BizCom in the News

Exxon Refuses to Add Sexual Orientation to Anti-Discrimination Policy

Although 88% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace, Exxon Mobil is not one of them. This is not a required federal policy but one that most large employers have added to their anti-discrimination policies. For the 14th year in a row, however, Exxon Mobil has denied a shareholder proposal to do so. The company has, of course, included such policies and provided same-sex benefits in countries where it's required, but the restriction in the United States is intentional—and has raised more than a few eyebrows.

The move is surprising, particularly considering the increasing national acceptance of same-sex marriage; Don't Ask, Don't Tell laws for the military; and, this week, the Boy Scout's dismissal of a ban on gay scouts.

The company's decision may hurt business and their recruiting efforts. When the company's new head of human resources met with a group recently and asked, "What’s your opinion of Exxon Mobil?" one representative said, "Every single person said the equivalent of, 'I’d walk 20 miles in a blizzard to find another gas station if I’d run out of gas. We’d never spend a dime at Exxon Mobil.'" Also, Exxon Mobil may be at a disadvantage when hiring talent. Would a gay or lesbian work for a company with this history?

The company's position is that a policy against all forms of discrimination already exists, and sexual orientation is mentioned on the web site. But, for many people, this is not enough.

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• Exxon Mobil says this is a board of directors decision. What do you think are the deliberations of the board? What are the considerations for and against including sexual orientation, specifically, in an anti-discrimination policy?
• How, if at all, does this news affect your view of Exxon Mobil? Does it affect your buying decisions?

Another Book About Gender Differences at Work

Do we need another book about gender differences at work? Authors Barbara Annis and John Gray think we do. "Work with Me" promises to reveals the "8 blind spots between men and women in business." Gray is also the author of bestseller "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus."

Granted, I haven't read the book, but a Wall Street Journal interview with the authors made me roll my eyes like a teenager. Here's an excerpt, with Annis resorting to the old sports metaphor issue at work:

WSJ: How can men and women bridge these differences?

Barbara Annis: There’s equal learning that has to happen on both sides. I worked with a firm where a high-level woman was feeling alienated partly because her boss always talked in hockey metaphors and mostly left her alone. His intention was to value her in his own approach. But she misinterpreted that. He saw she might want him to step into her office and see how she was doing, and have conversations that bond, not just about hockey. And she had to understand that he had the best of intentions for her. This is about knowing you have blind spots and turning your head to see more clearly.

Gee, that's original. Have we not progressed past the 1980s? I think we can find better ways to increase understanding. We could start by not exaggerating and generalizing differences, and we could use solid research instead of stereotypical, one-off examples.

The interview reminds me of generational differences at work that are often overstated for a good headline—or another bestseller.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your experience with gender differences at work? In what ways are they valid, and in what ways might they be overstated?
• What's your view the interview with the authors?

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?

Anti-Gay Marriage or Just Anti-Relationship?

Beer brewer Tui posted a billboard in response to New Zealand's legalization of same-sex marriage. It's meant to be funny but has caught a negative reaction. 

Controversy is brewing (sorry) on the Tui's Facebook page, but the company is defending the ad.

Tui's marketing manager said that "Yeah right" ads have been around since 1994:

"There have been a fair few 'Yeah Right' lines which have made it to the billboards over this time, all of which have been generated with the intention of delivering a smile to New Zealanders.

"Given the duration of this campaign and the quantity of 'Yeah Right' lines, occasionally there is the odd... line, which doesn’t hit the mark in generating a smile for all.

"Our intention with the current Tui Yeah Right billboard 'Dad’s new husband seems nice' was to highlight the common situation or uncertainty experienced when someone’s parent remarries.

"Given the recent passing of the Same Sex Marriage Bill in Parliament, this 'Yeah Right' line is a topical spin at the age-old situation of a parent's new partner."

It's true: Tui has a long history of edgy "Yeah Right" ads. Here are 16 others.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of Tui's ad: tasteless, insensitive, funny, or something else?
• Look at Tui's other "Yeah Right" ads.  Do you find them funny? Does this context change your perception of the gay-marriage ad?

McDonald's Apologizes for Ad

McDonald's says it didn't approve an ad that makes light of a mental health issue. In a Boston subway ad, the company pokes fun at someone with an addiction to a Big Mac.

Nicole DiNoia, a spokesperson for McDonald's, issued this statement:

"A local print ad displayed on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) was recently brought to our attention. We can confirm this ad was not approved by McDonald’s. And, as soon as we learned about it, we asked that it be taken down immediately. We have an approval process in place, with our marketing and advertising agencies, to ensure that all advertising content is consistent with our brand values. Regrettably, in this incident, that process was not followed. We sincerely apologize for this error."

With no one taking responsibility, who's to blame? The response is reminiscent of the Ford ad that the company said it didn't approve. In that case, the ad agency did take responsibility for the offensive ads and terminated those involved.  In this case, Arnold agency president Pam Hamlin apologized and blamed the process rather than the design:

"Arnold apologizes for its mistake to McDonald's and to anyone who was offended by the ad. McDonald's did not approve the ad, and its release was our unintended error. We've addressed the issue and have improved our approval process to ensure this does not happen in the future."

In the Ford situation, it was somewhat believable that the ad agency created the ads just to show its creativity. But this situation is different: the agency is hired by McDonald's but didn't get approval during any stage of ad development: concept development, composition, printing, or distribution?

Discussion Starters:

• What's your reaction to the ad? Do you find it offensive, funny, or something else?
• How do you respond to the apologies from McDonald's and the ad agency? What, if anything, could they do differently?