All Categories

Businesses that Bury the Hatchet

9/21/2018

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

What’s a fun night out with friends for you? Maybe it’s dinner at a favorite restaurant or a trip to the movies to see a new release. How about throwing axes? Thanks to some adventurous entrepreneurs, more and more people are participating in the pastime once reserved for lumberjacks. Hurling hatchets undoubtedly offers an adrenalin rush, but does it hit the mark for Mindful Marketing?

You can count me among those who had no idea that axe throwing is now in vogue. However, like the return of plaid, the trend is becoming harder to miss, as axe throwing sites pop up in cities such as Austin, Baltimore, Denver, Detroit, and Philadelphia and as news media like USA Today, NBC, and the Washington Post cover the craze.

The name is self-explanatory, but what exactly does axe throwing involve? Participants hoist a 14-inch hatchet over their heads and chuck it at a piece of plywood 12-15 feet away. They earn points based on where their axe sticks in the target, e.g., outer ring, inner ring, bullseye, or blue dot (kill shot).

An axe throwing outing can last anywhere from 60 minutes to several hours, depending on who’s throwing and for what reason, for instance, an individual taking in some target practice or a team competing in a tournament league.

The cost of axe throwing also varies, but Backyard Axe Throwing League’s pricing offers a ballpark: about $20/hr. for walk-ins, $36 per person for parties, and $120 per player for eight-week leagues. The businesses usually supply the axes.

Are there really enough consumers willing to pay that kind of money to throw some hardware at some hard wood? Also, do many people have the physical strength and stamina to endure an evening of axe throwing? Apparently the answer to both questions is ‘Yes.’

First, axe throwing hits the sweet spot for American’s largest age demographic, Millennials, who value experiences (often the wilder the better) over things. These young people have a bad case of FOMO (fear of missing out). Also, many of them likely recognize their antisocial tendencies involving digital devices and want reasons to put them down so they can interact in person with real humans.

Such consumer desires have undoubtedly spurred the rapid spread of axe throwing and the success of businesses such as Bad Axe Throwing, Bury the Hatchet, and Generation Axe. Backyard Axe Throwing League, which began in 2006, now has over a dozen locations in the U.S. and Canada and claims to have served over a million people.

Second, as the growth suggests, axe throwing is not just for the big and burly. The axes are fairly light (usually less than 2 lbs.), so success depends more on proper form than brute strength. Women and men of all sizes can excel at the craft.

That sounds good, but isn’t axe throwing dangerous? After all, axes have been used for millennia to chop things, including people. Furthermore, many axe throwing establishments also serve alcohol, which seems like a precarious, if not perilous, combination.

Axe throwing businesses, however, suggest that the activity is completely safe, and they provide some convincing support for that claim. For instance, patrons at Bury the Hatchet receive a “safety briefing and training session before they are allowed to participate.” Like many others, this business also uses cordoned off throwing lanes that are “a cross between a batting cage and a bowling alley.”

Bad Axe Throwing, which claims to be “the biggest urban axe throwing club in the world” says that it has never had a single injury. Apparently that track record is due to safety protocol such as inspecting each axe before every event, making sure blades are sharp enough to stick in wood but not sharp to the touch, and requiring that participants “throw and retrieve their axes in sync with one another.”

Also, while not all axe throwing businesses serve alcohol, for those that do, intoxication doesn’t seem to be an issue. Maybe it’s because people go to these places to throw first and drink second, so their desire to perform well acts a restraint on their drinking.

Meanwhile, axe throwing establishments claim some tangible benefits, namely exercise (a person can get a good workout throwing axes as well as bending to pick them up) and relationship building (fewer things bond people together more than competition and/or shared embarrassment). Bury the Hatchet also says that participants can experience stress relief and get an ego boost, as social media contacts can’t help but like pictures and videos of their friends throwing axes.

Despite these benefits, some may suggest that spending a few hours hurling hatchets is a waste of time and money. Of course, we don’t all have the same tastes in recreation. For some it’s an opera and for others it’s a minor league baseball game that refreshes the mind and reenergizes the spirit. Still, for others it’s axes.

