Category: + Decency

Muppets for Mature Audiences

5/30/2018

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

Women: No Longer Auto Accessories

3/4/2018

30 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 Comments

No Dignity for the Living or the Dead

1/12/2018

59 Comments

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

If you weren’t aware of Logan Paul before, you may have heard of him over the past week or so, after the extremely popular vlogger committed a major, international indiscretion. Public outrage led the 22-year-old YouTube star to apologize for his one-time disrespect of the dead, but shouldn’t we also be conflicted about his ongoing treatment of the living?

Paul started posting videos to YouTube at age ten and became famous through the internet video sharing service Vine. By 2014, he had more than 3.1 million social media followers, which led him to leave Ohio State University and pursue an entertainment career in Los Angeles. His ‘edgy’ YouTube channel now has over 15 million subscribers, including many teens, who Paul refers to as his “Logang.”

Paul is more than just a hugely popular YouTube star, however. He has appeared in TV shows including Law & Order and Weird Loners, starred in The Thinning, a YouTube Red movie, and written a screenplay for an adult comedy called Airplane Mode. He also has a clothing line called “Maverick,” the name of which closely captures Paul’s brand of irreverent humor and moral indifference.

A few weeks ago, Paul was in Japan, trying to stir up some interesting content for his vlog. One day he and his companions hiked into Aokigahara, a 12-square mile tract of woods near Mt. Fuji that is commonly known as “Japan’s suicide forest,” as it unfortunately has become one of the most popular places in the world for people to go to take their own life. Signs in the forest even urge those contemplating suicide to consider their families and to seek professional counsel.

Given that Paul’s vlogs typically involve human interaction with unsuspecting participants, it’s odd that the group would film in an uninhabited forest, but the encounter that ensued probably explains the choice: Paul and his companions came across the body of a man who had hanged himself from a tree.

It’s difficult for most of us to know how we would respond to such a discovery; however, Paul’s reaction was not one that most people found acceptable. With little appreciation for the situation’s gravity, the crew filmed the victim close-up, only blurring his face. What’s more, “Paul is even seen laughing and cracking jokes about the deceased man." For instance, when one of the crew members acted squeamish, Paul quipped: “You never stand next to a dead guy?"

On December 31, he posted the video to YouTube and titled it “We found a dead body in the Japanese Suicide Forest.” Public criticism was swift and severe. Paul’s initial response to the backlash was to claim he was trying to help: “I intended to raise awareness for suicide and suicide prevention.”

Most people, however, didn’t buy his defense. So, less than 24 hours after posting the “suicide” video, Paul took it down. He has since offered a 1:45 minute apology titled “So Sorry” in which he appears much more contrite. After expressing special remorse for the victim and his family, he offers:

“I’ve made a huge mistake. I don’t expect to be forgiven. I’m just here to apologize. I’m ashamed of myself. I’m disappointed in myself, and I promise to be better. I will be better.”

Despite the ‘mea culpa,’ Paul has continued to experience backlash for his actions, including severe media criticism and a threatened lawsuit from Maverick Apparel, which claims mistaken consumer associations with Paul’s ‘Maverick’ brand have already cost the company $4 million. Even more devastating, YouTube has dropped Paul from its Google Preferred Program, meaning that while he can still post to the platform, his videos will no longer be marked for advertisers as high-quality content.

Popular opinion is that Paul has gotten what he deserves for making light of a problem as serious as suicide, for disrespecting an individual who took his own life, and for adding to the hurt of the victim’s family. While that public censure is good, it begs the question: Why aren’t people equally offended by Paul’s continual abuse of the living?

If you’re familiar with the vlogger’s work, you probably already know what I mean. If not, just peruse his YouTube channel. Or, the rest of Paul’s visit in Japan provides many specific examples. For instance, when he first arrived in Tokyo, he stuck his head out the window of a black limousine and shouted to anyone who might hear, “Hello, everybody. I’m just a blond white boy from Ohio here to cause trouble in your country.”

Paul then proceeded to buy a dead fish and a squid tentacle at a fish market, which he waived in the faces of by-passers and plastered against the outside of a restaurant window. He eventual abandoned the foul items atop the trunk of a taxi as it drove away.

