given to CNN, what else could the company have said?

Carrier Layoff Video Goes Viral

In a video taken by a Carrier employee, we see bad news delivered first hand. An executive announces that the furnace and heating equipment factory will move to Mexico-eliminating 1,400 jobs at the Indianapolis plant.

Understandably, employees are upset. Represented by the United Steelworkers union, they receive good pay, including overtime. Employees seem to like working at the factory, despite long hours and what a New York Times article calls "painstaking work." As one employee said, "It's pretty cool working there. And when you do it for 60 hours a week, people are like family."

Akhil Johri, Carrier's CFO says that factory moves and job cuts "painful," but essential "for the long-term, competitive nature of the business and shareholder value creation. We feel good about being able to execute on that." The company is concerned that it will go the way of the auto industry, unable to compete with international manufacturers.

Robert McDonough, a senior executive at United Technologies (Carrier's parent company), said, "This was a really tough decision. This will have a real impact on folks we care about and this community. We're an American company, but we compete globally."

Still, UT promoted the decision during a recent meeting with shareholders and analysts, who typically react positively to such news. As the NY Times explains, 

"Wall Street is looking for United Technologies to post a 17 percent increase in earnings per share over the next two years, even though sales are expected to rise only 8 percent. Bridging that gap means cutting costs wherever savings can be found."

UT CEO Gregory J. Hayes is feeling the pressure of stock performance, and his 2015 bonus was cut by 50%. But, as article says, "with a total compensation package of $5.7 million, he made more last year than Carrier's factory workers could earn in several lifetimes."

Discussion Starters: 

• What's your view of the decision? Consider both UT and the employees' perspective. 
• Assess what we see of the Carrier meeting. How could the company have delivered the news differently? What, if anything, would change the employees' reactions? 

Wounded Warrior Project Exposed for Overspending

The Wounded Warrior Project, a not-for-profit organization that helps war veterans, is under fire for overspending. With 500 employees and $225 million raised in 2015, the organization seems, on surface, to be successful and doing good work. But its expenses show a different picture: 

• $250 million budgeted for soda and candy for its staff
• A CEO who was paid $470,000 a year
• Less than 60% of funds going to veterans (about 90% of top organizations' funds go to programming) 
• Lavish staff retreats, including one at a five-star resort that cost almost $1 million

The snack expenses have received particular attention. The budget was revealed in a senior executive's email about staff gaining weight. According to The Daily Best, "Emails reveal that the organization spent more than $46,000 on snacks at its Jacksonville, Florida, headquarters in summer 2015."

In addition, employees have been quoted saying the environment is like a "frat party" and that the outings aren't about team-building as claimed: "You don't learn anything about your teammates, you don't learn anything about how to better serve-you just have a good time at donors' expense, you have a good meal, and then everyone drinks."

Why hasn't this been reported sooner? According to another employee, the organization operates like a cult:

"It's a brainwashing, in essence… You need to be quiet, do what you're told, drink the Kool-Aid and parade around with that logo on. It's cult, it really is… it's like how you would train a monkey, if you do something give them a piece of candy-in this case you give them a T-shirt or a polo… it's extreme intimidation," 

According to The Times article, "At least half a dozen former employees said they were let go after raising questions about ineffective programs or spending."

No surprise, Wounded Warriors is also criticized for not meeting veterans' needs. Programming like cooking classes, yoga, hiking trips, and Lego clubs aren't that helpful. 

The CEO and COO have been ousted, and the board is trying to rebuild the organization. In a press release, management disputes many claims but admits, "The review also found that some policies, procedures and controls at WWP have not kept pace with the organization's rapid growth in recent years and are in need of strengthening."

Image source. 

Discussion Starters: 

• What do you think prevented employees from going to the press or other sources about Wounded Warriors' overspending? Even if jobs are threatened, we do have whistleblower laws to protect people. 
• In addition to the press release, what should Wounded Warriors do to rebuild trust? Do you think the organization will be successful, or is it hopeless?
• Will employees have a difficult time finding a new job? How can they discuss their experience in a job interview?

Sponsor Trouble for Maria Sharapova

Russian Tennis star Maria Sharapova is in a tough spot. She admitted that she failed a drug test and has taken "full responsibility" for it. 

Sharapova said she was taking Meldonium, a medication for heart disease, which was added to the list of banned substances this year. She also said that the medication goes by another name, which she didn't know: "It is very important for you to understand that for 10 years this medicine was not on WADA's banned list, and I had been legally taking the medicine. But on January the first, the rules have changed." She also said, "I made a huge mistake. I let my fans down and I let the sport down."

But did she have to call the hotel's carpet "ugly"? 

Although her admission and apology are clear, her sponsors don't want to wait for more news. Nike issued this statement: "We are saddened and surprised by the news about Maria Sharapova. We have decided to suspend our relationship with Maria while the investigation continues. We will continue to monitor the situation." Tag Heuer and Porsche also cancelled contracts, with the former explaining, "We had been in talks to extend our collaboration. In view of the current situation, the brand has decided not to renew the contract with Sharapova."

As of today, Nike's website page, "Maria Sharapova News" shows positive stories about the star and no mention of the decision. 

