GLAAD and Crisis Management

GLAAD, an LGBTQ advocacy nonprofit, is in the news because of the chief executive’s “lavish spending.” With a particular eye on the nonprofit organization, an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review highlights what we teach in crisis communication classes.

Joan Gerry, a nonprofit leadership expert and coach, uses the GLAAD example to remind nonprofit leaders, including boards of directors, how to avoid similar crises. She offers advice in the the following areas:

1. The media loves scandals … and if you take on the powerful, prepare for backlash.

2. All decisions have optics. Optics matter.

3. Building leadership is about more than one person.

4. Board members must understand their role, and be ready to play it.

What differs in Gerry’s advice for nonprofits compared to for-profit businesses is that they often operate from a place of scarcity. For example, executive director recruitment may be more difficult, so extravagant packages may be offered. In addition, what might be commonplace in a for-profit company’s CEO package is scrutinized in a nonprofit leader’s package. The contrast between a staff member’s benefits and clients’/recipients’ needs can seem shocking. The disparity makes the “optics” worse for nonprofit leaders and raises questions of integrity.

Crisis Comms Around Food Bank's Meth Candy

A New Zealand food bank unknowingly distributed candy with high concentrations of methamphetamine to local families. Students can analyze crisis messages from the organization and the candy manufacturer.

The Auckland City Mission has a clear, short message on its home page:

The organization is also reaching out to the 400 or so people who received the candy, which was likely part of a drug smuggling scheme. Fortunately, the “candy” tasted so bad that people spit it out immediately; still, three people were hospitalized.

For its part, the candy manufacturer, Rinda, published a statement on its website (text below). The message meets its objectives, which students might identify as expressing sympathy, maintaining the company’s reputation, and distancing itself from the incident. However, the message is bare-bones, as these go. It sounds corporate, meaning I don’t read it as an authentic recognition of harm done—it protects the company primarily.

Beginning with “Statement from Rinda…” and “the safety and well-being of our consumers is our highest priority,” the message might cause immediate eye-rolling. “It has come to our attention” removes the possibility of any potential emotion on the part of company leaders and leaves us feeling as though they are checking a box—writing a statement after consulting with their team of lawyers. As they admit, they want to “protect the integrity of our brand.” Well, of course. No one faults them for that, but they don’t have to say it explicitly.

Instead, they could show a little compassion for people who are unhoused and food insecure, some of whom have addiction issues. These families seek support and care from the Auckland City Mission, which also suffered reputational damage. Can people trust the organization to give them food that’s safe? Maybe, in addition to upholding its own brand, Rinda could include a statement for the agency as well.

---

Here’s the statement text:

Statement from Rinda Food Industries Sdn Bhd

At Rinda Food Industries Sdn Bhd, the safety and well-being of our consumers is our highest priority. It has come to our attention through recent news reports in New Zealand that our products may have been misused in connection with illegal substances, specifically methamphetamine. We want to make it clear that Rinda Food Industries does not use or condone the use of any illegal drugs in our products.

We recognize the seriousness of this situation and understand the concerns it raises. We believe that the New Zealand authorities are currently conducting an investigation into this matter, we will work closely with law enforcement and relevant authorities to address this issue and protect the integrity of our brand. Our company is dedicated to ensuring that our products meet the highest safety and regulatory standards.

We encourage anyone with information related to this situation to contact us directly or to reach out to the appropriate authorities.

Yelp Exec on AI and Authenticity

An interview with Yelp’s Chief Product Officer offers an example of an executive positioning his company in light of AI advances.

Craig Saldanha begins with a clear objective—to focus on the core business success:

Just to set the table, our stated mission hasn’t changed. Our goal is to connect consumers with great local businesses, and that hasn’t changed over time. 

