All Categories

Hurricane Heist?

9/15/2017

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

As Hurricane Irma turned toward Florida, an angry consumer shared a screen shot of a 24-pack of 16.9 ounce bottled water that Best Source Office Supplies was selling on Amazon for $99.99. Inflating the prices of necessities ahead of an impending natural disaster is a tactic that most people find deplorable, but not everyone. Of course, companies taking that tack rationalize their actions, but certain others also make a compelling case for such price hikes.

Price gouging is "the practice of raising prices on certain types of goods and services to an unfair level, especially during a state of emergency." Although it’s not uncommon for companies to increase prices on goods and services to levels that consumers think are too high, price gouging is different.

Consumers are price gouged when the item in question is something they must have (e.g., food, water), but the product’s supply is severely restricted, often to a single seller, so consumers have no choice but to pay the exorbitant price. In contrast, although the new iPhone X starts at a staggering $999, Apple is not guilty of price gouging because it’s possible to survive without the newest iPhone.

In the case of Hurricane Irma, certain sellers reportedly gouged consumers for water, ice, food, and fuel. One Orlando Shell station supposedly sold regular grade gas for $5.99/gallon and premium for $6.99. Even Disney got into the act: A Twitter user posted pictures from Disney’s Art of Animation Resort, which offered small bottles of water for $2 and juice boxes for $2.69 each. A Disney spokesperson later said that the situation was an isolated incident that had been rectified.

To document such abuse, Florida’s attorney general Pam Bondi set up a hotline that received over 8,000 calls about price gouging, which violates Florida law and is subject to “civil penalties of $1,000 for each violation, and up to $25,000 for several violations within a 24-hour period.” Beyond the legal penalties, Bondi promised violators personal retribution: “I will be saying your name all over national television and telling people not to go to your business ever again if you’re stealing from Floridians and taking advantage of Floridians in a time of need.”

Despite the fact that certain states have made price gouging illegal and most people consider it immoral, some claim that capping prices actually makes situations, like those surrounding hurricanes, worse. Writing for Forbes, Adam Millsap argues that pricing gouging laws are what empty store shelves, not natural disasters. The best thing, Millsap contends, is to let supply and demand determine prices like they normally do.

Similarly, in a New York Times article, Andrew Ross Sorkin states that “several respected economists from the Milton Friedman school of free-market theory” support the argument against price gouging laws because artificially low prices “remove the incentive for consumers to conserve essential supplies,” and they discourage sellers from increasing stock.

So, maybe Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is the best way to determine supply when natural disasters strike. That belief aligns well with an increasingly popular pricing strategy, dynamic pricing, in which firms like airlines use algorithms to quickly increase prices to whatever level the market will bear. Unfortunately, such approaches also tend to have some very undesirable side effects.

For one thing, higher prices naturally favor the wealthy. That advantage is understandable under normal circumstances: People with more money should be able to buy higher-priced items. In the case of natural disasters, however, it doesn’t seem right to price anyone out of the market for food, water, or other basic survival needs.

Also, there’s no reason retailers can’t impose limits on how much or how many of an item customers can buy. Stores successfully ration items all the time. For instance, a grocery store runs a sale on granola and dictates: “Limit, two boxes per customer.” Likewise, arguments against price gouging laws don’t give people much credit. When asked to conserve, most individuals will limit their consumption for the sake of others.

In addition, the notion that businesses should maximize profits at their customers’ expense is both antiquated and short-sighted. Sure, people may have no choice but to pay ridiculously high prices when they’re put between a rock and a hard place, but they won’t soon forget what it felt like to be treated as a means to an end. Firms that price gouge run a great risk of alienating consumers and ruining their reputations.

On the other hand, companies that show restraint and price “to create shared value,” generate considerable goodwill, especially in the face of a natural disaster. A few firms that bolstered their brands by taking this more enlightened and socially responsible approach when Irma struck were JetBlue, Airbnb, AT&T Wireless, and Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe.

It’s hard for most people to know how they will react in the face of life-threatening natural disasters like hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Businesses, however, should know not to take advantage of people in such vulnerable states. Companies that do are guilty of various offenses, and one of them is “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!

28 Comments

Tinder-garten

9/9/2017

9 Comments

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

It’s great to watch kids grow and mature, for instance, as they take their first steps, attend their first day of school . . . have their first hook up?! Most parents don’t want to imagine that last experience, especially if their children are still young; yet, some companies are making meeting apps that many are calling “Tinder for Teens.”

If you’re not familiar with Tinder, that’s not a bad thing. It’s one of the seemingly hundreds of dating apps that have hit the market over the past few years, helping people find significant others. However, there are big differences between Tinder and some of the more traditional dating sites.

For instance, eHarmony users answer a lengthy set of probing questions, aimed at finding one’s true soulmate, which takes over an hour. The cost for one month is $49.95. A Tinder profile, on the other hand, is free at the basic level and takes only a few minutes to setup: “You simply download the app to your smart phone, link to your Facebook account, choose up to six photos of yourself, and write a brief bio. That’s it!”

The use of Tinder is equally easy, and as many would say, pretty superficial. Even though bios are available “it’s all about the photos.” Users review others’ pics, and if they see someone they like, they swipe right, while everyone unattractive gets swept left. If two people swipe right on each other, the app invites them to start chatting.

This quick and easy vetting reflects the way many users regard the people they meet through the platform, i.e., users turn to Tinder to find candidates for casual sex, i.e., one-night stands, i.e., “hook ups.”

Sexual intimacy without commitment tends to end badly for people of any age. It’s especially abhorrent to encourage lascivious behavior among adolescents, who are even less cognizant of the consequences of their actions. Some teen-targeting apps are doing just that, however. What’s more, there can be other consequences for these young people that are even worse than those of casual sex with their peers.

