Bus305: Discussion- Bad Strategy Experience

Decisions made by publicly owned companies often get released to the public through news releases and employee leaks. These decisions occasionally are cause for criticism and the company and CEO address and reverses their decisions due to public outcry. Important - these are decisions or a specific behavior or situation which occurs and causes a quick reaction that appears to come as a surprise to the company. In many cases, the companies reverse the decision or try to justify their actions. DON'T analyze companies whose ongoingbusiness practices are controversial because they chose that path intentionally understanding and accepting the controversy. Find one example of these decisions in public corporations and answer the following questions in regard to the company's decision:

1. Summarize what the decision was.
2. What was their intent?
3. Why were they criticized for the decision?
4. How did the company respond to the backlash?

Next, reply to 3 of your classmates be sure to include the following outline for each student:

Hi,

I just finished reading your written discussion on ___ by___and I acknowledge it to have been particularly (well worded, articulate, impressive, eloquent, clear, precise, detailed, thorough, short, straightforward, concise, compendious)

A part that stood out to me was when you explained, " " because........

To add to your work,

Furthermore,

Overall, I think you did a good job analyzing the material. Keep it up for future discussions!

-Your Classmate

• Student 1:

"Former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen has been revealed as the source behind tens of thousands of pages of leaked internal company research, which she says show that the company has been negligent in eliminating violence, misinformation and other harmful content from its services, and that it has misled investors about these efforts. For Facebook, the document leak and the public reveal of the source represents perhaps the most significant crisis in the company's history, further deteriorating relationships between the company and Washington politicians."There were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money," Haugen said in the interview.

Haugen's lawyers have filed at least eight complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has broad oversight over financial markets and can bring charges against companies suspected of misleading investors, resulting in fines or other penalties for companies and executives. The complaints compare Haugen's findings with the company's public statements, according to "60 Minutes."Lawmakers for years have threatened legislation they say would increase Facebook's responsibility for privacy abuses or amplifying harmful or misleading content. But to date Congress has not passed any comprehensive social media bills into law, allowing companies like Facebook to flourish largely unhindered by legal restrictions."

• Student 2:

"Earlier this year, Disney came under fire for its positioning on Florida's "Don't Say Gay" legislature. Formally named the Parental Rights in Education Act, the aim of this bill is to prevent discussion of LGBTQ topics at elementary schools. In March, CEO Bob Chapek sent a memo to shareholders explaining why Disney should not publicly respond to the proposed bill. Disney worked behind the scenes in an effort to stop the bill, but Chapek decided that Disney should remain neutral in politics in an effort to protect shareholder's interests. He also asserted that Disney can promote inclusivity and celebrate differences through their various mediums.

After severe backlash and opposition, Disney quickly reversed their decision and publicly denounced the bill. Disney decided to sign a statement shunning the bill. The statement was written by the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that actively works towards opposing legislation that is harmful to the LGBTQ community. Disney also attempted to donate 5 million dollars to the organization in an effort to show support.

To summarize, Disney refused to publicly criticize anti-LGBTQ legislation in order to protect shareholder's interests. When the public found out, Disney faced severe backlash. Within two days, Disney completely reversed their decision and signed a statement publicly denouncing the bill."

• Student 3:

"In December of 2017, a Reddit user reported that the software update reduced the performance of their iPhone, but corrected itself when the battery was replaced. It was suggested that Apple tried to force their consumers in upgrading to new phones. It was interpreted as Apple's intention to "batterygate" iPhones in order to force users to upgrade their phones by deliberately slowing devices as they aged. This would have encouraged consumers to purchase the newer model, becoming beneficial for the company.

Furthermore, as a response to the scandal, CEO, Tim Cook offered to discount battery replacements as a gesture of goodwill. There was also a $113 million settlement and in addition, the company agreed to pay $500 million in a separate private class action settlement that entitled any current or former owner of an affected iPhone to $25 while also acknowledging the issues and issuing a formal apology. This decision infuriated many consumers, for they believed it was not a real apology, while others were fine with these accommodations."