Category: + Fairness

Can Google Be Trusted?

11/27/2020

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

Ask people their biggest brand loyalties and they’ll mention names like Apple, Coca-Cola, and Nike. Flying under the radar, however, is a firm whose product most people use far more often. It’s second nature to ‘Google’ any online search, but does a company the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses of anticompetitive practices deserve so much of our trust?

The DOJ recently levied an antitrust lawsuit against Google, “alleging that the online giant engaged in anticompetitive conduct to preserve monopolies in search and search advertising.” Although the lawsuit implies a lack of trust, “The trust in antitrust [actually] refers to a group of businesses that team up or form a monopoly in order to dictate pricing in a particular market.”

Given that Google doesn’t charge people to use its search engine—it’s free for all—it doesn’t make much sense to say that the company colludes with competitors to fix prices.

On the other hand, Google’s inordinately large share of the market for online search, does resemble a monopoly. According to 2017 Net Market Share statistics, Google accounted for 79% of the global search engine market versus just 7.3%, 7%, and 4.9%, respectively, for Bing, Baidu, and Yahoo.

Contrary to what one might think, a monopoly is not necessarily illegal. According to the Sherman Act, it’s fine for a company to hold such a position of prominence, provided that the firm’s “vigorous competition and lower prices [took] sales from its less efficient competitors.” It’s kind of like saying, ‘It’s no crime to be rich, if you made your money honestly.’

Google’s rise to the top appeared to be upright. In 1995, with the Internet in its infancy, Larry Page and Sergey Brin conceived the search engine from their Stanford University dorm rooms. Then, as companies and consumers increasingly spent time online, the firm kept improving its product and riding the wave of web success. Google now has annual revenues of $166 billion and a market cap of $1.20 trillion.

So, if Google’s free product precludes price-fixing and its rise was above reproach, how has the search engine giant run afoul of the law? It has to do with what the company has purportedly done to maintain its preeminent position.

According to the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit, Google is guilty of acting anticompetitively in search and search advertising in order to “preserve” its monopolies in those arenas. In other words, it’s not what the company did to get to the top, it’s what the firm does to stay there.

It’s important here to reiterate that so far Google has not been found guilty of wrongdoing, it’s only been charged. That said, why would a company that achieved such success honestly, need to resort to maleficence to maintain its status?

As hard as it is to come by success, staying successful can be even harder, for reasons like these:

Success breeds competitors. When people see someone being successful at something, a natural tendency is to think, “I can do that.”
Everyone guns for the leader. In sports, subpar teams often play great games when they have an opportunity to beat the defending champion.
Bigger businesses have more to manage. Even a small company is not easy to run. As an organization grows, so do the number and size of its challenges
Good ideas are hard to find. It’s difficult to maintain a continual flow of winning ideas.
Success is addicting. Once you get a taste of success, it’s hard to give it up.

Of course, none of these reasons would absolve Google of anticompetitive practices. If it’s doing what the DOJ alleges, Google is not only breaking the law, it also may be hurting consumers like you and me in more than one way:

Costing us money: According to the DOJ, enforcement of antitrust laws like the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act “saves consumers millions and even billions of dollars a year.” It’s basic economics: Greater supply means lower prices.

Reducing quality: The FTC also maintains that monopolies impinge on product quality. When customers have no other options, there are fewer incentives for monopolizing organizations to make sure their offerings are great.

In the abstract, these two reasons definitely resonate. The issue, though, is that my positive experience with Google makes it hard for me to pin either of the problems on the company.

Just in writing this piece, I used Google at least a dozen times to search the Web for articles and statistics that I’ve hyperlinked throughout the article. Those searches are in addition to a dozen more Google searches I do each day for work and personal needs. All these searches cost me nothing and I am almost always very happy with the results. So, why isn’t a bigger, more powerful Google better?