Probably the most popular friend/dating app for teens is Spotafriend, which describes itself as “the hottest teen swiping app for meeting new friends.” The company’s website goes on to claim that it is “not a teen dating app, it’s a new way to make friends.” However, that self-assessment is quickly questioned as Spotafriend’s own LinkedIn site says: “Meet teens near you with Spotafriend, the Tinder alternative for people ages 13-19.”

But, maybe Spotafriend’s comparison to Tinder is just puffery; or perhaps it’s only referencing the more demure uses of the adult app. It’s hard to make those interpretations, however, after reading one of the featured posts on Spotafriend’s blogsite titled “5 Major Hook-Up Ground Rules.” Here are a few excerpts from the article:

“Hookups in high school and college are exciting, and can be your first real meeting with the issues of love and sex, issues that most of us don’t really understand in our teenage years.”

“If you’re just kissing, or going all the way, make sure both participants are comfortable and willing to continue with the interaction.”

“Do Whatever Makes You Comfortable”

“Many acts that people consider “hooking up” carry the risk of infectious diseases being spread from person to person.”

Unfortunately, the possibility of reckless sex with someone the same age is not the only serious risk to teens using Spotafriend. Given that the app’s parameters are “for people age 13 to 19,” there’s built-in potential for 18 or 19-year-old men, legally adults, to interact with 13-year-old girls. What’s even worse is the ease with which even older adults can access the app and join the mix.

Lisa Schmidt, a 42-year-old dating coach and matchmaker, was curiously concerned about the rise of dating apps for teens, so she decided to check-out Spotafriend. In her guest blog post on Global Dating Insights, she recounts how easy it was for her to access the app and pose as a 15-year-old girl. It was even easier for her to change her birthday once inside.

As Schmidt’s experience suggests and leading child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg confirms, apps like Spotafriend are “‘on-line playgrounds’ for paedophiles.” Carr-Gregg adds, “All it would take is a smooth-talking paedophile to send some silky little messages to these kids and away we go.” The fact that such apps are location-based and work seamlessly with messaging apps like Snapchat makes teens all-the-more vulnerable to predators.

It’s great when people use social media to build friendships. Spotafriend’s name and promotion, however, are misleading. The app’s real aim appears to be more about helping teens “hook up,” while providing few safeguards against sexual predators. Unfortunately, many innocent young people fall victim to the appeal, making Spotafriend an example of “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!

9 Comments

Should Donations Be Discreet?

9/2/2017

11 Comments

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

We’ve seen the havoc that Hurricane Harvey has wreaked around the Gulf. We’ve also witnessed an outpouring of physical and financial support for those in need. Such altruism makes me ask: Is it right to recognize those who give, or should such benevolence be anonymous?

Although I’ve considered this question before, the issue struck me more squarely than ever when I received an email a few days ago from the American Marketing Association (AMA). Like several other organizations, the AMA sent a message to its constituents, encouraging them to contribute to the relief effort, in other words, marketing giving.

The email contained a link to an American Red Cross/AMA fundraiser page, powered by Crowdrise. On the right side of the page was a box, listing the amount of money raised--$5,095 at last check. Also in the box was a scrolling list of names and dollar amounts, showing who’s given and how much, for instance:
     Andrew Smith         $50
     Erika Alexander      $10
     Anonymous             $50
     Yanliu Huang         $100
     Gunisha Samir       $50

I never saw anything quite like this revolving list of donors, which made me think: Should I be recognized for my giving?

Of course, Crowdrise didn’t invent the idea of donor recognition. There are plenty of other examples, ranging from acknowledgment pages in high school yearbooks to the names of buildings on college campuses. What’s different with Crowdrise, however, is the unique and unconventional appeal, bluntly stated below the company’s logo: “If You Don’t Give Back No One Will Like You.”

Now, I’m really questioning my motives: Do I give to others because I want to help them, or because I’d like other people to acknowledge and appreciate me. This reflection is personal, but companies wrestle with similar questions, which affects how they handle their giving.

For instance, Houston Texan defensive end J.J. Watt has effectively used his celebrity to raise over $15 million for victims of Hurricane Harvey. Given that more than 152,000 people have contributed to Watt’s fund on YouCaring.com, gifts must be coming in all sizes. Probably the largest contribution has come from retail giant Walmart, which cut a check for $1 million. However, Walmart didn’t make its donation discreetly through Watt’s website. Instead, the company handed a massive 3 ft. x 7 ft. presentation check to Ellen DeGeneres while she spoke with Watt during a taping of her talk show.

Was Walmart wrong to promote its philanthropy on national TV? Probably not. For one thing, the visibility of this very significant gift will likely raise awareness of the need for hurricane relief and encourage others, especially large corporations, to contribute. In addition, given that Walmart is a publicly-traded company, its management is accountable to shareholders, which means announcing material transactions and building goodwill for the firm, which publicizing charitable giving tends to do.

So, should you and I hand an oversized presentation check for our next $100 donation? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to be recognized. At least one of the reasons mentioned above for Walmart can apply to individuals: When others see that we give, they may be inspired to do the same.

There are, however, a few important things to consider, whether it’s an individual or a corporation building its brand. As suggested above, any publicity should be in keeping with the size of the gift. Also, motivation matters. No person or company should give simply because they want recognition. That doesn’t mean forgoing any acknowledgment, but it does mean that recognition should not be the driving force, or the primary motive.

It’s fine to have multiple reasons for doing things. Life is complicated, and our motivations must reflect that complexity. However, as a society we’ve gone askew if we allow promotion to overtake compassion. We need organizations and individuals who genuinely care about others and who are willing to help even if no one else knows they did.