Or, to see a broader sample of Paul’s irreverent acts, checkout his 2017 year-in-review video. In this retrospective, Paul cites many of his most notable ‘accomplishments’ of the past year, for instance:

Shipped roommate Evan to Paris in a bag
Officiated a wedding (Does he have credentials for doing so?)
Faked his own death
Had the Secret Service arrest his brother Jake
Filled his brother’s pool with slime
Got arrested by Italian police
Use a crane to take a ride down his new street
Surfed down the street on a Christmas tree

In addition, Paul is no stranger to sexually explicit content. One of his video posts titled “Stole My Brother’s Girlfriend” begins with him getting kicked out of a retail store because he “got naked” in one of the aisles and ends with a young female companion sporting a scarf made of condom packs. Paul also produced and starred in a music video called “No Handlebars” that featured the lyrics “I’ve been cyclin’ on your chick” and the refrain “I can ride your girl with no handlebars."

Logan Paul has said his goal is to become “the biggest entertainer on the planet.” It’s unfortunate that he’s chosen to pursue that goal at the expense of others’ dignity. Yes, deriding a suicide victim was abhorrent, but so are many of the other things he does like objectifying women and crudely treating people as means to more YouTube views. Paul is a talented young man with considerable potential, but unless he completely recreates his ‘product’ and treats both the dead and the living with respect, he will always be guilty 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!

59 Comments

Beer Belly Briefcase

12/1/2017

34 Comments

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

Wondering what to get for that guy on your holiday shopping list who doesn’t need anything? How about buying him some belly fat? I’m not talking about a giant box of chocolates or gift cards for his favorite fast food—they would take too long. There’s a much quicker way to give him the perfect paunch.

As the newest edition to the series ‘I can’t believe somebody would make that,’ British art designer Albert Pukies has created a fanny pack called the “Dadbag” that looks exactly like a middle-aged man’s beer belly. It even has hair.

What’s the point of these paunches? In terms of functionality, Pukies says they’re a great place to store “typical dad items, like beer, medicine, a sandwich, wallet, sunglasses, keys.” That’s right, a beer belly that can hold a couple cans of Budweiser, literally.

While the Dadbag is outwardly a practical product, Pukies purpose in creating it was apparently more about image. He claims he was “desperate to have a dad bod” but didn’t want to assume the associated health risks. What’s a “dad bod?” The designer says it’s a term a college student coined a few years ago in describing coeds going crazy over guys with “a nice balance between a beer gut and working out.”

Pukies admits that the Dadbag is “a pretty silly product,” which he originally had no intent to mass produce; however, given the interest the fanny pack has found, he’s decided to explore production partnerships with the idea of retailing the Dadbag for about $30.

If offered, there would be different versions of the bag, as Pukies has prototyped six separate styles featuring a range of skin tones and quantities of belly hair--qualities that caused one potential user to praise the product’s inclusivity. The designer has also demonstrated his marketing savvy by giving each style a distinct name: the Allen, the Derek, the Magnus, the Bobby, the Sherman, and even the sunburned Wolfgang.

So, what should we make of the Dadbag? Obviously, it’s an item to be taken with a grain of salt, not with complete seriousness—Some products are meant to be fun. However, at $30 a pop, it’s not like buying a whoopee cushion, dribble glass, or some other cheap gag gift. Besides the significant cash outlay, there are other factors that just make the Dadbag wrong :

1. Looks Disgusting: Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I bet most initial reactions to the Dadbag are a similar “Gross!” Such repulsiveness wouldn’t matter as much were it not for the facts that fanny packs are typically used in public and the hairy belly looks extremely real. So, wearing a Dadbag is like actual inappropriate exposure (e.g., a visible but crack) that no one should have to see.

2. Impractical: I suppose there are still some individuals who buy fanny packs, but it seems that most people prefer other means of carrying their valuables, e.g., pockets, purses, backpacks, etc. Plus, putting a couple of beer cans inside the Dadbag would make for a pretty heavy paunch. All that to say that producing Dadbags is probably not the best use of materials and time, i.e., it’s bad stewardship.

3. Denigrating Dads: As described above, the pack is objectionable for other reasons, but the fact that it’s called the Dadbag makes the offense even worse. Dads have taken exceptional abuse over recent years, including in advertising. They don’t need any more unflattering stereotypes. Yes, I’m a dad, so maybe I’m overly critical, but can you imagine a firm offering a similar product called a “Mombag”? The backlash would be brutal, and rightly so. Dads’ bodies deserve the same respect.

4. In Poor Taste: The Dadbag not only unfairly ridicules fathers, it also makes fun of something else that should be taken very seriously: fat. Many nations, like the United States, battle obesity epidemics that add billions of dollars to healthcare and cost millions of individuals their lives. What makes matters worse is that some other countries can’t get enough food, as many of their citizens live and die undernourished. In sum, belly fat is no laughing matter.

If there’s one potential virtue of the Dadbag, it’s that probably no one will try to steal anything from it. Beyond that benefit, the novelty fanny pack is interesting to talk about but unlikely to achieve significant demand. With that prediction and the pack’s associated social issues, the Dadbag is an unfortunate example 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!