Perhaps the biggest downside of monopolies is that they can impede innovation. Companies with monopoly power can lose incentive to innovate, while standing in the way of other firms that would like to offer us cutting-edge products and breakthrough services.

In a monopoly-managed industry, what’s available may seem good because we’re unaware of what could be, i.e., we don’t know what we’re missing.

What if Microsoft had short-circuited the rise of Apple or if big automakers had put the brakes on Tesla? The world wouldn’t be enjoying the innovative products that these firms and other one-time startups have brought to market. I wouldn’t be typing on my MacBook right now.

Competition is good for consumers. It’s also good for the firms competing, as it encourages them to work more efficiently and effectively, which brings out their best: “Iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Every individual and organization should want to do/be their best and, therefore, should welcome competition.

It will be up to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to determine whether Google has been “unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets.” However, if the Court does uphold the charges, the company also could be cited for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Moving Aside To Let Consumers Drive

10/17/2020

43 Comments

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

It was a frightening experience. After driving around the parking lot for a few hours, we turned onto the main road, which I had been on many times before, but now 40 mph seemed like 80, and my whole body tensed as cars whizzed by in the opposite direction. I was afraid because I was a passenger, teaching one of our children to drive. I wasn’t in control of the car, they were. I wonder if Ocean Spray has felt similar fear during its rapid TikTok ride.

In a social-media-driven world, marketers increasingly face a dilemma: Should they keep communication control or slide into the passenger seat and allow someone with no professional experience and little company commitment drive their promotional strategy? That’s the question Ocean Spray has had to answer as a longboard-riding, selfie-stick-toting Idaho potato worker unexpectedly drove the firm into pop culture prominence.

Nathan Apodaca wasn’t well-known before he posted the 25-second TikTok clip of himself skateboarding to work, while lip-syncing to the Fleetwood Mac classic “Dreams,” and sipping from a 64 oz. bottle of Ocean Spray cranberry juice. However, the video went viral, gaining over 46 million views and almost 8 million likes, while also grabbing mainstream media attention from the likes of CNN to NPR.

Meanwhile, the cranberry cooperative from Middleboro, MA must have been asking itself, “What just happened?” and “How do we handle it?”

When you think of food companies with conservative product lines, there aren’t many more staid than Ocean Spray. It’s not Nantucket Nectars or Snapple with their overabundance of very creative drink concoctions. The majority of Ocean Spray’s juices, as well as many of its other products contain cranberries, which seem positioned somewhere between raisins and prunes and probably appeal more to ‘mature’ than to youthful palettes.

Case in point, I’m a member of Gen X whose beverage repertoire happens to be boring—I drink little besides water, but I do have a glass of Ocean Spray Cran-Grape juice every day. All that to say, I suspect much of the company’s revenue comes from other mundane middle-agers-or-olders like me. I doubt those in Ocean Spray’s target market are heavy users of TikTok, which makes the firm’s reaction to its sudden social media fame even more remarkable.

However, Ocean Spray didn’t jump on Apodaca’s longboard immediately; instead, it ‘took a beat’ for over a week, which in social media time can seem like an eternity. Still, positive public reaction suggests that the company’s move was ‘lit’—not sure if I’m using that term correctly.

The firm first did its homework and found that Apodaca wasn’t simply someone aiming for internet fame or a corporate payday. He was a hard-working father, living in a mobile home, whose pickup truck died on the way to his job at the potato factory. Rather than miss work, Apodaca pulled the skateboard from his truck, jumped on and, with hydration in hand, began cruising toward the plant. Videoing himself was a spontaneous thought, brought on by the “Dreams” tune and a desire to capture the uniquely ‘chill’ moment.

Ocean Spray, in turn, captured the hearts of the nation and beyond by gifting the stunned Apodaca a new cranberry red Nissan pickup truck, packed with a generous cache of the company’s products.

