All Categories

Churches for Men Who Don’t Like Church

7/7/2018

by Michael Zigarelli, professor of leadership and strategy at Messiah College
mzigarelli@messiah.edu

“Jake” is not his real name, but he’s a real guy experiencing real change. Jake is 37 with three kids, married for 13 years, many of them unhappy. His life and his work are uninspiring, but it’s a living.

Gradually, his living is becoming a life, and it’s happening in the last place he’d expect: a church.

Jake’s making friends there, his first since becoming a parent. The chronic loneliness of his life—he didn’t even know how bad it was—is subsiding. There’s more peace in his household, too, probably because there’s more peace in Jake. The kids notice that dad’s different; Jake and his wife have turned back the clock 10 years. The aquifer of anger just beneath the surface has dried up.

Gone as well is Jake’s misperception of God. He’s learning that God really does love him. That’s changed everything, giving Jake a new identity—his real identity.

Now multiply Jake’s experience by a hundred thousand. Maybe more. Research I’m conducting across the United States reveals that there are countless Jakes out there because a few innovative churches have figured out how to reach them.

Why Some Churches Target Men

The concept of a “target market” is Business 101, just as the analogous concept of a “target people group” is Missions 101. It’s axiomatic. It works. From a theological perspective, it’s good stewardship.

So consider the logic of “adult men,” or some subset, being a church’s primary target. First, a scant one in five men attends religious services weekly in the United States. Second, there’s the longstanding gender gap: Sit in the back pew this Sunday and you can count 50 percent more women than men. And third, targeting men seems to accelerate church growth. Consider these strikingly-consistent perspectives from senior pastors I interviewed:

“It’s a very simple argument: You reach the man, you reach the family.”
“If the men are respected and feel comfortable in your church, the families will follow.”
“We stumbled into this strategy: If you get the man, you often get everyone in his circle.”
“We asked ‘how do we reach the most people?’ and it seemed that if we could reach the husband or the dad, then we had a good shot at reaching the rest.”

The churches in my study do not appear to be part of some masculinity movement. Rather, they’ve simply adopted an efficient and catalytic strategy: Get the man, get the family. The approach not only reaches a vast and underserved “people group,” it has the byproduct effect of bringing in women and children by the vanload.

Perhaps that’s why most of these churches have gone from start-up to thousands in weekly attendance in a mere decade or two. One, in fact, now attracts 10,000 visitors a week system-wide. Another attracts 27,000.

As a strategy professor, I can’t say I’m surprised by the growth. These churches are pursuing what’s known in my world as a “blue ocean strategy,” the disproportionately powerful decision to go where the “non-customers” are—that is, to serve an ignored segment of the market that would buy your product under the right conditions. The pastors have simply provided the right conditions, enabling their churches to claim, again, to use the business language, “uncontested market space” (i.e., the men who would not be in any church otherwise).

Hence the metaphor of operating in an undisturbed “blue ocean.” No competition there, only demand. It’s the same approach that propelled Henry Ford, Milton Hershey, Sam Walton, and Steve Jobs. Many others as well: Southwest Air, CNN, Home Depot, Airbnb, Cirque du Soleil, Starbucks, Nintendo, Netflix, Quicken—all have soared by serving those formerly on the sidelines.

My emerging sense is that there is plenty of room in that blue ocean for churches beyond those in this study. In other words, there seems to be a wide-open space for more effective evangelism and discipleship of men, and by extension, those in their sphere of influence. Let me introduce you to a few exemplars.

Seven Man-Friendly Churches

For this project, I found seven churches overflowing with men. They’re not that way by chance. Rather, they’ve been intentional, even relentless, about pursuing men as their primary “target people group.” In alphabetical order, the churches in this study are:

121 Community Church, Grapevine TX, Founding Pastor Ross Sawyers
Christ’s Church of the Valley (CCV), Peoria AZ, Founding Pastor Don Wilson
Coastal Church, Daphne AL, Founding Pastor Chad Stafford
Mecklenburg Community Church, Charlotte NC, Founding Pastor Jim White
Northwood Church, Summerville SC, Founding Pastor Fred Richard
Revolution Church, Tucson AZ, Founding Pastor Josh Reich
Wheatland Salem United Methodist Church, Naperville IL, Pastor Jennifer Wilson

Each is man-friendly at its core, designed to reach the unreached. Their goals and strategies make that plain. So do these quotes from some of the senior pastors I interviewed:

“I have the Biblically-illiterate, f-bomb-dropping guy in my head with every talk I write.”

“The person we’re trying to connect with is the 20- to 40-year-old guy who comes in, probably late, sits in the back row, folds his arms and says ‘God, this is your last shot.’”

“Our target is the young dad who was in a fraternity, went to church and hated it, is now working 60 hours a week. He’s more in need of community than he’s ever been in his life; he’s so disconnected from God.”

One pastor summed it up straightforwardly for them all: “I go after guys who were raised Christian, but who haven’t been to church in a while.” Simple. Focused. The classic hedgehog technique from Good to Great.

How do they do it? Their implementation weaves its way through the music, the messages, the staffing choices, the platforming and promotions, even the colors and decor. They’ve replaced flowers and pastels with earth tones and lobby screens tuned to ESPN. They avoid love songs to Jesus and other language that makes guys feel weird. They keep the service to an hour, the messages to a half-hour, and the content intensely practical.

And they do so much more. You can find the details in this Christianity Today article or these more in-depth pieces on LinkedIn and on YouTube.

Women and Children Love These Churches, Too

While it’s possible to become a man-friendly church at the expense of others, the leaders I interviewed seem better than that, seeking win-wins. Most, for example, have gone big with children’s ministry—huge, in fact—not just to serve the kids, but because guys who won’t come to church for themselves will attend if their kids love it.

Women are also enthusiastic about these churches, according to the leadership. Ecstatic in many cases. This quote from one of the pastors echoes what I heard from several of them: “No lady has ever said we’re too masculine. But I’ve had dozens of them come to me with tears in their eyes, saying ‘I’ve been trying to get my husband to go to church for 20 years and this is the only church he will ever go to. Thank you so much!’”

While this research is ongoing, my preliminary conclusion is that these church leaders have found an approach that is working for everyone, reaching thousands who would otherwise remain alienated from God, and offering us a novel, nonprofit example of “Mindful Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

0 Comments

Branding "One and Done"

6/29/2018

0 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Clever t-shirt sayings have long been part of American culture, from “I’m with Stupid -->” to “My parents went to _________ and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.” Foot Locker’s recent promotion of “One and Done” tees, featuring NBA prospects in an infomercial parody, was a slam dunk, but could such a tagline lead people to fall short of their dreams and drop the ball in commitments to others?