Then he achieves the following:

• Explains the company’s early adoption of AI (which any business leader will say and is true—at a basic level)

• Describes how newer (generative) AI improves the customer experience, particularly in parsing reviews and search

• Reinforces Yelp Assistant, a new voice technology to connect consumers and businesses (video of Saldanha here)

• Assures customers of human reviews and connection

His examples illustrate each point well. However, he claims they’re using generative AI to help people write reviews:

we are now using AI — and specifically Gen AI — to give you gentle nudges and prompts to help you remember what made your experience special. So as you’re typing, if you talk about the ambience, it will give you a little tag that says, “You’ve checked off the ambience, now you can talk about the service, you can talk about the food, etc.” We’ve rolled this out for restaurants, we’re rolling this out for other categories. That really helps with the depth and the quality of the reviews.

The support is minimal. I started typing a review, and yes, a little green box shows when I mention service, but that’s it. I don’t suppose that people want more guidance, particularly to avoid misleading, inauthentic reviews. But why mention it? Saldanha has stronger points, including upcoming features, for example, the ability to find a business based on a photo or video.

Overall, Saldanha does what we expect an executive to do. He represents the business well.

Proposed New Rules on Political Robocalls and Texts

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

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

New proposed FCC guidelines include the following areas:

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

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

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

• Reply “STOP”

• Forward texts to 7726 (or "SPAM")

• Silence unknown callers

• Report texts as junk

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

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

Image source.

Google Pulls Gemini Ad

Google's decision to pull its Gemini ad offers lessons for how students might interact with LLMs. The big question is, Does the girl need help?

In the ad, which is still on YouTube but no longer runs during the Olympic games, a father asks Gemini (formerly Bard) to help his daughter write an appreciation letter to U.S. hurdler and sprinter Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone.

Professor of Advanced Media Shelly Palmer's blog post explains the many issues with the Gemini ad. The post itself is an argument students can analyze. To me, his most influential point is the overstatement of LLMs' ability to convey human thoughts and feelings—and a lack of confidence in a young girl's ability to express herself without the help of technology. As Palmer says, "Give me a heartfelt message over a grammatically correct, AI generated message any day."

In response to controversy, a Google representative said, “We believe that AI can be a great tool for enhancing human creativity, but can never replace it. Our goal was to create an authentic story celebrating Team USA,” and “While the ad tested well before airing, given the feedback, we have decided to phase the ad out of our Olympics rotation.” We don’t hear a lot of regret, apology, or learning from this response. I wonder how the disconnect happened between the ad testing and public response. That is one lesson Google could take away from the incident.

20-Something Hiring in Radar Charts

Students might be interested in seeing their employment potential in radar charts. Not a traditional type of business chart (i.e., line, bar, or pie), a radar chart shows multiple data points and is visually interesting.

A Wall Street Journal article presents radar charts to illustrate job and financial prospects in four parts of the United States: Northeast, Midwest, West, and South. For their favorite city, students will want to see a large, equilateral triangle reaching high percentages in all three areas—wages, hiring, and affordability.

The visuals are easy to understand and compare—within a region. Because different regions are in different tabs, users can’t see cites across the United States side by side.

The article starts, “Go South, young grad,” but that conclusion isn’t immediately clear from the layout. Still, the points are clear—and students might be interested in data.

Using "We" for Negative Feedback?

A Wall Street Journal article cites social psychology research about using “we” instead of “you” to increase receptivity to negative feedback. The title and subtitle of the article are “The Secret Power of Using ‘We’ During Difficult Conversations: Bosses who use ‘we’ instead of ‘you’ are more likely to get employees to listen to negative feedback, according to new research.” Based on the research, this conclusion is an overreach.

The authors, whose research was published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, acknowledge that using “you” can increase feelings of connection and relatability and facilitate persuasion, as we teach in business communication classes. However, they note that these uses are in non-adversarial situations. For adversarial situations, they explain the value of “we”: “If you seem like you’re an open-minded person yourself, people naturally want to reciprocate that. Changing the pronouns you use from ‘you’ to ‘we’ can make your audience more open to your message. It’s kind of a secret power.”

