Category: + Decency

Should the FCC Have Thrown a Flag?

2/7/2020

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

30 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!

30 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.”

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

25 Comments

Could Cannabis and Coca-Cola be the Real Thing?

10/5/2018

15 Comments

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

Over its 130+ year history, Coca-Cola has created some of the most memorable product taglines: Enjoy Thirst (1923), Ice Cold Sunshine (1932), It’s the Real Thing (1969), I’d like to Buy the World a Coke (1971), Coke Adds Life (1976), Have a Coke and a Smile (1979), Can’t Beat the Feeling (1988), and Open Happiness (2009). Now that the world’s largest beverage maker is considering drinks infused with marijuana, maybe a new tagline is coming: Have a Coke and Some Cannabis.

A few weeks ago, news sources including Reuters and BNN Bloomberg reported that the Coca-Cola Company was in talks to develop beverages infused with cannabis. The alleged partner is Vancouver-based Aurora Cannabis Inc., Canada’s third biggest producer of weed, which has a market cap of $9.365 billion.

How can Coca-Cola, one of the world’s most respected companies, the parent of several family-friendly beverage brands, and the creator of those loveable polar bears, enter the market for a drug that is illegal in the vast majority of U.S. states and most countries in the world? Perhaps desperate times call for desperate measures.

Coca-Cola is feeling the heat from increased beverage industry competition coupled with fizzling consumer demand for sugary sodas, which represent several of the company’s hallmark brands. Such pressures have led the firm to diversify into healthier drinks over the last decade or two, and most recently the company announced the purchase of UK-based Costa Coffee for $5.1 billion.

True, there is such a thing as a caffeine high, but there’s a big difference between a cup of joe and a bag of weed—so I’m told; I’m not a coffee-drinker and I have no experience with marijuana, just to be clear. However, that lack of firsthand knowledge didn’t stop me from writing a Mindful Matters blog post a couple of years ago that poo-pooed a gym combining workouts with weed. I’ve since done more reading about cannabis, as well as Coca-Cola’s potential use of it, and what I’ve learned has been surprising.

Most of us have heard of the psychoactive, or mind-altering, effects that marijuana can have on users, which include a relaxed sense of well-being and an altered sense of time, as well as anxiety, fear, and hallucinations. Those potentially dangerous consequences stem from a specific component of the drug called tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

However, cannabis has another component, a medicinal one called cannabidiol, or CBD, that is not intoxicating and doesn’t make people high. Also, the National Institute on Drug Abuse says that CBD, which can be safely extracted from cannabis, does not appear to be addictive. Instead, there is evidence that CBD lessens muscle inflammation, decreases pain, and reduces cramping.

What’s the point of this science-speak? The difference between THC and CBD matters to Coca-Cola because its potential new product uses the latter. The company is not contemplating some kind of liquid reefer or ecstasy juice. If the firm does partner to produce a cannabis-infused beverage, it will likely be in the ‘recovery drink’ category, offering the muscle-mending benefits mentioned above. Think Powerade with a medicinal punch.

Still, isn’t it crazy for a renowned company like Coca-Cola to risk its reputation by connecting itself to cannabis? It’s not foolish for a few reasons. First, there is increasing recognition and acceptance of the medicinal form of the drug. U.S. states and other countries continue to amend their laws to make medical marijuana legal. Also, there are people now taking prescription drugs to manage the muscle symptoms mentioned above, with little effect. The CBD form of cannabis might help them find relief without making them high or risking addiction.

Second, if Coca-Cola moves forward with a cannabis-infused drink, it can safeguard the company’s reputation by individually branding the product. The firm has taken this approach with most of its other products like Minute Maid, Vitaminwater, Fairlife milk, and Sprite. These products have branding that stands on its own and basically just links to the parent company through the fine print on the back of the packages.

Third, Coca-Cola’s consideration of cannabis deserves credence because it’s not the only prominent company exploring such possibilities. At least two other big beverage firms, Molson Coors and Constellation Brands (brewer of Corona beer), are taking serious steps toward cannabis-infused drinks. Furthermore, the market for CBD-based products is expected to reach $2.1 billion by 2020.

When I first heard of Coca-Cola’s meeting with Aurora, my thought was the pairing would produce either Single-Minded or Mindless Marketing. What a difference some focused reading and a few letters (CBD vs. THC) can make. While writing this blog post, my perspective has changed, and it still could evolve. Right now, though, I believe the potential partnership could yield a respectable wellness product that might 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!

15 Comments

Advertising Attacks Domestic Violence

8/24/2018

14 Comments

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

An Ohio State assistant football coach repeatedly beat his wife.

A Colorado man allegedly murdered his pregnant wife and their two daughters.

A week rarely goes by without another disturbing story of domestic violence. In the United States, 20 people are abused by an intimate partner every minute. It’s reasonable to think that such a mass problem requires a mass media solution, but is advertising the answer to decreasing domestic violence?