It’s hard to say how long axe throwing will remain the rage, but many more people will likely channel their inner lumberjack and experience the primal trend. Voice assistants and virtual reality may make it seem risky and passé, but axe throwing for fun is “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

Just Divided over Nike's New Ad

9/9/2018

14 Comments

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

Nike just aired a new commercial that has quickly become entangled in controversy. The two-minute “Dream Crazy” ad is a well-produced spot that features footage of inspiring amateur athletes, as well as a couple of the brand’s superstar spokespeople. Surprisingly, the source of conflict is the ad’s narrator, who people seem either to admire or revile, which makes marketing analysts ask, “What did Nike just do?”

Marking the 30th anniversary of the company’s iconic “Just Do It” campaign, Nike’s new ad uses narration from NFL-quarterback-turned-activist Colin Kaepernick, who also appears briefly in the spot to urge viewers to, among other things, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”

If you’re not familiar with Kaepernick, he was one of the first professional football players to choose to kneel during the national anthem as a sign of protest against what many believe has been growing racial injustice in America. The last game he played was in January of 2017, but Kaepernick has since become the face and voice of a movement that extends well beyond professional sports.

Of course, not everyone has appreciated Kaepernick’s activism. Some resent that his example has encouraged others to kneel during the national anthem, which they believe is either unfounded protest or a misplaced act that disrespects the flag and demonstrates a lack of patriotism. Anthem protests have since become a point of contention for many NFL fans, causing some to swear off the league entirely.

In short, whether right or wrong, Nike’s use of Kaepernick has struck a raw nerve in a nation deeply divided.

Before going further, I need to say that I really didn’t want to write about this ad. Maybe it’s my Swiss heritage that makes me lean toward neutrality and dislike discord, especially political. It’s not fun for me to tackle an ad that arouses such strong social division. However, after much debate and several stops and starts, I still felt compelled to address the ad and so decided to “just do it.”

The first step in this Mindful Marketing analysis is ethics: Does Nike’s ad uphold societal values? Given the sometimes-ambiguous nature of “societal values,” that question is inherently hard to answer, but the circumstances surrounding the Nike commercial make this inquiry especially difficult.

The ad’s ‘dream big’ theme is positive and hopeful and probably not something with which many people would take issue. Instead, the debate seems to fall squarely on the company’s use of Kaepernick and whether what he represents is decent, fair, honest, respectful, and responsible (the five core values Mindful Marketing seeks to uphold).

Unfortunately, for those like me trying to make a moral judgment, both sides can make a compelling case based on the same principles. People who oppose Kaepernick can argue, for instance, that his activism unfairly characterizes police officers who are honest and considerate of others. His opponents also may contend that the anthem protests dishonor members of the armed forces who risk their lives to protect the freedoms the flag represents.

On the other hand, those who support Kaepernick can claim that the social justice movement he signifies is fundamentally about showing everyone respect. Similarly, this side shares that its aim is to ensure the fair treatment of all people.

Admittedly, the issues are more complicated than what I am presenting here; however, the point is that both sides have strong countervailing points that are difficult to adjudicate. For sake of argument, therefore, let’s give the ad the benefit of the doubt and assume that it does support societal values.

The second question, then, considers the ad’s effectiveness, which is also very difficult to discern. After the ad was released online this past Monday, several of the first news reports were of anger. Some consumers vowed to boycott Nike products, while others took more immediate and drastic action by burning their Nike shoes and socks.

Newer reports, however, have been that after the ad was released, Nike’s sales “grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.”

On the other hand, Nike’s stock (NKE), which had closed at $82.18 a share on Friday, August 31, closed at $80.30 a share this past Friday, September 7.

So, does Nike really know what it’s doing with the Kaepernick ad? A recent Washington Post article makes a convincing case that Nike does. Columnist Sally Jenkins maintains that the commercial positions Nike well in national and global contexts that are increasingly multicultural. She also argues that young shoppers, who are especially important to sneaker makers, want to buy products from companies that support social causes.

