Category: + Decency

Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence

2/28/2021

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!

2 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

8 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Comments

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

6 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!

6 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

Who's to Blame for Opioid Abuse?

9/8/2019

19 Comments

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

‘It’s hard to protect people from themselves.’ That saying resonates with everyone from EMTs who wish motorists would wear seatbelts, to parents who demand that their kids “Stop climbing on that!” So, who’s responsible when a significant portion of the population harms itself with prescription painkillers?

If you’ve been following the news, you’ve heard of America’s troubling opioid epidemic, which unfortunately has seen:

Misuse among 21-29% of those who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain
Use disorders in 8-12% of those who take the drugs
Transition to heroin for 4-6% of those who misuse prescription opioids
More than 130 people a day dying from opioid-related drug overdoses

What are opioids? They’re types of drugs that come naturally from the opium poppy plant that are often used to reduce pain. They also “can make some people feel relaxed, happy or ‘high,’ and can be addictive.”

The most common prescription opioids are Vicodin and OxyContin. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid, “50 to 100 times more potent than morphine,” that’s often used to treat pain from advanced cancer. Then there’s heroin, “an illegal, highly addictive drug processed from morphine.

Recently, the name often heard in the same sentence as opioid epidemic is Purdue Pharma, the Stamford, Connecticut-based company that makes OxyContin, the brand name for oxycodone hydrochloride. The drug’s position at the center of the opioid crisis has made Purdue Pharma the focus of frequent legal scrutiny.

Used to “help relieve severe ongoing pain (such as due to cancer),” OxyContin should be a ‘medication of last resort.” In other words, if people suffering from very serious illness cannot find relief from anything else, OxyContin can be used to mitigate their pain.

Sufferers of significant, relentless pain, however, are not the ones driving the opioid epidemic. The problem stems, instead, from those who don’t need the drug but take it to get high and, if they don’t end up overdosing, often become addicted.

Should Purdue Pharma be accountable for this abuse by illegitimate users? More broadly, to what extent is any company culpable when consumers don’t use its products as intended. Are organizations responsible for protecting people from themselves?

Since the advent of mass-production, there have been continual examples of consumers injuring themselves by misusing products, often despite clear warnings from manufacturers, e.g., “Don’t stand on the top of this stepladder”; “Don’t put this plastic bag over your head.”

One of the most recent examples of widespread abuse was called the Tide Pod Challenge, which involved mainly teens videoing themselves chewing on the small detergent sacs and posting clips of their reactions on social media. Tragically, several people died as a result of ingesting the liquid.

Procter & Gamble (P&G), the maker of Tide, responded to its product’s misuse by offering advice on Twitter to those affected by the Challenge and by asking YouTube and Facebook to remove Tide Pod Challenge posts. P&G also produced a television commercial with former New England Patriots tight-end Rob Gronkowski urging viewers not to eat Tide Pods. All of these efforts were in addition to the company coating the Pods with a bitter-tasting substance in order to discourage children from biting into them.

P&G hasn’t stopped making Tide Pods, and as far as I know, the company hasn’t assumed responsibility for the Challenge-related injuries and fatalities. Is the firm wrong for failing to take those actions? No. The Tide Pod Challenge is an example of consumers' blatant product misuse, despite the company’s multifaceted, good-faith efforts to avoid it.

The same cannot be said, however, about Purdue Pharma and OxyContin. Here’s why the two cases of consumer abuse are very different:

In contrast to the Tide Pod Challenge, which was a short-lived ‘fad,’ Purdue Pharma knew for decades about OxyContin abuse but avoided addressing it. A New York Times piece details the timeline, beginning in the late 1990s, when the company concealed its knowledge that the medication was being stolen and sold illegally to abusers. Meanwhile, the firm promoted the exact opposite—that OxyContin was less prone to abuse than other prescription opioids.

Although serious, there never was an “epidemic” of Tide Pod misuse; cases were relatively isolated. As the earlier opioid statistics suggested, however, opioid abuse has been shockingly widespread. For instance, during the early 2000s, prescription drug distributors “sent enough pain pills to West Virginia over a five-year period to supply every man, woman and child there with 433 of them.”

Unlike Tide Pods, OxyContin is highly addictive. Probably no one who did the Tide Pod Challenge wanted to try it again, but those who start using OxyContin often can’t stop.