So, while Crowdrise’s tagline, “If You Don’t Give Back No One Will Like You,” is unseemly, there’s not necessarily anything wrong with receiving recognition for giving. In fact, appropriate recognition can be helpful for all involved. Giving for the right reasons, anonymously or with one’s name attached, is always “Mindful Marketing.”

P.S. Helping those impacted by Hurricane Harvey is much more important than a blog about marketing ethics. If you’re thinking of giving, here’s a great list of organizations that can put your donation to good use.

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

11 Comments

Virtue or Vice?

8/25/2017

2 Comments

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

When you hear “ice cream,” you probably don’t think of diet, healthy, or nutritious; rather, words like creamy, rich, and luscious come to mind. After all, most people don’t eat ice cream to be healthy or to get fit; they just want to indulge in something they really enjoy. That’s the motivation one upstart ice cream maker is tapping into, in a way like no other.

Brands like Häagen-Dazs and Ben & Jerry’s have made decadent ice cream for decades, but even they have not capitalized on the concept of uninhibited indulgence as much as Boston-based Vice Cream. As the company name implies, its ice cream isn’t just good; it’s sinful. Other elements of the company’s brand support the unusual positioning.

Most notably, the product itself is very ‘full-bodied.’ Pictures and descriptions on Vice Cream’s website illustrate various flavors overflowing with add-ins such as “stacks on stacks of mint-chocolate coins,” “rich peanut butter ice cream mixed with chopped toffee bars,” and “chunks of chocolate chip cookie dough, salted caramel truffles, and thick swirls of chocolate fudge and caramel.”

As you might imagine, those kinds of ample, rich ingredients add up to some sizeable, undesirable numbers on the ice cream’s nutritional labels. For instance, one particular flavor boasts the following stats per half cup serving: 270 calories, 15g of fat, 10g of saturated fat, 50 mg of cholesterol, and 30g carbohydrates. By the way, I wonder how many people can eat just a half cup of ice cream; I can’t.

While those “nutrition” numbers are certainly high, they aren’t unusual for indulgent desserts. For instance, a small Brownie Batter Blizzard at Dairy Queen has 440 calories, 14g of fat, and 9g of saturated fat. Those stats are puny, however, compared to desserts at the Cheesecake Factory, where a piece of Oreo Dream Extreme Cheesecake has 1,490 calories, 53g of saturated fat, and 162 carbs.

If Vice Cream isn’t setting any records for nutritional negligence, what makes it so sinful? Well, beyond its product composition, the company has decided to play upon the idea of immorality with other aspects of its branding, such as its product names and promotion. More specifically, Vice Cream has opted for the classic low-brow strategy—serving up sex, with a side of profanity.

The company’s 'sex-sells' approach starts with the names of its ice creams, which may seem innocuous, until you start to unpack and compare them. For instance, there’s “Toffee Wife,” a play on the sexist term “trophy wife,” and “Afternoon Delight,” homage to the Starland Vocal Band’s 1976 hit by the same name, which was all about making love. There’s also “Breakfast in Bed,” a flavor name that seems benign until you interpret it in context with the other monikers and you see some of the company’s additional branding.

Vice Cream’s most blatant sex appeal is through a promotional video, which is the first thing you see on the firm’s homepage and which is easily found on YouTube. The slightly less than two-minute spot features an attractive young woman, wearing a short black dress and high heels. The actress’s words and actions exude sensuality, while an enticing instrumental arrangement plays in the background.

Granted, the ad doesn’t rely exclusively on sex appeal. There’s also a heavy dose of humor that seems like an attempt to offset some of the strong sexual innuendo. For instance, the main premise of the spot is that although consumers can’t get a free sample of Vice Cream, they can call the company’s “vice-line” and listen to “virtual tasters” describe in “sumptuous detail what it’s like to eat any of our delicious flavors.”

Of course, the unambiguous reference is to phone-sex, but the silliness of listening to others sensually describe ice cream downplays that allusion. Vice Cream also tries to take the edge off the sexual imagery by showcasing one rather unappealing virtual taster, “Gary,” who gets dropped by a caller who’s not aroused by his less-than-sexy product description.

Meanwhile, there’s also a smattering of profanity throughout the promotion, as the main actress lets slide “son of a [bleep] that’s good” and “F[bleep]’n Gary.” The spot censors the specific expletives, but it’s easy to understand what she’s saying.

What should we make of Vice Cream’s unabashed approach to confectionery marketing? On one hand, the company can be commended for not putting on pretenses. Yes, there are a handful of companies striving to make 'healthy' ice cream, like Halo, but ice cream is an indulgence, and Vice Cream calls it what it is. People tend to appreciate candid communication—even if it’s a little negative, at least it’s honest.

On the other hand, Vice Cream makes gratuitous use of sex to sell its products. Unlike a honeymoon vacation or Viagra, there’s no natural connection between ice cream and sex. As many other unscrupulous companies have done, Vice Cream tries to take the feelings people have for sex and, by way of classical conditioning, transfer them to its product.

Appetites for food and desires for sex are two separate things that can be disturbing, if not dangerous, to combine. Such an artificial pairing could be especially hazardous for adolescents, who, amid surging hormones and ravenous hunger, have enough to handle separately for each biological and physiological drive.

The addition of profanity only makes matters worse, particularly when one considers that anyone with an internet connection, from nine to ninety, can see Vice Cream’s ad. Users don’t need to verify that they’re 18 or older, for instance, to enter the company’s website or to watch the ad on YouTube.

Some may argue, “But the ad is supposed to be funny.” That may be true, but couching an ad or anything else in humor doesn’t cover-up the unseemly content. The sexualization and profanity are still easily seen and heard. To think that the humor makes them okay is like believing you can call someone a nasty name, then quickly disclaim, “I was just joking.”

