Category: + Decency

Has OnlyFans Sold Its Soul?

8/29/2021

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

When you were a kid, people probably asked you, “What do you want to do when you grow up?” It’s unlikely that anyone ever asked what you wouldn’t be willing to do for a living. However, that uncommon question may actually be the more important one; at least that’s what OnlyFans’ off-again-on-again sex saga suggests.

Those familiar with OnlyFans were surprised to learn that the London-based online subscription service known for risqué content had suddenly decided to ban sexually-explicit videos. The move, which seemed analogous to Budweiser abandoning alcohol, made me wonder whether the purveyor of virtual vice suddenly had a moral epiphany that left it feeling convicted and compelled to reform its ways.

However, my online search for an ethical impetus behind the pornography ban came up empty. It appeared that the main motivation came down to processing payments and keeping credit lines open, since some of OnlyFans’ banks had become increasing uncomfortable with transactions tied to the sex industry.

On one level, OnlyFans did act on a moral imperative, but it wasn’t a strategy it selected willingly; rather it was behavior compelled by others and tied squarely to revenue retention.

The idea that there had been no real ethical enlightenment became all-the-more apparent when, within a matter of a few days, the company reversed its stance and lifted the pornography ban.

Any of us can change our minds on ethical issues (I sometimes do), but for an individual or organization to go from “this is so right,” to “this is so wrong,” to “this is so right,” within a matter of days, defies most moral compasses.

So, whether or not we agree with OnlyFans’ recent choices, it’s hard to lend the company moral capital for any of them. Instead, we’re back to the most basic business ethics question: Is OnlyFans’ business model a moral one, i.e., Is it right to sell sex?

Of course, selling sex has been happening for millennia, which is why prostitution is known as “the oldest profession.” Also, throughout that time a very wide variety of sexual expression has been sold, from actual physical intercourse to subtle innuendo in advertising.

Over so much time and across so many different cultures, there’s bound to be differences of opinion about what constitutes appropriate sexual expression and how, if ever, if should be commercialized. My convictions, which stem from a Christian worldview, provide guiding principles that admittedly are filtered through my interpretation. I respect others’ distinct judgments and bases for beliefs because I don’t have it all figured out.

Still, there are four arguments I often hear in favor of commercializing sex that are hard for me to appreciate for reasons I’ll explain:

1) Diversity and Inclusion: In a tweet describing the reversal of its pornography ban, OnlyFans said:

“Thank you to everyone for making their voices heard. We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse community [emphasis added] and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change. OnlyFans stands for inclusion [emphasis added] and we continue to provide a home for all creators.

OnlyFans’ announcement reminds me of Frank Sinatra famously singing, “I did it may way,” as well as of many young people today saying, “You have to do you.” All three sentiments suggest that what’s good is purely a personal decision, or what feels right for that individual.

Individuality is good in many ways, but personal diversity related to what a person does (i.e., their actions, behaviors) is different than who a person is (e.g., their race and gender). Unfortunately, OnlyFans conflates the two. People always deserve respect for who they are, but personal preference for what to do shouldn’t serve as the metric for what’s ethical.

2) Free speech: Reading and listening to interviews about the OnlyFans news, I heard several sex workers appeal to free speech, suggesting that what they sell is protected by freedom of expression. In terms of U.S. constitutional law, it is true that not only words but actions, specifically symbolic ones, fall under the umbrella of free speech.

However, free speech doesn’t give the right “To make or distribute obscene materials” (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476; 1957). Granted, this prohibition is a legal one, not necessarily a moral one; still, it’s informative that those interpreting such important constitutional matters felt that free speech does not mean the right to say or do absolutely anything and that illicit expression is particularly deserving of censure.

3) Free Market System: The interplay of supply and demand is effective for bringing about marketing efficiencies, but some seem to believe that if there are two consenting parties—a willing buyer and a willing seller—any exchange between them is inherently ethical. Countering that notion is the moral axiom, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

In the vast majority of cases, sellers and buyer do self-regulate ethically; yet, there are plenty of instances in which parties to an exchange rationalize activities that most others say is wrong, e.g., murder for hire, distribution of illegal drugs, human trafficking, etc. So, claiming that selling sex is okay because two collaborators want it does not hold much ethical weight.

4) Jobs: One of the greatest privileges a person can have is to do meaningful work. Good jobs are important for individuals’ economic and emotional well-being, as well as for society as a whole. However, in keeping with the previous point, not every job is a good job.

Some people make significant money and may even enjoy being arms dealers or animal poachers, but employment is not an absolute good. What people do for pay matters. A job that’s harmful to them or to others is not a worthwhile job.

It’s nice that sex workers can pay their bills, but there’s little or no redeeming value that sex workers can claim , i.e., “Here’s how we’re helping others and making this world a better place.” If anything, sex work precipitates very adverse impacts, e.g., addiction, objectification, psychological scaring, and broken relationships.

Job security is one of life’s most motivating forces. Many people will do almost anything to rationalize and retain their income stream, which evokes this article’s original question: Is there anything you wouldn’t do for money?

Growing up and working in our family’s promotional products company, I clearly remember my father pulling aside calendar manufacturers’ catalogs that contained sexually explicit pictures and completely covering those pages with large decals so what was under them couldn’t be seen by our salespeople, our customers, or anyone else.

We could have done well financially marketing those lewd calendars to companies that wanted to buy them; however, my dad decided that offering them was not the right thing to do. Selling sex was something he wouldn’t do for money.

Although it may be economically advantageous, it’s morally unfortunate that people today can easily make money selling sex. Hopefully, OnlyFans will at some point reconsider its largely illicit business model. In the meantime, the company continues to be a purveyor of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

15 Comments

Cutting Out Weight Loss Ads

8/15/2021

11 Comments

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

Have you ever felt self-conscious about your weight? Most people probably have, perhaps because of someone’s casual comment or from comparing their figure to those of their friends. Maybe an ad even contributed to the unease. Marketers increasingly seek to affirm all physiques but is their support of body positivity delivering an unhealthy message?

It’s hard to think of inclusiveness of physical form without remembering Dove. Through its 2004 “Real Beauty” campaign the personal care brand pioneered promotion based on the reality that beautiful people come in all shapes and sizes.

Since then, many other organizations have mirrored Dove’s body-positive approach. Retailers like Kohl’s and Old Navy, routinely include plus-sized models in their ads, while Target and Macy’s employ variously proportioned mannequins to highlight similarly sized clothing.

Last month, the picture-lovers site Pinterest took body positivity a step further by announcing it would ban weight-loss ads. The social media platform explained that its decision was in the interest of individuals “facing challenges related to body image and mental health,” especially those suffering from eating disorders.

The first major social media platform to take such action, Pinterest’s unprecedented decision quickly received wide news coverage ranging from Fortune to NPR.

Most media cast Pinterest’s ban of weight loss ads in a positive light. For instance, an NBC News opinion piece called the choice “a glimmer of good news” amid more typically troubling stories.

