All Categories

Can Google Be Trusted?

11/27/2020

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
author of Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

Ask people their biggest brand loyalties and they’ll mention names like Apple, Coca-Cola, and Nike. Flying under the radar, however, is a firm whose product most people use far more often. It’s second nature to ‘Google’ any online search, but does a company the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses of anticompetitive practices deserve so much of our trust?

The DOJ recently levied an antitrust lawsuit against Google, “alleging that the online giant engaged in anticompetitive conduct to preserve monopolies in search and search advertising.” Although the lawsuit implies a lack of trust, “The trust in antitrust [actually] refers to a group of businesses that team up or form a monopoly in order to dictate pricing in a particular market.”

Given that Google doesn’t charge people to use its search engine—it’s free for all—it doesn’t make much sense to say that the company colludes with competitors to fix prices.

On the other hand, Google’s inordinately large share of the market for online search, does resemble a monopoly. According to 2017 Net Market Share statistics, Google accounted for 79% of the global search engine market versus just 7.3%, 7%, and 4.9%, respectively, for Bing, Baidu, and Yahoo.

Contrary to what one might think, a monopoly is not necessarily illegal. According to the Sherman Act, it’s fine for a company to hold such a position of prominence, provided that the firm’s “vigorous competition and lower prices [took] sales from its less efficient competitors.” It’s kind of like saying, ‘It’s no crime to be rich, if you made your money honestly.’

Google’s rise to the top appeared to be upright. In 1995, with the Internet in its infancy, Larry Page and Sergey Brin conceived the search engine from their Stanford University dorm rooms. Then, as companies and consumers increasingly spent time online, the firm kept improving its product and riding the wave of web success. Google now has annual revenues of $166 billion and a market cap of $1.20 trillion.

So, if Google’s free product precludes price-fixing and its rise was above reproach, how has the search engine giant run afoul of the law? It has to do with what the company has purportedly done to maintain its preeminent position.

According to the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit, Google is guilty of acting anticompetitively in search and search advertising in order to “preserve” its monopolies in those arenas. In other words, it’s not what the company did to get to the top, it’s what the firm does to stay there.

It’s important here to reiterate that so far Google has not been found guilty of wrongdoing, it’s only been charged. That said, why would a company that achieved such success honestly, need to resort to maleficence to maintain its status?

As hard as it is to come by success, staying successful can be even harder, for reasons like these:

Success breeds competitors. When people see someone being successful at something, a natural tendency is to think, “I can do that.”
Everyone guns for the leader. In sports, subpar teams often play great games when they have an opportunity to beat the defending champion.
Bigger businesses have more to manage. Even a small company is not easy to run. As an organization grows, so do the number and size of its challenges
Good ideas are hard to find. It’s difficult to maintain a continual flow of winning ideas.
Success is addicting. Once you get a taste of success, it’s hard to give it up.

Of course, none of these reasons would absolve Google of anticompetitive practices. If it’s doing what the DOJ alleges, Google is not only breaking the law, it also may be hurting consumers like you and me in more than one way:

Costing us money: According to the DOJ, enforcement of antitrust laws like the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act “saves consumers millions and even billions of dollars a year.” It’s basic economics: Greater supply means lower prices.

Reducing quality: The FTC also maintains that monopolies impinge on product quality. When customers have no other options, there are fewer incentives for monopolizing organizations to make sure their offerings are great.

In the abstract, these two reasons definitely resonate. The issue, though, is that my positive experience with Google makes it hard for me to pin either of the problems on the company.

Just in writing this piece, I used Google at least a dozen times to search the Web for articles and statistics that I’ve hyperlinked throughout the article. Those searches are in addition to a dozen more Google searches I do each day for work and personal needs. All these searches cost me nothing and I am almost always very happy with the results. So, why isn’t a bigger, more powerful Google better?

Perhaps the biggest downside of monopolies is that they can impede innovation. Companies with monopoly power can lose incentive to innovate, while standing in the way of other firms that would like to offer us cutting-edge products and breakthrough services.

In a monopoly-managed industry, what’s available may seem good because we’re unaware of what could be, i.e., we don’t know what we’re missing.

What if Microsoft had short-circuited the rise of Apple or if big automakers had put the brakes on Tesla? The world wouldn’t be enjoying the innovative products that these firms and other one-time startups have brought to market. I wouldn’t be typing on my MacBook right now.

Competition is good for consumers. It’s also good for the firms competing, as it encourages them to work more efficiently and effectively, which brings out their best: “Iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Every individual and organization should want to do/be their best and, therefore, should welcome competition.

It will be up to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to determine whether Google has been “unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets.” However, if the Court does uphold the charges, the company also could be cited for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Marketing Unity

11/14/2020

10 Comments

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
author of Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

In his first speech after news media declared him the election winner, Joe Biden urged Americans to “come together as a nation,” “unite,” and “heal.” Those are commendable words with admirable intent, but given the deep divisions besetting the country, is it realistic to believe that any individual or organizational rhetoric can restore national harmony?

Among those with a keen interest in the current social climate are marketers. At a minimum, they want to demonstrate that their organizations are in step with public sentiment. Even better, they’d like to suggest they’re leading the charge for positive societal change.

Over recent years, we’ve witnessed dozens of companies advertise their support for causes that have included immigration reform, gender equality, and racial justice. Even with a change in the Oval Office, the social unrest that fueled these and other movements is likely to continue, in part because America is so ideologically divided.

Despite the state of the nation, only half of marketers have specific plans that account for such social unrest. Furthermore, those with strategies may be working from flawed assumptions, at least if they’re following examples like that of Gap.

The clothing company recently tweeted its wide-eyed desire for red and blue voters to “come together.” It quickly deleted the tweet, however, after considerable backlash accused the firm of “tone-deafness and words that were not backed up by action.”

As Pepsi’s failed ‘protest’ commercial featuring Kendall Jenner showed, consumers don’t like when companies just pay lip service to social concerns. People want firms to act on their supposed convictions and walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

The question, then, is: How marketers, whether they’re individuals or organizations, move beyond words to unifying actions? Here are six suggestions:

1. Separate individuals from issues: Some people have a hard time putting a partition between the things others say and those who say them. As a result, disagreements over issues often descend into personal attacks that undermine unity, e.g., “Well, if you believe that, you’re an idiot.”

If it’s hard to coexist on social media with someone whose opinions are very different than your own, imagine being married to that person. That’s exactly the union that liberal-leaning James Carville and conservatively-inclined Mary Matalin represent. Despite very strong ideological differences, the famous pair of political consultants have a long and happy marriage because they love and respect the other person. Issues are not the individual.

2. Genuinely listen: Anyone who argues that listening isn’t a real action probably hasn’t done much serious listening. It takes patience and focus to listen well, and even greater skill to effectively communicate to others that you’ve heard and understood them.

To its credit, Pepsi recognized its error with the Jenner ad and has made “social listening” a top priority. According to vice president of marketing Todd Kaplan, the company now actively identifies and seeks to understand specific “cultural truths,” which determine the brand, not vice versa. The company has made careful listening a prerequisite for action.

3. Find common ground: When confronted with controversy, too often people run to their ideological corners, from which they launch long-range attacks on their adversaries—an approach that is alienating, to say the least. On the other hand, when people first identify points of agreement, communication tends to unfold much more favorably for all.