The phrase “one and done” is used in a variety of contexts; for instance, parents with one child and no plans for others might say “We’re one and done.” More often, the expression is associated with college athletics, particularly top-tier basketball players who compete at the collegiate level for a single season before turning pro. Driving this behavior is the National Basketball Association’s (NBA’s) one-and-done rule, which requires that players be “at least 19 years old and one year removed from high school” before entering the league.

This b-ball context was the impetus for Foot Locker’s limited edition “One and Done” t-shirt, which it sold strategically, just during NBA draft day and only online and in its Time Square store. One of the commercials that advertising giant BBDO created for the exclusive offer featured projected NBA draftees Trae Young and LiAngelo Ball, both well-known one-and-done players. Meanwhile, comedian Reggie Couz played the over-the-top pitchman, pushing the tees for $29.99 each.

How did the ads do for Foot Locker? They 'scored'—the shirts sold out online. Draft night also went well for Young, who the Dallas Mavericks selected with the fifth overall pick before trading him to the Atlanta Hawks. Unfortunately, one and done didn’t work out well for Ball, who went undrafted.

Many have debated the legitimacy and the efficacy of the NBA’s one-and-done rule, which seems poised for change. Some maintain that the policy hurts college basketball, while others argue that no artificial criteria should keep qualified adults from entering employment. Still, others point to the great success of certain one-and-done players like two-time NBA champion and Finals MVP, Kevin Durant.

The aim here isn’t to resolve the complicated NBA one-and-done debate; rather, it’s to raise a question that affects an even wider swath of people—especially young, impressionable ones:

Should a company brand and promote “one-and-done” products?

I can already hear readers groaning: “Loosen up. They’re just t-shirts!” That’s true. What’s more, Foot Locker’s commercials were parodies that made fun of the annoying infomercials we love to hate, so it was hard to take the campaign too seriously.

Still, real shirts were sold thanks to actual ads that promoted them. Most importantly, those shirts shared a message that socially and developmentally is not a very constructive one: It’s okay to stop after one try.

Yes, we need to realize when it’s time to cut our losses and “pull the plug” on efforts that just aren’t working. That approach, however, is pretty much the opposite of one and done, which more accurately suggests things like, ‘I’ve arrived’ and ‘Don’t mess with perfection,’ or in the case of basketball, ‘I’m NBA material.’

Of course, the problem is that very few people have ‘arrived’; most of us are far from perfect. Instead of quitting and moving on, we need to keep churning and grinding: pushing ourselves to get better by finding even small ways to improve. Rather than ‘one and done,’ our mantras should be things like ‘life is a marathon, not a sprint’ and ‘failures are the path to success.’

But does a saying like 'one and done' really have that much sway over people? Some of the best advertising slogans do make their way into common language use, influencing people’s perceptions and values. For instance, Wendy’s famous 1984 ‘big bun’ commercial made “Where’s the Beef” a national catchphrase that presidential candidate Walter Mondale even invoked. Or, think of all the times you've heard someone quote Nike’s iconic “Just Do It” theme to move themselves and others forward.

Some may still argue that rational adults know better than to take these taglines seriously. Even if that’s true, there’s the issue of who else these marketing messages reach, probably most effectively: young people.

The NBA has one of the youngest fan bases of all sports, with 43% of fans under the age of 35 and 13% between the ages of two and seventeen. By using potential NBA players to promote its One and Done t-shirts on Draft Day, Foot Locker was likely targeting this same youthful demographic.

One problem with this approach is that there has been considerable concern about “children's ability to fully comprehend and evaluate advertising messages.” Of course, very young children are not the ones online buying One and Done t-shirts, yet they are still exposed to the advertising. Young people of all ages experience the social impact of the slogan as they see peers wearing the shirts in school and elsewhere.

It’s easy for any of us to be overconfident in our abilities. Individuals with less life experience, who are still developing in many ways, need to be especially careful of such hubris. In many ways, young people are the last ones who should be thinking about being “one and done,” and marketers should be especially sensitive about encouraging such misguided notions.

Besides potential individual failure, there’s also possible social fallout from a one-and-done mentality, namely the impact on others affected by a person’s premature decision to move on. Granted, few relationships come with long-term assurances, but a rash departure caused by a lack of commitment can leave a gaping hole in others’ lives.

In his class business book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni identified lack of commitment as the third fatal flaw organizations face. Some believe that Millennials have unique struggles with commitment. In any case, no one needs encouragement to end allegiances or to be disloyal, as the one-and-done message might suggest.

Kenny Rogers famously sang that card players need to know “when to hold 'em,” and “when to fold 'em.” Unfortunately, a one-and-done message encourages many individuals, especially young people, to play their hands too soon. Not everything that people say should appear on a t-shirt. Let’s hope Foot Locker permanently retires its ill-advised tees so its “Single-Minded Marketing” also becomes one and done.

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

0 Comments

Does Apple Really Care About iPhone Addiction?

6/15/2018

0 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Like breathing, our smartphone use has become almost an involuntary action. Whenever we find a spare 60 seconds, we pull them out, sometimes without a specific reason. It’s no wonder research suggests that smartphones are addictive. What’s surprising is who wants to help us resist the urge: Apple.

That’s right, the global technology leader and iconic iPhone maker wants to lessen smartphone use. Such a notion sounds as believable as Dunkin limiting donut sales or Papa John’s restricting pizza purchases, but Apple actually has a strategy for curbing customer consumption.

At its recent Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in San Jose, Apple’s Craig Federighi described the plans, which are part of the company’s Digital Health Initiative: “a series of tools to help users monitor how much time they spend on their devices and inside of certain applications.”

More specifically, the new software features will allow users to do things such as:

Monitor and set limits on their screen time
Manage notifications more effectively in order to avoid distracting pings from texts, etc.
Set better parameters for Do Not Disturb, e.g., during meals or bedtime

All of this sounds nice, but let’s be real: Companies want consumers to use their products more, not less. Can you imagine a business meeting in which the CEO says, “We need to see a 15% decrease in sales next quarter”? Such self-limiting action almost never happens; however, it can occur, and there are plausible reasons for Apple to consider it.