Public opinion is not so clear. This past Friday morning, September 7, Apex Marketing Group reported that the ad had produced $220 million in publicity for Nike: $69 million positive, $67 million negative, and $83 million neutral. Apex also noted that the percentage of positive publicity had fallen by 9 percentage points from Thursday to Friday.

Some may argue that any publicity is good publicity. That assertion, however, seems to be a myth, especially after considering organizational examples like Volkswagen and individual ones like Harvey Weinstein.

Public favor for the ad also might wane as people take more time to process the financial context surrounding Nike’s and Kaepernick’s participation in the promotion. For a few years, Kaepernick was a very good NFL quarterback, who even played in a Super Bowl. Before he began his anthem protest, he had been demoted to backup status.

Kaepernick made a total of $43 million as an NFL quarterback, of which he has donated over $1 million to a variety of social justice causes. It’s difficult to know how much, if any, money he has made as an activist, but sports agents estimate that his new Nike endorsement could be worth “millions of dollars per year.”

For these reasons, some have taken issue with the ad’s suggestion that Kaepernick ‘sacrificed everything,’ especially when compared to individuals who have given their lives in service to their country.

Kaepernick may not be serving as a Nike spokesman for the money, but it’s hard to imagine that Nike’s choice of Kaepernick was without consideration of its bottom-line, given that it’s a for-profit company that must answer to shareholders in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Not surprising, some have accused the company of “commercializing activism,” i.e., profiting from a social cause.

Another concern for Nike should be its relationship with the NFL. This past March, the NFL announced that Nike would continue to be its official supplier of uniforms and sideline gear through 2028. It’s not known how much these rights cost Nike, but it’s likely the company paid more than the $1.1 billion it reportedly invested for similar exclusivity in 2012.

The anthem protests that Kaepernick initiated continue to be a thorn in the side of the NFL. What’s more, Kaepernick has sued the NFL, claiming that the league has colluded to keep him off the field since he last played. All this to say, there are probably few people the NFL would rather not see exalted in a commercial than Kaepernick. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Nevertheless, the league has tried to put on a good face about the ad. NFL executive vice president of communications and public affairs Jocelyn Moore offered the following:

“The National Football League believes in dialogue, understanding and unity. We embrace the role and responsibility of everyone involved with this game to promote meaningful, positive change in our communities.” “The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action.”

Despite Moore’s conciliatory tone, one has to imagine that the ad places a significant strain on the relationship between the league and Nike that will only be exacerbated if there are further defections of NFL fans. Although her response makes it seem unlikely that the NFL is considering the commercial to be any kind of contractual breach, the ad will at a minimum cause the league to think more carefully about Nike and future sponsorships.

Like the ethical analysis, assessment of the commercial’s likely effectiveness has also been complicated. In the short-term, people may continue to applaud Nike for its social conscience. The ad and Kaepernick’s lawsuit, however, must be straining its relationship with the NFL.

Moreover, the ad’s theme of “sacrificing everything,” coming from a multimillionaire and a Fortune 100 company, will increasingly ring hollow with people, especially those working two jobs to make ends meet, or mourning loved ones who truly sacrificed everything in service to their country or community.

Credible cases can be made for placing Nike’s Kaepernick commercial in any one of the four Mindful Marketing quadrants, particularly given the ad’s multifaceted social implications. The ad’s effectiveness is also debatable. However, given the strained relationship with the NFL and a likely increase in public disaffect, there’s good reason for calling the commercial “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!

14 Comments

Advertising Attacks Domestic Violence

8/24/2018

4 Comments

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

An Ohio State assistant football coach repeatedly beat his wife.

A Colorado man allegedly murdered his pregnant wife and their two daughters.

A week rarely goes by without another disturbing story of domestic violence. In the United States, 20 people are abused by an intimate partner every minute. It’s reasonable to think that such a mass problem requires a mass media solution, but is advertising the answer to decreasing domestic violence?

