Category: + Decency

Tinder-garten

9/9/2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Do Whatever Makes You Comfortable”

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Comments

Virtue or Vice?

8/25/2017

2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

Anything for Income?

8/4/2017

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comment

Making Pirates Prettier

7/28/2017

4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Comments

Mean Tweets Encourage Bad Behavior

6/29/2017

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Carl's Jr. Says Goodbye to Sex

5/19/2017

1 Comment

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

Some things in life are certain: death, taxes, and super-sexualized ads from Carl’s Jr. Surprisingly, one of the three is changing, and it’s not death or taxes. Yes, Carl’s Jr. has finally decided to put an end to erotica and curtail its notoriously risqué commercials.

If you haven’t experienced firsthand the chain that claims to be “the Pioneer of the Great American Burger,” you might be familiar with its sister brand, Hardee's, or you may have seen one of the many Carl’s Jr. ads that have aired nationally. More than burgers, Carl’s Jr. has become known for very sexually provocative TV commercials that show significant skin of young, attractive women, and little food.

Although it seems like the ads have been airing forever, Carl’s Jr.’s foray into promotional profanity began in 2005 with a 60-second spot that featured Paris Hilton in an extremely revealing bathing suit, washing a Bentley, while taking a brief bite out of a spicy barbecue burger. Over the next twelve years, dozens of other women reprised the same stereotypical role of sex object in a variety of settings, such as a volleyball court on the U.S.–Mexico border, a farm, and a football stadium. While some of the women were celebrities (e.g., Kate Upton, Heidi Klum, and Kim Kardashian), others were less famous women put in the same sorts of compromising positions.

As recently as this past fall, Carl’s Jr. was still airing sexually explicit ads. One of the last spots was for its Bacon 3-Way Burger, which featured three, similar-looking, bikini-clad, blond models, seductively cooking and feeding each other bacon. Meanwhile, background music set a very lascivious tone, including super-suggestive lyrics: ‘’Hey, girls whatcha doin’ this weekend? We should stay in and have us a threesome.”

Then, out of the blue, Carl’s Jr. did an about-face: no more sex in ads. When a friend of mine first told me of the change, I couldn’t believe it. I clicked on the link he sent me to a new 3-minute Carl’s Jr. commercial that presents a fictionalized reason for the reversal. To summarize the supposed story, Carl Hardee Sr. returns to the business, cleans up Carl Jr.’s philandering, and resumes control of the business with a back-to-basics focus.

Even after watching this spot, I was still incredulous, thinking that the new Carl’s Jr. promotion was probably just a ploy. However, I’ve since done more digging and found it’s true: The company has decided to stop using sexually explicit ads and to start emphasizing its products. The change is certainly a welcome one, but it also left me wondering ‘why'? More specifically, what caused Carl’s Jr. to make such a drastic course-correction?

I hoped to hear that the restaurant chain had realized the error of its ways—that it now understood the need to respect women rather than objectify them and that it no longer wanted to lead its largely young male target market into self-destructive and relationship-wrecking lust. Unfortunately, however, the motives for the change appear to be more self-seeking than other-oriented.

A recent Washington Post article shared excerpts of an interview with Jason Norcross, executive creative director and partner in 72andSunny, the agency responsible for Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s advertising over the past eight years. In the interview, Norcross explained, “It was time to change. Those [sexually-charged] ads just weren’t driving business as they once did.” Norcross added that the chain, which had become better known for its advertising than for its food, needed to compete more effectively against companies like Shake Shack and Habit Burger Grill.

Carl’s Jr. and its ad agency can be commended for making a data-driven, results-minded business decision. Organizations need to consider relevant consumer behavior and competitive forces, then act strategically in order to stay afloat; otherwise, there are no products for customers or jobs for employees.

What’s disheartening, however, is that the company hasn’t shown any regret for its past, longstanding and destructive indiscretions. Yes, the fictionalized return of Carl Hardee Sr. is somewhat redemptive, but the ad’s humor (e.g., “then that lady got in there and her clothes flew off”) makes light of a truly reprehensible, twelve-year run of dehumanizing women and misguiding men.

What’s worse, there’s no indication, from Norcross’s comments or from the new commercial, that Carl’s Jr. would refuse to return to its prior salacious promotion if it appeared at some point that sex could again be used to sell hamburgers. If/when racy ads once more become effective in “driving business,” it looks like Carl’s Jr. would be back on board with super-sexed ads.