It’s very encouraging that people increasingly recognize that everyone is different and that those differences can be celebrated. But are all differences good differences? Aren’t there certain behaviors that are objectively better for people to do, and others to avoid? Furthermore, are some marketers, like Pinterest, encouraging people to celebrate differences that could actually be harmful to them and to society?”

These are difficult questions to answer in any context, and they become especially tenuous when treating a topic like body image, which so directly impacts everyone, both in individual, psychological ways and in social, relational ways.

In my early years, I was a somewhat ‘chunky’ child and experienced, more than once, critical comments about my weight, which were hard to hear. As I grew older, taller and became more active, I lost weight, or maybe more accurately, didn’t gain much more. Ironically, I now sometimes receive unsolicited comments about being thin, which admittedly are easier to accept; although, they still make me feel uncomfortable.

Despite, this personal experience, a middle-aged man like me is probably not an ideal person to offer insights about body image and the social norms that surround it. When I feel ill-equipped to tackle an ethical issue on my own, which occurs often, I reach out to others who have different and frequently more informed perspectives.

In this instance, I needed as much help as ever, so I contacted several people who I knew would expand my perceptions by hearing their thoughts about Pinterest’s ad ban. Here are highlights from three interactions:

1. A veteran registered nurse, and Baby Boomer, who works in adult primary care as a nurse practitioner posed two important questions that also have been on my mind: 1) How effective are weight loss ads, and 2) “Do they promote healthy behaviors or unhealthy ones?” In answering both questions, she pointed me to a study published in npj Digital Medicine, which found that “online advertisements hold promise as a mechanism for changing population health behaviors.”

She also referenced CDC statistics that show that from 1999 to 2018, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 30.5% to 42.4%. In her work, she sees firsthand how the effects of obesity, including diabetes and hypertension, can lead to “even more life changing complications.” She added:

“Weight loss is usually part of the treatment, and avoidance of obesity is usually preventative. So, if clicking on weight loss ads is a behavior that leads to seeking out more information on healthy behavioral change, then by all means, keep the ads.”

2. A member of Generation Y who works in the food marketing industry had a somewhat different take on weight loss ads. She said that her online scroll speed increases significantly in order to avoid the ads, which she says, “feel more personal as they poke at my self-esteem.” However, she qualifies her aversion to the ads, adding:

“I believe that weight loss products/services deserve to be advertised, but maybe in a way that’s sensitive to the cultural climate of body positivity/neutrality. I’m hopeful that these organizations could use that mindset as a framework guiding their ads, in a way that’s still effective at stopping someone’s scroll but acts as an invitation rather than a confrontation.”

3. A college student and member of Generation Z told me about his very significant weight loss: In just five months, this 6’ 3” young man lost 60 lbs., dropping from 260 to 200 lbs. Given that his accomplishment came mainly from “drinking plenty of water and exercising 4-5 times a week,” it’s not surprising that he emphasized the importance of approaching weight loss as a serious undertaking that requires perseverance:

“It is important to draw the connection between weight loss and hard work, the latter which must come first. It's about discipline, research, and taking your own personal initiative to develop an interest in personal fitness. You cannot simply buy a weight loss program and expect fat to magically remove itself from your body.”

Although he had no concern that society would suddenly become heavier if weight loss ads disappeared, he did express concern about any messaging that might normalize obesity:

“We will lose the idea of what is acceptable and what is not if we desensitize ourselves to what is normal. Being overweight is not a ‘normal’ state to be in, according to health professionals regardless of what ‘body-positivity experts’ have to say. It is common, but not healthy . . . It is ironic that the body-positivity movement promotes every body type more frequently than the ones deemed most healthy by scientists and health professionals.”

Of course, the opinions of these three people don’t represent the full spectrum of perspectives on weight loss and body image. They didn’t speak much to issues like anorexia and bulimia; however, I know each of them understands and empathizes with all who suffer from such eating disorders, as well as those who have been shamed because of their physique.

At the same time, these three voices have expressed important points that perhaps seem contrarian, probably because they tend not to receive the attention they deserve. For instance, they emphasized:

The right type of weight-loss advertising, that’s affirming and realistic, can be effective and beneficial.
Weight-loss is more a function of hard work and self-discipline than any quick fix.
No one should be made to feel bad about their body, but normalizing obesity is not helpful.
Although eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia are fairly common (1%-4% of the population suffers from them), obesity is much more prevalent: As mentioned above, in the U.S., 42.4% of adults were obese in 2018. Also, unfortunately, the pandemic has seen an increase in obesity, with an average weight gain of 29 lbs., making people more susceptible to the dangerous effects of the virus, as well as other serious illnesses.

It’s unfortunate that we live in a weight-obsessed society. Some marketers bear responsibility for helping to cultivate that preoccupation, e.g., by promoting unhealthy lifestyles that lead to excessive weight gain. Others are culpable for perpetuating unrealistic physical ideals and impossible ways of achieving them.

Pinterest is right to act against specific advertising abuses that cause others to feel shame and that encourage eating disorders. However, in embracing body positivity, the social media platform and others should be careful not to inadvertently endorse what is objectively one of world’s biggest problems, obesity, as doing so weighs in as “Mindless Marketing.”

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

11 Comments

Is Space Tourism an Unnecessary Splurge?

7/17/2021

1 Comment

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

It’s interesting to see how much people are willing to pay to travel from point A to point B: Is $50 too much for a 15-minute Uber to the airport; is $500 reasonable for a one-way flight from JFK to LAX? For a few hundred thousand dollars, today’s trendiest travel just takes a person from point A and back, but it does include a brief stop in the stratosphere. So, is consumer space travel worth its astronomical price?

For Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk, the answer is, of course, “yes.” These three billionaires not only want to be astronauts, they want others to share the celestial experience, provided they can ante up the soaring prices.

On July 11, Branson, founder of Virgin Galactic and a variety of other Virgin companies, became the first of the execs to experience outer space when his corporation’s SpaceShipTwo carried him and a small crew to an altitude 9.5 miles above the earth.

The two other tycoons are expected soon to follow suit, the next being Bezos in his company’s Blue Origin craft on July 20. Interestingly, Musk reportedly bought a ticket on Virgin Galactic about 15 years ago; he likely will also fly on one of his own SpaceX ships someday.

It shouldn’t be long before prosperous private citizens will be boarding spacecrafts and floating in zero gravity. With already over 600 tickets sold to individuals that reportedly include Justin Bieber and Leonardo DiCaprio, Virgin Galactic appears to be leading the space tourism race. However, its competitors are also reserving spots, such as a seat that SpaceX sold to a Japanese billionaire for a trip around the moon.

So, how much does a flight into space set a person back? Seats on Virgin Galactic have been selling for $250K each. and will probably increase after its successful maiden voyage. Still, a few hundred thousand dollars is a bargain compared to a ticket for the upcoming Blue Origin flight with Bezos, which cost the winning bidder a staggering $28 million; although, Blue Origin’s suborbital capsule travels over 62 miles above earth compared to Virgin Galactic’s 9.5.