Despite the added exposure it brought the brand and the additional revenue it produced, all evidence supports that P&G did not want anyone eating Tide Pods. On the other hand, the New York Times suggests that Purdue Pharma, essentially encouraged abuse of its product by claiming that the company “planted the seeds of the opioid epidemic through its aggressive marketing of OxyContin.”

As I’ve read and heard about the opioid epidemic, I’ve wondered about the responsibility of doctors who liberally prescribed the drugs and of the consumers who misused the medication. I now understand that these persons share responsibility with at least one company that knowingly fueled the crisis. Purdue Pharma’s profiting from the nation’s opioid pain is a clear case 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!

19 Comments

The Best an Ad Can Get?

1/26/2019

32 Comments

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

When I was growing up, our family had a small, easily-provoked dog. He was responsible for holes in many pairs of my socks from times I tried to slip past him while he was in an especially protective mood. The person he guarded was my mother because she made sure he had food. Our dog knew better than to ‘bite the hand that fed him.’ I wonder, was our pet smarter than one of the world’s leading consumer products companies?

If you haven’t seen it, Gillette, the global purveyor of men’s personal care products, recently released a video ad titled “We Believe: The Best a Man Can Be.” The 1:49 minute commercial doesn’t push razors, rather it’s an image-building ad that renounces two contemptable behaviors that some men commit: sexual harassment and bullying.

The ad showcases an array of mainly scripted clips in which males, some old, some young, enact a variety of despicable acts like groping women and punching their peers. Meanwhile, a chorus of other men chants a unison refrain of rationalization, “Boys will be boys.”

The ad’s narration and text overlays provide corrective commentary:
“We believe in the best in men.”
“It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more that we can get closer to our best.”
“We are taking action at thebestmencanbe.org”

In many ways, Gillette’s messaging makes sense. The company has taken a stand against two terribly wrong and destructive behaviors and called out the men who commit them. Using a powerful quote from actor-turned-sexual-harassment-activist Terry Crews, the ad also encourages every man not to stand idly by when they see such reprehensible actions but to intervene: “Men need to hold other men accountable.”

Despite all the apparent good, the commercial has quickly become a lightning rod for controversy. Dozens of media, from Advertising Age, to Glamour, to USA Today, have run articles about the ad. As one might imagine, some commentary from the authors as well as from the general public has been positive, while other responses have been quite negative.

For instance, @pstdavid_ tweeted, “Finally got a chance to see this #GilletteAd. Quite honestly, I don’t get what all the fuss is about. In my opinion, they’re not “taking a stand on toxic masculinity” or ‘stealing your manhood.’ All they’re suggesting is that you be a decent human being. It’s not that difficult.”

Another Gillette consumer, however, tweeted a picture of his hand poised above a trash can, about to discard the Gillette razor he received on his 18th birthday and used for the past 15 years, including through basic training and four deployments. (1) The soon-to-be-former customer lamented, “since @Gillette thinks I’m a bad person, I’m throwing it away.”

Another user, @davidliedtka, took an even more extreme approach, placing his Gillette shaving creme and razor in an oven and setting the temperature to 505 degrees.

Wow. Those are strong reactions. Does Gillette or any organization that’s trying to right serious social wrongs deserve such reprisals?

The first time I saw the commercial, my reaction was generally positive: A strong brand that has built a solid reputation among millions of men was using that influence to ask them to be better. Such a plea from a huge corporate player might stand a chance of making a difference in our world. Still, there were things about the spot that didn’t seem right.

A second time through the ad, I noticed more of the agency’s specific creative decisions. For instance, while the spot’s small amount of real video footage worked, the many acted segments looked overly artificial and contrived, even though they depicted terrible events that unfortunately occur. The use of both real and scripted video seemed like a mismatch.

I hadn’t thought much more about the ad, until one of my marketing students emailed me a link to another company’s commercial that was purportedly a response to Gillette’s ad. The next day he asked if I had watched the ad. I had been very busy, so I replied I hadn’t but I was looking forward to seeing it soon.

That night I opened his email and clicked the YouTube link, which took me to an ad posted by Egard Watch Company. Viewing the 1:57 minute commercial just once, changed my perspective of Gillette’s ad.

Egard’s commercial opens with several male firefighters battling an inferno, then quickly cuts to one of them carrying a young girl safely away from the flames. Meanwhile, a narrator asks, “What is a man?” The ad continues with a wide variety of real video clips, many showing men doing very difficult or even dangerous physical labor, while the narrator poses additional questions like “Is a man brave?”, “Is a man a protector?”, and “Is a man disposable?”