The research includes several wide-ranging studies, including Reddit comments, pitches, and political speeches. Only one of the studies dealt with negative feedback. Respondents were told they are part of a team reading feedback that one team member had written about another:

You Condition: Sam, you should have made more progress faster. Your timeline was too relaxed, and you kept making errors along the ways that delayed the project. You could have worked harder early on to ensure you had enough time to catch any additional mistakes. Next time, you should make sure that your timeline accounts for unexpected challenges along the way.

We Condition: Sam, we should have made more progress faster. Our timeline was too relaxed, and we kept making errors along the ways that delayed project. We could have worked harder early on to ensure we had enough time to catch any additional mistakes. Next time, we should make sure that our timeline accounts for unexpected challenges along the way.

This is quite a different situation from what the WSJ reporter implies in the article subtitle—which could include managers giving feedback to their direct reports. I can think of many situations in which using “we” would sound terribly condescending. True, in business communication classes, we teach that “you” should be avoided when criticizing, as the above example illustrates. But the “we condition” could sound patronizing coming from a manager who wasn’t part of the team. Doctors and teachers sound patronizing when they say, “How do we feel?” or “We don’t talk when others are talking.” Also, although the “you condition” is harsh, saying something like, “we kept making errors,” when it was only Sam who made the errors is also patronizing—and false. In addition, context always matters. This is a difficult study to extrapolate from when respondents don’t have a stake in the situation.

The danger is conveying the “royal we,” or nosism—using the plural to refer to ourselves. Here’s the history:

The practice has been associated with the English monarchy since the 12th-century rule of Henry II, who used the pronoun “we” to signify that because he ruled by divine right, he represented both himself and God simultaneously.

If managers use the term to speak for God, no wonder it comes across as patronizing.

An exception may be in languages that distinguish between formal and familiar pronouns, for example tu and vous in Spanish. This needs more evidence, but a Wikipedia entry refers to the “nonconfrontational we” and claims that “we” is often used in recipe instructions and to avoid the overly informal (for example, ¿Cómo estamos? which means, How are we?). Some consider this a sign of respect.

Still, in American work environments, managers should avoid “we” when they mean “you.” Without using any pronoun, managers will sound respectful and appropriately direct. They can focus on the work and express first-person observations to convey the impact of the behavior, for example, “I saw [the client] close the deck after she noticed the miscalculation on page 4,” or “I wonder how Noah will react to your question about other proposals. What do you think?” In the research example, a team member could say about Sam’s performance, “I noticed and fixed several errors that delayed the project.“

(More about the editorial we here from a near-classic NY Times editorial.)

Image source.

Shipping Note Shows Trek Light’s Personality

If a brand can have a personality, Trek Light shows it off in a shipping note. Hidden in the message is an explanation, if not an apology, for a long wait.

The email invites the customer into the world of running a small business—the joys, the excitement, and the challenges of keeping up when business is good. Compare the note at the end, “So, if your order took a bit longer to ship than you were hoping for, please accept our sincere thanks for being patient and cool and supporting our small business during this time and always,” with Delta’s stilted, cloying email closing this week: “Thank you for your patience and understanding, and we look forward to seeing you to your destination as smoothly as possible.”

Like a fun friend, Trek Light makes us want to engage with them more. With a Chris Farley gif at the bottom, this is a good example of a positive message to share with students who want to find a more natural, playful voice when it’s appropriate in business.

Delta Refuses to Use "You"

Students will easily rewrite this Delta Airlines message by applying business writing principles. Using “you,” tightening, clarifying information, and reorganizing would improve the email. Delta’s reputation suffered greatly during the outage, and emails like this one to customers don’t help.

Here are a few changes students might make:

• Clarify the main point. The email subject was “Important Information About Your Upcoming Flight,” but the message has no information about the upcoming flight. The focus is something like, “How to Get Flight Updates and Rebook if You Need To.”

• Sharpen the first paragraph. This is a slog to read, partly because of the language but mostly because it’s giving mixed messages. Maybe change to something like, “Your flight is scheduled as planned. But outages have caused cancellations, and here’s what you need to do if your flight is cancelled.” Maybe move the bit about the app to a separate line with bold type. That’s the first thing customers should do.