First, it’s helpful to recognize Apple’s unique position of influence. With a market cap that’s approaching an unimaginable $1 trillion, Apple is the world’s most valuable company. It’s global share of smartphones is second only to Samsung, and in the fourth quarter of 2017, Apple’s sales surpassed those of its close rival. In the United States, Apple is the leading smartphone OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer).

For these reasons, Apple generates considerable public interest (big understatement), which comes with a higher degree of scrutiny than most companies ever experience. Almost anything Apple does, or doesn’t do, is newsworthy and plays out in the media spotlight.

Second, technology is, for many of us, a mixed blessing. We love the things it does for us, but we’re worried about everything from artificial intelligence taking our jobs to smart speakers co-opting our kids. We’re also concerned how digital devices, despite their benefits, may be adversely affecting our daily lives.

That’s the context in which Apple operates. In sum, the company is ‘the’ culture-tech leader in a world that’s still trying to figure out what’s appropriate use of smartphones and similar devices. By self-regulating, Apple seems to be stepping up and saying that it will be ‘the adult in the room.’

So, maybe Apple’s Digital Health Initiative is socially responsible and perhaps it will generate goodwill, but won’t the program also threaten the firm’s financial health? Probably not. Though rare, there are legitimate reasons why a company might try to decrease use of its own products:

To avoid legal issues: A classic example is a bar refusing to serve a patron who has already had one too many drinks. The pub could see a lawsuit if one of its customers drives drunk and injures another person.

To lessen crowding: No one wants to be packed like sardines into an airplane, train, etc. So, transportation companies often raise prices during peak travel times in order to decrease demand. Some highways have even implemented a similar approach of “dynamic tolls” in order to reduce rush-hour traffic.

To increase customer satisfaction: The law of diminishing marginal utility says that people gain less enjoyment per unit from each additional unit they consume and at some point, the cost of consumption starts to outweigh its benefits. No organization should push its customers beyond that point. Short-run sales may be nice, but customer regret will hurt the company in the long run.

This third reason is likely the one that Apple’s Digital Health Initiative has most squarely in mind. If consumers use their iPhones in excess, they could jeopardize their jobs, their education, their relationships, and more. At any of those points, their attitude toward Apple could change for the worse, which might lead them to drop their smartphones entirely, as some people have done, including a surprising set of A-list celebrities.

For these reasons, we can place some trust in Apple’s self-regulation initiative. Laws aimed at curbing smartphone use are very unlikely to come. Furthermore, the company deserves kudos for getting the jump on any significant social pressure to reform. In this case, less Apple is more “Mindful Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

0 Comments

Muppets for Mature Audiences

5/30/2018

0 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

“Sunny Day, sweepin’ the clouds away.
On my way to where the air is sweet.
Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?”

Those famous lyrics remind us of the iconic kids' TV show tune, bringing back images of Big Bird, Elmo, and their furry friends. Such happy childhood memories are about to change, however, as a new Melissa McCarthy movie makes associations we don't expect from Muppets: sex, drugs, and violence.

Coming to theaters August 17, Happytime Murders looks like a cross between The Muppets Take Manhattan and Pulp Fiction. The premise of the movie, which features both humans and puppets, is that the cuddly creatures we adore on TV, lead “depraved, brutal lives” when off-camera. More specifically, McCarthy plays a detective who partners with a puppet to investigate gruesome puppet murders.

Homicide, however, is only one of the evils. The Happytime puppets are adept at a variety of vile acts. In the movie trailer alone, the puppets use extreme profanity, do hardcore drugs, and commit explicit sexual acts that might give an adult porn star pause. For instance, “A puppet in a spiked collar, vaguely resembling an emaciated Fozzie Bear, offers to perform oral sex for 50 cents on the movie’s star, Melissa McCarthy.”

Given the level of vulgarity, could there really be a connection between sweet Sesame Street and hard-boiled Happytime Murders? Yes and no. The Jim Henson Company, firm of Muppet fame, coproduced the movie with STX Entertainment, and Brian Henson, son of the legendary Muppet creator Jim Henson, directed the film.

However, in 2001, the Jim Henson Company sold the Sesame Street character rights to the Sesame Workshop (formerly the Children’s Television Workshop). The organization’s website explains: “Today, The Jim Henson Company provides the characters used on Sesame Street but the characters themselves are owned and run by Sesame Workshop.”

So, Sesame Street has no ownership of the movie, but it shares a unique puppet heritage that leads many people to conflate anything involving Henson puppets with Sesame Street. Happytime Murders further muddles matters by using the tagline “No Sesame. All Street.” For these reasons, Sesame Workshop believes the purity and innocence of the Sesame Street brand is at risk, which has led the organization to take legal action.

On May 24, Sesame Workshop sued STX Entertainment in federal court for unspecified damages, claiming the movie dilutes and defiles its Muppets’ reputations, causing Sesame Street “irreparable harm.” Sesame Workshop president Jeffrey Dunn also wrote a letter to the Jim Henson Co. asking why his organization was not consulted about the project, calling the movie trailer “practically pornographic.”

Lisa Henson, daughter of Jim, apologized to Dunn, claiming that she and brother Brian prevented STX from making the movie’s characters resemble other Muppets, but they couldn’t stop the firm from promoting the film as it wanted.

STX, was more resolute in its own defense, arguing that no one could reasonably confuse its adult-oriented characters with those of Sesame Street. Furthermore, STX lawyer David Halberstadter “reminded the humans behind Sesame Street that they have a long history of parodying other people’s intellectual property, including ‘Twin Beaks,’ ‘A’s Anatomy,’ and ‘Orange is the New Snack.’”

Happytime Murders is rated ‘R,’ which means only those 18 and older can see the film, unless they are accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Unfortunately, however, some adults have no qualms about taking kids to R-rated movies. Given the film’s promotional reference to Sesame Street and the fact that most of the movie’s actors are puppets, such adult indiscretion is likely to increase.

Children are naturally drawn to colorful and creative characters, which is a main reason for the great success of kids' shows ranging from Barney to Teletubbies. Meanwhile, marketers of products intended for adults have at times been told to stop using cartoonish characters, such as R.J. Reynold’s Joe Camel, because they make harmful things like cigarettes more appealing to children.

Kid-appeal is certainly a key concern for Happytime Murders, but it’s only one of the picture’s problems. Should any adult see a film, let alone a comedy, full of so much gratuitous violence, sex, and profanity? Historical accuracy and artistic integrity make compelling cases for strong language in Saving Private Ryan and graphic violence in Schindler’s List, but what’s the redeeming value of seeing puppets snort drugs through licorice straws, witnessing their heads blown off by shotgun blasts, or watching one Muppet ejaculate all over a conference room?