The spot also shares some very sobering statistics, such as:

Men account for 93% of workplace fatalities.
Men comprise over 97% of war fatalities.
79% of all homicide victims are male.
Men account for 80% of all suicide victims.

The commercial concludes on a positive note, asking “Is a man trying?” and offering the company’s view of masculinity: “We see the good in men.”

As marketer, I realize that the right music with moving images can tug at one’s emotions; however, Egard’s ad resonated with me, and perhaps the 324,000 people who have liked, it for another reason. Egard reminded us of the many men in our lives that we have known and loved.

The ad caused me to remember my grandfathers: one a coalminer, the other a farmer. To support their families, both did very hard, physical work that must have greatly tested both their bodies and their minds. Having experienced the ravages of WW II, my father-in-law, emigrated from Ukraine, to Brazil, to the United States, where he worked for over 30 years in a bearing factory as a tool and die maker—labor that likely explains his great loss of hearing today. My own father was not able to finish high school, yet he started his own business at age 25 and worked tirelessly with my mother to earn enough to put four children through college.

None of these men were/is perfect. Neither is their grandson/son—I’ve made plenty of mistakes; although, I don’t think I’ve done anything that someone could call bullying or sexual harassment. Most men probably can say the same. Most of the mistakes we make are not because we’re men; they’re because we’re human.

The problem with Gillette’s ad is that it stereotypes men. Not all males act like Harvey Weinstein or ‘Scott Farkus,’ the bully from A Christmas Story. In fact, the vast majority do not. Of course, Gillette’s ad doesn’t directly say that all men are sexual predators or bullies, but it does put all men in the same stereotypical boxes through some subtle visual and verbal suggestions.

One such insinuation in Gillette’s spot is the seemingly infinite lineup of men, all standing behind their BBQ grills with arms folded, chanting in unison, “Boys will be boys.” The ad’s narration also makes a stereotypical suggestion by tagging onto Crew’s “Men need to hold other men accountable” quote, adding: “ . . . accountable to act the right way; some already are, in ways big and small. But some is not enough.” I’d like to reiterate the belief that it’s most men who are acting the right way, not some.

Another Twitter user, Melissa Chen (@MsMelChen), who self-identifies as Asian, supports the suggestion that Gillette’s ad stereotypes men. She says:
“I can get behind the message that we all can be better. But the #GilletteAd ended up painting an entire demographic with a negative stereotype perpetuated by a few. Imagine the uproar if it was an ad about a racial group with higher crime rates saying, “‘you can be better.’”

Of course, on top of all this analysis is the fact that men are Gillette’s main target market.* Its iconic tagline is “The Best a Man Can Get.” Given that our family’s dog knew better than to bite the hand that fed him, it’s hard to imagine why one of the world’s biggest brands would want to risk ‘cutting the faces it shaves,’ especially when already on the ropes in a fight against Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club.

One instance of bullying or one case of sexual harassment is one too many. As such, Gillette can be commended for taking a stand against those injustices and for suggesting that others do the same. However, the company should have known much better than to unfairly throw its entire target market under the bus with broadly generalized talk of “toxic masculinity.” It’s wrong to degrade others in any way, including by negatively stereotyping, which makes Gillette guilty of “Mindless Marketing.”

*An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Gillette does not make products for women.

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

Killer TV

11/2/2018

25 Comments

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

"In the future everybody will be world-famous for fifteen minutes." Social media has made Andy Warhol’s words at a 1968 Stockholm art exhibit more prophetic than ever. Notoriety for all seems nice, until we remember that despicable acts like mass murder also gain fame for those who do them. Avoiding identification of killers may be impossible, but should television shows capitalize on their criminality?

A week ago, America suffered yet another incident of mass murder. This time the tragedy took place in Pittsburgh, where a gunman entered the Tree of Life Synagogue and took the lives of 11 people, while also wounding several others.

Just a day after the shooting, the killer’s name, which I won’t mention here, was already approaching 30 million hits in a Google search, and detailed background information about him filled articles including ones in the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post. That’s already much media exposure for a murderer, but his ‘15 minutes of fame’ is just beginning.

In the days and weeks to come, many more details of the massacre will surface, and analysts will paint a clearer picture of who the gunman was and what caused him to act. However, even those news accounts probably won’t end the perpetrator’s publicity. It’s very likely that the killer will eventually become the focus of at least one made-for-television documentary.