Vice Cream looks delicious and probably tastes great too. Those positives likely explain most of the company’s rapid growth and early success. It’s okay for people to indulge in a decadent dessert every once in a while, but it’s never okay for companies to use sex gratuitously to sell products. For this reason, Vice Cream’s ingredient list also includes “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

Dressing for Social Media

8/18/2017

7 Comments

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

Remember the first day back-to-school? Amid the excitement, there’s concern about classes, stress about relationships, and, of course, wondering what to wear. Social media has relieved some of that first-day wardrobe pressure in that people now post pics of themselves and others online all the time. However, that constancy also makes the stress about what to wear continual. One major retailer is tapping into the trend.

Department store icon Macy’s has introduced a promotional campaign that plays on teenage girls’ tendencies to seek affirmation through the pictures they post of themselves on social media. The ads, which appear on BuzzFeed, feature a variety of fashion photos, similar to those found on the retailer’s website for junior girls. The difference is the accompanying text, which makes an unambiguous social media appeal, for instance:

“Get ready to have a fashionable feed this fall, only with Macy’s.”
“11 Back-To-School Outfits That Were Totally Made for Social Media”
“You won’t blend into anyone’s feed dressed in this style trifecta.”
“Be an influencer and upload this cold-shoulder outfit.”
“Show off some shoulder and kitschy denim for a look that's guaranteed to get you the likes.”
“Make your #OOTD camera-ready with this edgy look.”
“There's #NoFilter necessary with this boho-chic style.”
“Get the double-taps in this fluttering floral outfit.”
“Make your followers starry-eyed in this influential outfit.”

From a strategic perspective, Macy’s can be commended for matching its tactics to its target market. So many people spend significant time on social media, as well as on websites like BuzzFeed, and teenage girls are among the most active users.

A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that “24% of teens go online “almost constantly,’” while 56% go online several times a day, enabled by the widespread use of smartphones. While teen boys are somewhat more likely to visit Facebook, teen girls are more often on Instagram and Tumblr. Overall, “Girls dominate social media,” while “boys are more likely to play video games.”

Frequent use of something is not necessarily a problem. Many people are heavy users of technology and other tools that help them do their jobs or manage their personal lives more efficiently and effectively. The problem is when those things become obsessive, which unfortunately is the way teen girls’ use of social media has evolved. A 2017 CNN article explains:

“It's not a law that you have to post a selfie before, during, and after every activity. But for kids, it's pretty much mandatory. The resulting likes, thumbs-ups, and other ratings all get tallied, both in the stark arithmetic of the Internet and in kids' own minds. For some -- especially girls -- what starts as a fun way to document and share experiences can turn into an obsession about approval that can wreak havoc on self-image.”

A survey titled “Children, Teens, Media, and Body Image,” provides some telling statistics that further detail teenage girls’ preoccupation with approval from others online:

“35 percent are worried about people tagging them in unattractive photos.”
“27 percent feel stressed about how they look in posted photos.”
“22 percent felt bad about themselves if their photos were ignored.”

For young women, the unfortunate outcomes of social media obsession are things like unhappiness, anxiety, depression, and over-sexualization, as a 2016 Time article explains: “One of the easiest ways to get that validation is by looking hot. Sex sells, whether you’re 13 or 35.” Some girls even post provocative videos of themselves on YouTube, asking others to answer the question, “Am I pretty or ugly?”

This troubling context casts Macy’s social media ad appeal in a much different light. While involvement in social media has many potential benefits, that participation has unfortunately turned into an addiction for some people, especially young women, who feel unique pressure to look good and to be liked online.

As such, teenage girls are probably the last people who should be promised that a certain outfit will “Make your followers starry-eyed” or that clothes will give “a look that's guaranteed to get you the likes.” When someone is struggling with an addiction, we shouldn’t tempt them with the very thing that’s holding them hostage. Macy’s ads aimed at a young female target market, however, are analogous to putting a beer in front of an alcoholic and encouraging him to “Take a drink.”

So, there are certainly significant moral concerns related to Macy’s promotion. There are also strategic ones. A review of the comments on BuzzFeed suggests that people are not enamored with the ads. Several of the posts mention that the outfits are more revealing than what most schools will allow. Moreover, it’s likely that Millennials are skeptical about such an overt pitch. These media-savvy and cynical consumers are already leery of ads, let alone ones that make improbable promises.

At first glance, Macy’s social media-connected ad campaign seems benign. Deeper analysis, however, suggests that the promotion could easily aggravate the target market’s already unhealthy social media obsession; that is, if the young women believe the ads. Consequently, the campaign looks like a case of “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!

7 Comments

Fixing iPhones

8/10/2017

4 Comments

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

One rainy morning many years ago, I was driving to work (my first career position after college) when a car hit me from behind and pushed me into another vehicle. It was a relatively slow-speed collision so the damage to my car wasn’t extensive, but the insurance adjuster called it “totaled” since the repair estimate exceeded the car’s low value. My car wasn’t worth fixing; I needed to get a new one.

That experience reminds me of the many products we use each day but seldom repair when they break. For instance, most of us don’t think of fixing a broken toaster; we look for a new one. This tendency to replace instead of repair places significant strain on our environment, but the practice becomes even more troubling when talking about expensive and easily ‘injured’ items like our ever-present smartphones.

If you own a smartphone and haven’t dropped it or had some other mishap, you’re either extremely careful or very lucky because, “Each year millions of cell phone owner’s drop, sit on, flush, swim with and even throw their phone, which normally results in some sort of damage.” After such an unfortunate occurrence, the question becomes whether to repair or replace the indispensable device, which probably cost at least a couple of hundred dollars, or several hundred-plus if you’re packing a newer iPhone or the latest Samsung Galaxy.