Those are enormous amounts of money spent on an activity that is essentially entertainment, i.e., there doesn’t seem to be a reason why an ordinary person has to fly on a rocket ship. It just seems like something someone would choose to do for the thrill of it or to claim the one-of-a-kind experience.

However, before anyone starts pointing a finger too vigorously at these affluent amateur astronauts, it’s helpful to recognize that many people regularly indulge in expensive, and often short-lived, entertainment experiences. For some it’s hundreds of dollars to see a sporting event or a Broadway show; for others it’s thousands of dollars to travel to a special destination for skiing or scuba diving. I've been among the indulgers.

A little over a decade ago, a research paper I’d written was accepted for presentation at a conference in Honolulu, and fortunately my wife was able to join me on this first-time trip to Hawaii. Given the unique opportunity, we took a few extra days to visit Kauai, “the Garden Island,” where we decided to splurge on a very special flight of our own—a helicopter tour of the isle, including passes over stunning Waimea Canyon and the spectacular Napali Coast.

I believe at the time tickets cost us nearly $200 each, which before the ride seemed like an extraordinary amount of money for 50-minutes, but we rationalized that it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience, which it was. If there are a few places in the world that are worth a helicopter tour, Kauai is one of them.

Still, with all the needs in the world, it’s worth asking if money spent on such momentary pleasures should be used in other ways. Maybe a $200 helicopter tour doesn’t matter as much because it’s a fraction of the cost of a ride into space, which for most people, whether they can afford it or not, probably more easily crosses the line into what they’d consider to be unnecessary and excessive consumption.

One person who’s made that suggestion is senator Bernie Sanders. During a New York Times interview, he questioned the value of the space tourism race, saying, “You have the richest guys in the world who are not particularly worried about earth anymore.” His accusation reminded me of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ maxim, “Some people are so heavenly minded, they’re of no earthly good.” Are Bezos, Branson, and Musk too “heavenly minded”?

Perhaps Sanders has a point—maybe the cost of space tourism shouldn’t only be measured by its direct costs but also in terms of its opportunity costs, or how money spent on space tourism could otherwise be used. Swiss bank UBS has estimated that space tourism could be a $3 billion industry by 2029. There’s a lot of good that those billions of dollars could do.

On the other hand, perhaps some people are looking at the industry’s impact too narrowly. Maybe space tourism is doing and can do more earthly-good than many realize.

Already, SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft has lent a big hand by delivering supplies and crew to the International Space Station. Although those are professional astronauts not tourists, the potential payoff from a large end-consumer market has often encouraged companies in certain industries to invest more of their expertise and resources to develop technology and perfect products that benefit others.

Airplanes and computers are two examples. Military pilots flew many flights before there was commercial aviation. Likewise, businesses used mainframe computers long before individuals used personal ones. In these cases, emerging consumer demand attracted competitors into the market, which helped to improve technology and lower prices. The same will likely happen with space travel.

At the same time, there are also examples of earthly-good that the space tourism industry is accomplishing already:

Blue Origin is donating $19 million of the $28 million winning bid for the seat on its New Shepard rocket; the beneficiaries are 19 different space-related nonprofits.
There are likely hundreds if not thousands of people whose jobs are currently tied to space tourism, and that number will continue to rise as the industry ascends.
According to SpaceX, point-to-point space travel, accomplished by leaving earth’s orbit, could soon make possible a 40-minute flight from New York City to Shanghai. In other words, space tourism is leading to a new era of travel for more utilitarian reasons.

Perhaps the greatest thing that space tourism is doing is inspiring the next generation of creative thinkers and risk takers. On his recent galactic journey, Branson spoke excitedly of how space captivated him as a child and how he hopes young people today will take inspiration from his stellar endeavors:

“To all you kids down there. I was once a child with a dream, looking up to the stars. Now I’m an adult in a spaceship with lots of other wonderful adults looking down to our beautiful, beautiful earth. To the next generation of dreamers, if we can do this, just imagine what you can do.”

Launching anyone into space, including ordinary people, is a risky proposition for all involved, in more ways than one. However, current and future benefits to humanity appear to outdistance those costs, making space tourism a stellar example of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence

2/28/2021

3 Comments

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

A teenage football player’s verbal hits on an MVP NFL quarterback led amateur and professional sports analysts alike to call a personal foul. ‘Who taught the young man to talk that way?’ was the question most asked, including many of the world’s top sports minds. Is it possible the teen learned to heckle from some of the same commentators who have censured him?

Heisman Trophy winner, former Carolina Panthers star, and recent New England Patriots quarterback Cam Newton was leaving the field at a teen football camp in Myrtle Beach, SC, when one of the young campers inexplicably began to berate him: “You a free agent! You a free agent! You're about to be poor!”

Newton smiled as he replied “I’m rich,” which caused the teen to reiterate his attack and led Newton to repeat his retort, all while keeping his cool and eventually asking to talk with the teen’s father.

After the video went viral, several current and former NFL players joined the social media uproar to express support for Newton, who, after all, was there to help the aspiring athletes. Many paid media pundits also offered their opinions, including ESPN’s most passionate personality, Stephen A. Smith.

On First Take, a daily sports talk show he cohosts, Smith came down hard on the contentious teen, delivering an unsympathetic rebuke of the young player’s abrasiveness. Some of Smith’s harsh criticism included:

“That kid should be ashamed of himself. If I was his parent, he would have been grounded, he would have been punished. I might have slapped him upside his head.”

“That was a disgraceful, disgraceful display of behavior by that young kid.”

“The level of disrespect that young kids show to their elders is one of the problems that we have existing in today’s world.”

NFL analyst Louis Riddick emphatically agreed that there’s a troubling rise in insolence among adolescents: “We’re failing in some way shape or form that the youth of our country feels as though they have a right to talk to people that way in any kind of forum, quite honestly.”

Such comments beg the question: ‘When it comes to modeling civil dialogue, who is setting such a bad example for young people?’ In admonishing the teenage heckler, Smith suggested that the breakdown is not happening on the home front: “What would get you to do that to begin with, because those same parents were there, those same coaches were there. They taught you better than that. You knew better than that before you did it.”

Tweeting what appeared to be a heartfelt apology, the beleaguered teen confirmed Smith’s theory that his parental upbringing was not to blame for his actions: “First I would like to start off by saying my parents never taught me to [treat] people disrespectful.”

So, if family is not at fault for this and other youthful irreverence, who is responsible? Could it be that this young man learned insolence, at least in part, from one of the same sports commentators who castigated him?