Meanwhile, TikTok parodies have proliferated. Those grabbing a bottle of Ocean Spray and skateboarding to the sound of “Dreams” have included legendary Fleetwood Mac drummer Mick Fleetwood, Ocean Spray CEO Tom Hayes, and lieutenant governor of Montana and governor candidate Mike Cooney.

From surprising Apodaca with a new truck to filming their CEO’s own TikTok tribute, it seems like Ocean Spray did everything right, but one could also argue that the company was living dangerously by jumping on the TikTok longboard, for three reasons:

1. Skateboarding Spills: From the first time I saw Apodaca’s TikTok, I wondered about the safety. Since my own skateboarding experience was very limited and decades ago, I ‘let it ride,’ until I had an opportunity to ask those in a college class their opinions.

One student, Jordan, said he uses an E-skate (electric skateboard) to commute to campus. While he acknowledged the freedom that some enjoy from riding unencumbered, he was quick to call Apodaca’s approach “ill-advised” because of: multiple distractions (juice, music, camera), no protective equipment, and proximity to fast-moving traffic. He also showed a nasty scrape he sustained from a recent spill, even while wearing a helmet and reinforced leather gloves.

But, why should Ocean Spray worry about any such accidents? It would be tragic to read the headline: “Car Kills Teen Doing Ocean Spray TikTok Parody.” Yes, people will mimic Apodaca regardless what Ocean Spray does, but the company’s support of the viral celeb and its own CEO's imitation could be construed as support for the act and its disregard for danger.

2. Unknown Endorser: Most of the time, famous spokespeople work out well for their sponsors, largely because celebrities are ‘known commodities’ who have been living in the public spotlight for years. Even then, though, there are times when a celebrity’s poor choices sour the promotional partnership, e.g., Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte in Brazil.

When an ordinary person suddenly rises from obscurity to become the face of a brand, there is increased risk related to an unknown history and uncertainty how he/she might act going forward, both of which could lead to another very undesirable headline, e.g., “BREAKING NEWS: Ocean Spray Spokesman Apodaca . . .”

3. Brand Confusion: In keeping with the prior point, brands carefully choose their spokespeople and dozens of other identity-defining elements in order to position themselves precisely where they’d like to be in consumers’ minds relative to the competition. Allowing whoever happens to shoot a viral video of themself become the face of one’s brand seems like a pretty nonstrategic approach.

If Ocean Spray wants to move its image in the direction of ‘younger,’ ‘carefree,’ and possibly even ‘irreverent,’ the TikTok tie-in works. If not, embracing the viral video could create some cognitive dissonance when consumers attempt to interpret it in light of the company’s other marketing communication.

However, the three cautions above must be interpreted against the reality that Ocean Spray really had to do something. Not acknowledging the viral video would have made the company seem ungrateful, not to mention completely out of touch.

Even though Ocean Spray didn’t ask for Apodaca’s promotional help, the right thing to do was to reward him for the enormous exposure he created for the brand. When someone shows you kindness, you thank them; and, if you’re a company with the resources of Ocean Spray, you do more.

In deciding how much gratitude ($$$) to show, company management may have wondered whether the Tik Tok-driven sales uptick would last. As parodies focus on other things, the firm’s revenue will relapse, but probably not entirely. Some of its newly-won market share may last, as operant conditioning suggests: At least some people who never had Ocean Spray before shooting their own video probably tried it, liked it, and will buy it again.

Similarly, the entire Tik Tok episode may have the effect of lowering the bottom end of Ocean Spray’s age demographic, which is something almost any brand would like. At some point, every organization must appeal to the next generation; otherwise, it goes to the grave with an ever-aging target market.

Still, were these rewards worth the three risks outlined above? My cautious answer is—Yes.

First, the idea of Ocean Spray implicitly endorsing Apodaca’s somewhat dangerous ride is mitigated by the fact that his truck broke down and he was just trying to get to work. It wasn’t a thrill ride for the sake of social media shares. Plus, company CEO Hayes and others have modeled safer and still-satisfying Tik Tok tributes.