The United Kingdom’s National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV) thought so. The organization that provides “free, fast and effective legal support to survivors of domestic violence and abuse” enlisted the services of world-renown marketing firm J. Walter Thompson (JWT) to produce an anti-abuse ad campaign that ran in Europe during the recent FIFA World Cup.

The “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign’s target marketing and timing were insightful: Unbeknown to most of us, there is an unfortunate “correlation between domestic abuse and [soccer].” In England, for instance, domestic violence increases by 26% when its national team plays, and if it loses, incidents rise by 38%.

Such alarming statistics encouraged the NCDV and JWT to unleash a jarring counterattack. The ad campaign featured very graphic images of the results of physical abuse, each with a specific soccer team tie-in. For instance, two bandages resembling a Swiss cross barely covered the large gash on a young woman’s bruised right cheek, while the caption read “If Switzerland gets beaten, so will she.”

Another gruesome image was a straight-on shot of the lower third of a young woman’s face, stained and still dripping bright red blood from her nose and lips. The caption read, “If England gets beaten, so will she." Among other media, the ads appeared on Instagram and billboards.

A few years ago, I did a study of shock advertising and found, among other things, that marketers have long used startling words and images to gain attention for everything from clothing to fast food.

Nonprofit organizations seem especially open to employing shock, probably because they find it easier to rationalize it for what are arguably more noble ends, like alleviating hunger and decreasing smoking. It’s not surprising, therefore, that the NCDV campaign was not the first to use shock in the fight against physical abuse. For instance, a few years ago, the Salvation Army of South Africa invoked social media’s famous “black and blue” dress in an ad that showed a woman covered in bruises, with the caption “Why is it so hard to see black and blue?”

Such ads certainly grab attention, but are they effective in accomplishing the creators’ objectives, e.g., decreasing domestic violence? The results I found were mixed: In some instances the target market responded as intended, but in other cases the shock was ineffective or even counterproductive; for instance, it pushed people further from the purpose of the ad because graphic images and language repulsed viewers or overshadowed the ads’ unique selling proposition.

Regular readers of this blog know that effectiveness is only one of the assessments that Mindful Marketers make. The other involves ethics. In terms of shock, even if it works, should advertisers use it to combat domestic violence? Is shocking people the right thing to do?

I don’t know the results of NCDV’s “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign, so I’d like to consider the ads’ efficacy and ethicality by posing four specific questions:

1. Were the ads actually a deterrent? A key assumption of the NCDV ads seemed to be that potential abusers would see close-ups of the blood and gore and resolve not to do that to someone. Maybe that motivation works; I honestly don’t know, but it’s easy to imagine that the gruesome visuals could have the opposite effect, i.e., they set off in people predisposed to such violence a visceral reaction similar to sharks sensing blood in the water.

Whenever marketers develop ads, it’s critical that they understand the target market’s underlying reasons for acting. In the case of domestic violence, maybe it would be more effective to appeal to perpetrators’ fear of arrest, like many drunk driving ads do. Or, perhaps these abusers would be motivated by concern over lower self-esteem (“Don’t be a coward”) or by lost love (“She will leave you”).

2. Did the campaign increase desensitization? Studies have found that the more people are exposed to violence, the more desensitized they become to it. The principle of marginal utility supports these findings: The more we have of something, the less satisfaction we gain from getting one more of that thing.

We should wonder what the impact is of increased shock advertising on all of us. Sixty years ago, a huge bloody billboard would have left most people aghast. Today it takes much more to move us. The scariest part is if shock like that of the NCDV’s ads desensitizes the general public to violence, it’s also desensitizing those who are likely to commit violence against others.

3. Do people deserve to be ambushed? Yes, life is full of surprises, but should someone walking down a city street have to come across a large billboard with a blood-soaked face? Or, should a person innocently surfing the web have to see a close-up of a severely bruised and gashed cheek?

For most people, such graphic images are outside the realm of ordinary life. They should have a say in whether they want to see them or not. It doesn’t seem right for advertisers to confront people with such visuals without fair warning or giving them the ability to opt out.