In sales, one of the most difficult things is to ‘cold call’ prospective clients—"I don’t know you, you don’t know me, but here I am.” However, it’s amazing how quickly the temperature of such interactions warms when the salesperson and prospect come across someone/something they have in common, e.g., a shared acquaintance, the place they grew up, a favorite sports team, etc. Shared affinities and experiences, as well as beliefs, lay a foundation for mutual respect.

4. Show humility: There’s little more socially off-putting than unabashed arrogance—individuals who are very ‘full of themselves,' often insisting they’re right, and suggesting they can do no wrong. Such an “I’m above you” attitude implies an uncomfortable hierarchy that undercuts unity.

In contrast, there are others who are brilliant, talented, experts in their fields, yet readily admit that they don’t have all the answers and acknowledge that they sometimes make mistakes. Despite the greater gulf that probably exists between us and them, it’s this latter group that makes us feel more valued and welcomed.

5. Practice hospitality: We forget the vast majority of things that people say to us, but we tend to remember for a long time even the small acts of kindness that people do for us. It’s been more than 20 years, but I still remember when, shortly after the birth of our son, my department chair stopped by our home to visit and drop off a meal that his wife had made for us.

I’ve also been a grateful recipient of notes of encouragement, such as one I received recently from a student who wanted to express thanks for the special efforts faculty members have made to teach during the pandemic. Great or small, such hospitable acts bring people together, physically, figuratively, or both.

6. Laugh: If you notice a couple that never laughs, it’s likely a relationship on the rocks. People who are on good terms, tend to joke with each other. In fact, even more than a sign of healthy relationships, laughing together helps build social bonds.

Two colleagues and I recently conducted a study that looked at “playful teasing” in television commercials. Among other results, we found high means for ‘liking’ and ‘recall’ of ads that contained friendly joking, even when the ribbing crossed racial lines.

Saying the right words and avoiding the wrong ones is important for many persuasive purposes; however, if words were what motivated most, there wouldn’t be so many sayings like these:

Marketing is about bringing people with related needs together for mutually beneficial exchange. Whether those exchanges happen for economic reasons or other reasons, each exchange encourages participants to bond, but only if the marketer models unity.

More specifically, marketing communication must rest on a foundation of supportive action, such as the six suggestions listed above. Unfortunately, this article is just words, but hopefully it serves as a reminder that behaviors that build unity are among the best examples of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

10 Comments

Why Negative Political Advertising Works & What Can Stop It

10/31/2020

8 Comments

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
author of Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

In thousands of ads each day, companies consistently focus on themselves, rarely mentioning competitors, let alone firing a direct shot at one. So, why do political ads routinely take aim at their opponents? As a resident of a 2020 election battleground state, I’ve witnessed an unprecedented barrage of such attacks from both sides of the political spectrum:

The PAC America First Action sent a direct mail piece to our home featuring a photo of Joe Biden on an old-west wanted poster with the text, “WANTED for attempting to kill 600,000 Pennsylvania jobs!” The other side of the piece blames Biden for wrecking families’ finances and cozying up to China.
The Lincoln Project PAC has discredited Donald Trump through a one-minute video, “Mourning in America.” Against a backdrop of barren cities and towns, narration explains, “Today, more than 60,000 Americans have died from the deadly virus Donald Trump ignored,” and “Under the leadership of Donald Trump, our country is weaker, and sicker, and poorer.”

Neither of these ads even mention the candidate they endorse; rather, their aim is to undermine the adversary—a strategy that contradicts the research of Sorin Patilinet, global consumer marketing insights director for Mars, Inc. In analyzing over 700 ads, Patilinet’s team found that negative emotions often backfire on the firms that employ them.

Given the tenuous nature of negative ads and their infrequent use by businesses, why do political campaigns regularly resort to antagonism? It must be that negative ads work for politicians; if they didn’t, PACs and others wouldn’t spend millions of dollars making them.

But, what makes negative advertising effective for those seeking a senate seat or the presidency but not for businesses building their brands?

Not every type of advertising fits every industry. For instance, humor is hard for financial planners and funeral homes to pull off since their customers expect seriousness. Politics is a very unusual ‘industry’ for advertising, as the following seven distinctions summarize:

Fear appeal: Playing on people’s fears isn’t a viable way to promote most products, but it does work well for some, like home security systems, and political candidates. In fact, some ads, like the two described above, effectively use fear to position political opponents as threats to citizens’ ‘home’ towns, states, and countries.
Lower consumer expectations: Gallup’s annual survey about the ethics of 20 different occupations supports that people hold politicians, and likely their ads, to a lower standard: Members of Congress consistently bring up the bottom of Gallup’s list, suggesting little esteem for them and other elected officials.
Familiar fighting: If there are too many “serious” Super Bowl commercials, people complain, mainly because they’re used to seeing funny ones. Whether we like them or not, we often expect political ads to be negative.
Rationalized outcomes: Political ads also get a pass because of the importance of governance. As a result, we place political advertising in a different category, accepting its enmity because ‘the ends justify the means.’
The lesser of two evils: Unlike the overwhelming number of good product options consumers usually enjoy, elections often entail a choice between just two candidates who many find equally unappealing. As a result, one ends up on top as the ‘candidate of least compromise.’
Negativity bias: I recently conducted a study of advertising humor that suggested that people remember unpleasant experiences more than pleasant ones. The same phenomenon explains, in part, why negative political ads work—their animosity stands out and sticks with people.
Fight over flight: One reason businesses don’t want to brawl is there’s no telling how long a battle could last. Politicians, however, have finite promotional timelines that end after election, allowing them to engage in all-out warfare without the worry of a never-ending war.

These seven reasons help explain the success of negative political advertising and its heavy spending, but they don’t justify its use. Instead, they lead further into the logic trap that ethics aims to avoid: reasoning from ‘is’ to ‘ought.

Just because advertisers can do something doesn’t mean they should. There are at least three reasons there shouldn’t be caustic political advertising:

Polarization: To say that the U.S. is increasingly a nation divided is a severe understatement. Negative political advertising ads fuel the acrimony. Ultimately, one candidate wins, but because of the extreme public belittling, he/she enters office having already earned the enmity of a large portion of the population. Negative ads help set up elected officials to fail.
Opportunity Cost: There’s limited space in a 30-second radio spot and on a 9” x 12” mail piece. If a PAC makes smearing an opponent its priority, there’s little or no room to address real issues. As a result, voters end up knowing all the reasons they shouldn’t select someone but few of the reasons they should elect another. Insight into truly important concerns is the casualty.
Moral Compromise: Public service is an important calling and citizens should understand significant weaknesses of candidates, but it’s not right to recklessly vilify a person. Most negative political ads sacrifice objectivity and civility. Endorsing disrespect and exemplifying disparagement unmoors society’s moral anchor.

Amid unprecedented campaign-spending and unrestrained animosity, is there a way forward?

Exiting the downward spiral seems like trying to end a nuclear arms race: The urge is to add armaments, not abandon them. No nation or politician wants to risk their existence by being the first to disarm.

It’s unlikely, therefore, that political candidates or PACs will self-censor and curb their own negative advertising. Instead, resolution seems to rest on one of three approaches:

Advertiser Pressure: Media that run negative political ads can conceivably refuse them, which could cause introspection and perhaps ad alterations. It’s unlikely, though, that many media will take a moral stand; rather, they’ll find the revenue too hard to resist and rationalize that campaigns will just “place their ads elsewhere, if not with us.”
Government Regulation: Law is an effective form of advertising behavior modification. If the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) decides a Super Bowl commercial is too risqué, it doesn’t run. However, the policies needed to reform political advertising require the support of legislators who worry they’ll need such ads for their next election, which makes regulation improbable.
A Social Movement: Over recent years, we’ve seen the power that social media gives people to speak out against injustices. The #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements have shown that real change can occur when enough committed citizens actively embrace a cause.