Maybe it’s ‘entertainment,’ but at what social cost? At a time when our nation faces serious problems related to school shootings, opioid overdoses, and the hookup culture, Happytime Murders makes light of gun violence, illegal drug use, and casual sex. According to the film’s producers, they’re all a joke.

The Jim Henson Company has a rich history of educating and entertaining children. Melissa McCarthy is a talented actress and comedian. It’s sad to see those brands besmirched. Unfortunately, Happytime Murders scrapes the bottom of the barrel of moral decency. The movie may become a box office hit, but its only award will be for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

0 Comments

For Lives, For Profit

5/16/2018

0 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Childbirth can be dangerous—Claudine Ndayishime found out firsthand when a C-section complication caused her to lose blood and slip into a coma. Tragically, the hospital didn’t have her blood type in stock. As her life hung in the balance, help came from above.

Flying in from many miles away, a small and very fast drone delivered the blood she desperately needed. Thankfully, Ndayishime and her daughter are alive and doing well today. The drone that made the life-saving delivery wasn’t from who you might expect, e.g., the hospital system or the Red Cross. It came from Zipline, a for-profit startup company whose mission is about “life-saving delivery by drone.”

Ndayishime’s story of death defiance is not unique. Since launching in Rwanda in October 2016, Zipline’s innovative approach to delivering critical medical supplies has “logged more than 186,000 miles and over 4,000 deliveries,” often for cases of critical need. Rwanda’s Minister of Health Dr. Diane Gashumba suggests that many lives have been saved as a result.

Aerial drones are increasingly common. A simple search on Walmart.com returns over eighty drones that end-consumers can buy. So, why are Zipline’s drones special, and how does a small start-up deliver life-saving service on a national scale? For a clear and quick understanding of Zipline, watch the following three-minute video: https://youtu.be/6wBeXIgD4sY

One big difference from other drones is that Zipline’s have fixed wings, i.e., they’re like airplanes not helicopters. Zipline uses fixed-wing aircraft for the same reasons commercial airlines do—they can fly farther and faster. While Amazon’s delivery drones hit top speeds of 50 mph, Zipline’s drones travel as fast as 80 mph, making its technology “the fastest commercial delivery drone on earth.”

In critical situations when every minute matters, that speed saves lives, as does the reach of Zipline’s drones. The firm’s fixed-wing craft are more efficient than typical drones, allowing them to fly for nearly 100 miles round trip, or about 200 times further than the average quad-copter. Zipline’s drones also are cable of “flying over tall mountains, and even through high winds and downpours"--something most drones could never do.

However, Zipline’s success stems from more than just the type of drones it uses. The company employs comprehensive logistics that include strategically-located distribution centers for medical supplies, a text message-based ordering system, and “military-grade GPS” that guides the drone to the appropriate destination, where the valuable cargo is dropped softly by parachute.

Another important feature of Zipline’s drones is that they don’t take off and land like typical fixed-wing aircraft. Instead, the “zips” fly more like jets on and off an aircraft carrier. The drones are catapulted into flight for take-off, and they are tail-hooked out of the air upon returning to the distribution center, all of which adds to speed of service and location flexibility.

At this point, Zipline’s operations are restricted to Rwanda, but the company has plans to place distribution centers in many other countries around the world, including in the United States. Zipline has raised over $41 million in capital, which will help fuel the expansion.

That last piece of information may make some people uncomfortable: Zipline is a for-profit firm. As such, the company not only needs net income, it must produce a big enough return on investment to satisfy existing investors and to encourage future ones to buy into the business model. The average rate of return venture capitalists expect is 25%.

So, Zipline’s motivation is based on more than a selfless desire to do good. If your life were on the line, would you want the outcome to rest on the wings of a for-profit company? Wouldn’t you want aid from an organization that was more purely altruistic?

It would be helpful to ask these questions of Ndayishime and others in Rwanda who Zipline’s fast-moving drones have saved. My guess is they would have no problem with a for-profit firm being in the business of saving lives.

It’s a fallacy to think that individuals and organizations cannot hold different motives concurrently. Most of us do that kind of balancing in several areas of our lives. For instance, we’re employees who want to help the people our organization serves, but we also want to get paid. Those motives are different but complementary: the better we serve others, the more likely it is that we'll keep our jobs and perhaps receive a raise.

A similar relationship exists for Zipline. The better it serves hospitals and their patients, the more likely it is to retain their business and gain new accounts from other institutions. In the case of Zipline and many other companies, profit serves as an added incentive to innovate and to deliver their products/services more efficiently and effectively, which benefits others.

At a time when many say that technology is taking jobs and that business is bad for society, Zipline offers an excellent example of the opposite: Its work saves lives, provides employment, and ultimately makes our world a better place. It’s a company that can be commended for its “Mindful Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

0 Comments

Should Alexa Be a Kid's Best Friend?

5/4/2018

0 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

When you were a kid, who did you go to for questions? You probably asked mom or dad, or if you were really desperate, you looked something up in an encyclopedia. In an age of artificial intelligence and voice assistants, such queries seem antiquated, but should Amazon be encouraging kids to ‘ask Alexa’?

Children are incredible imitators and adopters of the technology they see adults using. A few weeks ago, I was amazed at the savvy of a one-and-a-half-year-old I know. She isn’t old enough to talk, yet she knows how to swipe through photos on her grandpa’s smartphone.

Amazon introduced its Echo smart speaker with Alexa in November of 2014 to target adults. Since then, Alexa, Siri, and other voice assistants have begun making their way into more homes than Amway and Avon. According to TechCrunch, 16% of Americans, or about 39 million people own a smart speaker.

Voicebot breaks down those statistics further, reporting that nearly one out of every five adults has a smart speaker. It’s hard to believe that the market for such devices is already approaching saturation, which explains why a company like Amazon is looking at a new segment with less contested growth—children.

The ecommerce icon recently announced the addition of a smart speaker specifically made for kids: Echo Dot, Kids Edition. The newest addition to the Echo line will be available for sale May 9, 2018, for $79.99, or about $30 more than a regular Echo.

