McWinging It

In April, McDonald’s Lauren Schultz appeared on BBC Radio 4 for an interview that quickly exposed the tension between tightly-managed corporate narratives and journalistic scrutiny.

Schultz arrived well-prepared to discuss McDonald’s new work experience scheme. The interviewer, though, had interests elsewhere. He wanted to address an investigation into workplace complaints and the impact of the Iran war on pricing. The result was a case study on how well preparation, or lack thereof, holds under challenge.

By trying to force her script, Schultz avoided direct questions and appeared to dismiss public concerns – appearing apathetic, possibly even callous and cold. The interviewer smelt blood, pushed harder, and got a result that gained far more attention, particularly on social media, than a straight answer likely would have done.

For anyone preparing for an interview, Schultz’s experience provides three important takeaways:

The interviewer’s line of questioning was inevitably shaped by ongoing monitoring of McDonald’s workplace culture, with law firm Leigh Day currently representing over 700 past and present employees in employment tribunal claims against the business, as well as the stories – like the Iran war – that were already shaping the day’s news agenda. A new work experience scheme was always likely to be put in the context of past criticism, and the impact of war on pricing was a consumer concern that the reporter will have felt obliged to raise. Broader preparation and proactive positioning would have put Schultz on the front foot.

Interviews also allow an external individual to interrogate, challenge and reframe statements in real time. Effective preparation needs to include creative challenge to planned messages. Schultz was clearly prepared – armed with talking points, anecdotes and statistics which supported her narrative – but she looked inflexible when challenged. Her body language was one of avoid rather than address, and that always plays badly.

And finally, how can you claim to be fixing an issue – like workplace culture – that you cannot acknowledge? When leaders are unable to name a problem, journalists will do it for them. The irony is that prioritising brand protection can harm it. A defensive tone that downplays the seriousness of an issue, dismisses public perception or hides uncomfortable truths can make leaders appear out of touch. Credibility is built by defining the problem, acknowledging how it is being perceived and showing what has changed.

You need to be ready for the worst to do your best. The lesson for leaders is simple: strong interviews are not about control, nor about broadcast, but about being equipped to engage.

I Scream, You Scream…

Few things please a crowd more than ice cream on a hot day – though preferably in a cone rather than a ventilation system.

Magnum’s latest ad campaign left a strange taste in London commuters’ mouths. Or, more accurately, a strange smell in their noses.

The ice cream brand’s decision to pump the scent of chocolate through King’s Cross St Pancras was presumably intended to evoke indulgence, pleasure and perhaps the memory of a distant summer holiday. Unfortunately, for people trying to get to work, it triggered nausea instead.

Over in Hong Kong, one law firm’s munificence also showed how quickly a well-meaning gesture can curdle. Harneys celebrated International Women’s Day this year by sending pink ice cream makers to female lawyers and clients. Because nothing says ‘we value women’s leadership’ quite like a pastel domestic appliance.

When criticised, the managing partner reportedly joked about a house-cleaning kit for husbands. The response suggested either admirable commitment to the gag or a worrying unfamiliarity with the first rule of holes: stop digging.

What unites Magnum and Harneys isn’t ice cream, but the risk of looking out of touch. Magnum thought commuters would enjoy a sensory treat at 8am. Harneys thought female lawyers would appreciate a playful gift – and some did. But in both cases, the mess it made begs a simple question: did nobody see this coming?

The lesson isn’t to avoid creativity, humour or generosity – corporate life contains enough beige already – but the world has no shortage of ideas that sound delightful in a meeting. The trouble starts when no one in the meeting can smell what’s coming.

Algorithm & Blues

Spotify's recent investor day brought on headlines that just recently would have seemed far-fetched: a licensing deal with Universal Music allowing subscribers to create AI-generated remixes of songs from participating artists. Co-CEO Alex Norström described it as "grounded in consent, credit and compensation” while Universal’s chief executive framed it as “firmly artist-centric, rooted in responsible AI”.

It marks a notable shift for a business that, not long ago, took a more passive approach to the content on its platform. Regular readers (we are that bold) may recall our piece last year on the backlash surrounding The Velvet Sundown – an AI-generated band that has now accumulated over 10 million streams – which led to calls for legal obligations on platforms to tag AI content.

The contrast with what was announced at the investor day is striking. Where the earlier response was essentially defensive, this trills as something more proactive: an attempt to get ahead of the challenge by building a commercial framework around it.

Spotify has been laying the groundwork for some time. September last year brought a serious package of protections around new impersonation rules, an AI spam filter, and an industry disclosure standard that went live in April. The Universal deal goes well beyond that and looks considerably better than TikTok’s remix economy – where tracks go viral and royalties go nowhere. Spotify is trying to route it back through a structure where artists opt in.

The early scepticism was perhaps predictable – this is, after all, a premium add-on announced on an investor day, with one eye firmly on the company's path to a billion users and $100 billion in revenue. But the logic isn't unreasonable. Licensing and consent frameworks, even imperfect ones, are better than the alternative. Norström’s three Cs are a good start.