The United Kingdom’s National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV) thought so. The organization that provides “free, fast and effective legal support to survivors of domestic violence and abuse” enlisted the services of world-renown marketing firm J. Walter Thompson (JWT) to produce an anti-abuse ad campaign that ran in Europe during the recent FIFA World Cup.

The “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign’s target marketing and timing were insightful: Unbeknown to most of us, there is an unfortunate “correlation between domestic abuse and [soccer].” In England, for instance, domestic violence increases by 26% when its national team plays, and if it loses, incidents rise by 38%.

Such alarming statistics encouraged the NCDV and JWT to unleash a jarring counterattack. The ad campaign featured very graphic images of the results of physical abuse, each with a specific soccer team tie-in. For instance, two bandages resembling a Swiss cross barely covered the large gash on a young woman’s bruised right cheek, while the caption read “If Switzerland gets beaten, so will she.”

Another gruesome image was a straight-on shot of the lower third of a young woman’s face, stained and still dripping bright red blood from her nose and lips. The caption read, “If England gets beaten, so will she." Among other media, the ads appeared on Instagram and billboards.

A few years ago, I did a study of shock advertising and found, among other things, that marketers have long used startling words and images to gain attention for everything from clothing to fast food.

Nonprofit organizations seem especially open to employing shock, probably because they find it easier to rationalize it for what are arguably more noble ends, like alleviating hunger and decreasing smoking. It’s not surprising, therefore, that the NCDV campaign was not the first to use shock in the fight against physical abuse. For instance, a few years ago, the Salvation Army of South Africa invoked social media’s famous “black and blue” dress in an ad that showed a woman covered in bruises, with the caption “Why is it so hard to see black and blue?”

Such ads certainly grab attention, but are they effective in accomplishing the creators’ objectives, e.g., decreasing domestic violence? The results I found were mixed: In some instances the target market responded as intended, but in other cases the shock was ineffective or even counterproductive; for instance, it pushed people further from the purpose of the ad because graphic images and language repulsed viewers or overshadowed the ads’ unique selling proposition.

Regular readers of this blog know that effectiveness is only one of the assessments that Mindful Marketers make. The other involves ethics. In terms of shock, even if it works, should advertisers use it to combat domestic violence? Is shocking people the right thing to do?

I don’t know the results of NCDV’s “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign, so I’d like to consider the ads’ efficacy and ethicality by posing four specific questions:

1. Were the ads actually a deterrent? A key assumption of the NCDV ads seemed to be that potential abusers would see close-ups of the blood and gore and resolve not to do that to someone. Maybe that motivation works; I honestly don’t know, but it’s easy to imagine that the gruesome visuals could have the opposite effect, i.e., they set off in people predisposed to such violence a visceral reaction similar to sharks sensing blood in the water.

Whenever marketers develop ads, it’s critical that they understand the target market’s underlying reasons for acting. In the case of domestic violence, maybe it would be more effective to appeal to perpetrators’ fear of arrest, like many drunk driving ads do. Or, perhaps these abusers would be motivated by concern over lower self-esteem (“Don’t be a coward”) or by lost love (“She will leave you”).

2. Did the campaign increase desensitization? Studies have found that the more people are exposed to violence, the more desensitized they become to it. The principle of marginal utility supports these findings: The more we have of something, the less satisfaction we gain from getting one more of that thing.

We should wonder what the impact is of increased shock advertising on all of us. Sixty years ago, a huge bloody billboard would have left most people aghast. Today it takes much more to move us. The scariest part is if shock like that of the NCDV’s ads desensitizes the general public to violence, it’s also desensitizing those who are likely to commit violence against others.

3. Do people deserve to be ambushed? Yes, life is full of surprises, but should someone walking down a city street have to come across a large billboard with a blood-soaked face? Or, should a person innocently surfing the web have to see a close-up of a severely bruised and gashed cheek?

For most people, such graphic images are outside the realm of ordinary life. They should have a say in whether they want to see them or not. It doesn’t seem right for advertisers to confront people with such visuals without fair warning or giving them the ability to opt out.

4. Who else saw the ads? The previous question leads naturally to this final point. Advertising is by definition mass communication, which is inherently hard to control, at least when it uses traditional media. A company can choose a billboard based on a location that the target market frequents, but there’s nothing to stop others outside the target market from being exposed to the same message.

That lack of audience selectivity is inefficient, but the bigger problem pertains to those who could be traumatized by shocking images, namely children. Advertisers also should consider the increasingly large number of people who have been victims of domestic violence. They don’t deserve to be vividly reminded of their experience when walking down a street or browsing online.

Advertising that employs shock, like the “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign, often rationalizes that ‘the ends justify the means.’ That line of thinking is highly questionable. It’s also unclear whether such advertising actually produces net benefits. The NCDV’s ads may have been well-intended, but they were most likely “Mindless Marketing.”