Why does such programming seem so certain? At least three networks now have television series dedicated to detailing the actions and lives of well-known murderers:

Netflix’s I am a Killer features death row inmates giving firsthand accounts of their crimes.

CNN’s How it Really Happened describes “some of the most notorious crimes, mysteries, trials, and celebrity tragedies of our time.”
Oxygen’s It Takes a Killer examines “the world's most notorious murders and takes you inside the minds of the killers.”

In fact, Oxygen has much more than one TV show focused on killers. Oxygen Media, which is part of NBC-Universal, describes itself as “a multiplatform crime destination brand for women” that is in over 77 million homes. The network also airs a show called Method of a Serial Killer, and it has a webpage titled “Martinis and Murder. In other words, whether on TV or online, Oxygen is all crime, all the time.

You may be thinking, “Television based on crime, even murder, isn’t anything new.” That’s true; however, the newer genre of crime TV is different than past TV series. For instance, writers scripted the crime in classic shows like Columbo, Matlock, and Murder She Wrote, i.e., the programs weren’t based on real murders. Furthermore, the focus was on solving the crime not on the gruesome act itself or on the life-story of the person who did it.

On the other hand, shows like America’s Most Wanted and The Hunt with John Walsh did feature the crimes of real killers, but the reason was to gain the public’s help in finding the fugitives so they could be brought to justice. These shows gave enough information about the murderers to facilitate their capture; they certainly didn’t glamorize the killers.

Of course, it’s unlikely that the creators of I am a Killer or any of the other new shows have an agenda to idolize murderers. The producers probably just want to satisfy viewer desires, and unfortunately many people have an appetite for information about killers.

For instance, just two days after the recent tragedy in Pittsburgh, a Google search of “synagogue shooting” produced 19.9 million hits, while a similar search of “synagogue shooter” yielded 82.7 million—over four times more.

So, why not give people what they want? If TV viewers are fascinated by murderers’ methods and bios, what’s wrong with letting them watch those things? Actually, when it comes to murder, there are several reasons why it's best not to give consumers what they want, but rather to give society what it needs.

First, it’s important to recognize that unlike America’s Most Wanted, TV series like I am a Killer do little to improve anyone’s safety. The serial killers the latter show highlights are already behind bars and no longer a threat, whereas those in the former were still on the lam and needed to be caught.

One might argue that I am a Killer could help others identify unbalanced individuals and perhaps prevent future slayings, but the program seems just as likely to motivate people on the cusp of violence to act out their hostilities, partly because of the recognition they will get. Fame could very well be an extra incentive for them to kill.

Consistent with that thought, it’s notable that networks have long-since stopped broadcasting people who trespass on the field or court during sporting events. Even though many TV viewers are probably curious and would like to see the spectacles, the live shows’ producers quickly select other camera shots, as announcers divert attention from the unseen disruption. The reason: Networks don’t want to give the interlopers the undeserved fame they seek or encourage others to follow suit.

Second and closely related to the first point, unstable individuals might see a show like I am a Killer as a kind of ‘how-to guide’ for committing murder. True-crime programs often recount killers’ tactics in considerable detail. Most people watch these exposés with unsettled interest—like a roadside car accident from which we cannot avert our gaze. Potential killers, however, might pick up tips and envision how they could use them on specific people. Needless to say, educating for mass murder is not a desirable thing.

Third, and perhaps most important, shows like I am a Killer demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to murder victims’ loved ones. A few years ago, I was scrolling through TV channels, when a documentary about the Unabomber caught my attention. I watched for 30 minutes or so with uneasy interest. Now I ask myself, “How would I feel about that show if the terrorist's bombs had killed one of my family members or friends?”

I probably wouldn’t want to see his image anywhere, let alone watch him receive hours of network television exposure. For many people, the Unabomber is an unseemly fascination, but for those impacted by his violent acts, his likeness is likely a painful reminder of how their loved ones were lost.

It’s bitter irony that the perpetrators of mass murder tend to receive inordinate media attention while their victims are often barely acknowledged as individuals; rather, their identities are lumped together in the massacre’s death toll, e.g. “11 Killed.” TV series that focus on real killers perpetuate that injustice, perhaps even incentivizing and encouraging more murder. Such true-crime shows are guilty of “Single-Minded Marketing.”