Second, should anything unseemly surface from Apodoca’s past or taint his future brand ambassadorship, Ocean Spray could easily pull the plug on the affiliation. Likewise, knowing Apodaca’s situation and the impromptu circumstances under which the relation was formed, the public probably would give some grace to both the individual and the organization.

Third, most of the people who could potentially experience brand confusion from Ocean Spray’s positioning pivot probably aren’t on Tik Tok anyway. That media/demographic separation combined with what will likely be a relatively short shelf-life for the video, should mean that traditional perceptions of the brand remain largely intact.

I still enjoy the control of being behind the wheel. I don’t mind, though, when someone else drives, as long as I feel safe and I have some input into where we’re going. Marketers increasingly need to know when to slip into the passenger seat, yet continue to influence the way to the destination, all while someone with less promotional experience drives.

Like Ocean Spray, those who can successfully navigate that unique balance are on the road to “Mindful Marketing.”

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

43 Comments

Capri Sun Practices Child’s Play

9/5/2020

31 Comments

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

Have you ever been food pranked? Someone gives you something to eat and “Yech!” it turns out to be much different than you expected—toothpaste inside an Oreo is a classic gag. Kids love to prank each other, but should the maker of one of the world’s most popular kids’ drinks fool its biggest fans?

Capri Sun, internationally-renowned producer of juice pouches, has decided to prank not just a few kids but a big portion of its target market by filling select silver packages with water. The company filmed reactions of several pint-sized punk’d consumers, who were given unmarked pouches and asked to test “a new flavor” of juice. It then edited the outtakes into a few video promotions.

Compared to most food pranks, which often elicit expressions of disgust, the responses to Capri Sun’s ruse were rather subdued. Perplexed young taste testers made comments like, “It’s very plain,” “tastes a little bit bland,” and “it doesn’t have any flavor.”

What made Carpi Sun’s prank poignant is that the company’s juice pouches are familiar to so many. Since its introduction in Germany in 1969, the company has expanded distribution of its drinks to 119 countries. According to its website, “ In 2014, our fans all over the world drank 6 billion pouches of Capri-Sun!”

One significant serving of drink sales have come from the greater Chicago area, where Kraft Heinz acts as distributor and a newly-formed advertising firm, Mischief at No Fixed Address, produced the prank. The campaign’s full scope includes distribution of five million filtered water pouches labeled, “We’re sorry it’s not juice,” to Chicagoland schools for free. Also appearing prominently at the top of each package is “Capri Sun” in 70-point all capital letters.

Given the immense physical, mental, and financial stress the pandemic has placed on kids and their parents, it’s kind of Capri Sun to help schools, where fountains are shut down and children need other ways of getting water. But, will the company’s corporate social responsibility really remedy that problem, and what’s likely to be the long-term impact on the brand?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city of Chicago, not including the greater metropolitan area, has a population of 2.69 million, of which 21.2% are under the age of 18 and 6.5% are younger than five. Those stats suggest that there are nearly 400k school-age children in Chicago (570,280 - 174,850 = 395,430).

Providing all of those children with a drink a day for a week would mean 1,977,150 water pouches. A full month of water would entail a total of 7,908,600 (2.9 million more than Capri Sun’s pledge). Keeping kids hydrated from September through December would require about 31,634,400 pouches.

Of course, no one company should be expected to satisfy so much demand for free. Meeting massive public needs tends to take a team effort—collaboration among the public sector, for-profit companies, and other organizations.

Still, although it may seem cynical or even ungrateful, it’s reasonable to wonder whether the social impact of Capri Sun’s philanthropy is proportional to the promotional benefits the firm may receive: Do a few drinks of water warrant the brand splash in front of hundreds of thousands of captive young consumers?