It’s good that the airwaves and other advertising spaces will be free of smutty spots from Carl’s Jr. for the foreseeable future and that there will be a proper focus on product, which may help the chain regain market share. It would be even better if the company had articulated genuine and serious support for societal values like decency and respect. It’s a tough call, but in lieu of such a commitment, Carl’s Jr. current strategy stays in the category 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!

1 Comment

Dress Codes for Customers

3/31/2017

3 Comments

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

United Airlines recently created a flap when it refused two young women entry onto a flight because they were wearing leggings. Not surprising, social media’s response was swift and severe: Many decried the airline’s decision, in support of the travelers. Underlying the incident is an interesting ethical question: Should companies be in the business of telling their customers what to wear?

Organizational dress codes are very common. The rules are typically for employees, who companies feel free to restrict since they are paying for the completion of specific tasks. In some cases, workers put themselves and others at risk if they are not properly attired (e.g., food production, firefighter, lifeguard). In most instances, there’s no physical danger, but there’s the risk of violating social norms and creating unproductive environments, for instance, by wearing bathing suits in an office setting.

So, it makes sense for organizations to prescribe, at least to some extent, what their employees wear, but why should firms try to make that decision for their customers? Companies aren’t paying their clients; their customers are paying them! If anything, the nature of the relationship suggests that customers should tell the companies what to do, after all, “the customer is always right.”

So, then, how do restaurants and a variety of other retailers get away with posting signs like “No shoes, no shirts, no service”? If a consumer desires to dine in a state of semi-undress, shouldn’t the restaurant oblige? Likewise, why shouldn’t other businesses show acceptance of each customer’s wardrobe wants?

It’s true, meeting customers’ needs lies at the heart of the marketing concept; however, there are at least two important qualifications for implementing this central tenet of the discipline:

First, as consumers, we don’t always know what’s best for us. In fact, sometimes marketers need to protect us from ourselves, which may mean telling us what to wear. For instance, on Segway tours, few people probably want to wear helmets, but tour operators insist that they do so for the riders’ own protection. In other situations, consumers balk at putting on protective gear like life-vests, safety goggles, and even long sleeves, unless the service provider insists. Thankfully these companies look after our welfare by demanding that we wear what’s best for us, even when we don’t want to.

Second, as individuals, each of us must remember that we’re not the only consumer. In service situations, production and consumption happen concurrently, so our behavior directly impacts the experience of others who are consuming the service at the same time. On an airline flight, then, even though playing music without headphones or wearing a t-shirt with offensive language may be what one person wants, it’s not what the rest of the passengers prefer. It is that collective preference, however, that the airlines must honor, especially if they want to stay airborne.

So was United Airlines right to deny entry to the young women wearing leggings? To continue the story, the two girls weren’t typical customers. They were flying on “buddy passes,” which are special tickets reserved for family and friends of airline employees. With those vouchers come some unique requirements, including that the holders wear more professional-looking attire.

United was, therefore, within its rights to enforce the dress code to which all employees and their guests must agree. However, should United even have such a policy? As I suggested above, organizations need to have influence over what their employees wear. Likewise, it’s prudent to prevent individual consumers from behaving in ways that endanger themselves or that infringe on the rights of others.

But, does wearing leggings do either of those two things? It’s unlikely that any physical harm will come from leggings. The notion of restricting others’ rights might apply in as much as fellow passengers may feel uncomfortable seeing others in clothing that is skin-tight or otherwise revealing. This standard, however, is difficult to discern for much apparel, including leggings, given that other clothing, like a long top, might help create a more modest look.

To finish the story, it wasn’t the young legging-wearing women who vehemently objected to United’s decision, but rather a passenger at another gate who witnessed the exchange, assumed they were ordinary travelers, and tweeted her displeasure. The airline, then, exacerbated the situation by tweeting back a rather terse reply that failed to explain the peculiarities of the situation (i.e., the buddy passes). Consequently, the social media firestorm ensued.

So, misunderstandings and miscommunication were largely to blame for the United leggings debacle. This unfortunate incident, however, shouldn’t become precedent for denying organizations’ influence over what their customers wear. Sometimes companies need to protect us from ourselves and ensure that the exercise of our ‘rights’ doesn’t diminish the consumption experience of others. In such situations, enforcing a customer dress code can be “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!