Fortunately, a variety of online outlets will repair broken phones, for example:

However, using an online organization for repairs requires a major sacrifice of time. Many people can’t be without their smartphone for a few hours, let alone several days or more. And, there’s the issue of trust: We don’t know these companies well and can’t watch them make the repair. How can we be sure they’re respecting our privacy when so much of our lives literally rests in their hands?

Also, again, there’s the issue of cost. Is it worth $100 or more to repair even a relatively new device when technology is changing so quickly? As a result, it’s easy to rationalize spending a few hundred more to have a new one.

You may be wondering, "Where are the smartphone manufacturers? Why don’t the cellphone companies have our backs when their products so easily and often get broken?" In the U.S., that criticism has hit especially hard at Apple, which has a whopping 44.6% share of the smartphone market.

For years, the only place iPhone users could get their cracked screens ‘officially’ replaced was at an Apple store. Unauthorized repair centers, like the three listed above, might be able to fix the phones, but if Apple later detected their work on the device, the warranty would be voided.

Apple would suggest that the reason it has kept a tight rein on screen repairs is that it wants them done right, especially “to ensure that the new screen is properly calibrated – and in particular to allow the Touch ID sensor to be replaced without bricking the phone or losing use of the sensor.” Those more cynical about the tech leader’s motives might suggest that Apple wants to drive business to its own stores in order to capture the repair revenue or, even better, to sell users new iPhones and other items, i.e, to replace, not repair.

In any case, there are currently about 270 Apple stores in the U.S. That number may seem high, but it’s not when you consider, for instance, that Illinois and Pennsylvania, the fifth and sixth most populous states in the nation have 12.8 million and 12.7 million residents, respectively, but only nine Apple stores each. Such ratios can mean a loooong time waiting at a Genius Bar.

The good news is that Apple has recently eased its repair site exclusivity. The firm has finally authorized a few select retailers to fix broken iPhone screens. How can Apple guarantee the quality of those third-party repairs? Well, the company has not conceded control completely.

Apple is giving each authorized repair center a highly-specialized and proprietary machine that not only replaces the screens but also tells “the iPhone’s processor, its silicon brain, to recognize a replacement sensor. Without it, the iPhone won’t unlock with the touch of a finger. Banking apps that require a fingerprint won’t work either, including the Apple Pay digital wallet.” Pictures of the closely guarded apparatus can be found on 9 to 5 Mac website.

Currently only a couple of Best Buy stores in California and Florida have these machines that are capable of making same-day screen repairs. However, by the end of this year it’s expected that the equipment will be present in “about 400 authorized third-party repair centers in 25 countries.”

So, the future is looking brighter for all of us clumsy iPhone users, but won’t the delegation of this service take a bite out of Apple’s business? What about its revenue from repairs, the loss of traffic in Apple stores, and the sale of new iPhones? All of the above are real considerations but they pale in comparison to one meta-goal for Apple: maintaining its strong brand.

Apple has become the most valuable brand in the world for a variety of reasons, but the overarching one is strong customer satisfaction. People who use Apple products are almost always delighted because of their look, their performance, and the aura around them. Apple smartly wants to avoid tainting that stellar reputation, which could occur if people become disenfranchised from inconvenient and lengthy repairs.

However, averting a negative product experience is probably only part of Apple’s plan. The company also needs to increasingly position itself as a good steward of resources and as an organization that cares about the natural environment. Allowing smartphones that still have significant useful life to prematurely become paper weights or other waste does not accomplish those objectives.

Likewise, as the market for smartphones becomes more and more saturated and competitors’ product features converge, factors like repair service and social responsibility will likely gain weight as decision-making criteria. Every point of difference matters in a mature market.

Apple’s decision to outsource and broaden its repair network will be very helpful for consumers. The strategy also will prove very beneficial for the firm. As it’s done many times before, Apple has made an adept move that can be called “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!

4 Comments

Anything for Income?

8/4/2017

1 Comment

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

One of the traits of successful entrepreneurs is their ability to sell themselves: They need to persuade potential stakeholders not only to embrace their product but also to believe that they personally have the skill and passion to make it succeed. Summers VonHesse is one such successful entrepreneur, who has given “selling yourself” a whole new meaning.

A 30-year-old mother of two living in Nevada, VonHesse hasn’t worked outside the home since she and her military-career husband married eight years ago. However, she has been quite active around her house, earning about $5,000 a month, thanks to some creative and compelling photography that she puts online for a price.

The pictures aren’t the things you might expect a mother of a five-year-old daughter and two-year-old son to post on Pinterest or upload to Instagram. They’re photos and videos of VonHesse, posing seductively in all sorts of settings, wearing little or no clothing. VonHesse takes some of the photos herself, while her husband, who supports his wife’s unusual business venture, often helps. Patrons pay $5 to $50 a month to access the pics on a special website.

Besides the extra income she provides for her family, VonHesse says her entrepreneurship helps her feel good about her body, which many describe as full-figured or curvy. Her self-esteem has risen. When asked about her work and the example she’s setting for her children, she says:
“I think that the human body is a beautiful thing, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. I want them to love their bodies, and if they wanna profit from sharing images, then I would be fine with that.”

Seems like a nice marketing success story: An busy mom finds time to do something she enjoys and turn it into a business that provides significant income for her young family. Meanwhile, she and her husband develop important skills for the digital age. What’s not to like?

Well, the problem begins with a fairly obvious fact: This type of photography is pornography. The SUN, a UK News Company, describes the photos and videos as “racy,” while Yahoo Beauty reports that “strangers pay different sums of money to get glimpses of VonHesse in lingerie and sometimes even nude.”