When a company gives away something significant, it’s fair for its brand to benefit. However, the amount of that benefit should be on par with the amount of social good done. The rationale is analogous to a firm needing to ante up millions of dollars, not thousands, for naming rights to a building or stadium.

It’s hard to know Capri Sun’s costs in producing and distributing five million pouches of filtered water, but an estimate of .10 per packet would put the total cost at $500,000. That’s a significant spend, but not that much for a firm with annual revenues of about a half billion dollars. A few other issues further complicate the equation.

First, Capri Sun’s promotional benefits might be multiplied in that it seeks to put pouches with its name into the hands of the most impressionable of consumers—children. Kids are understandably less discerning of promotional messages than are adults, which is why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prioritizes protecting children.

Second, it seems that there should be some subtraction from the social good Capri Sun portends because of the message emblazoned on the foil pouches: “We’re sorry it’s not juice. [It’s just] Filtered Water.”

Is Capri Sun dissing in front of kids one of the most important substances for human existence? Of course, the company is trying to be funny. There is, however, the unhumorous reality that many children consume far too much sugar, much of it coming from sugary drinks. (1) To its credit, Capri Sun Fruit Punch contains a relatively low 13 grams of sugar. That’s not much compared to some drinks, but it is high compared to water.

Then, there’s an even more intriguing twist . . .

On August 5, the Chicago Sun Times announced major Lori Lightfoot’s decision to close Chicago Public Schools due to worsening coronavirus conditions—the city’s children will be learning online. That news would seem to punch a hole in Capri Sun’s water pouch plans; however, over two weeks later, on August 21, an AdAge editor’s pick article described the campaign with no mention of the district’s pivot away from in-person education.

Maybe AdAge missed the mayor’s announcement, or perhaps Capri Sun has found another way to distribute the water without access to kids in classrooms. Assuming the later, there’s still one more potentially serious flaw in Capri Sun’s ‘Got Juice?’ strategy:

By associating its iconic packaging with a less desirable drinking experience, the company risks leaving a bad taste in the mouth of young, impressionable consumers.

Can you imagine sipping a Starbuck’s coffee and discovering it was only warm water, or biting into a Hershey’s Bar and finding it was sans-sugar? It’s doubtful either company would intentionally give even one consumer such an indelibly unpleasant experience, let alone broadcast the negative reaction for millions of others to see and learn from vicariously.

As suggested at the onset, a large part of Capri Sun’s food prank success was the fact that so many people, including children, recognize the straw-impaled drink packs and associate them with sweet refreshment and other pleasant sensations. Those positive associations can be easily washed away, though, by even one unfavorable brand encounter that one experiences him/herself or sees others endure.

Of course, a natural retort is, “It was just a joke!” That’s true, and the prank itself was kind of funny. However, there are some things that food and drink companies just don’t joke about, a main one being the taste of their products. Any such negative association is too risky.

It’s a little like when Watergate-embroiled president Richard Nixon infamously declared, “I am not a crook.” Regrettably for him, many people forgot the words “I am not” and remembered Nixon and “crook.” Any negative frame is inherently precarious, particularly when it involves food.

Advertising humor can be very effective, and who loves to laugh more than kids? However, although Capri Sun’s water switcheroo may have been well-intended, the campaign threatens to spill much of the brand equity the drink maker has built over fifty-plus years, making “I’m sorry it’s not juice “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

31 Comments

Too Attached to an App?

8/10/2020

22 Comments

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

Of all the dangers facing the United States—natural disasters, terrorism, racism, a global pandemic—who would have thought a social media app would be mentioned among them? China's TikTok has aroused the ire of the Trump administration because of its apparent threat to national security, but is addiction to the app an even greater cause for concern?

For the past year or more, TikTok has been on my radar screen, mainly because I try to keep tabs on what’s trending with the Gen Zs I aim to engage. Last fall, the topic of the hugely popular social media app came up in one of my marketing classes, which inspired me to ask the question: “Should I be on TikTok?” Several students immediately yelled “Yes!” while a seemingly equal number shouted “No!” I wondered if either group had my best interest at heart.