• Use conversational language. Change “The operation of your flight” to “Your flight.” We know it’s operating—or not.

• Use “you.” The writer seems to avoid speaking directly to the audience. Change “When rebooked travel occurs” to “If you rebook your travel,” and “customers may cancel their reservation” to “you may cancel your reservation.”

• Eliminate bullets. Single bullets are not logical; bullets, like subheadings, divide something into multiple parts. A different visual design might be more appealing and more easily read.

• Eliminate numbering. Numbers indicate a hierarchy or sequence. Again, a different visual design might help.

• Clarify fares. That last bullet refers to “end of ticket validity,” which sounds confusing. Some tightening might help here too: Do we need “applicable fare difference”? Maybe better language for #3 is something like, “If you can’t rebook [why introduce “reschedule” here? Or is that something different?] within __ [define], don’t worry. You have up to one year to use whatever part of a ticket you don’t use for this trip.”

• Skip the false politeness. Thanking customers for being patient or understanding assumes that they will be, which is unlikely in this situation. Maybe a sincere apology or an acknowledgement of the inconvenience (havoc!) would be better.

---

UPDATE: Contrast this message with a LinkedIn post from Shane Goronkin. He focuses on teamwork, sounds natural and sincere, and demonstrates compassion in the last two paragraphs (and defines IROP earlier):

Know that many of you have been impacted by this IROP and I am truly sorry. I heard countless heartbreaking stories over the weekend 😢. Really, really terrible.

We still have more work to do, but we will get back on track soon.

Resignation Statements

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned after the assassination attempt of former President Trump, and President Biden decided not to run again for office. Students can compare both statements.

Despite the dramatic, marching-band resignations students might see on TikTok, job resignation letters should focus on goodwill. What’s different about these political messages is that the reasons are provided—sometimes.

Cheatle ended her term in a message to staff that became public. After a grueling hearing with lawmakers about the agency’s failure to protect former President Trump from a shooter, she may have had little choice in the decision. In her email, she wrote, “As your Director, I take full responsibility for the security lapse.” Her main objectives are to reassure staff and boost their confidence. She does this by praising their work and encouraging them to stay focused. Her resignation decision—the main point—is at the end instead of up front, as we teach for messages, including bad news, particularly when it’s obvious or expected.

President Biden’s (some would say long-awaited) decision to decline the Democratic party’s nomination came on X. Unlike Cheatle, he doesn’t give a reason. He makes no mention of the criticism about his debate performance and concerns about his mental and physical health, which is to be expected. He simply says, “I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term.” More significantly, he endorses Vice President Harris and includes a photo of them walking together, impeding other candidates’ chances of nomination.

President Biden’s comment about Cheatle’s resignation is notable: “As a leader, it takes honor, courage and incredible integrity to take full responsibility for an organization tasked with one of the most challenging jobs in public service.” Modifier issue aside, he compliments the character dimensions many hoped he would have demonstrated since the debate debacle.

I’m categorizing these examples under “bad-news message,” although many see both as good news, which is often the case.

U.S. Committee Report About Amazon

Few people think about the impact of Amazon Prime Days on employees, but the U.S. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee produced a report worth reviewing in class.

Although the report format doesn’t follow all business communication principles, students will see several they could include in their own reports:

• Clear title and subtitle: With repetition and strong language, the titles conveys the main point: “PEAK SEASONS, PEAK INJURIES: Amazon Warehouses Are Especially Dangerous During Prime Day and the Holiday Season—and the Company Knows It.”

• Message titles (or “talking headings”): The authors create a clear argument with full-sentence subheadings.

• Executive summary: Although not labeled, the first four paragraphs function as an executive summary. This part explains the complaint well.

• Data and stories: The report mixes data and employee quotes to balance a logical argument with emotional appeal.

• OSHA warnings: The second paragraph of page 5 and top of page 6 are particularly strong, giving evidence from OSHA reports about inaccurate and missing reports. To me, these are stronger than the first paragraph on page 5, which accuses Amazon of treating minor cuts and bruises and not reporting them as injuries—which isn’t required.