Anyone who enjoys ESPN knows Smith as someone with a very sharp sports mind who is always insightful, usually entertaining, often cantankerous, and occasionally uncivil. Unfortunately, it’s easy to find instances of the last category simply by searching YouTube for “stephen a smith angry” or some similar terms. Here are a few of the odious outtakes, including their starting times in the clips:

“You know, you [Will Cain, former ESPN analyst] make me sick sometimes; you make me sick sometimes, please, please, just be quiet and listen because let me tell you something: You don’t know what the h*** you talking about . . . Zip it. I’m giving you facts. You don’t get to speak right now . . . People disagree with me all the time and they just end up wrong like you.” [0:14]

“This man [Kwame Brown] was a bona fide scrub; he can’t play. No disrespect whatsoever, but I’m sorry to tell everybody the truth, the man cannot play the game of basketball . . . He has no game whatsoever, plays no defense, doesn’t have the heart, the passion, or anything that comes with it.” [1:25]

“Before I get to the phones, let me say this about Joel Embiid for the Philadelphia 76ers. What the h*** was that! What the h***! You freaking kidding me?” [:01]

How likely is it that young sports fans see Smith’s rants? In September of 2019, ESPN Digital was the number one sports platform “across every key metric and demographic.” What’s more, the platform saw a 64% year-over-year increase in people age 13-24, which contributed to the medium reaching 109.2 million unique visitors—about a third of the U.S. population.

Similarly, in 2018 Statista reported that 35.71% of respondents aged 18-29 watched ESPN during the previous month. All this to say, media metrics suggests that a very high percentage of young sports fans view ESPN, where they are very likely to see Smith, who is probably the network’s most visible personality and is certainly its highest paid, at $8 million a year.

Smith–viewer correlation, however, does not necessarily mean causality. Young athletes also may be mimicking the impertinence of others, namely that of professionals who increasingly do disrespectful things like taunt opponents after touchdowns, brazenly flip bats after home runs, and stare down defenders after dunks. Other ESPN commentators sometimes celebrate such actions on SportsCenter’s Top Ten plays—see #3 at 1:55.

However, an even more direct correlate with adolescent irreverence may be professional athletes’ trash-talking: the in-game verbal sparring that prizes putdowns, is sometimes seasoned with profanity, and can easily lead to physical altercations. ESPN tends to laugh off or even eulogize ‘the most memorable trash-talking moments.’

So, put yourself in the cleats of the teenage football camper. You love sports, you watch media like ESPN, you see top athletes glorified for trash-talking and other irreverent acts, and you listen to sports analysts’ verbal attacks on others. It’s not hard to imagine how anyone, let alone an adolescent who is still learning to distinguish certain socially unacceptable behaviors, could think it’s funny to take some verbal jabs at an NFL star. Of course, it wasn’t okay, but in light of all the mixed messages from role models and sports media, the teen’s actions should not be surprising.

Ironically, ESPN’s YouTube title for the First Take clip referenced above is “Stephen A. reacts to Cam Newton’s incident with a trash-talking camper.” Granted, there’s the issue of youth disrespecting age, but what’s the fundamental logic or fairness in condemning the “trash-talking” of some while celebrating the trash-talking of others?

It’s also ironic that several years ago, Smith made his own caustic verbal attack on an NFL quarterback, JaMarcus Russell of the Oakland Raiders. Here’s what Smith said at 2:18 into the clip:

“I am a person that believes in second chances. I think America is the land of second chances, except for when it comes to this dude, Mr. Jabba the Hutt, you fat slobily, no-good lazy bum of a quarterback.”

“This dude should be arrested for being a thief. He stole money from the Oakland Raiders for years. I’m talking $40 million dollars. The dude had about seven starts, did absolutely positively nothing. He cashed in the money, evidently used it on buying a bunch of donuts.”

Some may say Smith’s QB hit was worse than the teen heckler’s, “You a free agent! You a free agent! You're about to be poor!” Although Smith didn’t say his words to Russell’s face, he probably planned his tirade and knew it would be broadcast on national television, which also was arguably worse.

In his commentary on First Take about the heckling teen, Smith said, “I do think it takes a little bit of looking in the mirror to ask yourself, what would get you to do that?” Of course, the point here is that Smith could benefit from some of the same introspection.

However, he’s not the only one who needs to do self-assess. It’s tempting for any of us to demand, 'Do what I say, not what I do.' It’s also very easy to see the “speck” in someone else’s eye while overlooking the “plank” in our own.

I’ve been guilty of that hypocrisy at times, along with failing to appreciate my action’s influence on others, including young people. There have been occasions when I’ve watched painfully as one of my children did something ‘the wrong way,’ only to realize, ‘they learned it from me.’

Such unwanted imitation reminds me of Ralphie in The Christmas Story. After he accidentally swore in front of his father, his mother asked him, “Where did you hear that word?” Ralphie conveniently told her it was one of his friends, but he knew, “I had heard that word at least 10 times a day from my old man. My father worked in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay. It was his true medium, a master.”

The best way to avoid others imitating our bad art is to not make it. That approach comports with Riddick’s recommendation:

“Instead of being too shocked about [the teen’s heckling] and spending too much time being angry about it, try to do something to change it, try to do something to positively impact the youth of our country so that kind of thing doesn’t happen.”

For ESPN, that positive impact could come by ending its own analysts’ trash-talking and not exalting athletes who let their mouths run afoul. No one’s trash-talking should be tolerated, let alone celebrated, and especially not monetized.

It’s dangerous for any of us to think, “It’s okay for me to do it, but not for you,” particularly when our actions influence young people learning social norms. Smith speculated that the heckling incident could be “a teaching moment, a learning moment.” Let’s hope it is for him, for ESPN, and for all of, so we can put a collective lid on this rancid type of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

3 Comments

When TV Commercials Wink

2/14/2021

14 Comments

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

As a Seinfeld fan, one of my favorite episodes is when George’s eye catches a piece of flying grapefruit, causing him to confuse everyone with his involuntary winking. Such hijinks are funny for a television sitcom, but what happens when commercials use conflicting verbal and visual cues, particularly on TV’s biggest stage?

Before the recent big game, a friend graciously invited my analysis of the ads—You don’t have to ask twice for my opinion on advertising, especially Super Bowl commercials, so I shared thoughts about one particular ad that seemed strange.

Toyota’s “Upstream” commercial featured the adoption story of Jessica Long, a 13-time gold-medal-winning Paralympic swimmer. Long’s rise to success despite severe adversity was inspiring; however, there was also something unsettling about the ad.

Pushing against the positive verbal messages of parental love and athletic achievement was a literal stream of cold, dark water that ran through every scene, including the family’s home and other indoor places. That’s a disconcerting sight that can cause anguish for anyone, especially those who have experienced floods in their home, school, or work.

The negative visual of flood water worked against the ad’s affirmative verbal messages, significantly diluting the positive affect Toyota likely wanted for its ad, and making it “Simple-Minded Marketing.” The automaker certainly had good intentions, but I doubt the inadvertently somber spot did much to boost the company’s brand.

I remembered this ad partly because of its unpleasant aftertaste but also because I’ve studied such verbal-visual disconnects before. Several years ago, I did research on the same phenomenon found in pharmaceutical ads, which are probably the worst offenders when it comes to sending mixed commercial messages.