3 Comments

Making Sport of Men Too

3/4/2017

9 Comments

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

In the history of Mindful Marketing, it’s rare for the blog to treat the same topic twice, especially in consecutive posts. However, given that last week’s discussion of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition struck an especially deep nerve and because there’s more to be said about the images’ impact on men, this week’s Mindful Matters is a sequel: SI-2 (or, too).

Last weeks’ post argued that although Sport Illustrated’s claim of inclusiveness seemed noble on the surface, deeper analysis reveals harmful indecency. The magazine appears to embrace diversity by including women of various shapes, sizes, ages, and skin colors; however, that inclusiveness really isn’t female-friendly when one sees how women are portrayed in the annual edition.

“Swimsuit” is somewhat of a misnomer, as many models sport only half a bathing suit, and some wear nothing but body paint. Furthermore, the poses of many of the women are extremely erotic and clearly aimed at arousal. Such prominent media portrayals of women as sex objects perpetuates a harmful stereotype, undermining the personhood of all women and making it less likely that their male counterparts will consider them equals.

Of course, Sports Illustrated will dispute that claim, but how might the magazine deny evidence that it also is doing a great disservice to its main consumers—men? More specifically, there’s good reason to believe that through its swimsuit issue, SI encourages a very destructive form of addiction.

According to Echo Media, Sports Illustrated is “the most well-known name in sports media.” The magazine has an average weekly circulation of over 3.1 million. The mean age of its readers is 37, their average income is $60,913, and 77% of the audience is male.

Given that over three-quarters of Sports Illustrated’s target market has no practical interest in women’s bathing suits, and that such skimpy suits have virtually nothing to do with sports, why does the magazine even produce such an issue? Of course, it’s not the bathing suits that SI’s predominantly young, male target market desires but the near-naked women wearing them. These images, which in many cases appear pornographic, can easily become an obsession.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) defines addiction as “a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry . . . characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response.”

Of course, people can become addicted to substances like nicotine and alcohol, but is pornography in that same category? WebMD describes the debate as to whether pornography use represents compulsive behavior or actual addiction. This distinction seems irrelevant, however, when one considers that neither type of behavior is edifying and that Psychology Today uses “compulsive” to describe addictive behavior:

“Addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (e.g., gambling, sex, shopping) that can be pleasurable but the continuation of which becomes compulsive [emphasis added] and interferes with ordinary responsibilities and concerns, such as work, relationships, or health. People who have developed an addiction may not be aware that their behavior is out of control and causing problems for themselves and others.”

The bottom-line is that pornography use, once started, proves difficult to stop and is often destructive to both the user and those around him. Addiction.com reports that those addicted to pornography routinely spend 11 hours a week or more searching for and viewing pornographic material and that sometimes that preoccupation exceeds 30 hours a week. That expenditure of time alone can cost users’ their jobs and relationships.

It’s not just lost time, however, that makes pornography so destructive. Users often experience a variety of other negative effects such as feelings of guilt and shame, anger and hostility when confronted, lack of control over their own lives, emotional distance from others, and reduced intimacy in relationships.

By now you might be thinking: “But, Sports Illustrated only puts out its swimsuit issue once year. How can such infrequent exposure be blamed for addiction?” Any addictive behavior starts somewhere—the first drink, the first puff. What’s more, the magazine provides much more than one image; it presents dozens of pornographic pictures that are easy for users to consume continually through the hardcopy issue delivered directly to their home or through the SI swimsuit website, which doesn’t even require a login.

A final question all should be asking is “Why?” Why would any organization want to place its key target market in such a vulnerable position? To be honest, it’s hard for me to understand Sport Illustrated’s thinking. A good guess is that the swimsuit issue is an especially big seller for the firm (i.e., a significant income source) and that the special edition serves as a subscription hook (i.e., individuals want that issue, so they order the entire year).

Given the longevity alone of the SI swimsuit issue (53 years), it’s likely that the special edition is creating value for Sports Illustrated, in addition to perverse pleasure for those who “read” it. That gratification is short-lived and superficial, however, when one considers the destructive long-term impact the indecency has on its users and many others. Once again, Sports Illustrated can be seen as practicing “Singe-Minded Marketing."