To meet business communication standards, the report could be improved:

• The report could be more visually interesting. The underlined heading, to start, is a 1990s throwback.

• This line chart is a mess. Purple highlighting is helpful, but students would find better ways to present this data.

• The argument seems to be simply about volume. Yes, Amazon’s injury rate on Prime Days is far above industry averages, but so is its volume. What about on other days? Before Prime Day, when volume is lower, injuries are lower. Perhaps they average out? This doesn’t excuse high rates, but it does explain them. Prime Day is an example of cherry picking data and is employed as a marketing frame for the argument—not the problem itself.

• The inflammatory language may detract from the report. “But Amazon does not stop there” is unnecessary to make the argument and might harm the writers’ credibility.

• The company’s admission of staffing issues may be inappropriately raised in the report. Using an Amazon safety training video that includes an example of an injury caused partly by lack of staffing seems unfair.

• An entire section is dedicated to staffing, but other solutions might be more realistic. More of the report could be dedicated to actions Amazon might take. The few listed on page 8 could be expanded.

• I’m never convinced by arguments like this one: “But those investments over four years are less than 3 percent of the company’s $36.9 billion in profits in 2023 alone.” I have often seen these calculations—percentages of revenue or profit—in students’ presentations, and they mean little. What do similar companies spend, or what is the industry average? Without a target, this is not a compelling reason to spend more.

This is an interesting report with good reasons for Amazon to reduce workplace injuries. A consultancy’s report, which students might write instead, could make a more useful, convincing argument.

Ingrid Andress's Apology

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

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

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

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

Crisis Comms After CrowdStrike Failure

Tech outages affected businesses worldwide, and students can analyze responses by CrowdStrike, which caused the issue.

CrowdStrike begins its statement by including what has not been affected:

CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted. This was not a cyberattack.

The message is designed to be helpful and reduce worries—and to limit the scope of the crisis. Using a similar crisis communication strategy, Microsoft limits its role in the crisis by blaming the third party and mentioning its name twice:

We are aware of a scenario in which customers experience issues with their machines causing a bug check (blue screen) due to a recent CrowdStrike update. We recommend customers to follow guidance provided by CrowdStrike.

The “blue screen of death” that people saw during this outage evokes bad memories from early Microsoft days. Although Microsoft isn’t to blame, the software and the company are likely taking a reputational hit.

CrowdStrike President and CEO George Kurtz posted on X:

CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted. This is not a security incident or cyberattack. The issue has been identified, isolated and a fix has been deployed. We refer customers to the support portal for the latest updates and will continue to provide complete and continuous updates on our website. We further recommend organizations ensure they’re communicating with CrowdStrike representatives through official channels. Our team is fully mobilized to ensure the security and stability of CrowdStrike customers.

Users responded by asking, “Where’s the apology to users, George?” and by calling it “corporate speak.” They have a point, and Kurtz got the memo later, appearing on the Today Show and immediately saying, “We are deeply sorry.” At that time, later in the day, his main purpose was to assure people that they fixed the problem and that systems are coming back.

Kurtz emphasized the importance of CrowdStrike’s work, focusing on how updates like the one that caused the outage are essential to safety—to prevent cyberattacks. Still, how a bug in a minor update wreak such havoc? He doesn’t quite quell concerns about future issues, although he does take responsibility for the outage. Then again, he has little choice.

Costco Comms About Increasing Membership Fees

In a news release, Costco announced plans to increase membership fees in September but hasn’t yet notified customers directly. Writing an email to customers or posting information on the website would be a useful class activity or assignment.