When we watch a prescription drug ad, we usually hear a list of the medication’s side effects, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates. However, as a narrator recites those potential negative outcomes, the commercial often shows very pleasant visuals, like the ones seen in this ad for Lipitor. At about 33 seconds into the spot, a narrator starts to quickly read several serious warnings:

“Lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing or pregnant or may become pregnant. You need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. Tell your doctor if you are taking other medications or if you have muscle pain or weakness. This may be the sign of a rare or serious side effect.”

Ironically, the visual backdrop for these weighty words is a guy and his dog taking a pleasant walk through the woods and later jumping into a lake for some swimming fun. Yes, we hear the side effects in such ads, but are we really listening to and understanding their gravity, given that very positive visual scenes distract us from those negative verbal messages?

That’s the question I set out to answer through research that began with a group of students in an Advertising Ethics class I was teaching. In a controlled empirical study that involved commercials for fictitious pharmaceuticals, we found that people do indeed discount drugs’ negative side effects when shown positive “dissonant” visuals at the same time.

I presented those findings at the American Marketing Association’s Marketing & Public Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., where a member of the FDA commended the research and asked for a copy of the presentation. Health Marketing Quarterly later published the study.

So, one “Simple-Minded” Super Bowl ad failed to make effective use of reinforcing, or “redundant,” visuals—no big deal. Actually, several other $5.5 million+ spots made the same mistake in similar ways and in doing so conveniently completed the other three quadrants of the Mindful Matrix:

“Alexa’s Body” - Amazon claimed the steamiest spot in this year’s Super Bowl. For nearly sixty seconds, a female Amazon employee fantasized about handsome Black Panther star Michael B. Jordan, who replaced the smart speaker in her lustful daydreams, which included Jordan removing his shirt and joining her in a bubble bath for two.

The commercial was uncomfortable to watch in mixed company and may have posed problems for parents, but the real issue was the spot’s repeated sexual objectification of Jordan. Role-reversal (a woman mentally undressing a man) may have seemed funny, but no one should be reduced to their body parts or have their personhood downgraded to a “vessel.” Similarly, it’s dangerous to objectify men as doing so suggests that it’s also okay to objectify women.

The ad involved dissonant visuals in that images of a sexy superstar have nothing to do with voice commands about ‘the number of tablespoons in a cup’ or ‘turning on the sprinklers.’ The pairing of an A-list celebrity with Alexa probably has helped keep Amazon’s smart speaker top-of-mind, but all the gratuitous sexual innuendo made the ad “Single-Minded Marketing.”

“Happy” - In its “Ultra” light beer ad, Michelob employed an entire lineup of past and present all-star athletes. For instance, there were still shots and/or video clips of Serena Williams, Mia Hamm, Anthony Davis, Usain Bolt, Billy Jean King, Arnold Palmer, Wilt Chamberlain, Jimmy Butler, Peyton Manning, and more.

I wonder whether Michelob got permission from all these athletes, or their estates, to associate their images with its brand, but assuming it did, there’s still another problem that directly involves dissonant visuals: People don’t ascend to those kinds of athletic heights by downing much beer. There’s little to suggest that alcohol enhances athletic performance; in fact, alcohol has exactly the opposite effect: It reduces aerobic efficiency, impairs motor skills, decreases strength, disrupts sleep, and slows recovery.

Michelob’s suggestion that happiness helps athletes win may have some truth to it, but there’s clearly much more to athletic achievement, namely physical and mental discipline both of which alcohol easily impairs. For that reason, it was irresponsible of Michelob to show images of athletes in uniform, on their courts, fields, etc., along with alcohol-friendly soundbites such as, “fueling the run toward greatness” and “something more vital.”

How ironic and tragic it was that Kansas City Chief’s outside linebacker coach Brit Reid, son of head coach Andy Reid, caused a multi-vehicle accident days before Super Bowl, apparently due to alcohol impairment. The accident caused him to miss the game and left a young girl fighting for her life. Alcohol and athletics definitely don’t mix, and it’s doubtful that such precarious positioning will give Michelob’s brand much boost, which makes the beermaker’s ad “Mindless Marketing.”

“Get Back to Nature” - After the three commercials just described, it’s easy to be suspicious of all Super Bowl spots, believing that most played with consumers’ minds and sacrificed social mores. Thankfully however, the preceding ads were exceptions. Most of the commercials employed redundant, not dissonant, visuals that appropriately reinforced their verbal messages.

One of the best examples of such visual-verbal consistency was Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s 60-second spot that featured clips of ordinary people planning for and enjoying beautiful places in the great outdoors while hiking, fishing, camping, and more.

Sprinkled into some scenes was gear that one could probably purchase from the outfitter, but none of the product placement was overdone; rather, all subtly and artfully supported the simple call to experience nature. Consequently, viewers were likely both to remember the firm’s ‘enjoy the outdoors’ value proposition and to believe its closing promise, “We’re there for you.”

Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s commercial wasn’t the only advertiser to hit a home run in terms of verbal-visual consistency that was both effective and ethical. A couple of other best-practices ads belonged to Huggies for “Welcome to the World, Baby” and to Indeed for “The Rising.”

A wink is the epitome of a dissonant visual—it slyly states, “Don’t believe what I’m saying.” Advertisers shouldn’t ‘wink’ with their ads, i.e., use dissonant visuals that contradict their spots’ verbal messages. Instead, commercials should enlist strategically-chosen redundant visuals that reinforce the right verbal messages. In Super Bowl ads and in other communication, that consistency makes for “Mindful Marketing.”

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

14 Comments

Committed to Cursing

1/5/2021

9 Comments

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

Do you have a resolution for 2021? According to Parade, the most popular annual self-promise is to lose weight. Given interests in appearance and health, it’s understandable that many people want to watch what they put into their mouths. What’s surprising is that individuals seem increasingly unconcerned about what comes out of their mouths. In fact, an ad campaign from an unexpected source is encouraging people to let profanity fly.

One might guess the campaign comes from a company like Budweiser, which a few years ago ran an infamous Super Bowl ad featuring outspoken British actress Helen Mirren who delivered a caustic anti-drunk-driving rant that had parents rushing to cover their kids ears. Amazingly, the current profanity-laced campaign is from the Mental Health Coalition.

Actually, “laced” is an understatement. The 90-second spot’s central theme and action are the F-word and its accompanying hand gesture. Why so much obscenity? The premise is that since people have suffered so much over the last 12 months from a global pandemic, racial injustice, and an extremely combative election, the best thing to do is to blow off steam by telling 2020 exactly what we thought of it.

The ad ends with a fittingly obscene call-to-action: “Text [middle finger emoji] to 1-877-EFF-THIS and donate $5 to the Mental Health Coalition.”

Why would the Mental Health Coalition want to connect its mission and brand to cursing? The rationale is not as tenuous as you might first think. In fact, there’s a body of literature that suggests that expressing anger through swearing is good for mental health.