Webster’s Dictionary defines pornography as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement” and as “material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.” Meanwhile, Dictionary.com describes pornography as “sexually explicit videos, photographs, writings, or the like, whose purpose is to elicit sexual arousal.”

The pics and videos VonHesse and her husband post online for free are at least soft porn. One can speculate that the shots people pay $5 to $50 a month to see are even more graphic. It’s also likely that the explicitness has and will increase over time, as happens with most shocking communication: Consumers become desensitized, so to elicit the same reaction, images must become more and more graphic.

“But, wait,” some might argue. “This is about loving your body. In an age of rail-thin supermodels and fat-shaming on social media, VonHesse is setting a good example.” While it’s true that her work might be a positive influence for some, the highly sexualized content undoubtedly carries very negative repercussions for others. The issue isn’t body type.

If VonHesse’s goal were to inspire others with body-positive messages, she could do so while fully clothed, like many other “curvy” bloggers do, most of them tastefully-clothed and showing a fine sense of decorum. Instead, VonHesse’s pornographic images, appeal to one of the lowest common and most dangerous denominators: sexual infatuation.

Here are some of the troubling pornography-related statistics that Webroot.com shares:

40 million American people regularly visit porn sites.
35% of all internet downloads are related to pornography.
Every 39 minutes a new pornography video is being created in the United States.
About 200,000 Americans are “porn addicts.”

On a macro level, pornography is a major economic drain, responsible for $16.9 billion in lost business productivity each year. However, that financial cost pales compared to the devastating impact pornography has on individuals and their relationships.

One study that looked at brain scans of men who self-identified as “porn addicts” found that consumption of pornography can affect dopamine secretion in the brain and “alter the reward centre,” resulting in a variety of undesirable outcomes such as obsessive cravings and less satisfaction with real sexual partners.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that pornography has a very negative impact on marriages. Those who regularly consume pornography find it increasingly difficult to be aroused by their spouses, as their natural desire for sex “has been transferred somewhere else.” Author Sheila Gregoire continues to explain: “When you spend a ton of time teaching your brain to associate arousal and release with pornography, your brain can’t associate arousal and release with a person anymore.”

The Family Research Council presents a variety of other troubling consequences of pornography use, including the following:

Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their conjugal relations and less emotionally attached to their wives.
Pornography use is a pathway to infidelity and divorce.
Pornography viewing leads to a loss of interest in good family relations.
Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity.
Prolonged consumption of pornography by men produces stronger notions of women as commodities or as "sex objects."

Having positive perceptions of one’s body is important. While it’s great that VonHesse has achieved such self-acceptance, it’s unfortunate that she and her husband have decided to forgo privacy for profiting from indecency, putting themselves and others at risk. Being proud of your body doesn’t mean you have to show it all to everyone. Selling oneself in this way is “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Making Pirates Prettier

7/28/2017

4 Comments

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

The words “human trafficking” likely bring to mind some unsettling images. It’s doubtful that one of those associations is Disney; still, the world leader in family-friendly entertainment has felt the need to distance itself from such debased behavior, in a move that seems too politically correct to some.

Most people are familiar with “Pirates of the Caribbean,” and if you’ve visited the Magic Kingdom or Disneyland, you probably rode the namesake ride. If not, here’s a short summary: A boxy boat, drops down a small waterfall, into the pirates’ world, then meanders through a nighttime setting in which animatronic buccaneers can be seen doing what they do best: fighting, raiding, and plundering, often to a music bed of “A Pirate’s Life for Me.”

While all of the featured pirate behavior is bad, Disney has finally decided to strike an especially offensive part of the attraction: the auction of women. Just past the ride’s midpoint, one prominent pirate, “Red Beard,” stands over a line-up of nicely-dressed women at the Mercado, where a large banner reads “Auction: Take a Wench for a Bride.” He tells one of the women to “shift” her “cargo” so buyers can get a better view of her backside, and he makes a crude comment about purchasing by the pound.

As a flute plays a jolly version of the theme music and nearby chickens cluck, some of the women being bartered don’t seem particularly upset about their dire predicament. In fact, the lady atop the auction block at the time appears kind of excited to be sold. The segment lasts for just 30 seconds, and most onlookers chuckle as the boat cruises under a bridge and into the next part of the attraction.

Disney has done with the Pirates ride what it’s adeptly done for decades: presented a sanitized, family-friendly version of a harsher reality, which is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, recall some classic Disney movies: No parents wanted their five-year-old to watch Nemo’s mother actually get eaten by a barracuda, or to see Simba’s father bruised and bloodied after being stampeded. In fact, when you think of what real pirates actually have done to their victims and their property, the whole Pirates of the Caribbean franchise represents a very sterilized version of reality.

It’s not that surprising, therefore, that Disney decided to do even more clean-up of the ride and remove the women’s auction entirely. When announcing the change in its Parks blog on June 29, the company downplayed the removal and rather focused on what it was adding to the ride: new characters and a fresh scene featuring pirates selling their stolen goods. Despite the positive spin, social media erupted like the Black Pearl in battle, with many readers blasting the change, for instance:

“Please don’t do this. It would break my heart. I was already hurt when you added Disney film characters to It’s a Small World and honestly wasn’t too keen on the first update to Pirates adding Capt. Jack Sparrow (although I love Johnny Depp). Is nothing sacred?”

“So disappointed you will be changing the pirates ride at Disneyland. I’ve always been fond of that ride, it’s a Disneyland Icon & should stay as is.”

“No!!!! Please do not do this!! It’s awesome the way it is and is a classic ride!”

Of course, some people have difficulty dealing with change of any kind, even when it’s for the better, and such transitions are even harder to handle when they upend a long history. The Pirates ride has shuttled Disney visitors through the same basic story for fifty years.