These and other movements have demonstrated that socially-driven change depends first on the realization that a real problem exists. People must perceive negative political advertising as more than periodic unpleasantry and recognize that these ads tear at our national fabric by feeding political polarization and eroding respect for anyone whose political opinions differ from our own.

Boycotting advertising that fuels hate is a start, but America needs an even broader uprising against acrimonious ads, perhaps encouraged by #EndNegativeAds or #PositivePromotion. To avoid becoming a country consumed by anger, our nation needs to get angry at these ads that contribute to domestic division. We need to vote against such “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

8 Comments

Moving Aside To Let Consumers Drive

10/17/2020

43 Comments

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
author of Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

It was a frightening experience. After driving around the parking lot for a few hours, we turned onto the main road, which I had been on many times before, but now 40 mph seemed like 80, and my whole body tensed as cars whizzed by in the opposite direction. I was afraid because I was a passenger, teaching one of our children to drive. I wasn’t in control of the car, they were. I wonder if Ocean Spray has felt similar fear during its rapid TikTok ride.

In a social-media-driven world, marketers increasingly face a dilemma: Should they keep communication control or slide into the passenger seat and allow someone with no professional experience and little company commitment drive their promotional strategy? That’s the question Ocean Spray has had to answer as a longboard-riding, selfie-stick-toting Idaho potato worker unexpectedly drove the firm into pop culture prominence.

Nathan Apodaca wasn’t well-known before he posted the 25-second TikTok clip of himself skateboarding to work, while lip-syncing to the Fleetwood Mac classic “Dreams,” and sipping from a 64 oz. bottle of Ocean Spray cranberry juice. However, the video went viral, gaining over 46 million views and almost 8 million likes, while also grabbing mainstream media attention from the likes of CNN to NPR.

Meanwhile, the cranberry cooperative from Middleboro, MA must have been asking itself, “What just happened?” and “How do we handle it?”

When you think of food companies with conservative product lines, there aren’t many more staid than Ocean Spray. It’s not Nantucket Nectars or Snapple with their overabundance of very creative drink concoctions. The majority of Ocean Spray’s juices, as well as many of its other products contain cranberries, which seem positioned somewhere between raisins and prunes and probably appeal more to ‘mature’ than to youthful palettes.

Case in point, I’m a member of Gen X whose beverage repertoire happens to be boring—I drink little besides water, but I do have a glass of Ocean Spray Cran-Grape juice every day. All that to say, I suspect much of the company’s revenue comes from other mundane middle-agers-or-olders like me. I doubt those in Ocean Spray’s target market are heavy users of TikTok, which makes the firm’s reaction to its sudden social media fame even more remarkable.

However, Ocean Spray didn’t jump on Apodaca’s longboard immediately; instead, it ‘took a beat’ for over a week, which in social media time can seem like an eternity. Still, positive public reaction suggests that the company’s move was ‘lit’—not sure if I’m using that term correctly.

The firm first did its homework and found that Apodaca wasn’t simply someone aiming for internet fame or a corporate payday. He was a hard-working father, living in a mobile home, whose pickup truck died on the way to his job at the potato factory. Rather than miss work, Apodaca pulled the skateboard from his truck, jumped on and, with hydration in hand, began cruising toward the plant. Videoing himself was a spontaneous thought, brought on by the “Dreams” tune and a desire to capture the uniquely ‘chill’ moment.

Ocean Spray, in turn, captured the hearts of the nation and beyond by gifting the stunned Apodaca a new cranberry red Nissan pickup truck, packed with a generous cache of the company’s products.

Meanwhile, TikTok parodies have proliferated. Those grabbing a bottle of Ocean Spray and skateboarding to the sound of “Dreams” have included legendary Fleetwood Mac drummer Mick Fleetwood, Ocean Spray CEO Tom Hayes, and lieutenant governor of Montana and governor candidate Mike Cooney.

From surprising Apodaca with a new truck to filming their CEO’s own TikTok tribute, it seems like Ocean Spray did everything right, but one could also argue that the company was living dangerously by jumping on the TikTok longboard, for three reasons:

1. Skateboarding Spills: From the first time I saw Apodaca’s TikTok, I wondered about the safety. Since my own skateboarding experience was very limited and decades ago, I ‘let it ride,’ until I had an opportunity to ask those in a college class their opinions.

One student, Jordan, said he uses an E-skate (electric skateboard) to commute to campus. While he acknowledged the freedom that some enjoy from riding unencumbered, he was quick to call Apodaca’s approach “ill-advised” because of: multiple distractions (juice, music, camera), no protective equipment, and proximity to fast-moving traffic. He also showed a nasty scrape he sustained from a recent spill, even while wearing a helmet and reinforced leather gloves.

But, why should Ocean Spray worry about any such accidents? It would be tragic to read the headline: “Car Kills Teen Doing Ocean Spray TikTok Parody.” Yes, people will mimic Apodaca regardless what Ocean Spray does, but the company’s support of the viral celeb and its own CEO's imitation could be construed as support for the act and its disregard for danger.

2. Unknown Endorser: Most of the time, famous spokespeople work out well for their sponsors, largely because celebrities are ‘known commodities’ who have been living in the public spotlight for years. Even then, though, there are times when a celebrity’s poor choices sour the promotional partnership, e.g., Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte in Brazil.

When an ordinary person suddenly rises from obscurity to become the face of a brand, there is increased risk related to an unknown history and uncertainty how he/she might act going forward, both of which could lead to another very undesirable headline, e.g., “BREAKING NEWS: Ocean Spray Spokesman Apodaca . . .”

3. Brand Confusion: In keeping with the prior point, brands carefully choose their spokespeople and dozens of other identity-defining elements in order to position themselves precisely where they’d like to be in consumers’ minds relative to the competition. Allowing whoever happens to shoot a viral video of themself become the face of one’s brand seems like a pretty nonstrategic approach.

If Ocean Spray wants to move its image in the direction of ‘younger,’ ‘carefree,’ and possibly even ‘irreverent,’ the TikTok tie-in works. If not, embracing the viral video could create some cognitive dissonance when consumers attempt to interpret it in light of the company’s other marketing communication.

However, the three cautions above must be interpreted against the reality that Ocean Spray really had to do something. Not acknowledging the viral video would have made the company seem ungrateful, not to mention completely out of touch.

Even though Ocean Spray didn’t ask for Apodaca’s promotional help, the right thing to do was to reward him for the enormous exposure he created for the brand. When someone shows you kindness, you thank them; and, if you’re a company with the resources of Ocean Spray, you do more.

In deciding how much gratitude ($$$) to show, company management may have wondered whether the Tik Tok-driven sales uptick would last. As parodies focus on other things, the firm’s revenue will relapse, but probably not entirely. Some of its newly-won market share may last, as operant conditioning suggests: At least some people who never had Ocean Spray before shooting their own video probably tried it, liked it, and will buy it again.

Similarly, the entire Tik Tok episode may have the effect of lowering the bottom end of Ocean Spray’s age demographic, which is something almost any brand would like. At some point, every organization must appeal to the next generation; otherwise, it goes to the grave with an ever-aging target market.