Still not a user, the app gained more of my attention throughout the spring as several of its most popular videos made their way into mainstream media and marketers began talking of TikTok strategies. Meanwhile, accusations of Chinese spying surfaced, and at least one U.S. firm asked its employees to remove TikTok from company mobile devices.

President Trump then threatened to ban TikTok, only to reverse course a few days later when global tech icon Microsoft indicated interest in buying the meteoric app. Most recently, the President signed an executive order that will result in barring TikTok from the U.S. market unless an American company buys the app, which has led parent company ByteDance Ltd. to sue the administration.

Each of these intriguing developments has kept me on the edge of my seat, wondering what will happen next, but no news sparked my interest as much as a blurb in an August 4th email blast from marketing tech guru Shelly Palmer, who stated that “TikTok is already near (or at) the top of the list of the most addictive [emphasis added] social media apps.”

Surveillance by a foreign state has seemed like TikTok’s biggest threat, but is Americans’ addiction to the app an even greater concern?

To answer this question, it’s essential to understand exactly what TikTok is, as well as what it’s so rapidly achieved—some of us above a certain age may need a primer. Steve Wright of Learn Online Video offers a nice overview of the app. He shares a few of its endless stream of 15-second videos, in which their usually young creators often dance and/or lip sync to popular songs. Wright describes the content, which is extremely varied, as “a smorgasbord of [the most] weird, creative, amazing, bizarre videos I’ve ever come across.”

Apparently many find the eclectic selection of “simple, goofy, irreverent” videos appealing. Since its launch in 2017, the app has been downloaded more than a billion times. According to Liv Benger, writing for Medium, “over 682 million people downloaded TikTok in 2019 and [spent] an average of 50 minutes a day” using it.

Those stats certainly suggest rapid growth and near saturation of specific population segments, but do they actually indicate addiction? Most of us know how hard it can be to put down our smartphones or other devices and stop checking email, playing games, texting friends, etc. For some people, those behaviors become compulsive, but do they really rise to the level of addictions?

According to Cornell student Niko Nguyen, the answer is ‘yes.’ In February, The Cornell Daily Sun published an essay in which Nguyen described that the main reason for his difficult decision to delete his TikTok account was that he had found himself “sucked into its addictive grasp.” He went on to explain why he believed TikTok is addictive:

“The app itself is designed to keep us glued to our screens. With most other social media platforms, the majority of content is derived from accounts that you follow. And although you can follow and “friend” a lot of accounts on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat, there’s eventually a point where all the “interesting” content runs dry. With TikTok, that isn’t the case.

Nguyen’s explanation might sound like someone at a buffet who can't stop filling his plate because, “Everything tastes so good.” In that case, we’d probably tell the patron he needs to control his own eating; we wouldn’t blame the restaurant for his overindulgence.

TikTok, however, isn’t the 'typical ‘restaurant.' It uses something that most other apps don’t, at least not in such a sophisticated way. Nguyen alludes to that something, which several others identify directly: artificial intelligence (AI).

Palmer, mentioned near the onset of this piece, is one person who claims AI is at the root of TikTok addiction. He says, “TikTok is a remarkably sophisticated AI model that literally tunes itself to your behaviors with a single goal: addicting you to TikTok.”

Others have further unpacked how AI might accomplish that objective. In a New York Times article, John Herman identified the technology underlying each TikTok user’s very personalized For You page as “an algorithmic feed based on videos you’ve interacted with, or even just watched.”

Unlike other social media in which users have a significant say in the content they receive by virtue of who they friend or follow and what those people post, TikTok’s AI notes what users actually like to watch, regardless who shared it, then sends them more of the same, making TikTok “more machine than man.”