One study, which asked participants to submerse their hands in ice water, discovered that swearing increased pain tolerance by nearly 50%. Other research found that people could achieve greater physical performance, pedaling a bike, when employing profanity.

Writing for Psychology Today, Neel Burton, M.D., a psychiatrist and philosopher who teaches in Oxford England, offers “The seven best reasons for swearing,” which he suggests are:

Pain relief
Power and control
Non-violent retribution
Humor
Peer and social bonding
Self-expression
Improved psychological and physical health

It’s hard to argue against empirical science and respected health professionals, but it seems that the preceding research and writing gives less than adequate treatment to a pair of important considerations, which the following two questions address:

1) What’s the long-term impact of swearing on self-concept? Even if uttering a curse word helps reduce pain in the moment, it seems that swearing could affect one’s extended mental health, which is partly a function of others’ perceptions of us.

First, to be forthright and hopefully avoid seeming self-righteous: I have sworn. I’m not sure that any of those irreverent expressions helped me in the moment, but one thing is certain: I never felt good afterward about what I said; rather, I regretted each of those instances.

While it’s uncomfortable for me to admit that I’ve sworn, it would be very painful if I had to think of myself as ‘a person who swears,’ and it would be unacceptable if I in some way encouraged others to have such a perception of me. I don’t want to swear and, for various reasons that include my faith, I would never want swearing to be something that defines me.

A few years ago, triggered by what I saw as a troubling increase in casual cursing, I wrote an article for The Marketplace, “Don’t curse your own brand.” In the piece I identified five adjectives, or “unbecoming brand qualities,” that profanity projects: unintelligent, angry, unproductive, indecent, and untrustworthy.

Granted, it may be more important for some people/professions to maintain the impression of piety than it is for others. Still, a vulgar vocabulary fuels the preceding unfavorable perceptions in others, which is hard to believe have a positive net impact on anyone’s self-concept.

2) What’s the impact of profanity on others? Almost all of the research and writing of others I referenced above suggests that ‘You should swear because it’s good for you.’ Largely missing in the analyses is the affect that one’s cursing has on those exposed to it, especially if the unpleasantries are directed at them.

Burton does mention that swearing can foster “peer and social bonding.” I believe there are better ways to foster social bonds than swearing, but I can understand how cursing could work to that end, if it’s ‘friendly’ and mutually accepted.

In most instances, though, being on the receiving end of a curse word is not appealing. That’s why in any kind of potentially volatile situation, from a customer service encounter to a hostage negotiation, swearing rarely helps. In fact, it usually increases the tension by making people more uncomfortable, angry, or upset.

Overlooking the impact of cursing on others is probably the biggest irony of the Mental Health Coalition’s ad campaign. On the organization’s own website, its homepage expresses an important truth: “The language we use is powerful, so let’s talk about it.” Yes, words are powerful, and, contrary to the “sticks and stones” adage, poorly chosen ones can hurt deeply.

Of course, being bullied or shamed can’t be good for anyone’s mental health, but how that belittling often occurs is particularly pertinent here. A report on workplace bullying by Safe Work Australia found that “The most common forms of bullying included being sworn at or yelled at (37.2 per cent).” Others affirm the connection between cursing and bullying, for instance:

“Shouting and swearing while doing criticising is bullying” (Business-Live.Co.UK)
An example of bullying is “yelling or using profanity” (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety)
A report from an Anita Hill-led Hollywood Commission for Eliminating Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace identified “swearing” as a specific act of bullying that with other undesirable actions can serve as “a gateway to sexual harassment and other abusive conduct.”

To summarize:

Cursing --> Bullying --> Low Self-Concept --> Poor Mental Health

These relationships are a big miss of the ad campaign, but there’s one more notable fail: Tourette syndrome, “a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics.” Though rare, some individuals with the disorder experience coprolalia, which includes “uttering socially inappropriate words such as swearing.”

Although Tourette’s is a disorder of the nervous system, not a mental illness, one can imagine that people who suffer from the syndrome are easy targets for bullies, and that those social interactions could be especially strained if the individual’s specific symptoms include swearing.

At the risk of getting waylaid on memory lane, many of us can remember a time, not that many years ago, when it was unusual to hear people swear outside of an R-rated movie or a locker room, both of which carried ‘language warnings,’ express or implied.

Now it’s not unusual to be shopping in a grocery store or watching ESPN and hear conversations punctuated with profanity. It’s also puzzling that, unlike those in the Mental Health Coalition ad, the people cursing often don’t appear to be angry or upset; rather, swearing has simply become part of their routine communication. Do ads like the one in question normalize such indecency?

The Mental Health Coalition serves a very important societal mission in aiming to “to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness.” Unfortunately, however, its ‘swearing ad’ curses that very purpose, making the campaign an unfortunate example of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

9 Comments

Why Negative Political Advertising Works & What Can Stop It

10/31/2020

9 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Comments

Should the FCC Have Thrown a Flag?

2/7/2020

10 Comments

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

The latest Super Bowl was another big game mired in controversy. This time the debate wasn’t whether a fourth-quarter play was a penalty, but whether the halftime show was pornography. Should the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have thrown a flag for ‘illegal use of the hips’ or ‘unnecessary raunchiness’? As armchair apologists argue, mindful marketers aim to analyze the action from each angle, hoping to make ‘the right call.’

Rocking hips, pulsing pelvises, and legs wrapped around a stripper pole sound like a scene from a gentleman’s club, but they were just part of the Super Bowl LIV halftime show featuring superstar entertainers Shakira and Jennifer Lopez.

Whether one enjoyed the performances or not, most agree that the show was a production spectacle, complete with elaborate scenery, extravagant costumes, moving stages, dozens of talented dancers, and amazing fireworks. The production level was fitting for the biggest television viewing event of the year, which this time drew an astounding 102.1 million U.S. viewers, making it the “11th most-watched TV show ever.”

With so many people watching the same thing, it’s not surprising that the show spawned differences of opinion. Some, like former Florida governor and U.S. presidential candidate Jeb Bush loved it; he tweeted, “Best Super Bowl halftime show ever.”

Many ordinary citizens have also sung its praises, including 2.3 million people who liked the YouTube video. Some of those fans have said:

“One of the most amazing shows ever.”—Lucy B.
“Loved both”--manel manel
“whos watched this more than 10 times? i know i aint the only guy”—Maxwel Rajcic
“I love JLo but i can't get over that Shakira performance. Damn.”—Annitah Lesley
“One of the best Super Bowl halftime show ever”—grace khuvung

However, a smaller but still substantial number (134K YouTube viewers) didn’t think the show was ‘so hot’; actually, they thought it was too hot. Some tweeted:

“I saw way more of J-Lo than I ever wanted to. There was a moment there that actually made me blink my eyes. Everybody in the room was blinking their eyes.”— @TheAnnoyedMan
“When your crotch shot reveals your panty liner than you’ve definitely crossed a line”—@meredithdicken1
“I’d settle for a halftime that is somewhere between Karen Carpenter and a pelvic exam.”—@Bookwormdearlor
“My 13 year girl old said ‘man, that was TRASHY.’”—@FilthyMcN
“My 9 year old asked, ‘Is this what sexy is?’”—@kdonohuenj
“It was inappropriate for the venue. They can't sell it as a family entertainment and then present something that millions of people had to quickly turn off AFTER their little people got an eyeful of soft porn.”—@Plainsspeak

Maybe detractors are being over-sensitive or narrow-minded, not giving enough consideration to factors such as:

The empowerment of women: The halftime show showcased two women’s exceptional voices and dance skills, physical strength and stamina, as well as their abilities to command one of the world’s largest stages. Furthermore, both women are over 40 years of age.
The celebration of Latin culture: The show served up large portions of energy and excitement, along with vibrant sounds and colors, for which Latin culture is known.