4. Who else saw the ads? The previous question leads naturally to this final point. Advertising is by definition mass communication, which is inherently hard to control, at least when it uses traditional media. A company can choose a billboard based on a location that the target market frequents, but there’s nothing to stop others outside the target market from being exposed to the same message.

That lack of audience selectivity is inefficient, but the bigger problem pertains to those who could be traumatized by shocking images, namely children. Advertisers also should consider the increasingly large number of people who have been victims of domestic violence. They don’t deserve to be vividly reminded of their experience when walking down a street or browsing online.

Advertising that employs shock, like the “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign, often rationalizes that ‘the ends justify the means.’ That line of thinking is highly questionable. It’s also unclear whether such advertising actually produces net benefits. The NCDV’s ads may have been well-intended, but they were most likely “Mindless Marketing.”

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

4 Comments

Smile, You're on Social Media

8/9/2018

2 Comments

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

"When it's least expected - you're elected. You're the star today. Smile! You're on Candid Camera!” It used to be that a hidden camera TV show was the only way others might see our most embarrassing or intimate moments. Thanks to cellphones and social media, millions can now easily watch outtakes from our lives, whether we like it or not, which is what one unsuspecting airline traveler recently experienced.

A few weeks ago, Helen (last name unknown) was settling into an Alaskan Airlines flight from New York to Dallas when another passenger, Rosey Blair, asked if she’d switch seats. Blair wanted to sit next to her boyfriend, Houston Hardaway, who was in the row behind her. Helen obliged, which put her in front of Blair and Hardaway, and next to an attractive stranger, who later identified himself as Euan Holden, a former professional soccer player.

As the plane took off, so did an apparent romance between Helen and Holden. The unexpected seatmates’ casual conversation turned flirtatious and eventually the two were touching elbows on that ambiguous middle armrest. When the flight landed and passengers deplaned, the two could be seen strolling through the terminal together.

Given 40,000+ flights in the United States each day, how do we know so much about the interaction between two ordinary air travelers? We’re privy because Blair chronicled everything about the blossoming relationship from the row behind them.

Around 15 times, Blair tweeted about things she saw and overheard such as the couple discovering that they were both personal trainers and vegetarians. Pictures and videos accompanied some of the tweets, as well as the hashtags #PrettyPlaneGirl and #PlaneBae. In very little time, Blair’s tweets amassed 630,000 likes and 250,000 retweets, then mainstream news media began to share the touching tale.

Sounds like a relationship and social media success story, right? Not quite. Helen was unaware of Blair’s inflight antics and was very unhappy to be flung into the national media spotlight, especially after the attention led to online harassment and the need to delete her social media accounts. Helen issued a statement through an attorney that included: “I did not ask for and do not seek attention. #PlaneBae is not a romance - it is a digital-age cautionary tale about privacy, identity, ethics and consent.”

Wow. That’s a strong reaction, but did Blair do anything wrong? After all, it’s legal to photograph people in public places where there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The incident occurred on a commercial airliner, apparently in coach, where hundreds of people are packed like sardines. It’s hard to get much less private.

“Reasonable expectation of privacy,” however, is subject to interpretation. Yes, a commercial airliner is a rather pubic place, but most passengers wouldn’t expect the people behind them to be eavesdropping on them throughout an entire flight or photographing them from above and between the seats.

An even bigger issue involves Blair’s occupation. According to her Twitter page, she a plus-size fashion, lifestyle, and travel blogger, which means her livelihood depends on sharing content on social media. Gaining likes, shares, and followers is key to her success, and to have a post go viral is golden.

Blair’s profession matters because it reframes her motives and recontexualizes her actions. She’s no longer just a person sharing with friends a few photos she took of strangers. She’s an entrepreneur employing visual and verbal accounts of others to advance her business interests. She’s a marketer using Helen and Holden, without recompense, to build her brand. Jayson DeMers describes such situations in a 2014 Forbes article:

“The danger in using photos of individuals for your online marketing purposes is that your efforts could be seen as commercial. The rules when it comes to using photos for commercial purposes differ from when you’re merely sharing vacation photos with your buddies. Even if you aren’t directly making money off of the usage, a photo in a social media campaign can easily be seen as similar to using a photo in a print brochure or billboard ad.”