A piece in Fixing Port supported the same assertion: “The TikTok algorithm can be blamed for this [addictiveness] to an extent. The algorithm sees what type of content you are watching (particular uploaders, particular genres, etc.) and then customizes the upcoming content to that liking.”

In The New Yorker, Jia Tolentino detailed her own ‘addiction’ to the AI-driven app:

“I was giving TikTok my attention because it was serving me what would retain my attention, and it could do that because it had been designed to perform algorithmic pyrotechnics that were capable of making a half hour pass before I remembered to look away . . . The algorithm gives us whatever pleases us, and we, in turn, give the algorithm whatever pleases it. As the circle tightens, we become less and less able to separate algorithmic interests from our own.”

In her article on Medium, Benger identified a psychological phenomenon, random reinforcement, that explains more precisely what TikTok users experience: Although not every video provides the same level of reward, like playing a slot machine, the periodic payouts come often enough that users keep pulling the lever/swiping their screen because the next clip could be a real winner.

The way TikTok employs AI does seem to put the app in a different category in terms of possible addiction. Whereas traditional methods of generating engaging content eventually run dry, the app’s AI-based video selection seems to know consumers better than they know themselves, allowing an endless array of just-often-enough, captivating content.

Notwithstanding these authors' insightful analyses of the app, two important and closely-related questions remain that none has appeared to answer:

What exactly is addiction?
Just because something is enjoyable, is it addictive?

Most people would likely easily answer the second question, ‘No,’ as there are many things that are very enjoyable to consume (i.e., eat, use, do) that are probably not ‘addictive,’ for instance: take-out from a favorite restaurant, a round of golf, a concert, ice cream!

Over the years, I’ve often written about potentially addictive products, some of which have included:

In researching to write these and similar pieces, a few things I’ve learned are:

People tend to play fast and loose with the word addiction.
Genuine addictions tend to occur in relatively large percentages of the population, not with just a few people.
There are specific clinical criteria for classifying substances and other things as addictive:

- an overpowering need
- a tendency to increase consumption
- a psychic dependence.

Although it’s common to hear people say things like, “That cake is so good; it’s addictive,” it’s unlikely that any of the clinical characteristics of addiction apply to eating cake. For these reasons, when I wrote the blog posts above, I concluded that numbers 1-4 are often true addictions, while Numbers 5-7, though problematic for certain people, really aren’t.

TikTok, seems to fit best with the second set of products as a non-addiction. That doesn’t mean that the app isn’t a time sink for some, or that it doesn’t present other potential problems. Most people, however, likely can control their use of the app by setting time limits and mustering some will power. Also, as Nguyen showed, it’s not that hard to close one’s TikTok account—it’s certainly much easier than dealing with a drinking problem or stopping smoking.

TikTok appears to provide its target market with inexpensive entertainment while also inspiring creativity and collaboration among users. Although some of us may not understand its appeal and there could be other issues with its content or use, at this point the app should be ‘swiped up’ as "Mindful Marketing."

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

22 Comments

Should People Be Mascots?

7/21/2020

8 Comments

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

After evading public pressure for decades, financial concerns have finally sacked the National Football League’s (NFL) Washington franchise, causing it to change a name that Merriam-Webster defines as “offensive.” While it’s good that Native Americans will no longer be subject to that denigration, a broader question remains: Should any sports team’s mascot be a person?

High school, college, and professional sports are peppered with teams named after people groups. In 2014, USA Today reported that of the 10 most popular high school mascot names, three had human connections: Vikings (#4), Warriors (#9), and Knights (#10). People names are also prevalent in Division I collegiate athletics, e.g., Knights and Spartans. Then there are professional sports franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, Milwaukee Brewers, and Cleveland Cavaliers.