However, many other critics of the change have a broader axe to grind. They’re tired of what they believe has become an ever-increasing onslaught of political correctness, feeling that no matter how accurate something may be, you can’t say or show anything that might cause someone to be offended, for example, other readers responded:

“Please don’t keep changing the theme of the ride to make it more politically correct. Some have said it’s not alright for children to think it’s ok for auctioning the women. These are important conversations to have, being a pirate is not ok! This is a way to have conversation with children.”

“Where does the PC police stop? The ride depicts drunkenness, theft, murder, and arson. That’s what pirates did.”

“Please don’t let a handful of people who can’t separate a ride from reality subtract from this iconic ride, one of the last Walt Disney worked on.”

Does all of this negative feedback mean that Disney’s alteration of the attraction is a big marketing mistake? No. One reason is that it’s hard to imagine that many people, if any, will refuse to go on the ride because it doesn’t have the auction of women scene. In fact, the publicity the change has generated will probably stir additional interest in the ride and attendance at the attraction.

A more important reason that Disney Parks are unlikely to suffer is that the motive behind the change seems pure. Human trafficking is much more than a societal blemish from centuries gone by. It’s a significant modern day problem that’s bigger than most of us would imagine, for instance:

Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion-a-year industry in the U.S., that is on the rise in all fifty states.

As of 2012, there were 20.9 million victims of trafficking world-wide; 1.5 million of those victims were in the U.S.

Human trafficking has surpassed the illegal sales of arms and is expected to surpass illegal drug sales within a few years.

So, even as you read this blog, tens of millions of people around the world are being held against their will, forced to work in sex trade and sweatshops, among other forms of enslavement. Given that global reality, it’s in poor taste to present human trafficking as part of an amusement ride that makes light of its very serious consequences.

There are those who understand the gravity of trafficking, yet they want the Pirates ride to stay the same because they believe the auction can serve as a springboard for discussion, as one of the comments above suggested. Another person shared a similar reaction to Disney’s announcement:

“Yes, selling women into slavery was and is horrible. Let’s not hide it from public view. Let’s depict life as it was so that we can have a discussion about how it should be.”

Again, however, the ride portrays human trafficking in a humorous way, which sends the wrong message and serves as a bad starting point for any serious discussion. Plus, how many families have finished the Pirates ride, when the parents pulled their children aside to say, “Now let’s analyze what we just saw and understand the true evils of human trafficking”? If there are such parents, I’d love to learn from them!

So, to summarize, Disney has made the right decision to remove the auction of women from its Pirates ride. The bigger issue that remains is whether the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise on whole is both effective and ethical, but that question will have to wait for a future blog post. In the meantime, we can credit Disney for making a sensible switch and for executing “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!

4 Comments

Fun for All

7/21/2017

1 Comment

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

“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” Most of us ignore this well-known proverb because we can find many ways to have fun. But, what if you didn’t have the physical or cognitive abilities that are prerequisites for the play that most people enjoy. Life could be pretty dull. Fortunately, a Texas amusement park believes that everyone should have access to fun, even when wet.

Gordon and Maggie Hartman built Morgan’s Wonderland in San Antonio in honor of their daughter Morgan, who often inspired others with her smile, despite facing physical and cognitive challenges. The park opened in April of 2010, as the “the world’s first theme park designed with special-needs individuals in mind and built for everyone’s enjoyment.” Morgan’s is “completely wheelchair-accessible” and free of charge to anyone with a special need.

What makes such a park so significant? Individuals with disabilities can easily find themselves on the sidelines because their opportunities for recreation are much more limited than those for most of us. Many of the leisure activities the general populace takes for granted require abilities that some people don’t possess, e.g., complete mobility, fast reflexes, vision, hearing, etc.

Some may be thinking, “But, doesn’t the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demand accessibility for people with disabilities?” Yes, the law passed in 1990 and modified several times since, “prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities” and “requires that all new facilities built by public accommodations, including small businesses, must be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.” As of 2010, the act even pertains to specific recreational categories, including amusement rides, play areas, swimming pools, and wading pools.

However, ADA accommodation doesn’t extend particularly far when it comes to providing equal amusement opportunity. For existing structures, businesses only need to remove architectural barriers when doing so is “readily achievable,” which means "easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense”—a measure that’s relative to the firm’s size and resources.

For newly built or altered facilities, the law is somewhat more stringent, demanding that such new construction is “accessible to individuals with disabilities." Still, there are limits to what businesses need to do. Companies are required to make “reasonable modifications” to serve people with disabilities, but businesses aren’t obligated to adapt in ways that would disrupt their normal customer service or otherwise create an “undue burden.”

Now, back to “play.” How might ADA requirements impact people with disabilities who would like to enjoy the wet and wild time of a waterpark? In most cases, not very well. For instance, the park might build ramps or install lifts to give people with wheel chairs access to play areas, but that entry is irrelevant if waterproof wheelchairs aren’t available or if the placement of water jets isn’t friendly to wheels.

That’s where Morgan’s Wonderland is different. Rather than resting on the laurels of its already significant service to those with special needs, the company has decided to keep innovating and expanding. So, just last month, it opened Morgan’s Inspiration Island, “the world’s first ultra-accessible splash park where guests of all ages and abilities can get wet and have fun together.”

For instance, Inspiration Island features Rainbow Reef, a splash pad with heated water, specially created for people who cannot tolerate regular temperature water. There’s also Shipwreck Island, which boasts an accessible pirate ship. In addition, the park provides “three types of waterproof wheelchairs that fit a variety of heights and sizes.”