Still, were these rewards worth the three risks outlined above? My cautious answer is—Yes.

First, the idea of Ocean Spray implicitly endorsing Apodaca’s somewhat dangerous ride is mitigated by the fact that his truck broke down and he was just trying to get to work. It wasn’t a thrill ride for the sake of social media shares. Plus, company CEO Hayes and others have modeled safer and still-satisfying Tik Tok tributes.

Second, should anything unseemly surface from Apodoca’s past or taint his future brand ambassadorship, Ocean Spray could easily pull the plug on the affiliation. Likewise, knowing Apodaca’s situation and the impromptu circumstances under which the relation was formed, the public probably would give some grace to both the individual and the organization.

Third, most of the people who could potentially experience brand confusion from Ocean Spray’s positioning pivot probably aren’t on Tik Tok anyway. That media/demographic separation combined with what will likely be a relatively short shelf-life for the video, should mean that traditional perceptions of the brand remain largely intact.

I still enjoy the control of being behind the wheel. I don’t mind, though, when someone else drives, as long as I feel safe and I have some input into where we’re going. Marketers increasingly need to know when to slip into the passenger seat, yet continue to influence the way to the destination, all while someone with less promotional experience drives.

Like Ocean Spray, those who can successfully navigate that unique balance are on the road to “Mindful Marketing.”

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

43 Comments

Was Pulling "Finger Lickin’ Good" Just Publicity Grabin’?

10/4/2020

16 Comments

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
author of Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

It’s comforting when a company puts society’s needs ahead of its own interests. One of the world’s leading purveyors of comfort food appeared to be following that recipe when it decided to drop its iconic tagline for health and safety reasons. So, why does it feel like Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has served up a bucket of artificial altruism?

Firms are fortunate if people remember their slogans for a few minutes, let alone days, weeks, or months. To create a theme that endures for decades is a creative coup that only the best marketing minds can claim, e.g., Just Do It (Nike), You’re in Good Hands (Allstate), The Real Thing (Coca-Cola).

KFC first served its iconic Finger Lickin’ Good tagline more than a half century ago. A restaurant manager reportedly cooked up the storied slogan in 1956, “off the cuff.”

Fast forward to August 2020, when many media began broadcasting the big news: In a show of public support, KFC decided to suspend its Finger Lickin’ Good slogan. Catherine Tan-Gillespie, KFC’s global chief marketing officer, explained the move saying that the slogan “doesn't feel quite right” or “fit in the current environment” in which licking one’s fingers violates best practices for avoiding the virus.

As a marketing professor who enjoys slogans and pays special attention to their use, I was surprised by the story for two reasons:

I thought KFC had already stopped using its one-time staple slogan.
I don’t recall any tagline ever grabbing so much publicity, especially for being taken off the menu.

In short, I was suspicious: Was the fast food giant’s concern for public safety genuine, or was the firm actually feeding consumers a line?

Because of other priorities, KFC's decision dropped off my radar, until a student in one of my marketing classes restored it: He shared an article he’d read about the suspended slogan and offered his assessment of KCF’s strategy, calling it “Mindful Marketing.”

When I questioned the motives behind the company’s move, much of the class clapped back against their professor, in support of their fellow student (they always do that). However, their reaction made me even more suspicious of hoodwinking, which doubled my determination to understand what was really happening.

It had been a while since I paid much attention to KFC. About five years ago I wrote a piece about the firm that wasn’t exactly flattering: I described how KFC’s own ads were lampooning, of all people, its deceased founder, the hard-working visionary Harland Sanders. I argued that he and any departed person deserved better.

So, I set out to investigate my hypothesis that KFC’s theme recall was less about protecting people’s health and more about grabbing headlines. The first step was to see if the company had been using its classic Finger Lickin’ Good theme before the August announcement. If you remember above, I said that I didn’t think it had been. Well, I was right . . . and wrong.

I found one website that catalogs companies’ slogans and another that curates their commercials, which I spent too much time watching. In the process, though, I discovered that for a few decades KFC had used in its ads a wide variety of other taglines with no mention of the iconic one, for instance:

However, I was wrong in that KFC did recently reprise Finger Lickin’ Good in its ad campaigns featuring Colonel Sanders fakes. Over a period of about five years, the company has employed an incredible 18 different ‘colonels,’ ranging from Rob Lowe to Reba McEntire. Most of these commercials have used Finger Lickin’ Good.

Watching KFC ads, which were often entertaining, was the easy part. The hard part is supporting that the company’s motives in pulling the classic slogan are not as pious as they appear. Here are four reasons I still maintain that KFC’s tagline tactic is more than a little suspicious:

1. Poor Health History: This is the same company that three decades ago, amid growing public concern about the health effects of fried foods, changed its name to an acronym rather than significantly altering its product line. It’s also the same firm that promotes $5 Fill Up Meals, which contain a whopping 2,160 calories, 104 grams of fat, and 202 carbs.

People certainly need to be careful about coronavirus, but if KFC is truly concerned about consumers’ health, why does it appear apathetic to heart disease—the leading cause of death in America?

2. Rap Sheet of Irreverence: While KFC hasn’t been known for championing healthiness, it does have a reputation for insolence. It’s commercials featuring the Colonel Sanders imposters, are prime examples of the offhand humor, which makes fun of people in all sorts of social situations while also roasting its founder. So, if KFC doesn’t take itself and its customers seriously, why should we believe that jettisoning Finger Lickin’ Good isn’t also a joke?

3. Expert Agreement: CNN has described KFC’s tagline takedown as a “clever” “marketing campaign.” Although, I take issue with the news conglomerate’s implication that all marketing is manipulative, it’s worth noting that the media giant sees KFC doing the same thing I do: making a weakly-veiled attempt to gain brand exposure.

4. Reverse Psychology Strategy: The most compelling evidence that KFC’s slogan stoppage is a stunt can be ‘somewhat seen’ in its own advertising. Rather than removing the tagline entirely from billboards and chicken buckets, the company simply blurred two of the four words to read: It’s - - - - - - - - - - - - - good! In addition, a video showing images of the same items ends with the message, “That thing we always say. Ignore it. For now.”

In psychological terms, KFC is using ironic process theory, which holds that “deliberate attempts to suppress certain thoughts actually make them more likely to surface.” The classic example is telling someone not to think about a pink elephant.

KFC’s ‘don’t think about it’ strategy reminds me of Doritos 2019 “No Logo” commercial in which the company intentionally kept its brand name and mark out of a 60-second TV spot in order to play on consumers’ curiosity and create a buzz. Given how often the commercial was shared, the strategy seemed to work.

Many people, however, have seen through KFC’s charade. In the UK, the Advertising and Standards Authority (ASA) has received 163 complaints about the ads. These critics and others can tell when an organization is truly trying to be socially responsible and when it’s just giving Finger Lickin’ lip service.

It’s nice when large companies wield their significant influence to nudge people in a positive direction, especially one that keeps them from harm during a pandemic. However, a firm pretending to encourage consumer well-being, when it's really just trying to grab publicity should make all of us at least a little sick to our stomachs.

In a best case scenario, the public just laughs off KFC’s ploy. In a worst case, the company’s irreverence encourages people to take virus-prevention measures less seriously, placing themselves and others at greater risk of COVID-19.