Those are valid arguments that we may not fully appreciate, depending on our own demographics. On the other hand, one may wonder if those lauding the performance have considered issues like these:

Demographics: Unlike most TV shows, an extremely wide swath of the population watches the Super Bowl—everyone from two-year-olds to 92-year-olds. The lower end of that range should not be exposed to sexually explicit content, and many would argue that no one should see it without warning at 8:00 pm, on broadcast television.
Legality: The halftime show may have violated the FCC’s mandate that “Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.” It’s hard to imagine that the agency would have allowed the same sexual content, which included very revealing apparel and highly suggestive camera shots, as part of a 30-second Super Bowl commercial; yet, the FCC permitted 14 minutes of the ‘exposure’ as a Pepsi-sponsored mini-program.
Addiction: If the halftime show represented ‘soft porn,’ as some have said, there’s a risk that the show encouraged pornography addiction for some viewers. Lest one think that’s a wild claim, check out Google search results: In the period from January 29, 2020 through February 4, 2020, at the exact time of the Super Bowl halftime show, there were extreme peaks in searches for terms such as: Hustlers (name of the film about strip clubs, staring Lopez), pole dance, stripper, and jlo hustlers dance.

Cultural relativism: Virtually every culture, past and present, has had good things to offer, but not everything in a given culture is good (e.g., segregation, subjugation of women). Latin dancing is known for its sensuality, which people may debate is good or bad, but for the situation at hand, the discussion should consider the prevailing culture and composition of Super Bowl viewers, as well as when, where, and with whom most watched the halftime show.
Empowerment or Objectification: As implied above, my maleness limits my ability to appreciate the ways in which Shakira and J Lo’s performances may have made other viewers feel empowered. However, as one who has studied oversexualization in advertising, I saw many signs of objectification of women, i.e., reducing their personhood to specific body parts (e.g., legs, bottoms) and ‘serving them up’ as objects for others’ sexual gratification. For instance, in the YouTube video of the performance, there’s a camera shot at about 2:22 focused just on Shakira’s belly and hips, i.e., no head or feet, and another at 7:06 centered squarely on Lopez’s bottom, as she bent over, back to the camera.

In an article that includes several helpful illustrations, Ronnie Richie develops a seemingly useful distinction between sexual objectification and empowerment, the bottom-line being that a person is sexually empowered, not objectified, when she/he holds power versus the person looking at them. That analysis likely works on one level, such as for superstar celebrities like Shakira and J Lo, but the reality is that oversexualized images in mass media often impact others within the same people group (e.g., women, children) with tragic consequences.

According to UNICEF, “The objectification and sexualization of girls in the media is linked to violence against women and girls worldwide.” On a personal level, former Yale University student Veronica Lira Ortiz shared her unfortunate experience as a child in a Latin culture infused with machismo: “I was twelve years old, and a man on the street [in Mexico] was already verbally harassing me. He looked at me as if I were a juicy steak instead of an innocent child. Shakira and J Lo may have held power in their Super Bowl situation, but many indirectly affected by their performances do not.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” but when the beholders number over 100 million, including millions of children and adults anticipating family-friendly entertainment, and when many others are indirectly affected by what’s shown, the creators and broadcasters of ‘said beauty’ should demonstrate better discretion. So, the replay of the action suggests that the FCC should have flagged Fox, Pepsi, and others associated with the Super Bowl LIV halftime show for a broadcast communication violation, as well as 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!

10 Comments

Fighting Fire with Desire

1/12/2020

7 Comments

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

Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods—natural disasters are unfortunate reminders of how powerful earth is and how weak humans are. Yet, in the wake of such tragedies it’s encouraging to see caring people help others in need. So why has one woman’s philanthropy aimed at fire relief for Australia sparked a media firestorm?

Since late July, “Australia is [still] being ravaged by the worst wildfires seen in decades.” A terrible drought and record-high temperatures are helping fuel the horrific flames. So far, the tragic toll includes 27 people dead, over 2,000 homes destroyed just in the state of New South Wales, smoke 11-times the hazard level in Sydney, more than 17.9 million acres of land burned, and millions of animals likely dead.

Thankfully there are organizations and individuals responding to the tragedy. One of those people is Kaylen Ward. An attractive 20-year model from Los Angeles, Ward tweeted a promise on January 3 to send a picture of herself to anyone who sent her proof of a donation of $10 or more to a legitimate fire relief organization such as the Australian Red Cross or Salvation Army Australia. Ward kept her promise, and within four days, her efforts helped raise an amazing $1 million!

Why has Ward’s work been so successful and controversial? It was because she wasn’t wearing anything in the photos; Ward was nude.

The people receiving the pictures, weren’t surprised—they got exactly what Ward promised and what might be expected from an “influencer and sex worker” who makes a living from nakedness, often by selling nude photos and videos of herself on OnlyFans. Recently, she’s come to call herself “The Naked Philanthropist.”

One reason people have taken issue with Ward’s promotion of wildfire relief was a perception that she must somehow be skimming money off the top for herself. However, she quickly clapped back at such allegations, tweeting that “none of the donation money to Australia has or ever will go to me. The only money I have made is money from my [Only]fans. I guarantee I am not pocketing any donation money.”

Given that people donated directly to the relief organizations and just direct messaged Ward copies of receipts, she had no access to the money. In contrast, Ward apparently incurred some direct costs from her philanthropy. After her initial tweet went viral (over 88K retweets and more than 226K likes), she said she had to hire four people to help her sort through all of the messages, verify the donations, and send out over 10,000 nude photos.

It’s likely, though, that whatever those cost were, they were more than offset by all the free media ‘exposure’ (sorry) she’s received, probably worth at least tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the contact list of future customers she undoubtedly built from all those who direct messaged her for a free pic.

Likewise, Ward’s social media following exploded. Before her first ‘fire relief post’ she had about 176K Twitter followers. She now has over 387K.

Knowing those positive personal outcomes, some may argue that her philanthropy was intentionally self-serving. Ward takes issue with that assessment, however, saying that she had seen the impact of the recent California fires firsthand and knows “how devasting” they can be.