What do these unique amenities mean in terms of Morgan’s marketing? While other companies make basic changes to their facilities just to comply with minimal ADA requirements, Morgan’s Wonderland intentionally targets individuals with disabilities and their families, significantly adapting its marketing mix for their benefit. Morgan’s mission is to serve and satisfy these special customers.

All that may sound good, but is operating an amusement park for underserved consumers just a work of charity? Is there really potential in the amusement industry for this market? Apparently there is, given that Morgan’s has completed such an ambitious expansion just seven years after the main amusement park opened. Morgan’s also has struck a smart strategic alliance with Toyota. The global automotive giant has been “a leader in mobility solutions for drivers with disabilities,” making it a natural fit to become the park’s presenting sponsor.

It’s also worth noting that individuals with disabilities represent more than a niche market: 50 million Americans, or 18% of the population, have disabilities. Most organizations would be thrilled to have that many potential customers.

Meeting the needs of any target market is tough. Satisfying the special needs of those with disabilities requires even greater resolve, but Morgan’s Wonderland has shown itself more than worthy of such challenges, similar to the courageous individuals it serves. For this reason, Morgan’s is an inspiring 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!

1 Comment

E*Trade Encourages Envy

7/14/2017

0 Comments

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

People often point to advertising as the main influence on individuals’ buying decisions. Certainly ads can be effective, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many of them; however, another major influence on what we buy is other people, e.g., "keeping up with the Jones." E*Trade’s new ad campaign leverages the persuasive power of peers, but is the firm’s two-pronged promotion effective and ethical?

E*Trade bills itself as “the original place to invest online” and “the first to give Main Street the chance to trade like Wall Street.” The company has become well-known for empowering ordinary people to trade like professional stockbrokers. Instead of paying costly commissions, individuals who open E*Trade accounts put down just $6.95 per trade of stocks, bonds, and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and that fee drops to just $4.95 after 30 trades in a given quarter.

Do E*Trade and similar on-line trading platforms (e.g., Ameritrade and Scott Trade) work? They can, if you know what you’re doing. Online trading is much like do-it-yourself (DIY) home projects. Getting the tools to renovate your own kitchen is easy; using them properly is the hard part. Some, however, have been very successful using online trading tools, like the New Jersey high school student who turned $10,000 into $300,000 in about a year, by buying and selling on E*Trade.

This information provides an important backdrop for E*Trade’s new advertising campaign, as each spot features an unambiguous attempt to pit poor against wealthy. The commercials entice the “have nots” to long for the lifestyle of the “haves.”

For instance, in one commercial a young cubicle-dweller gets blown-off by his much more affluent boss, which launches the young office worker into imagining the extraordinary lives of the exceptionally well-to-do: lounging around lavish pools, hitting golf balls off yachts, doing donuts in super cars, feeding exotic pets, waterskiing behind helicopters, having food fights with expensive edibles. A music bed of “If I were a rich man” from Fiddler on the Roof plays beneath these and several similar clips, all culminating with an arousing call to action: “Don’t get mad, get E*Trade.”

The campaign’s other spots feature different video footage and music but suggest the same problem/solution: Your life is lacking because you don’t have what the rich have, but you can get it all with E*Trade.

What’s been the reaction to E*Trade’s campaign? Adweek gave it the designation of “Ad of the Day” for June 19, 2017, describing the ads as “remarkable,” while adding that the company “stokes rage at the 1%.”

Fast Company’s take was more critical: “By using opulence to sell its investment services, the online broker patches together a plutocratic vision of the American dream, ignoring how entrenched inequality is–and how much more difficult it is to overcome.”

In addition, CNET succinctly summarized the campaign’s ironic prescription: “The rich are awful, so use ETrade to become one of them. That seems to be the logic behind the company's new ad campaign.”

I tend to agree with these analyses and draw my own conclusion about the campaign’s mindfulness through a combination of these points and several new ones. Here are the five unfortunate outcomes I believe E*Trade’s ads inspire:

1. Unrealistic expectations. Certainly people can go from rags to riches by trading stocks, but how likely is it to happen? Making a fortune in the stock market requires considerable skill and some luck—much more than just opening an online account.

2. Envy: Benchmarking helps businesses get better by showing them how they might improve their products and processes. Personal comparisons, however, are often problematic, especially when they involve wishing for what others have.

3. Terminal Materialism: Money isn’t inherently bad; it depends on what one does with it. Many of its uses in the E*Trade ads, however, suggest owning for the sake of owning, vs. buying practical things (instrumental materialism), or using money to help others, e.g., paying for education, creating jobs.

4. Poor Stewardship: Beyond being impractical, much of the behavior the campaign glamorizes is overindulgent and outright wasteful.

5. Inaccurate Perceptions: While some extremely rich people live lives of ridiculous luxury, most are not so crass and careless with their spending. The way they became wealthy was not by being frivolous but frugal. Also, many use their money in ways that benefit others.

Against these points, some may argue that the ads are puffery, i.e., extreme exaggerations meant to be funny and not taken seriously. While some of the scenes are over-the-top, e.g., the all-out food fight among elites, most of the cuts are realistic and certainly could happen, if they haven’t already. For instance, a Google search of “helicopter water skiing” produces over a million hits, including a variety of real pictures and the story of a father who towed his son on water skis with a copter, to the chagrin of others.

Will the E*Trade ads be effective? Probably. As mentioned at the onset, the desire to emulate others, especially in terms of their possessions, is a very powerful one. Consequently, E*Trade’s appeal to become one of the very rich will strike a nerve with many, and the oversimplification of achieving the dream will help induce people to try online trading. As suggested above, however, the campaign rests on a foundation of deception, disrespect, and excess, among other indiscretions, which results in E*Trade earning this return: “Single-Minded Marketing.”