The news came in a short release that includes June sales data and dividend plans. With investors as the primary audience, the message is straightforward:

The Company also announced that, effective September 1, 2024, it will increase annual membership fees by $5 for U.S. and Canada Gold Star (individual), Business, and Business add-on members. With this increase, all U.S. and Canada Gold Star, Business and Business add-on members will pay an annual fee of $65. Also effective September 1, annual fees for Executive Memberships in the U.S. and Canada will increase from $120 to $130 (Primary membership of $65, plus the Executive upgrade of $65), and the maximum annual 2% Reward associated with the Executive Membership will increase from $1,000 to $1,250. The fee increases will impact around 52 million memberships, a little over half of which are Executive.

A pre-recorded message with slides will be posted on July 17 for students to see another example of how the message is conveyed to investors. For investors, the news could be good (although the stock price still fell on the sales and membership fee news), but for customers, it’s certainly bad news.

Nothing is mentioned yet on the Costco membership page, and customers haven’t received direct notice. How would students announce the news to members? They might consider how other companies announce increased fees. In Chapter 8 of the textbook, students read how Netflix shared the news of increasing subscription prices with investors and customers. For customers, Netflix focused on more programming and other benefits. Students can find ways to take this same approach for the Costco message.

To guide their messaging for customers, students can read context from Yahoo! Finance and other general news outlets. They’ll read about rising inflation and membership fee increases by Sam’s Club and BJ’s in 2022. Costco waited a bit longer—seven years since its last price increase in 2017. But none of this likely matters to Costco customers. In addition, students might argue this is only $5, but of course, that’s significant to a lot of families, particularly on top of other increases.

Students can also consider message timing. We typically teach that customers should be informed first rather than find out bad news from the media.

Image source

AI Tools Help (a Lot) During Interviews

A Business Insider article says we shouldn’t call it “cheating,” but using these interview AI tools seems like cheating to me.

Final Round AI will revise a resume, generate a cover letter, and run mock interviews. After an interview, it will summarize, follow up, and somehow—coming later this year—negotiate a salary. But wait, there’s more: Its Copilot product (no relation to Microsoft’s) will transcribe the interview and, in real time, provide sample answers to questions. Cofounder and CEO Michael Guan says, "It can prompt the candidates with the right thing to say at the right time. Like a magical teleprompter, using AI."

Although intended only as a meeting transcription service, Otter.AI is being used as a "proxy interview" tool. This could involve the candidate lip-syncing as someone else answers questions for them. Other tools, like Interview Buddy, provide sample responses or bullet points for the candidate, but Interview Buddy stops short of technical questions, which the CEO says would be "kind of crossing the line, where it's not actually in the interest of the candidate or the employer if they're getting information that they don't actually know."

Students should consider ethical issues of using these types of tools. Where does AI assistance cross a line so that students are no longer representing themselves, which raises questions of integrity and authenticity? How would students answer questions from the Framework for Ethical Decision Making (Chapter 1 of Business Communication and Character, Figure 7)?

From a practical perspective, are students setting themselves up for failure in a job? Guan says using AI reflects a candidate’s “ingenuity,” and he isn’t concerned about results on the job: "If they can use AI to crush an interview, they can for sure continue using AI to become the top performer in their daily jobs.” Can they? Any job? Maybe they can perform only the type of job that is increasingly rare because AI is already doing the lower-end work.

PNC Bets on "Boring”

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

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

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

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

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

Zuckerberg's July 4 Video

On July 4, Mark Zuckerberg posted the perfect video of himself as a proud American, a reprise of one from 2022. Hydrofoiling, holding an American flag, and wearing a tux, he set the video to Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA.” The video has it all. In 2022, he was in shorts, without the beer, and the song was John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads.”

Instagram comments look positive. Apparently, “Bro is the coolest billionaire CEO ever,” a “badass,” and “gangsta.” Some question whether AI generated the video, but others scoff at the idea.

Maybe Zuckerberg is shoring up his image after the many government hearings and social media criticism, or maybe the videos illustrate his political aspirations. Rumors around 2017 and 2020 had Zuckerberg running for president. He is decades younger and certainly more fit than our current candidates. Business communication students can guess his goals, but I’m filing this under Chapter 7 of the textbook, “persuasive messages.”