So, what makes the Echo Dot for tots kid-friendly and worth 37% more than the original? The device’s red, green, and blue color options certainly appeal to kids, but to penetrate the wallets of picky parents, this Echo definitely needs to do some different things, which it does. Here are several of the most notable tasks Alexa accomplishes for kids, all with flexible parental controls:

Answers questions, reads stories, and tells age-appropriate jokes
Plays music, including ad-free radio stations and Amazon music
Plays Audible books
Plays games from Disney, National Geographic, and Nickelodeon
Calls kids for dinner or tells them it’s bedtime via other Amazon Echo devices

It’s worth noting that much of this content comes courtesy of a subscription to FreeTime Unlimited which is included for the first year, then costs $2.99 a month thereafter.

Those are some impressive offerings from a product that’s about the size of a hockey puck. Kids will likely love having their own Echo Dot, partly because they appreciate having ‘their own’ anything, but also because of all that this one does just for them. Meanwhile, parents who buy these Dots will come out looking like heroes, mainly because of the product’s vast capacity to entertain.

So, it seems like a win-win for kids and parents. At the same time, there’s something unsettling about a device doing so much for children. Maybe you’re asking yourself these same kinds of questions about the kids’ Echo Dot:

1. Will it make kids rude? One of the concerns people have had about voice assistants is that by catering so quickly to our demands, they’re turning us into a society of ingrates. Amazon has taken into account that potential by programming politeness recognition into the kids’ Dot. For instance, if children say “please,” the device will thank them for asking nicely.

Such positive reinforcement sounds good, but one has to wonder how long it will take kids to realize that by skipping the pleasantries, they’ll get the same information, more quickly.

2. Will it undermine interpersonal skills? Being polite is important, but even more critical communication skills could be at stake. What happens over time when talking to machines replaces talking to people?

Individuals have had similar concerns about teens texting. Under the age of 12, children are really refining their language, conversation, and social skills, which makes it all the more important that they are learning helpful interpersonal communication habits.

3. Will it present a privacy risk? In the wake of high-profile data breaches and the case of Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, privacy should be a priority for every adult. Keeping our kids safe is an even bigger concern.

BuzzFeed reports that Amazon “does not use data harvested from user actions to compile a back-end profile (often called a ‘shadow profile’) for marketing or other purposes.” Rather, Amazon claims that any such data use is simply to customize and enhance the user’s experience. It has to be getting harder for Amazon to resist the temptation to leverage information gleaned from Alexa to promote its retail sales, but at this point, we probably need to take the company at its word.

However, there are other potential privacy concerns, one of which is hacking. A few years ago, a couple of hackers succeeded in breaking into a Jeep Cherokee’s computer system and controlled a variety of the vehicle’s features from afar. In the Internet of Things, it’s scary to think of a similar breach happening in a five-year-old’s bedroom, with a mic that’s always on and listening.

Another privacy concern might come from a much closer yet less obvious source: the children’s own parents. According to Amazon’s website, parents can “monitor activity from the Amazon parent dashboard,” as well as hear what’s happening in their kids’ rooms via Echo Dots’ mics and speakers. That kind of monitoring may be important for babies or very young children, but as kids get older, they deserve to have some privacy in their personal space.

4. Will it become a parenting substitute? Each of the preceding points are worrying, but in many ways, this last one is the most concerning. Given everything that the kids’ Echo Dot does, will it put parents out of a job?

Of course, that question is an exaggeration, but it’s sad to think that children will soon be asking Alexa, not their parents, to read them stories, play games, and answer questions that often spur important conversations.

On one hand, this isn’t the first time technology has threatened to disrupt parent-child relationships (e.g., television, VCRs, DVD players); however, those earlier examples aren’t quite the same. The artificial intelligence and ‘human-like-ness’ of voice assistants put them on a different plane than any other consumer technology.

Amazon’s latest Echo Dot is in many ways an exciting new product that promises considerable utility in terms of education and convenience. These benefits, however, probably don’t outweigh the risks related to things such as reduced privacy and weakened relationships. For these reasons, we need to tell Alexa that the kids' Echo Dot is “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

0 Comments

A Marketing-Ethics Professor Grades Facebook’s Data Policy

4/21/2018

1 Comment

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

You’ve heard about Cambridge Analytica, data-sharing, the 2016 election, and Mark Zuckerberg’s two trips to Capitol Hill. Rather than add one more opinion of what went wrong and why, I’d like to share something a few of Facebook’s two billion users might find even more helpful: an evaluation of the social media giant’s current data policy.

As an educator, I wasn’t eager to tackle another big ‘grading’ project (I have plenty of others right now), but after pouring over the firm’s privacy-related webpages, I’m glad I did. I learned much in the process, and I believe there are several useful takeaways for others who have an interest in how Facebook manages our data.

Most of my analysis stems from Facebook’s Data Policy page, which describes at length the company’s approach to user privacy. This page also contains links to a variety of other pages that unpack specific components of the policy.

Here’s my evaluation:

Readability: "A"
We’ve all experienced contracts and terms of service that we can tell at a glance will be a ‘bear’ to get through, perhaps because of all capital letters or marathon paragraphs. Facebook’s formatting is much more user-friendly, which may seem like a small thing, but if people avoid reading the policy, what good is it?

The policy features short paragraphs, many with three sentences or less, prefaced by bolded headings, which help readers locate specific information. Likewise, the overall organization of material is clear and logical. For instance, several main headings, set in a larger blue font, delineate sections for answering: “What kinds of information do we collect?” “How do we use this information?” and “How is this information shared?”

Clarity: "A"
Organization and formatting are helpful, but they’re meaningless if we can’t interpret what’s said. Most of us have experienced the mind-numbing legalese that seems as if it were written to confuse and confound. Fortunately, Facebook uses language that’s much more accessible, and if technical terms that some users may not recognize are needed, the company explains the concepts. For example, here’s how the firm describes cookies:

“Cookies are small pieces of text used to store information on web browsers. Cookies are used to store and receive identifiers and other information on computers, phones, and other devices. Other technologies, including data we store on your web browser or device, identifiers associated with your device, and other software, are used for similar purposes. In this policy, we refer to all of these technologies as ‘cookies.’”

Sometimes, however, even a clear explanation is not enough. In those instances, Facebook goes a step further by providing specific examples like the following one to describe how it shares data with third parties:

“We may tell an advertiser how its ads performed, or how many people viewed their ads or installed an app after seeing an ad, or provide non-personally identifying demographic information (such as 25 year old female, in Madrid, who likes software engineering) [emphasis added] to these partners to help them understand their audience or customers, but only after the advertiser has agreed to abide by our advertiser guidelines.”