What Blair did was not clearly illegal, but her actions could easily land her on the losing end of a lawsuit, as DeMers continues to explain: “If your subject believes his likeness was used to sell a product without his permission, you may find yourself on the losing side of an argument in front of a judge.”

Ethics, however, is not simply a matter of ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’ It’s about doing the right thing no matter what the law says. In that light, a good question for Blair or anyone in a similar situation to ask is “Would I want someone else to eavesdrop on my conversation, take pictures of me without my knowledge or permission, and share those things on social media?”

Most of us would say, “Of course not.” So, if that’s the kind of consideration we’d like for our own privacy, we should obey the Golden Rule and show the same respect to others.

Everyone makes mistakes, and Blair seems to recognize that her social media sharing of two strangers’ personal interactions was wrong. She has offered an apology; although, she failed to delete most of her tweets about the incident. For this reason and all of the above, Blair’s creation and promotion of “Plane bae” should be considered “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!

2 Comments

No More Deaths by Duck Boats

7/27/2018

1 Comment

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

It was a sunny spring day, and 28-year-old Allison Warmuth was doing one of the things she enjoyed most—riding her red scooter through the streets of Boston. Tragically, that ride on April 30, 2016 was her last. A duck boat operator failed to see her stopped at a traffic signal and plowed into her scooter from behind.

Why remember an accident more than two years past that took a single life, when 17 people riding a duck boat on Table Rock Lake near Branson, Missouri drowned just a week ago? The reason is personal: I knew Allison Warmuth.

Several years before, Allie had been a student in one of my marketing classes. I quickly learned that she was a bright and hard-working student, as well as a kind and compassionate person. She wore a warm smile and exuded charm that endeared her to others.

I was Allie’s teacher for only a few months, but the latest Duck Boat accident has evoked thoughts of her untimely passing, returning sadness to me and others who knew her. It’s hard to image the pain that those closest to such accident victims feel, having suddenly lost their brother or sister, husband or wife, daughter or son . . .

Mindful Marketing didn’t exist when Allie was a student. Today other marketing faculty and I use the Mindful Matrix with our classes to assess the marketing actions of organizations like Ride the Ducks. I wonder what a sharp student like Allie would have said about duck boats, not knowing that one would one day take her life, or that similar vessels would be responsible for the deaths of dozens of others.

Over the past 19 years, 43 people have died in duck boat-related accidents. Foreshadowing the Branson tragedy, thirteen people passed away in 1999 when a duck boat sank on a lake near Hot Springs, Arkansas. In 2010 in Philadelphia, two tourists died when a tugboat pushed a barge into their stranded duck boat.

The amphibious vehicles also have been responsible for several fatalities on land. In addition to Allie’s death, a woman fell backward from a duck boat in a parking lot in Boston in 2003, while taking a picture. Also, in 2015, “five college students were killed and more than 70 people injured when a duck boat veered into a charter bus on a bridge above Seattle's Lake Union.”

It’s important to realize that one company does not own and operate all of the nation’s duck boats; rather, several different firms run tours in select cities around the country. For instance, Original Wisconsin Ducks®, located in Wisconsin Dells, WI, bills itself as “the ONLY duck tour in the world in continuous operation since 1946.” Meanwhile, “Ride the Ducks” offers duck boat tours in Branson, MO; Seattle, WA; Stone Mountain Park, GA, and Guam. “Boston Duck Tours” is yet another private company, providing tours just in its namesake city and claiming to be “Boston’s most popular tour.”

Our course, what all of these companies have in common is their use of the distinctive duck boat, a World War II-era vehicle used to transport troops and supplies from ship to shoreline during beach invasions. Duck boats reportedly were responsible for delivering over 40% of over-beach supplies during the first four months of the invasion of Normandy.