Learning From Ghosting During Job Selection

Ghosting while dating raises ethical questions that apply to the job search. In both cases, students learn compassion and resilience.

Psychologists say the uncertainty of not hearing anything can be more painful than rejection. One therapist said the consequence is that people “start to question their reality.” They doubt their interpretation of a “good” date or an interview, wondering how their perceptions were off.

Of course, this might not be the case. A date or an interviewer may have felt just as connected at the time, but other candidates were better matches. Some interviewers also seem positive and encouraging during the selection process just to be nice—to make candidates feel comfortable, to allow candidates to represent themselves well, and to represent the company well. The opposite also happens: A candidate thinks an interview went horribly because the hiring manager was inexpressive, but that could be their personality, or they may fear implying an job offer, a questionable approach I’ve heard from several managers.

This Forbes article posits several reasons an employer might ghost a candidate, including hiring an internal candidate, changing budgets or hiring priorities, or discomfort with giving bad news. None are valid reasons when a candidate is left hanging. Discomfort in conveying bad news is the most illogical because no news is worse than a rejection that allows students to move on emotionally as well as practically.

Our job as faculty is to help students take ghosting in stride. As the Forbes article states, “The reality is that ghosting has become unofficial standard operating procedures.” Redditors describe the emotional toll, but unfortunately, it’s expected, so students should do their best to brush it off and not take it personally.

We can coach students to follow up a couple of times with enthusiastic-sounding emails and voicemails, and then they have to practice letting it go. They certainly shouldn’t hold up their search waiting for a response. Resilience has its limits; knowing when to quit is also an important skill. Ruminating about what they did wrong could lead to losing hope or feeling resentments that could sour their search. Instead, reframing ghosting as an unfortunate but expected part of the selection process could help.

Image source.

What to Do When Not Speaking

The 2024 Presidential Debate is a treasure trove of presentation lessons for students. One (safer) topic for class is what to do when a presenter is not speaking.

The debate illustrated how “on” the candidates were when it wasn’t their turn. The same is true for business presentations: before people speak, as they pause to look at notes or change visuals, when they listen to questions, and after they finish. Students are also “on” as audience members—how they are perceived by presenters and classmates.

I have watched students in team presentations when others are speaking looking at their notes, moving their lips as they plan what to say or what they hope the presenter will say, looking disappointed by sneering or tilting their heads, and exchanging nonverbal messages with other team members. I haven’t quite seen the slaw-jawed look we saw during the debate, but all facial expressions are up for interpretation.

As faculty members, we ask students to be particularly attentive to how they appear. We encourage them to look open and supportive—smiling and nodding, as appropriate—when others speak and ask questions. Most important, they should look alert and engaged, whether on or off camera.

New Debate Rules With Mic Shutoff

Rules for the upcoming presidential debate have been announced, and the mic shutoff will be particularly interesting to watch.

CNN, which will host the debate, announced rules for the 90-minutes to which both candidates agreed to comply. Candidates will not make opening statements, must not confer with staff during the two commercial breaks, and may not bring notes with them (although they’ll receive a pen and paper). They’ll stand behind podiums and will speak into mics that will be on only when it’s their turn to speak. No live audience will be present to avoid what a Guardian writer called “the theatrical gladiatorial bloodsport element” of other debates.

I like the rules. They are, dare I say, more controlled (avoiding “professional”)—or maybe the better description is less circus-like and cringy. I was frustrated watching candidates speak over each other (recall “Will you shut up, man?”) and walking and standing too close in past debates. This seems to be a more equitable and civil way to focus on the issues—if that’s possible during any presidential debate and, particularly, this one.

I’m curious how well candidates will handle the mic cutoff. Will it reflect better on Trump, who might otherwise show his inability to reign in his reactivity? Or will it hurt Trump because supporters (and those on the fence) see his reactivity as a sign of strength and proof of his passion and commitment? Will both candidates continue talking without the mic, as if speaking into a void, and how will that appear? Will the silence temper their emotions—or visibly frustrate them? We’ll see.

Image source.