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

9 Comments

Making Sport of More Women

2/24/2017

8 Comments

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

Inclusion is a good thing. People shouldn’t be bypassed for jobs, kept out of college, or otherwise be excluded just because of their race, gender, etc. However, it’s also wrong to include people when doing so harms them and others. Why, then, are many celebrating Sports Illustrated’s new inclusiveness, which hurts the very women it pretends to promote?

For the past 53 years, the iconic athletics magazine has published a special issue dedicated to “swimsuits.” More accurately, the annual edition has literally exposed supermodels who, in minimal attire, have struck sexy poses on sandy beaches and in a variety of other seductive settings.

Some have rightly wondered how such images even represent sport: What exactly is the game? Wherein lies the competition? Nevertheless, the annual spectacle of skin has continued, probably because the magazine’s largely male target market also enjoys sexual stimulation.

Surprisingly this year, Sports Illustrated has altered its strategy. Rather than limiting layouts to the stereotypically beautiful (e.g., young and slim), the magazine has adopted a more inclusive approach. The newest issue embraces women who vary much more in shape and size, as well as age.

One of the women featured is “plus-size” model Hunter McGrady, who some are calling Sports Illustrated’s “curviest model ever.” The issue also includes veteran super model Christie Brinkley, a very young-looking 63. In addition, tennis star Serena Williams makes an appearance, adding both physical and racial diversity.

Many have commended Sports Illustrated’s efforts to dispel stereotypes. In an era of rampant body-shaming, it’s refreshing to see a popular periodical actively support a broader standard of beauty. Such compliments would be well-deserved, if Sports Illustrated portrayed women in ways that preserved their personhood. Unfortunately, however, the magazine seems determined to blur the lines between popular press and pornography.

In many shots, models wear very little or nothing at all, which is ironic since the issue bills itself as the “swimsuit edition.” Several of the women go topless, barely concealing their breasts with their hands or other creative coverings. For her photos, McGrady wore nothing at all, save a layer of body paint. She was, in her own words, “100% naked.”

In addition, the positions in which many of the women pose appear aimed at erotica. One shot of Hailey Clauson shows her in a see-through top, lying on her back, on an animal skin, with legs spread open toward the camera. Another has her stretched-out, stomach-down, on a beach, her buttocks bare as she pulls at the bikini bottom wrapped around her ankles.

These images aren’t unusual; they’re typical of the shots Sports Illustrated selects, most of which oversexualize and objectify women. The magazine might argue that it’s celebrating beauty and the female form, but that pretense is as much a perversion as the pictures themselves.

Realistically, most men who buy the magazine or view the photos online aren’t admiring women as whole persons (body, mind, and spirit); rather, they’re ogling them as sex objects (breasts, legs, and bottoms). Given the great personal and social costs of pornography and other sexual addition, SI is not doing these men or anyone else a favor.

Equally concerning are the damaging perceptions of women that these pictures promote. Reducing women to body parts undermines their personhood, intellect, and abilities. It’s hard to think of others as colleagues worthy of equal pay and promotions when they’re simply seen as a sex objects.

So, is Sports Illustrated’s new inclusiveness benefiting women who are bigger, older, or otherwise more diverse? Absolutely not. The swimsuit issue is now just sexually objectifying a wider range of women—doing to them the same thing it has done to a smaller sample for decades. However, this oversexualizing of women of all shapes and sizes is even more troubling. Framing certain types of women as sex objects was bad enough; seeing all women through a purely sexual lens further democratizes the dehumanization and promises even more widespread gender inequality.

At a time when many people rightly reject locker room talk and take stands for the fair treatment of women, it’s amazing that Sports Illustrated’s popular press flesh-peddling endures unscathed. More people should be concerned about the impact such pervasive images have on both sexes. Inclusion is generally good, but equal exploitation makes 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!

8 Comments

A Dirty Mr. Clean

2/4/2017

3 Comments

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

Falcon fans watching Super Bowl LI wished they’d never seen some things, like the incredible catch by Patriots receiver Julian Edelman and the winning touchdown run by James White. Some other viewers also saw something they wish they’d never seen: a super sensual ad featuring a sexed-up Mr. Clean.

The latest Super Bowl contained many memorable commercials, but the Mr. Clean spot may be the most difficult to forget. In the ad, a wanton woman imagines an unusually buff animated spokesman strutting about her home in a skin-tight white t-shirt and form-fitting pants. Carefully cropped camera shots capture the brand icon flexing his biceps and swaying his hips to the sound of a sexy R & B song with the lyrics “Got what you want, got what you need. Be your dreamboat be your fantasy. I'll be your ecstasy.”