Ease of Use: "A-"
Given that Facebook’s business model is based almost entirely on managing user-provided information, it’s data policy is inherently complex, which makes it all-the-more important that users can easily find the information they want and make changes to fit their personal preferences.

The company facilitates those objectives by making ample use of hyperlinks to other pages, like this one for advertising preferences, which allows users to better understand and manage the ads they see. Facebook also has programmed a decent amount of flexibility into data-related settings. Similar to the previous example, users also can determine the specific information they’d like to keep private vs. make public through means such as managing their Public Profile and using the Activity Log tool.

In addition, Facebook allows users to delete their accounts whenever they wish, or deactivate them temporarily. With those options, however, comes an important caveat from the company: “Keep in mind that information that others have shared about you is not part of your account and will not be deleted when you delete your account.”

Facebook’s ease of use slips somewhat when it comes to reporting others’ objectionable content. On its webpage “Details on Social Reporting,” the company says, “We encourage people on Facebook to use the report buttons located across our site [emphasis added] to let us know if they find content that violates our terms of use so we can take it down.” However, no such buttons are readily visible. Instead, the intended option for such censure appears to lie under each post’s three-dot drop-down menu under the somewhat ambiguous selection “Give feedback about this post.”

Transparency and Thoroughness: "B+"
Brevity is a virtue, but that benefit is lost if there’s not enough information to adequately communicate a message. In many ways, Facebook does a good job detailing its multifaceted data policy. For instance, it identifies each type of third party with which it shares information about its users: advertising, measurement and analytics services, vendors, service providers, and other partners. Facebook also broadly describes the kinds of information these third parties receive and how they use it.

Along the way, the company provides links to other pages that contain more detailed information, such as advertiser guidelines, the kinds of information it collects, and how users can control the types of ads they receive. In addition, Facebook offers in its Help Center a “Security Checkup” and a series of security tips with links to additional resources such as password protection and antivirus software for Mac and Windows operating systems. Unfortunately, the Microsoft link is broken.

How could Facebook be more thorough and transparent? The company states:

“We do not share information that personally identifies you (personally identifiable information is information like name or email address that can by itself be used to contact you or identifies who you are) with advertising, measurement or analytics partners unless you give us permission [emphasis added].”

As a researcher, the notion that Facebook aggregates data and maintains individual users’ anonymity is reassuring. As a Facebook user, however, I’d like more explanation for the final part of the above statement: “unless you give us permission.” How exactly do we give Facebook permission to share “personally identifiable information,” where is it possible to view the permissions we have granted, and how can we rescind such permissions, if we want to do so? Similarly, Facebook’s data policy states:

“We transfer information [emphasis added] to vendors, service providers, and other partners who globally support our business, such as providing technical infrastructure services, analyzing how our Services are used, measuring the effectiveness of ads and services, providing customer service, facilitating payments, or conducting academic research and surveys. These partners must adhere to strict confidentiality obligations [emphasis added] in a way that is consistent with this Data Policy and the agreements we enter into with them.”

“Transfer information” seems like another way of saying ‘share data,’ which is reminiscent of the Cambridge Analytica debacle. Of course, Facebook adds that “these partners must adhere to strict confidentiality obligations,” but how exactly is that third-party confidentiality monitored and enforced? Perhaps the answer is ‘above our pay grade’ as consumers; yet, it would be comforting to know that new and more effective standards for accountability are in place that will help to avoid a similar Cambridge Analytica breakdown.

Conclusion
Along with the preceding assessment, it’s important to note three things:

1. We use Facebook for free. Since users don’t pay for Facebook, the social media platform needs to cover its costs somehow. Like most other media, it does so through advertising revenue. Advertisers aren’t going to foot the bill, however, unless they know who they’re reaching, hence the need to share at least some user data.

2. The purpose of Facebook is to share information. If we posted things on Facebook and no one ever saw them, we’d be upset. The very reason we use the platform is to share information. Granted, we may only want to share things with our friends or certain others, but in keeping with the prior point, ‘beggars can’t be choosers.’

3. Users enjoy a better experience when Facebook utilizes their data. Granted, we don’t want to be taken advantage of, but seeing ads for products we want or content related to topics we like are usually preferable to exposure to things that are of no interest to us. Such customization is possible because of the data we provide.

As the preceding analysis has suggested, Facebook’s data policy isn’t perfect. However, given the information-intensive nature of the company’s operations and the many different stakeholder groups who rely on that data, the company is doing a commendable job—one that warrants recognition as “Mindful Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

1 Comment

Should Cars Drive Themselves?

4/6/2018

1 Comment

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

It was around 10 pm on a Sunday evening in March. Elaine Herzberg was walking her bike across N. Mill Avenue in Tempe, AZ, when a Volvo XC90 SUV traveling 40 mph struck and killed her. Tragically, about 6,000 pedestrians a year become traffic fatalities. Herzberg’s death, however, was different. She was the first pedestrian killed by a self-driving car.

While driverless vehicles have been the subjects of dreams and experiments for almost a century, truly autonomous vehicles have been reality for only about a decade. Google began its Waymo self-driving car program in 2009. By 2012, its driverless vehicles had logged over 300,000 miles. In 2015 came the “world’s first fully self-driving ride on public roads,” which truly opened the door for autonomous vehicle accidents.

The first death due to an autonomous car occurred in 2017 when a 40-year-old Tesla driver, who was using the car’s “Autopilot” driver-assist system, crashed into a large truck that turned in front of it. Investigators found that the system failed to distinguish the white truck from the bright sky.

More recently, in March 2018, a 38-year-old man died near Mountain View, CA when his Tesla Model X hit a concrete barrier. The driver was also using the car’s Autopilot system, which “allows drivers to take their hands off the wheel for extended periods under certain conditions.” Similar to the other Tesla crash, the system apparently failed to identify the divider. Two other vehicles also were involved in the accident.

Such tragedies may make us ask: Should cars operate on their own? Driving is a complicated activity that requires sharp mental and physical skills, as well as strong intuition, i.e., a clear sense of how to react, often in an instant. Artificial intelligence and other ‘smart’ technology have gotten very good, but can we really trust computer code and CPUs to protect people from a complex collection of fast-moving metal? Is it safe to hand over our keys to the cars themselves?