34 Comments

Barfarian Sneakers

10/7/2017

18 Comments

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

People once wore one sneaker to do everything. Thanks to Nike and other apparel manufacturers, there are now specialized sneakers for almost any activity, from basketball, to lacrosse, to volleyball. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised, then, that one well-known company has created a special shoe just for this favorite pastime: drinking.

Yes, German footwear giant Adidas is marketing a shoe called the München (or, Munich) that has a “durable puke and beer repellent (DPBR) coating” that allows users to dabble in drunkenness without ruining their footwear.

Why would one of the world’s leading apparel manufacturers, which equips superstar athletes like Novak Djokovic, Lionel Messi, and James Harden, want to outfit the town drunk? The reason is more compelling than you might think.

Early fall is the time of year when many cities, towns, and other associations, host their own version of Oktoberfest, the lively celebration best known for one thing—beer. The granddaddy of all these well-oiled gatherings is the one in Munich, Germany, which claims to be “the largest festival in the world.” It just completed its 184th iteration.

Munich is located in the heart of Bavaria, world-renowned for its hops and boasting some of the most prolific beer-drinkers anywhere—the average Bavarian consumes 150 liters, or 40 gallons, of beer a year. Adidas is also in Bavaria, headquartered in Herzogenaurach, less than 200 km north of Munich and the original Oktoberfest.

Interestingly, Oktoberfest didn’t start as a keg party. It began as a wedding celebration for Crown Prince Ludwig and Princess Therese that included horse races and a “festival for the whole of Bavaria.” The following year, the horse races returned, and over the years, additional activities were added to the annual festival, including more places to buy beer.

The latest iteration of Munich’s Oktoberfest featured about 143 food and drink businesses, which started serving suds at 10:00 am on weekdays and 9:00 am on weekends. Those early hours helped vendors sell over 6 million liters of beer during the festival.

As you might imagine, with so much “liquid gold” flowing freely among 6.3 million visitors, there are likely to be incidents, such as the 7,900 people who needed to visit medical tens and the 600+ individuals who got alcohol poisoning. One Munich native describes the often unpleasant scene:

“During Oktoberfest, the city gets packed and there are drunk people everywhere, and all the time. The drunken debauchery often leads to fights, aggressive behavior, and bierleichen — so-called "beer corpses," which is what locals call the many passed out drunks lying on the hill behind the tents.”

This past year, an American tourist from Texas didn’t let his one-year old baby strapped to his chest stop him from getting plastered. As the man slumped over, police took the baby away and took him to the hospital.

Given its geographic and cultural closeness to the debauchery, it appears that Adidas has picked the perfect target market for its ‘drinking sneaker.’ In addition to the barf and beer-resistant coating, other details artfully reinforce the shoe’s positioning, e.g., a red and white check lining that matches the beer tents’ tablecloths, a brown and gold upper that coordinates with lederhosen, and the word “Prost” (German for “cheers”) embroidered on the side. Even at €199.95 (about $240), the sneakers sold out on one popular website, suggesting that Adidas has a marketing hit.

However, just because Adidas can sell a shoe for drinking doesn’t necessarily mean that it should. While many people drink responsibly, and some studies even suggest benefits from moderate alcohol consumption, there’s a difference between having a beer with dinner and drinking oneself into a stupor, which is when a sneaker’s protection against suds and vomit becomes most important. Consequently, it’s fair to ask, ‘Does the sneaker’s unusual positioning encourage drunkenness?’

Of course, no sneaker by itself will make people drink. Personal and social factors hold much more influence. Still, there’s something unseemly about products that promise to help us avoid the negative consequences of bad behavior. For instance, I’d bet that people who own radar detectors are more likely to speed. Do the detectors make them speed? No, but having a device in their vehicle that significantly reduces the probability of getting caught probably encourages them to take their chances.

Is the possibility of ruining one’s shoes a deterrent to drunkenness? It’s probably not a major factor, but it must have some influence; otherwise, Adidas wouldn’t have developed the special coating and consumers wouldn’t be buying up the sneaker's supply. The more important point is that by marketing the shoe, the company is essentially saying, ‘Go ahead and drink ‘til you hurl; we’ve got you covered.’

But, maybe it’s not just people who get drunk who can benefit from the sneakers. There also are individuals who drink moderately, or not at all, who risk having their shoes ruined by others’ indiscretions.