Kudos, KFC, for removing the inappropriate tagline. However, this food marketing critic still gives you a poor review for cooking up a big serving of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

16 Comments

Corporate Social Responsibility Everyone Should See

9/19/2020

7 Comments

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
author of Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

By now we all have a story of how the pandemic has negatively impacted us or those we love. Life has become more difficult for everyone, but for people with disabilities, daily living can be exponentially harder. One business, however, has made it its mission to meet such needs in an unforeseen way.

Two years ago I wrote about Starbuck’s innovative efforts to serve deaf consumers through a specially-designed store in Washington, D.C. Among its unique attributes, the store featured an open layout, low-glare surfaces, and employees who knew American Sign Language (ASL).

Even as I, a non-coffee-drinker, applauded the company’s ingenuity and initiative, I could imagine some cynicism about the social responsibility: “That’s nice, but Starbuck’s is a luxury people can live without. Who’s meeting the real needs of people with disabilities?” A former student of mine recently gave me a great answer to that question.

I first heard of Accessible Pharmacy a few weeks ago when that former student, Jason Polansky, told me he was applying to the company for a job. Jason, who wrote a guest blog for Mindful Marketing about a smart cane and who was my coauthor on a CommPRO article titled, “How Serving Blind Consumers Creates Competitive Advantage,” is completely blind.

Fast forward to a few days ago when I received from Jason the good news that Accessible Pharmacy had hired him to be its Director of Business Development for Central Pennsylvania. It’s great that the company identified Jason as an ideal candidate for the position and offered it to him. However, Accessible Pharmacy’s commitment to blind people runs much deeper than its hiring. Its mission is to make a life-sustaining service safely available to a group of consumers who are consistently underserved.

According to the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC), in the United States in 2015, there were 1.02 million blind people, i.e., who had vision impairment of 20/200 or worse. Furthermore, 3.22 million Americans had lesser impairment as measured by “the best-corrected visual acuity in the better-seeing eye.” These numbers are expected to double by 2050 due to an aging U.S. population and more frequent incidents of diabetes and other chronic diseases associated with vision loss.

That’s a significant and growing portion of the population that could benefit from all kinds of products tailored to its unique needs. As Starbuck’s example illustrated, some business models already have been adapted, but largely missing has been a solution for one of the most critical human needs: medicine.

People who are blind take most of the same medicine others do, but for individuals who don’t drive, there’s the challenge of traveling to a pharmacy to pick up a prescription. Even more significant, blind people can’t easily read the instructions on a bottle of ibuprofen or see that the prescription pill they’re about to ingest is the right one.

According to a 2018 CNBC article, between 250,000 and 440,000 people die each year in the United States because of medical errors, making them the third-leading cause of death, behind only heart disease and cancer. Unfortunately, the inability to see the medicine one is taking contributes to those statistics.

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.” Medicine certainly is supposed to make people stronger, but wrongly medicating can kill a person, especially someone who can’t see the medicine they’re taking.

Enter Accessible Pharmacy, “a comprehensive, home delivery pharmacy service specializing in the needs of the blind and low vision community and their families,” which claims to be “the only provider of its kind.”

For many companies, asserting such exclusivity is merely a matter of marketing communication, i.e., they simply say that they “specialize” and do nothing to support the claim. Accessible Pharmacy is different. Its ‘product features’ back up its brand promise. For instance, the Pharmacy offers:

Patient education and consultation
Disease monitoring via teleconference
Cognitive behavior assistance
Medication regimen management
Customized packaging
Presorted disposable pill organizers by week or by month
Braille and large-print labels
ScripTalk: unique RFID tag labels that work with consumer devices to convert text to speech
Home delivery of prescriptions, as well as over-the-counter medications, vitamins, and supplements

In researching and writing about corporate social responsibility (CSR), I’ve often considered whether there’s a best way for companies to give back. Although I believe donation (giving money to worthy causes) and volunteerism (encouraging employees to serve those in need) are both important approaches, the most effective CSR occurs within a business model that marries financial goals with societal good.

In other words, positive social impact is woven into the very fabric of the business’s operations. Accessible Pharmacy is an excellent example of such integrated CSR.

Yes, the firm is a for-profit company with income expectations—a fact that might give some people pause. But should we be wary of Accessible Pharmacy making money by serving blind people?

Of course, there are other ways that organizations doing social good can be funded, for instance by donors and by government. Such models play important roles in addressing societal needs; however, what happens when donors decide to give elsewhere or politicians elect to underwrite other needs?

The point is, CSR that’s integrated into a for-profit firm’s value chain is highly sustainable. As long as both producer and consumer benefit, the mutually valuable exchange can continue indefinitely.

When I asked Jason what excites him most about his new position, he mentioned working with people with disabilities and using his marketing background to make a positive impact on their lives. He undoubtedly will enjoy both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards from his work, as he should. So should his employer.

It’s very challenging to start and run a successful business. It’s even harder to maintain one that addresses pressing societal needs as part of its mission. Accessible Pharmacy does just that, which make it a clear example of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

7 Comments

Capri Sun Practices Child’s Play

9/5/2020

31 Comments

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

Have you ever been food pranked? Someone gives you something to eat and “Yech!” it turns out to be much different than you expected—toothpaste inside an Oreo is a classic gag. Kids love to prank each other, but should the maker of one of the world’s most popular kids’ drinks fool its biggest fans?

Capri Sun, internationally-renowned producer of juice pouches, has decided to prank not just a few kids but a big portion of its target market by filling select silver packages with water. The company filmed reactions of several pint-sized punk’d consumers, who were given unmarked pouches and asked to test “a new flavor” of juice. It then edited the outtakes into a few video promotions.

Compared to most food pranks, which often elicit expressions of disgust, the responses to Capri Sun’s ruse were rather subdued. Perplexed young taste testers made comments like, “It’s very plain,” “tastes a little bit bland,” and “it doesn’t have any flavor.”

What made Carpi Sun’s prank poignant is that the company’s juice pouches are familiar to so many. Since its introduction in Germany in 1969, the company has expanded distribution of its drinks to 119 countries. According to its website, “ In 2014, our fans all over the world drank 6 billion pouches of Capri-Sun!”

One significant serving of drink sales have come from the greater Chicago area, where Kraft Heinz acts as distributor and a newly-formed advertising firm, Mischief at No Fixed Address, produced the prank. The campaign’s full scope includes distribution of five million filtered water pouches labeled, “We’re sorry it’s not juice,” to Chicagoland schools for free. Also appearing prominently at the top of each package is “Capri Sun” in 70-point all capital letters.

Given the immense physical, mental, and financial stress the pandemic has placed on kids and their parents, it’s kind of Capri Sun to help schools, where fountains are shut down and children need other ways of getting water. But, will the company’s corporate social responsibility really remedy that problem, and what’s likely to be the long-term impact on the brand?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city of Chicago, not including the greater metropolitan area, has a population of 2.69 million, of which 21.2% are under the age of 18 and 6.5% are younger than five. Those stats suggest that there are nearly 400k school-age children in Chicago (570,280 - 174,850 = 395,430).

Providing all of those children with a drink a day for a week would mean 1,977,150 water pouches. A full month of water would entail a total of 7,908,600 (2.9 million more than Capri Sun’s pledge). Keeping kids hydrated from September through December would require about 31,634,400 pouches.

Of course, no one company should be expected to satisfy so much demand for free. Meeting massive public needs tends to take a team effort—collaboration among the public sector, for-profit companies, and other organizations.