According to Business Insider, by the year 2020 there will be more than 10 million self-driving cars on U.S. roads. That’s a significant number of vehicles making their own way, and a good guess is that number will continue to grow. In fact, some predict that by 2030, one out of every four vehicles will be self-driving.

What’s driving the success of self-driving vehicles? Compared to conventional cars, autonomous ones have several advantages, for instance:

More efficient operation, including optimized braking and accelerating
Lower emissions due to better driving and possibly fewer vehicles
More self-time: people can potentially do other things while they ride

There also are millions of people who can’t drive cars for various reasons including physical and cognitive limitations. For such individuals, a self-driving car may be more than a simple convenience; it can be a life-changing tool.

But what about safety? Surely none of these benefits is worth putting more lives at risk of auto accidents. That would be true, except that greater safety is actually an advantage of autonomous cars. According to BI Intelligence: “The biggest benefits of self-driving cars are that they will help to make roads safer and people's lives easier.”

Business Insider cites a KPMG estimate that in the United Kingdom alone, self-driving cars will save 2,500 lives over a period of about 16 years. In the United States, autonomous vehicles could prevent 300,000 traffic fatalities per decade.

Such statistics may be hard to believe in light of the recent tragic headlines that prefaced this piece. There are, however, two important points to consider when assessing autonomous vehicle safety:

1. Self-driving cars are still in their infancy. They’ve only been tested on real roads for a few years. The technology that powers them will keep getting better and as improvements are made, the vehicles will become even safer.

2. In most cases, technology does things much more efficiently and effectively than humans do. Take, for instance, automated food production. Machines make every Oreo, can of Coke, and Reese’s Cup virtually identical to the last one. If we had to produce such items by hand, most of us would be lucky to make any two look similar. Of course, driving occurs in a more open and unpredictable environment, but similar accuracy and reliability have already been applied to autonomous cars, with more advancements to come.

It’s heartbreaking when lives are lost, especially due to accidents. As such, it’s wise to be cautious with new and potentially dangerous technology that’s still being refined. Although a few very unfortunate accidents have understandably garnered media attention, self-driving cars still promise to make our highways safer. Those developing these vehicles responsibly are on the right side of the road, driving forward with “Mindful Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

1 Comment

Can Happy Be Healthy?

3/19/2018

0 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

It can be hard to remember what we ate for lunch yesterday, let alone when we were kids, but many of us can recall the unique childhood experience of a Happy Meal. Children may like McDonald’s food, but for most it’s all about the toy tucked inside the red and yellow box. So, why does the fast food icon want to tinker with a nearly 40-year-old recipe that’s been as golden as its arches?

Happy Meals were the brainchild of McDonald’s St. Louis regional advertising manager Dick Brams. When the kid-focused combo first hit the market in 1979, each box contained a burger, fries, cookies, soda, and a toy like a “McWrist” wallet or a “McDoodler” stencil. While the toys regularly varied, the food remained pretty much fixed until 1983, when chicken nuggets became an entrée option.

One of the biggest Happy Meal happenings took place in 1987, when McDonald’s began partnering with Disney. Well over a hundred different Disney characters have since appeared inside the boxes, including Mickey, Aladdin, and Nemo. Moreover, this commercial collaboration opened the floodgates for all manner of other cobranding with the likes of Legos, Transformers, Hello Kitty, and one of the most popular product premiums ever: Ty Teenie Beanie Babies. The small, squishy creatures first appeared in 1997 and were reprised in 2009 for the Happy Meal’s 25th anniversary.

Fast-forward to the present and perhaps the biggest Happy Meal change ever: McDonald’s has decided to remove cheeseburgers from the Happy Meal menu. Why would the company with a name that’s synonymous with burgers and renown for “billions and billions served” make a move analogous to Dunkin’ ditching donuts or Little Caesar’s shelving pizza? It’s all about trying to be healthier.

Most of us recognize that Happy Meals aren’t the most nutrition things kids could be eating. To put McDonald’s dilemma into perspective, a cheeseburger Happy Meal with small fries and a 1% chocolate milk has 700 calories, 27 g of fat, and 1,060 mg of sodium. Those are high levels for young children who are the primary consumers of happy meals and who need as few as 1,000 calories per day.

So, as the biggest restaurant chain in the U.S. by revenue (over $36 billion), McDonald’s is a natural target for concerns about childhood obesity, which has become a national epidemic. The Obesity Action Coalition states: “Pediatric overweight and obesity now affects more than 30 percent of children, making it the most common chronic disease of childhood.” Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that fast food consumption “has been linked to weight gain in adults” and is “associated with higher caloric intake and poorer diet quality in children.”

Not surprising, this isn’t the first time McDonald’s has moved toward healthier Happy Meal options. In the early 2000s, the company introduced juice boxes, 1% milk, and apples with low-fat caramel dip. It reduced the size of Happy Meal fries to 1.1 ounces in 2011 and announced plans to limit added sodium and sugar in certain other items. In 2013, McDonald’s promised to more seriously promote sides of fruits and vegetables and to change the default beverage option from soda. The company also introduced a new brand of lower-sugar orange juice last fall.

As part of the latest round of Happy Meal makeovers, McDonald’s plans to serve a smaller size of fries with the six-piece Chicken McNuggets, make bottled water a featured beverage option, and reduce the added-sugar in its chocolate milk. Cheeseburgers will no longer be among listed Happy Meal options; however, customers will still be able to receive them upon request.

All of these changes are part of the company’s longer-term goal, which is to have at least half of all Happy Meals come in under 600 calories, with less than 10% of those calories from saturated fat or added sugar, and with under 650 mg of sodium.

Some people with unique insight into health-related matters believe McDonald’s plan is a good one:

“We think McDonald’s is raising the bar,” said Howell Wechsler, the chief executive of Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which advised the chain on the menu changes.

“This is an important step in the right direction,” commented Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association.

There is some precedent for such changes having a positive impact. McDonald’s reports that orders of soda fell by 14% after the item was removed from the Happy Meal menu. Meanwhile, the chain saw a corresponding increase in meals purchased with water, juice, or milk.

McDonald’s actions also appear to influence its competitors. Burger King, Dairy Queen, and Wendy’s followed McDonald’s lead by replacing soda as the default drink in their kids’ meals. McDonald’s reportedly receives more business from families with children than does the competition, but its peer impact is certainly not negligible.