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

14 Comments

Muppets for Mature Audiences

5/30/2018

2 Comments

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

“Sunny Day, sweepin’ the clouds away.
On my way to where the air is sweet.
Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?”

Those famous lyrics remind us of the iconic kids' TV show tune, bringing back images of Big Bird, Elmo, and their furry friends. Such happy childhood memories are about to change, however, as a new Melissa McCarthy movie makes associations we don't expect from Muppets: sex, drugs, and violence.

Coming to theaters August 17, Happytime Murders looks like a cross between The Muppets Take Manhattan and Pulp Fiction. The premise of the movie, which features both humans and puppets, is that the cuddly creatures we adore on TV, lead “depraved, brutal lives” when off-camera. More specifically, McCarthy plays a detective who partners with a puppet to investigate gruesome puppet murders.

Homicide, however, is only one of the evils. The Happytime puppets are adept at a variety of vile acts. In the movie trailer alone, the puppets use extreme profanity, do hardcore drugs, and commit explicit sexual acts that might give an adult porn star pause. For instance, “A puppet in a spiked collar, vaguely resembling an emaciated Fozzie Bear, offers to perform oral sex for 50 cents on the movie’s star, Melissa McCarthy.”

Given the level of vulgarity, could there really be a connection between sweet Sesame Street and hard-boiled Happytime Murders? Yes and no. The Jim Henson Company, firm of Muppet fame, coproduced the movie with STX Entertainment, and Brian Henson, son of the legendary Muppet creator Jim Henson, directed the film.

However, in 2001, the Jim Henson Company sold the Sesame Street character rights to the Sesame Workshop (formerly the Children’s Television Workshop). The organization’s website explains: “Today, The Jim Henson Company provides the characters used on Sesame Street but the characters themselves are owned and run by Sesame Workshop.”

So, Sesame Street has no ownership of the movie, but it shares a unique puppet heritage that leads many people to conflate anything involving Henson puppets with Sesame Street. Happytime Murders further muddles matters by using the tagline “No Sesame. All Street.” For these reasons, Sesame Workshop believes the purity and innocence of the Sesame Street brand is at risk, which has led the organization to take legal action.

On May 24, Sesame Workshop sued STX Entertainment in federal court for unspecified damages, claiming the movie dilutes and defiles its Muppets’ reputations, causing Sesame Street “irreparable harm.” Sesame Workshop president Jeffrey Dunn also wrote a letter to the Jim Henson Co. asking why his organization was not consulted about the project, calling the movie trailer “practically pornographic.”

Lisa Henson, daughter of Jim, apologized to Dunn, claiming that she and brother Brian prevented STX from making the movie’s characters resemble other Muppets, but they couldn’t stop the firm from promoting the film as it wanted.

STX, was more resolute in its own defense, arguing that no one could reasonably confuse its adult-oriented characters with those of Sesame Street. Furthermore, STX lawyer David Halberstadter “reminded the humans behind Sesame Street that they have a long history of parodying other people’s intellectual property, including ‘Twin Beaks,’ ‘A’s Anatomy,’ and ‘Orange is the New Snack.’”

Happytime Murders is rated ‘R,’ which means only those 18 and older can see the film, unless they are accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Unfortunately, however, some adults have no qualms about taking kids to R-rated movies. Given the film’s promotional reference to Sesame Street and the fact that most of the movie’s actors are puppets, such adult indiscretion is likely to increase.

Children are naturally drawn to colorful and creative characters, which is a main reason for the great success of kids' shows ranging from Barney to Teletubbies. Meanwhile, marketers of products intended for adults have at times been told to stop using cartoonish characters, such as R.J. Reynold’s Joe Camel, because they make harmful things like cigarettes more appealing to children.

Kid-appeal is certainly a key concern for Happytime Murders, but it’s only one of the picture’s problems. Should any adult see a film, let alone a comedy, full of so much gratuitous violence, sex, and profanity? Historical accuracy and artistic integrity make compelling cases for strong language in Saving Private Ryan and graphic violence in Schindler’s List, but what’s the redeeming value of seeing puppets snort drugs through licorice straws, witnessing their heads blown off by shotgun blasts, or watching one Muppet ejaculate all over a conference room?

Maybe it’s ‘entertainment,’ but at what social cost? At a time when our nation faces serious problems related to school shootings, opioid overdoses, and the hookup culture, Happytime Murders makes light of gun violence, illegal drug use, and casual sex. According to the film’s producers, they’re all a joke.

The Jim Henson Company has a rich history of educating and entertaining children. Melissa McCarthy is a talented actress and comedian. It’s sad to see those brands besmirched. Unfortunately, Happytime Murders scrapes the bottom of the barrel of moral decency. The movie may become a box office hit, but its only award will be for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

Women: No Longer Auto Accessories

3/4/2018

32 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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