Still, although it may seem cynical or even ungrateful, it’s reasonable to wonder whether the social impact of Capri Sun’s philanthropy is proportional to the promotional benefits the firm may receive: Do a few drinks of water warrant the brand splash in front of hundreds of thousands of captive young consumers?

When a company gives away something significant, it’s fair for its brand to benefit. However, the amount of that benefit should be on par with the amount of social good done. The rationale is analogous to a firm needing to ante up millions of dollars, not thousands, for naming rights to a building or stadium.

It’s hard to know Capri Sun’s costs in producing and distributing five million pouches of filtered water, but an estimate of .10 per packet would put the total cost at $500,000. That’s a significant spend, but not that much for a firm with annual revenues of about a half billion dollars. A few other issues further complicate the equation.

First, Capri Sun’s promotional benefits might be multiplied in that it seeks to put pouches with its name into the hands of the most impressionable of consumers—children. Kids are understandably less discerning of promotional messages than are adults, which is why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prioritizes protecting children.

Second, it seems that there should be some subtraction from the social good Capri Sun portends because of the message emblazoned on the foil pouches: “We’re sorry it’s not juice. [It’s just] Filtered Water.”

Is Capri Sun dissing in front of kids one of the most important substances for human existence? Of course, the company is trying to be funny. There is, however, the unhumorous reality that many children consume far too much sugar, much of it coming from sugary drinks. (1) To its credit, Capri Sun Fruit Punch contains a relatively low 13 grams of sugar. That’s not much compared to some drinks, but it is high compared to water.

Then, there’s an even more intriguing twist . . .

On August 5, the Chicago Sun Times announced major Lori Lightfoot’s decision to close Chicago Public Schools due to worsening coronavirus conditions—the city’s children will be learning online. That news would seem to punch a hole in Capri Sun’s water pouch plans; however, over two weeks later, on August 21, an AdAge editor’s pick article described the campaign with no mention of the district’s pivot away from in-person education.

Maybe AdAge missed the mayor’s announcement, or perhaps Capri Sun has found another way to distribute the water without access to kids in classrooms. Assuming the later, there’s still one more potentially serious flaw in Capri Sun’s ‘Got Juice?’ strategy:

By associating its iconic packaging with a less desirable drinking experience, the company risks leaving a bad taste in the mouth of young, impressionable consumers.

Can you imagine sipping a Starbuck’s coffee and discovering it was only warm water, or biting into a Hershey’s Bar and finding it was sans-sugar? It’s doubtful either company would intentionally give even one consumer such an indelibly unpleasant experience, let alone broadcast the negative reaction for millions of others to see and learn from vicariously.

As suggested at the onset, a large part of Capri Sun’s food prank success was the fact that so many people, including children, recognize the straw-impaled drink packs and associate them with sweet refreshment and other pleasant sensations. Those positive associations can be easily washed away, though, by even one unfavorable brand encounter that one experiences him/herself or sees others endure.

Of course, a natural retort is, “It was just a joke!” That’s true, and the prank itself was kind of funny. However, there are some things that food and drink companies just don’t joke about, a main one being the taste of their products. Any such negative association is too risky.

It’s a little like when Watergate-embroiled president Richard Nixon infamously declared, “I am not a crook.” Regrettably for him, many people forgot the words “I am not” and remembered Nixon and “crook.” Any negative frame is inherently precarious, particularly when it involves food.

Advertising humor can be very effective, and who loves to laugh more than kids? However, although Capri Sun’s water switcheroo may have been well-intended, the campaign threatens to spill much of the brand equity the drink maker has built over fifty-plus years, making “I’m sorry it’s not juice “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

31 Comments

Does Using “Shuffle” Mean You’re Already ‘Stuffed Full’?

8/23/2020

29 Comments

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

“What do you want to watch?”
“I don’t know; what do you want to watch?”

That conversation must be happening in more homes than just mine, which probably inspired Netflix to introduce its new “Shuffle” feature, aimed at defeating this common viewing dilemma. But, should people who have to ask their TVs to “play something” even be watching television?

This past July, the entertainment-streaming icon started testing a new “Shuffle Play” button, placing a familiar-looking shuffle icon on select users’ accounts. Those who have the feature might find it below their user profile icon or on the left side of the home screen. When Shuffle is selected, Netflix serves a chef’s choice of shows “based on viewing history, preferences, and playlists.”

Problem solved: No more aimless scrolling and probably fewer arguments began by “Anything but that.” It’s nice to have choices. It’s also nice when someone/thing helps identify them.

But, will Netflix’s Shuffle keep people too tied to their iPads and cemented to their sofas? Does imploring one’s device to “play something . . . anything” signal digital drunkenness and suggest that the streaming service should stop serving?

In the midst of the pandemic, Netflix has been a hero for the homebound, keeping many a step away from wit’s end with easy access to inexpensive entertainment and even educational content. In the second quarter of 2020, the streaming service added an impressive 10 million new subscribers, bringing its worldwide total to about 193 million.

With so many customers already contently streaming, why does Netflix even need to add a new feature? Well, like any successful organization, it wants to keep its value proposition fresh and exciting. As a Netflix spokesperson says, “We’re always looking for better ways to connect members with shows and films that they will love.”

The company also needs to keep pace with competitors’ offerings, like HBO Max’s recommendation engine and NBCUniversal’s random play on Peacock. Likewise, Comcast’s Xfinity has integrated creative voice commands, such as “Surprise Me” and “Happy Stuff” in order to serve up spontaneous and hopefully stimulating shows.

In varied marketing roles, I’ve come across a couple of closely related psychological concepts that help describe the consumer itch Netflix and its competitors seem to be trying to scratch:

Satiation effect: people eventually grow tired of things they initially liked.
Variety-seeking behavior: enjoyment often increases with different experiences.

So, Shuffle might pull Netflix users out of their streaming ruts by providing them with an endless array of custom-curated and personally-satisfying program choices.

However, whether it’s taking excessive vitamin C or bingeing The Office, too much of even a good thing is too much. At some point, people need to turn off their TVs, put down their iPads, and move on to other things. The question, then, becomes: Does a shuffle feature make streaming too tempting and difficult to deny?

Pulling oneself away from an interesting program can be hard, which I experienced firsthand earlier today. In order to do some “research” for this piece, I turned on our TV to check out Xfinity’s voice commands. The channel happened to be on a high-diving competition, held on a beautiful stone bridge, over a river somewhere in Europe. I sat memorized for at least 10 minutes before returning to my senses and remembering why I was sitting there.

The bottom-line, though, is that I was able to break free from the screen without any extraordinary effort. Most people can muster at least the same amount of resolve, even when specially-selected programs are shuffled at them.

Speaking of resolve, I recently wrote an article that asked whether TikTok is addictive. The conclusion (spoiler alert) was “No.” When compared to commonly accepted addictions like alcohol and gambling, the app is not addictive in any scientific sense.

TikTok’s screen-swiping and Netflix’s Shuffle are similar in that both deliver virtually infinite, individualized video content. However, 15-second smartphone clips from ordinary people are much different than 2.5-hour professional-produced films. Is one spontaneous selection harder to resist than the other?

There should be a study, but it seems that TikTok's bite-sized content could be harder to forgo—like eating potato chips versus stuffed baked potatoes. Both are good, but eating an additional stuffed baked potato is a big commitment, whereas popping one more potato chip, then another, is easy to start and sustain. So, if longer programs have even less allure for consuming ‘one more,’ it seems that neither Netflix nor TikTok is truly addictive.