Discussion Starters: 

• How well is Sharapova handling the situation? Assess the news conference. 
• Did Nike, Tag Heuer, and Porsche do the right thing? What pressures are on the sponsoring companies?

Criticism of Law Schools' Graduation Data

A 2008 graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law is suing the institution for luring students to enroll by using false post-graduation data. Anna Alaburda's claim is one of 15 similar suits, although all but two have been dropped or dismissed.

Alaburda has $170,000 worth of student debt and has not found a full-time job in law since her graduation. Students' claims are that law schools include jobs such as part-time waitressing in their employment stats, inflating their placement rates. According to an article in The New York Times, 

"Law schools labor to keep their employment data at the highest percentage level because it is a major factor in national law school rankings, which in turn give schools the credibility to charge six figures for a three-year legal education."

Since the charges, the American Bar Association has required law schools to give more information. On its website, you can download detailed statistics from all schools.

Overall, according to the National Association for Law Placement, rates have increased, but class size is shrinking, so it's tough to draw conclusions.

Discussion Starters: 

• What is a law school's responsibility to share placement rates with prospective students? How does it balance honesty with recruiting targets?
• How would you make a decision about whether to attend law school-or a particular school? What data would be important for you to consider?

Awkward Moment During VW Presentation

A protester didn't help Volkswagen's image during a press conference at the Geneva Motor Show. Dressed in a VW uniform, comedian Simon Brodkin got on stage to place a fake "cheat box" under the car while board member Jürgen Stackmann was speaking.  

Stackmann was in a tough spot and said "Thank you" repeated and awkwardly tried to escort Brodkin away from the car.

This isn't the first time Brodkin pulled a prank. During a FIFA press conference, he threw $600 in bills at President Sepp Blatter. After that stunt, Swiss authorities charged Brodkin with trespassing. 

Discussion Starters: 

• What's your view of Brodkin's antics? Is his approach more productive, disruptive, or destructive? 
• How well did Stackmann handle the incident? What could he have done differently? 

SeaWorld Behaved Badly

Readers of BizCom in the News know I have a keen interest in SeaWorld, particularly after the documentary Blackfish revealed poor treatment of orcas, which has caused trainer injuries and deaths. I wrote a short case, "SeaWorld's Response to Blackfish" (and corresponding assignment), and have had Samantha Berg, a former SeaWorld trainer profiled in the movie (and a Cornell Veterinary College graduate) guest speak in my Corporate Communication class. As a crisis communication situation, the entertainment company did horribly, offering little response as criticism on social media was mounting.

Now SeaWorld executives admit to having employees pose as animal rights activists to understand their strategy. Desperate times lead to desperate measures. The company has suffered financially and, last week, announced changes at the executive level. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman said, "The tawdry orca sideshows and despicable spying tactics are sinking SeaWorld's ship." 

On its website, SeaWorld admitted the deception under a broader statement about security and risk management:

SeaWorld to strengthen company's security and risk management

February 25, 2016

During its earnings call today, SeaWorld announced that its Board of Directors is taking steps to strengthen the company's security and risk management policies and controls. Following the completion of an investigation conducted by independent outside counsel, the Board has directed that the company's management team end a practice in which certain employees posed as animal rights activists in connection with efforts to maintain the safety and security of company employees, customers, and animals in the face of credible threats that the company had received. The Board also has directed the company's management team to strengthen oversight and controls to guide operations and security practices. SeaWorld has retained Freeh Group International Solutions, LLC to evaluate current controls and develop new policies and standards to ensure best practices company-wide.

All personnel matters pertaining to those involved have been handled internally. That said, Mr. McComb remains an employee of SeaWorld, has returned to work at SeaWorld in a different department and is no longer on administrative leave.

"We recognize the need to ensure that all of our security and other activities align with our core values and ethical standards. As always, the security and well-being of our employees, customers and animals remain at the forefront of our business practices," said Joel Manby, President and Chief Executive Officer of SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.

The report contains confidential business information related to the company's security practices. The company will not comment beyond this statement.

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• What should SeaWorld do now to try to protect what's left of its brand image?
• Assess the statement above. How well does the company handle the admission?

Yelp Manages Open Letter from Employee

Yelp is in the news for an employee's angry "open letter" about pay. She describes how she's suffering financially and blames the company for not paying a living wage.  

The company issued this statement to Business Insider:

We do not comment on personnel issues. However, we did agree with many of the points in Ms. Jane's post and we viewed it as her real, personal narrative about what it's like to live in the Bay Area. Most importantly, it's an important example of freedom of speech.

We agree with her comments about the high costs of living in San Francisco, which is why we announced in December that we are expanding our Eat24 customer support team into our Phoenix office where will pay the same wage.

Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman also responded on Twitter, shown here. As you see from tweet 3/5, the employee was fired, which didn't inspire goodwill.  

The employee continued tweeting after her termination.

Discussion Starters:

• Should the employee have voiced her concerns in a different medium? Consider her goal, the ethics, and the result.
• Read the employee's letter. How well does she convey her argument?
• How well did Yelp handle the situation? What, if anything, should the company have done differently?