Not everyone, however, is happy about the Happy Meal changes. Corporate Accountability, a national nonprofit and frequent critic of the restaurant chain maintains that a 600-calorie meal is still more than many young children need. Furthermore, spokesperson Alexa Kaczmarski suggests that McDonald’s actions are simply aimed at getting kids addicted to junk food for life.

New York University professor of food studies Marion Nestle offers a more moderate but still critical analysis of the restaurant’s moves, calling them “tweaking” and saying “it’s hard to convert junk foods to health foods in any meaningful way.”

Jennifer Harris of the University of Connecticut's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity echoes these concerns as she describes the reality of what often occurs inside a fast food restaurant:

“If you're in a restaurant and your child smells french fries and sees the soda, it’s very difficult for kids to get the healthier choices . . . If you're a parent, do you risk having a meltdown or do you get your child what’s most appealing to them?"

Harris’ point is a compelling one: It’s one thing to offer healthy options, it’s another thing for a target market of kids, with understandably few health concerns, to choose such options, especially when all kinds of other food looks and smells more appealing.

Add onto that temptation the likelihood that the children’s parents aren’t eating very healthily either. Sure, some people go to McDonald’s and order salads, but the vast majority of parents probably sit across the table from their kids eating their own Quarter Pounder with Cheese and fries. So, even if dad orders chicken nuggets and a side of apple slices for Junior, Junior is already planning what he’ll eat when he’s old enough to order for himself.

People will always want some indulgences, but given trends toward healthy eating and better-quality options, the long-term future of fast food doesn’t look particularly promising. As I interact with members of Generation Z, most tell me they’d definitely prefer to eat at Panera or Chipotle, rather than the typical fast food restaurant. That preference doesn’t bode well for McDonald’s now, and it’s not likely to get better over the coming 5-15 years, as this next generation of young parents will have even less motivation to buy their kids Happy Meals.

McDonald’s is, in many ways, trying to chart a new path. That’s a tall order, however, even for one of the world’s most successful companies when its brand has been tied for so long to largely unhealthy food. I’m glad that McDonald’s continues to make menu changes, especially ones that may positively affect children. Unfortunately, it’s doubtful that the net impact will be proportionate to the company’s influence. It’s a tough call, but healthier Happy Meals still seem like “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

0 Comments

Women: No Longer Auto Accessories

3/4/2018

30 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

People love auto shows: the stylish bodies, the sleek lines, the alluring curves. While those descriptions fit the latest concept cars, they also work for the scantily dressed women seen standing next to them. Almost as long as there have been automobiles, companies have used attractive young women to help sell their vehicles. Some organizations, however, have taken a bold step to separate sex appeal from automotive appeal.

A variety of media, from calendars to TV commercials, couple women wearing suggestive attire with cars. The rationale for these pairings is that sex sells; i.e., certain companies believe that they can gain interest in their autos’ bodies by leveraging the natural allure of the human body.

Over the years, auto shows have been notorious for their use of highly-sexualized female models: Poised next to a manufacturer’s hot new car are one or more attractive young women, often sporting stilettos and wearing tight-fitting dresses with low necklines and high hemlines.

However, use of women as commercial eye-candy isn’t unique to automobiles. A variety of other industries like video gaming and consumer electronics employ ladies at tradeshows in the same sultry capacity. In fact, there’s even a belittling name for the women: “booth babes.” TMS Agency, a modeling firm with locations in virtually every state, specializes in such talent, describing the women’s function as follows:

“A booth babe is a female model hired to staff a booth at a trade show. The term implies a girl who is focusing more on her physical attributes to entice customers rather than her intellect to represent a company. Booth babe is also slang for a booth girl. Booth babes serve two purposes: 1. Attract attention to your exhibit due to their looks; 2. Assist with activities and demonstrate products”

It’s not hard to find women serving this primeval purpose at some of the world’s largest and most renown auto exhibitions like the Paris Motor Show and the North American International Auto Show. However, visitors to another major auto exhibition will no longer be exposed to the practice.

In its 88th year, the Geneva International Motor Show has hosted more than its fair share of booth babes. Just last year, for instance, Lexus, Fiat, and Alfa Romeo used attractive young women, outfitted in evocative attire, to help draw attention to their respective automotive entries. It appears, however, that this March in Geneva will be different.

Fortune reports that many of the exhibitors at this year’s show will not be bringing both babes. Some companies, like Lexus, won’t have any people accompany their cars. Other manufacturers, such as Fiat Chrysler, will use both men and women, outfitted in more conservative attire.

What’s caused the sudden change of heart for so many automobile manufacturers? Some cite the recent rise in cases of sexual harassment and a desire not to get caught on the wrong side of the #MeToo movement. Switzerland-based Nissan spokeswoman Sara Jenkins frames her firm’s decision in a straightforward, positive light: “It makes more sense to use product specialists because we’re selling cars.”

Anyone in marketing should appreciate Jenkins’ rationale—If your company is selling a product, particularly a complex and expensive one like a car, you want people who can talk intelligently about the vehicle’s features and benefits. That’s one of the top requirements for effective personal selling.

But, why not have both? Certainly, there are individuals who are very attractive and very smart. Why don’t automobile manufacturers hire them to wear skimpy clothes and work their tradeshows? One reason is that smart, hard-working people aren’t as easily enticed, and they know they have options other than putting their bodies on display.

Hopefully these car companies also realize what they’ve been doing to the women they’ve had on exhibit for so many years. The manufacturers have relegated these young women to human hood ornaments—items to ogle and awe at, like the masses of metal they’re posed to adorn. Just as the car companies have minimized the models’ attire, they’ve stripped away each woman’s personhood.

Unfortunately, that sexual objectification doesn’t only impact the models who participate in the tradeshows. It affects all people indirectly. The more we see women, or men, treated as objects, the more likely we are to think that such representations are normative, i.e., to believe that they’re okay.

Ironically, while reading the aforementioned Fortune article, an ad appeared on the side of my screen titled “Dream Big, Princess.” The link connects to Disney’s website where a 90- second video highlights many of the company’s animated heroines, interspersed with clips of young women today engaged in adventurous activities. The promotional piece encourages girls to become things like teachers, politicians, preachers, astronauts, and leaders. Of course, there’s no charge to grow up to be a booth babe.

Automobile manufacturers might not be banishing booth babes because of social conscience, but at least they're banishing them. Our world’s women and men will be better off as a result. The car companies also should be more successful in the long run, especially when targeting market segments that are increasingly and rightly appalled by the primitive practice. Showing people genuine respect will always be a foundation for “Mindful Marketing.”