Having cleared the ethical hurdle, there’s still one more important consideration—effectiveness: Will people really want to use Netflix’s Shuffle? So far, reviews of the feature appear tepid; for instance, some have tweeted:

“Interesting new feature @netflix ... but what kind of insane person just says, “yolo, let’s spin the Netflix wheel of fortune”? (@TurnerLevison)
“they been testing this for months on mine and it’s trash, they put two things on your recently watched and if u shuffle again it’s just Netflix Originals.” (@BlondDaya)

Unfortunately, Netflix didn’t include me in its test market, so I haven’t been able to try the feature, but I have a hard time seeing many people using it. First, Netflix already curates at least somewhat customized selections that users can see at a glance on their home screens. Second, it may be frustrating or even mildly offensive to receive specific recommendations that make one wonder, “Why are they suggesting that for me?!”

To that point, after I stopped watching high-diving, I asked Xfinity to “Surprise Me.” It suggested Hallmark Channel’s “Tulips in Spring.” I had no problem declining that recommendation, which must have been meant for someone else in this house.

Given TikTok’s ‘swiping’ success, it wasn’t a bad idea for Netflix to test a ‘surprise me’ feature for its streaming service. It seems unlikely, though, that the same consumption behavior will transfer to considerably longer program content, which makes Shuffle Play a fitting selection for “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

29 Comments

Too Attached to an App?

8/10/2020

22 Comments

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

Of all the dangers facing the United States—natural disasters, terrorism, racism, a global pandemic—who would have thought a social media app would be mentioned among them? China's TikTok has aroused the ire of the Trump administration because of its apparent threat to national security, but is addiction to the app an even greater cause for concern?

For the past year or more, TikTok has been on my radar screen, mainly because I try to keep tabs on what’s trending with the Gen Zs I aim to engage. Last fall, the topic of the hugely popular social media app came up in one of my marketing classes, which inspired me to ask the question: “Should I be on TikTok?” Several students immediately yelled “Yes!” while a seemingly equal number shouted “No!” I wondered if either group had my best interest at heart.

Still not a user, the app gained more of my attention throughout the spring as several of its most popular videos made their way into mainstream media and marketers began talking of TikTok strategies. Meanwhile, accusations of Chinese spying surfaced, and at least one U.S. firm asked its employees to remove TikTok from company mobile devices.

President Trump then threatened to ban TikTok, only to reverse course a few days later when global tech icon Microsoft indicated interest in buying the meteoric app. Most recently, the President signed an executive order that will result in barring TikTok from the U.S. market unless an American company buys the app, which has led parent company ByteDance Ltd. to sue the administration.

Each of these intriguing developments has kept me on the edge of my seat, wondering what will happen next, but no news sparked my interest as much as a blurb in an August 4th email blast from marketing tech guru Shelly Palmer, who stated that “TikTok is already near (or at) the top of the list of the most addictive [emphasis added] social media apps.”

Surveillance by a foreign state has seemed like TikTok’s biggest threat, but is Americans’ addiction to the app an even greater concern?

To answer this question, it’s essential to understand exactly what TikTok is, as well as what it’s so rapidly achieved—some of us above a certain age may need a primer. Steve Wright of Learn Online Video offers a nice overview of the app. He shares a few of its endless stream of 15-second videos, in which their usually young creators often dance and/or lip sync to popular songs. Wright describes the content, which is extremely varied, as “a smorgasbord of [the most] weird, creative, amazing, bizarre videos I’ve ever come across.”

Apparently many find the eclectic selection of “simple, goofy, irreverent” videos appealing. Since its launch in 2017, the app has been downloaded more than a billion times. According to Liv Benger, writing for Medium, “over 682 million people downloaded TikTok in 2019 and [spent] an average of 50 minutes a day” using it.

Those stats certainly suggest rapid growth and near saturation of specific population segments, but do they actually indicate addiction? Most of us know how hard it can be to put down our smartphones or other devices and stop checking email, playing games, texting friends, etc. For some people, those behaviors become compulsive, but do they really rise to the level of addictions?

According to Cornell student Niko Nguyen, the answer is ‘yes.’ In February, The Cornell Daily Sun published an essay in which Nguyen described that the main reason for his difficult decision to delete his TikTok account was that he had found himself “sucked into its addictive grasp.” He went on to explain why he believed TikTok is addictive:

“The app itself is designed to keep us glued to our screens. With most other social media platforms, the majority of content is derived from accounts that you follow. And although you can follow and “friend” a lot of accounts on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat, there’s eventually a point where all the “interesting” content runs dry. With TikTok, that isn’t the case.

Nguyen’s explanation might sound like someone at a buffet who can't stop filling his plate because, “Everything tastes so good.” In that case, we’d probably tell the patron he needs to control his own eating; we wouldn’t blame the restaurant for his overindulgence.

TikTok, however, isn’t the 'typical ‘restaurant.' It uses something that most other apps don’t, at least not in such a sophisticated way. Nguyen alludes to that something, which several others identify directly: artificial intelligence (AI).

Palmer, mentioned near the onset of this piece, is one person who claims AI is at the root of TikTok addiction. He says, “TikTok is a remarkably sophisticated AI model that literally tunes itself to your behaviors with a single goal: addicting you to TikTok.”

Others have further unpacked how AI might accomplish that objective. In a New York Times article, John Herman identified the technology underlying each TikTok user’s very personalized For You page as “an algorithmic feed based on videos you’ve interacted with, or even just watched.”

Unlike other social media in which users have a significant say in the content they receive by virtue of who they friend or follow and what those people post, TikTok’s AI notes what users actually like to watch, regardless who shared it, then sends them more of the same, making TikTok “more machine than man.”

A piece in Fixing Port supported the same assertion: “The TikTok algorithm can be blamed for this [addictiveness] to an extent. The algorithm sees what type of content you are watching (particular uploaders, particular genres, etc.) and then customizes the upcoming content to that liking.”

In The New Yorker, Jia Tolentino detailed her own ‘addiction’ to the AI-driven app:

“I was giving TikTok my attention because it was serving me what would retain my attention, and it could do that because it had been designed to perform algorithmic pyrotechnics that were capable of making a half hour pass before I remembered to look away . . . The algorithm gives us whatever pleases us, and we, in turn, give the algorithm whatever pleases it. As the circle tightens, we become less and less able to separate algorithmic interests from our own.”

In her article on Medium, Benger identified a psychological phenomenon, random reinforcement, that explains more precisely what TikTok users experience: Although not every video provides the same level of reward, like playing a slot machine, the periodic payouts come often enough that users keep pulling the lever/swiping their screen because the next clip could be a real winner.

The way TikTok employs AI does seem to put the app in a different category in terms of possible addiction. Whereas traditional methods of generating engaging content eventually run dry, the app’s AI-based video selection seems to know consumers better than they know themselves, allowing an endless array of just-often-enough, captivating content.

Notwithstanding these authors' insightful analyses of the app, two important and closely-related questions remain that none has appeared to answer:

What exactly is addiction?
Just because something is enjoyable, is it addictive?

Most people would likely easily answer the second question, ‘No,’ as there are many things that are very enjoyable to consume (i.e., eat, use, do) that are probably not ‘addictive,’ for instance: take-out from a favorite restaurant, a round of golf, a concert, ice cream!