Also, soon after stopping her nude photos promotion, Ward started a GoFundMe campaign aimed at raising money for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and the World Wildlife Fund. She stated: “I want to continue raising funds to save the people and animals of Australia,” because the causes are “very important to me.”

It’s hard to judge motives. There’s also not necessarily anything wrong with a person wanting both to help others and to advance his/her own career. Many forward-thinking organizations take a similar strategic approach to their philanthropy such that they do well financially while doing good socially.

But, then there’s the specific nature of Ward’s career. It’s pornography.

Many individuals and organizations believe that there are standards of decency that should be upheld, including ones involving sexual explicitness. Facebook, which owns Instagram, is one of those organizations: It disabled Ward’s Instagram account because she apparently violated the site’s prohibition of offering nude images.

Some may say, though, that the means justify the ends, i.e., given the devastation Australia has endured, ‘baring’ oneself is acceptable in order to provide relief to those in need. Such an argument usually stems from a belief in consequentialism, or that the greatest net happiness is what determines whether an action is ethical, not freestanding moral principles like decency, dignity, and decorum.

But, if one considers consequences, there’s a need to look at all the consequences likely to come from Ward sharing her nakedness. Those include consequences associated with pornography. Here are several of the negative outcomes that individuals often experience from using porn, provided by Caron Andrews:

Changes the brain: Through the release of dopamine each time, the brain requires more and more porn.
Affects behavior: Porn users often have more violent attitudes toward women and exhibit more domineering and harassing behavior toward them.
Leads to sexual dysfunction: Actual physical intimacy becomes less stimulating.
Harms one’s sense of sexuality: Porn can cause people to have deviant and even dangerous sexual tastes.
Stunts real-life relationships: Users often draw away from others and keep secrets from them.
Teaches that women are sexual objects: Women are often ‘stripped’ of dignity and presented as vehicles for men’s sexual satisfaction.
Makes people feel bad about themselves: The lack of congruity between one’s values and actions causes stress and feelings of hypocrisy.
Changes moods: People who use porn are often easily annoyed, angered, and depressed.

The preceding list isn’t comprehensive. Besides negative impacts on individual users and those close to them, some suggest that pornography carries a major economic price: $16.9 billion a year in lost productivity.

Again, it’s impossible to know Ward’s true motivation, but even if she really did mean well, her philanthropic approach was greatly misguided. The nude photos probably pleased their recipients and the corresponding donations likely helped ease Australia’s pain, but Ward discarded basic decency while fueling the flames of a terrible social problem, which makes her work “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

Live Streaming Funerals

10/18/2019

32 Comments

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

What will you watch on TV tonight? Maybe you’ll catch a movie on cable or stream season five of your favorite sitcom. Or, maybe you’ll tune-in to Uncle Walter’s wake. That’s right: Some funeral homes now make it possible for mourners to stay home, thanks to live streaming of memorial services.

Live streaming has been around for more than 20 years, but it’s more recently that funeral homes have entered the virtual realm. Some say the delay is due to the funeral industry being more conservative than most. It also might be because those most in-tune with the newer technology tend to be the Netflix-watching younger generations, who probably aren’t the biggest drivers of demand for funeral services.

Every year in the United States, around 19,000 funeral directors conduct approximately 2.4 million memorial services, yet some estimate as few as 20% of funeral homes offer streaming services. But, why does anyone want to watch the memorialization of someone they knew online?

The main reason is simple logistics. As people find new jobs or move for other reasons, family members and friends are “increasingly scattered around the country—and the world,” making it hard to travel to far-away cities and towns for funerals. Also, some people have health conditions or other constraints that make travel very difficult, if not impossible.

Our family appreciated live streaming firsthand recently, not for a funeral but for our son’s orchestra concert. Given that he’s enrolled in college over 10 hours from home, it’s not possible for us to attend most performances, but we were able to watch the first concert of the fall in real-time, thanks to the school live streaming the event.

Still, a funeral is very different than a concert, a sports contest, or other audience-driven entertainment. Should such a somber event be so widely shared? Is it disrespectful to ‘digitize the deceased?’

Whether it’s a wedding or a wake, almost anything can be filmed tastelessly or tactfully. Small ceiling-mounted cameras and wireless technology are some of the ways that videoing can happen unobtrusively. Plus, in the age of social media and selfies, most people are pretty used to cameras and picture-taking.

Of course, a primary consideration in deciding whether to live stream a funeral should be the final wishes of the departed—Did they want/not want their last remembrances broadcast? Short of any such directive, the decision lies with loved ones, who, in reality, are the ones the memorial service is truly for.

For family members and/or close friends of the deceased, a funeral service is a very important part of the grieving process. They’re the ones dealing most with shock, grief, and worry. They also probably want to honor the memory of someone about whom they cared deeply. Key questions, then, are: What brings loved ones comfort and what helps them commemorate?

The most likely answer is other people. When tragedy strikes or there’s an occasion to celebrate, we usually want to be with others. It’s at those times that we really appreciate the presence of people.

That need for social support reminds me of a funeral I attended last March. A dear friend of mine, with whom I had served on a church leadership team, played basketball and softball, and socialized with our spouses, passed away suddenly at age 58. I was shocked to hear the news and imagined that his wife and two children in their twenties were devastated.

Our careers had taken us to different parts of the state, but I wanted to attend his memorial service, even though it was on a weekday and about two hours away. I drove to the church and reflected on my friends’ impactful life during what was a very moving service. I also spoke briefly with his children and wife, giving her a hug and telling her how much I had appreciated her husband.

A couple of months later, I received a handwritten note from her in which she said how happy she was that I was able to come to the service and how much it meant to see an old friend from a special time in their lives. I had barely spoken with her at the funeral, so it seemed that just my being there made a big difference for her.

That experience makes me wonder whether live streaming funerals keeps people from being present at times when their presence is needed most? I doubt there’s data to shed light on that question, so I’ll try to answer it based on the reading I’ve done in preparation for this piece.

Journalists who have spoken with funeral directors suggest that live streams are most important to those who are unable to attend funerals because of factors like distance, cost, and health issues. No one mentions people who could attend services in person, choosing to watch live streams instead.

Such decision-making also resonates with my own experience. When my friend passed away suddenly, I really wanted to be there, and thankfully I was able to. I’m not sure if his memorial service was live streamed, but even if it was, my choice would not have changed. I suspect most people feel similarly—For someone important to them, they would like to be there in person, if at all possible.

Live streaming funerals is almost certainly a win-win: The opportunity to watch from afar doesn’t dissuade people from attending but gives those who can’t travel the ability to also experience a very meaningful moment. Even when it involves death, digital technology can deliver “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!

32 Comments

<<Previous

Has OnlyFans Sold Its Soul?

Cutting Out Weight Loss Ads

Is Space Tourism an Unnecessary Splurge?

Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence

When TV Commercials Wink

Committed to Cursing

Why Negative Political Advertising Works & What Can Stop It

Should the FCC Have Thrown a Flag?

Fighting Fire with Desire

Live Streaming Funerals

Editor

Archives

Categories