During combat, a complex system of switches and levers kept the boats afloat by cranking the propellers, managing tire inflation, and pumping water out of the hulls. Some of the duck boats used today, including the one that sank in Missouri, date back to WW II. Most of those boats have been retrofitted in certain ways, including cabin extensions to accommodate more passengers.

The obvious benefit of a duck boat is that it can operate both on land and in water. Like a printer that also makes copies, dual-purpose can be a plus. The problem with some multi-functional devices, however, is that they do neither of their main tasks especially well, i.e., they’re ‘jacks of all trades, masters of none.’

Attorney Andrew Duffy, who has handled cases involving duck boat fatalities in Philadelphia, supports that description and then some. He calls the vehicles “death traps” that are “not fit for water or land because they are half car and half boat.”

On land, the main issue is visibility. Duck boats were designed to travel up empty beaches, not to navigate crowded city streets, which pose challenges for their considerable length and girth. More importantly, the vessels’ high elevation and long bows create a wide, five-foot-high blind-spot that makes it easy for operators to overlook smaller vehicles and pedestrians. Such design contributed to Allie’s death on that fateful day in April.

In water, duck boats’ relative lack of buoyancy causes them to sit lower in the water than many other boats, which becomes an even greater issue in bad weather like that on the day of the Branson disaster. Perhaps the biggest dangers, though, are the fixed canopies and roll-down window covers. Duffy explains: (2) “When you are cruising along in a normal boat, if it capsizes you go [out of the boat and] into the water. With duck boats, you have the opposite effect. The canopy literally acts to drag you down with it.”

Duffy adds that the “heavy cellophane” many duck boat companies use for windows makes escape from a sinking craft even more difficult. Furthermore, passengers who don life jackets are at greater risk of being trapped underwater, as the vests push them upward and into the submerged canopy.

But, 43 deaths in about 20 years is miniscule compared to 40,100 U.S. motor vehicle fatalities in 2017. So, should we really be concerned about duck boats?

One thing to consider is that the total number of motor vehicle excursions in the U.S. in a year is undoubtedly many times the number of duck boat tours over the past two decades, so it should be expected that there will be many more ‘non-amphibious’ motor vehicle accidents than amphibious ones. Furthermore, when we climb into cars and onto buses, we assume the risks because we usually don’t have other options: We need to get to work or school, and motor vehicle transportation is the only reasonable way to do so.

On the other hand, no one needs to take a duck boat tour. It’s a low-intensity leisure activity that’s easy to substitute, so the risk to those on or near the vehicles should be virtually zero. Yes, some recreational pursuits like bull riding and mountain climbing place people at considerable risk of death or injury, but well-trained and adventurous adults knowingly accept those risks. Families with young children, senior citizens, and others simply looking to see the sights of a city shouldn’t have to worry about dying on a tour.

However, some duck boat companies, like Original Wisconsin Ducks, which operates the nation’s largest fleet of ducks (92), claim to have never had an accident. Should they be allowed to operate as-is?

That’s a decision that objective experts need to make; however, it’s worth noting that Ride the Ducks in Branson also apparently never had an accident before 17 people died, even though company spokesperson Suzanne Smagala-Potts has said that “The safety of our guests and employees is our number one priority” and despite a private safety inspector having warned the firm about life-threatening design flaws in its vessels less than a year before the fatal accident.

It’s also worth noting that James Hall, former chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, has suggested that duck boats are inherently dangerous and should be banned from commercial recreational use. Hall doesn’t believe there’s a way to make the vehicles safe, especially during bad weather.

What would Allie Warmuth say about duck boats? As a sharp businessperson, she would likely appreciate the tours’ strong consumer demand. However, as a rational and caring human being, she also would recognize that revenue potential doesn’t outweigh the risk to life. As a result, duck boat tours should be considered “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Note: Allie’s family has created a Facebook page to help prevent similar accidents and to ensure the safety of others. Please consider visiting and liking Street Safety for Allie.

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

Churches for Men Who Don’t Like Church

7/7/2018

2 Comments

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!

2 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

1 Comment

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!

1 Comment

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.”