Over the years, I’ve often written about potentially addictive products, some of which have included:

In researching to write these and similar pieces, a few things I’ve learned are:

People tend to play fast and loose with the word addiction.
Genuine addictions tend to occur in relatively large percentages of the population, not with just a few people.
There are specific clinical criteria for classifying substances and other things as addictive:

- an overpowering need
- a tendency to increase consumption
- a psychic dependence.

Although it’s common to hear people say things like, “That cake is so good; it’s addictive,” it’s unlikely that any of the clinical characteristics of addiction apply to eating cake. For these reasons, when I wrote the blog posts above, I concluded that numbers 1-4 are often true addictions, while Numbers 5-7, though problematic for certain people, really aren’t.

TikTok, seems to fit best with the second set of products as a non-addiction. That doesn’t mean that the app isn’t a time sink for some, or that it doesn’t present other potential problems. Most people, however, likely can control their use of the app by setting time limits and mustering some will power. Also, as Nguyen showed, it’s not that hard to close one’s TikTok account—it’s certainly much easier than dealing with a drinking problem or stopping smoking.

TikTok appears to provide its target market with inexpensive entertainment while also inspiring creativity and collaboration among users. Although some of us may not understand its appeal and there could be other issues with its content or use, at this point the app should be ‘swiped up’ as "Mindful Marketing."

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

22 Comments

Should People Be Mascots?

7/21/2020

8 Comments

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

After evading public pressure for decades, financial concerns have finally sacked the National Football League’s (NFL) Washington franchise, causing it to change a name that Merriam-Webster defines as “offensive.” While it’s good that Native Americans will no longer be subject to that denigration, a broader question remains: Should any sports team’s mascot be a person?

High school, college, and professional sports are peppered with teams named after people groups. In 2014, USA Today reported that of the 10 most popular high school mascot names, three had human connections: Vikings (#4), Warriors (#9), and Knights (#10). People names are also prevalent in Division I collegiate athletics, e.g., Knights and Spartans. Then there are professional sports franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, Milwaukee Brewers, and Cleveland Cavaliers.

In fact, nearly a third of teams in the United States’ four major professional sports leagues use people as mascots (39/123 = 31.7%). Here’s the breakdown by league:

Major League Baseball (MLB): 13/30= 43.3%
National Football League (NFL): 13/32= 40.6%
National Hockey League (NHL): 9/31= 29%
National Basketball Association (NBA): 4/30= 13.3%

To argue to change a team name that serves as a racial slur is pretty straightforward, but what about the dozens or hundreds of other anthropological nicknames? Is society failing to see now a practice that in years to come will be deemed abhorrent?

Apparently, few people objected in 1933 when George Preston Marshall changed the name of the then-Boston-based football franchise from Braves to the current one. Likewise, few appeared to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision in 1967 that gave the name legal protection.

In 1972, a variety of Native American organizations asked team president Edward Bennet Williams for a name change, but their plea evidently gained little public support and ultimately failed to alter his attitude.

The point is this: Just as the majority of the population was apathetic about the need for the Washington football team name change for most of its history, people might look back 20 years from now and wonder, “How could individuals in 2020 have been so ignorant to have people as mascots for sports teams?”

Now, however, many see being chosen as a team mascot as a sign of respect. After all, sports are about competing and winning. So, teams tend to pick mascots that are known for strength, speed, or ferocity or that possess some other desirable qualities that might reflect positively onto the franchise. Although sports teams called Acorns and Spudders actually exist, they are the exceptions. Instead, most team names are chosen because they suggest power and inspire confidence, like Wildcats and Warriors.

At first glance, Merriam-Webster’s definition of mascot reinforces the notion that being chosen as one is a positive thing: A mascot is “a person, animal, or object adopted by a group as a symbolic figure especially to bring them good luck.” How many people, however, want to be someone else’s good luck charm? Most people probably want to be the one enjoying success, not the token symbol responsible for helping someone else win.

A mascot, therefore, is a kind of ‘second class citizen,’ more of a possession or pet than a person. Of course, many mascots are actual animals, kept in cages or put on leashes and paraded in front of fans on gameday. Although mascots are typically chosen for their prowess, it's strength subdued in service to another.

At this point, some of you may be understandably thinking, “Relax! They’re just mascots. Sports are supposed to be fun!” I get that. I’ve appreciated mascots for many years and still do.

When I was much younger, I played for Danville, PA’s high school basketball team, whose mascot name still is the “Ironmen” (granted, not very gender friendly); the town was a key player in America’s 19th century iron industry. I’m also a long-time fan of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers. Honestly, I never thought much about implications of these mascots being people . . . until now.

Would an iron mill or steel mill worker mind that their occupation was selected for mascot status? I'm speculating, but my guess is they wouldn’t; in fact, they might even feel honored. Their reputations as occupations that require unique physical and mental toughness probably makes their selection seem complimentary.

These two examples, however, help identify a potentially important distinction: Not all human mascots involve occupations, which people self-select. Some mascots are based on demographics like race and ethnicity (e.g. Cleveland Indians), over which people have no say.

That lack of choice is compounded by the issue of stereotypes. Any human mascot suggests a certain image for all those belonging to the demographic. For instance, the name Braves implies that all Native Americans are courageous and strong.

But, what could be bad about being perceived as strong and courageous? Aren’t they attributes that anyone would want? Perhaps they are, but the reality is, not everyone has them to the same extent. For Native Americans, that 'positive stereotype' might negatively impact them in at least two ways.

First, the Braves mascot stereotype might make those who weren’t born with as much natural strength or courage feel inadequate, like they’re not living up to an important social standard. Second, a seemingly positive stereotype still pigeonholes people, or presents an unnecessarily narrow or inaccurate view of their abilities.

For example, I’ve been around sports enough to know that African American men are often stereotyped as great athletes. At first blush, that stereotype may seem positive, but if you’re an African American man, you may not appreciate people assuming that you played and/or excelled in sports, especially if you never did. You also wouldn’t like it if people discounted your intellect, as they sometimes do for athletes, inaccurately assuming that a strong body means a weak mind.

There really is no such thing as a positive stereotype. Unfortunately, mascots perpetuate stereotypes, which may not be an issue for animals or inanimate things but can be problematic for people if the mascot is tied to a demographic like race or ethnicity that individuals do not choose.

In more recent years, it seems that sports leagues have become more ‘enlightened,’ as it’s rare for expansion teams to be given human names. For instance, since 1976, six new teams have entered the NFL, but only one was given a people name—the Houston Texans, which is not directly tied to race or ethnicity.

The Washington Post reports that the Cleveland Indians are now considering a name change. It may not be long before other teams named Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. do the same. Projecting further into the future, it’s conceivable that some of sports’ most storied franchises, e.g. Celtics, Fighting Irish, will do the same.

Mascots related to occupations, which people choose, can likely stay. However, team names based on race or ethnicity should be retired because of the narrow and unfair stereotypes they project. Years from now, if not sooner, people will see such team names and call them “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!

8 Comments

<<Previous

Can Google Be Trusted?

Marketing Unity

Why Negative Political Advertising Works & What Can Stop It

Moving Aside To Let Consumers Drive

Was Pulling "Finger Lickin’ Good" Just Publicity Grabin’?

Corporate Social Responsibility Everyone Should See

Capri Sun Practices Child’s Play

Does Using “Shuffle” Mean You’re Already ‘Stuffed Full’?

Too Attached to an App?

Should People Be Mascots?

Editor

Archives

Categories