That’s a reasonable argument, except for the fact that it’s pretty unusual to get vomited on unless you’re keeping close company with buds who are bashed. Likewise, how many people are willing to shell-out $240 for sneakers when there's only a remote possibility that they’ll be walking in other people’s puke. It seems like the sneakers’ primary appeal, therefore, is to people who plan to get plastered. That bad intent is reinforced by Adidas offering a free beer mug with every purchase of the sneakers.

Aside from some people’s wild intemperance, Oktoberfest is a great cultural event that brings families and communities together to celebrate Bavaria’s rich history. Similarly, Adidas is a fine company that is smart to support its German heritage. However, any product that makes it easier to overindulge on alcoholic must be called “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!

18 Comments

Tinder-garten

9/9/2017

14 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!

14 Comments

Virtue or Vice?

8/25/2017

7 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!

7 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

5 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!

5 Comments

Mean Tweets Encourage Bad Behavior

6/29/2017

0 Comments

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

It’s painful to repeat these social media putdowns, but there’s a reason: “[Amy Poehler’s face] looks like she survived a nuclear blast.” “Melissa McCarthy is the Madea of white people.”   “Anthony Mackie is probably just angry because he looks like a *#@% Aardvark.” “Gina Davis is a real man’s man.” “If you skinned Larry King & ironed out his leather, you could make enough coats to give 1 to every poor child in America.”

While one might wonder how individuals can be so insensitive as to post these kinds of insults on Twitter, what’s even more incredible is that a national television network curates the cruelty, repackages it, and presents it as comedy. What show does such things? ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live.

For over five years, the show has aired a segment called “Mean Tweets.” Each edition features scathing criticisms that ill-mannered individuals have tweeted about specific celebrities. While simply sharing the verbal abuse would be bad enough, to create more compelling television, producers have each celebrity read his/her own Mean Tweets on camera, heightening the humiliation.

Despite its animosity, the segment has been well-liked, as suggested by both the bit’s longevity and the growing number of special segments, e.g., NFL and NBA players, country music stars, and even a President Obama edition. Several of these spin-offs have garnered tens of millions of views on YouTube. Why have they been so popular? Perhaps for the same reason motorists slow down to checkout a car accident when they know they shouldn’t, yet they can’t keep from looking.

Some may be thinking, "What’s the harm? Many of the tweets are funny because they’re stupid. Plus, celebrities are used to public scrutiny and don’t seem to mind reading the tweets; if they did, they wouldn’t participate. In fact, the celebrities are doing a service by showing how to laugh at criticism rather than let it bother you.”

Those are fair arguments, but those who make them, not to mention the creators of Mean Tweets, are missing the most important point: No one should encourage verbal abuse; yet, that cruelty is the foundation for the Mean Tweets segment.

In most editions of Mean Tweets, the show shares not only heartless posts but the Twitter handles of the mean tweeters, lifting them out of obscurity and giving them an undeserved moment of fame. They are essentially rewarded for comments that most would call “abusive, vulgar or rude.”

In many ways, Mean Tweets is doing exactly the opposite of what most TV networks do when a misguided spectator enters the playing field during a live sporting event: The producers refuse to broadcast the reprobates, denying them any additional recognition of their bad behavior and avoiding encouragement of copycats. Mean Tweets, in contrast, glamorizes the offensive act, suggesting that it’s okay to gain attention by demeaning others.

Granted, most people do not hope for network television coverage of their tweets, but they do want the attention and approval of people in their social networks. Given the wide acceptance of Mean Tweets, many may reason that disparaging others is a path to popularity. That’s exactly the kind of behavior our society can ill afford to encourage.

If one took away the TV cameras and the celebrity cameos and put Mean Tweets in a school setting, it would be called shaming or bullying, which include teasing, name-calling, inappropriate sexual comments, and taunting. According to bullying statistics.org, “Over half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online, and about the same number have engaged in cyber bullying.”

The consequences of bullying are always bad. Children who are bullied are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, health complaints, and decreased academic achievement. And, sometimes the results are fatal, as was the case for 15-year-old Sadie Riggs, a Pennsylvania girl who recently hanged herself. In the obituary, Sadie’s family cited social media bullying for making her feel “worthless” and helping precipitate her suicide.

Should Sadie have read her cyberbullies’ comments in public and learned to laugh at their putdowns? Of course not. The solution to bullying is not to further shame the victim but to stop the bullying. Among other things, that means not making light of abusive language or giving it undeserved exposure.

Ironically, ABC News, which belongs to the same network that airs Mean Tweets, shared a press release about Sadie Rigg’s premature passing. The story recounted her family asking well-wishers to forgo flowers and instead “be kind to one another.” Jimmy Kimmel Live should take that plea to heart and put an end to Mean Tweets and its “Single-Minded Marketing.”