Throughout the ad, the actress leers lustfully and dances suggestively with the cartoon character, who gives new meaning to the term “all-purpose cleaner.” Then suddenly she comes back to reality when her husband/partner emerges from the animation asking, “Sara, Sara? Clean enough?” By that time her libido has gotten the best of her and she tackles him over the back of the couch in a lip-locked embrace.

Like the spot itself, on-line reaction to the ad has been very ‘animated.’ On YouTube, one reviewer feigned worry, “I have no doubt my girl will leave me for Mr. Clean,” while another exclaimed, “that moment where you actually want to watch an ad.” Overall, reaction to the promotion was positive: So far, almost 28,000 YouTube viewers have given it a thumbs up, and only about 3,100 have voted it down.

It’s hard to say whether the ad will increase sales of the cleaning solution, but there is potential. Unlike many other Super Bowl spots that left us asking “What was that for?”, the Mr. Clean commercial was unmistakably tied to cleaning, which was a step in the right direction. A shopper in a grocery store, scanning the shelves for cleaning supplies, might at least think, “Mr. Clean, I’ve heard of that.”

So, if the majority of people like the Mr. Clean commercial, and there’s potential that the ad will increase sales, Procter & Gamble (parent of the brand) must have made a good creative decision, right? Not so fast.

First, it will be interesting to see the long-term impact that a sexy Mr. Clean has on the brand. P&G is a diverse corporation whose holdings include the likes of Bounty, Charmin, Crest, Dawn, Luvs, Oral-B, Pampers, Swiffer, Tide, and Vicks. Other than a couple of unusual exceptions like Old Spice, which targets young males, most P&G brands are wholesome and family-oriented—an image that the new Mr. Clean doesn’t uphold. P&G as a whole is protected, however, because it doesn’t place everything under the same corporate label, like Apple and Nike do. Instead, P&G uses individual branding, which helps separate people’s perceptions of each P&G product.

In any case, once a company uses sex to sell, it’s hard to reestablish a wholesome image—just ask GoDaddy, which several years later is still remembered for its series of sexually explicit Super Bowl ads. More specifically, will we ever be able to think of the Mr. Clean character the same way again? He’s gone from being an unemotional symbol of practical cleaning strength to a sexy ‘player’ who will potentially put the moves on any woman he desires.

Such sexualized branding is not family-friendly. Although, children aren’t the target market for cleaning supplies, there are spillover effects, especially when the advertising occurs in widely-viewed broadcasts, like the Super Bowl. Also, the ad in question ironically inferred that women like men who clean, but it’s unlikely that most men will be captivated by Mr. Clean’s new image. At least I’m not, and I’m a man who cleans.

Also not family-friendly is the ad’s promotion of unhealthy sexual fantasies. It’s always dangerous to substitute desire for a husband or wife with someone or something else. “But wait a minute,” you may be thinking, “He’s just a cartoon. It’s supposed to be funny.” That’s true, yet there’s an anatomical realism and life-likeness to this Mr. Clean that makes the lusting much more legitimate than if it were for, say, the Michelin Man.

Similarly, the ad tries to sneak-in sex by having a woman ogle a man. More people would likely be put-off if the roles were reversed and it were a man mentally undressing a woman. The act of sexual objectification should be offensive no matter who’s doing it. Yes, it can seem kind of funny when women objectify men (e.g., “Look at that set of guns”), because it usually doesn’t happen that way. However, the acceptance of such female-male objectification desensitizes people to all forms of sexual objectification, and makes the more common male-female kind seem okay.

A final irony involves the perceptual disconnect between a product that aims to make things clean, and a spokes-character that acts ‘dirty.’ Granted, his actions aren’t dirty in a grease and grime sense, but they’re still easily perceived as impure and adulterated. That’s close enough to being a direct contradiction that most brands wouldn’t want to risk the association.

As mentioned above, this Mr. Clean commercial might help stimulate short-term sales. It’s doubtful, however, that the sexualization of the animated character will produce long-term benefits for the brand, even as it puts a stain on society. For these reasons, sexy Mr. Clean is a case of “Mindless Marketing.”