In fact, nearly a third of teams in the United States’ four major professional sports leagues use people as mascots (39/123 = 31.7%). Here’s the breakdown by league:

Major League Baseball (MLB): 13/30= 43.3%
National Football League (NFL): 13/32= 40.6%
National Hockey League (NHL): 9/31= 29%
National Basketball Association (NBA): 4/30= 13.3%

To argue to change a team name that serves as a racial slur is pretty straightforward, but what about the dozens or hundreds of other anthropological nicknames? Is society failing to see now a practice that in years to come will be deemed abhorrent?

Apparently, few people objected in 1933 when George Preston Marshall changed the name of the then-Boston-based football franchise from Braves to the current one. Likewise, few appeared to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision in 1967 that gave the name legal protection.

In 1972, a variety of Native American organizations asked team president Edward Bennet Williams for a name change, but their plea evidently gained little public support and ultimately failed to alter his attitude.

The point is this: Just as the majority of the population was apathetic about the need for the Washington football team name change for most of its history, people might look back 20 years from now and wonder, “How could individuals in 2020 have been so ignorant to have people as mascots for sports teams?”

Now, however, many see being chosen as a team mascot as a sign of respect. After all, sports are about competing and winning. So, teams tend to pick mascots that are known for strength, speed, or ferocity or that possess some other desirable qualities that might reflect positively onto the franchise. Although sports teams called Acorns and Spudders actually exist, they are the exceptions. Instead, most team names are chosen because they suggest power and inspire confidence, like Wildcats and Warriors.

At first glance, Merriam-Webster’s definition of mascot reinforces the notion that being chosen as one is a positive thing: A mascot is “a person, animal, or object adopted by a group as a symbolic figure especially to bring them good luck.” How many people, however, want to be someone else’s good luck charm? Most people probably want to be the one enjoying success, not the token symbol responsible for helping someone else win.

A mascot, therefore, is a kind of ‘second class citizen,’ more of a possession or pet than a person. Of course, many mascots are actual animals, kept in cages or put on leashes and paraded in front of fans on gameday. Although mascots are typically chosen for their prowess, it's strength subdued in service to another.

At this point, some of you may be understandably thinking, “Relax! They’re just mascots. Sports are supposed to be fun!” I get that. I’ve appreciated mascots for many years and still do.

When I was much younger, I played for Danville, PA’s high school basketball team, whose mascot name still is the “Ironmen” (granted, not very gender friendly); the town was a key player in America’s 19th century iron industry. I’m also a long-time fan of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers. Honestly, I never thought much about implications of these mascots being people . . . until now.

Would an iron mill or steel mill worker mind that their occupation was selected for mascot status? I'm speculating, but my guess is they wouldn’t; in fact, they might even feel honored. Their reputations as occupations that require unique physical and mental toughness probably makes their selection seem complimentary.

These two examples, however, help identify a potentially important distinction: Not all human mascots involve occupations, which people self-select. Some mascots are based on demographics like race and ethnicity (e.g. Cleveland Indians), over which people have no say.

That lack of choice is compounded by the issue of stereotypes. Any human mascot suggests a certain image for all those belonging to the demographic. For instance, the name Braves implies that all Native Americans are courageous and strong.

But, what could be bad about being perceived as strong and courageous? Aren’t they attributes that anyone would want? Perhaps they are, but the reality is, not everyone has them to the same extent. For Native Americans, that 'positive stereotype' might negatively impact them in at least two ways.

First, the Braves mascot stereotype might make those who weren’t born with as much natural strength or courage feel inadequate, like they’re not living up to an important social standard. Second, a seemingly positive stereotype still pigeonholes people, or presents an unnecessarily narrow or inaccurate view of their abilities.

For example, I’ve been around sports enough to know that African American men are often stereotyped as great athletes. At first blush, that stereotype may seem positive, but if you’re an African American man, you may not appreciate people assuming that you played and/or excelled in sports, especially if you never did. You also wouldn’t like it if people discounted your intellect, as they sometimes do for athletes, inaccurately assuming that a strong body means a weak mind.

There really is no such thing as a positive stereotype. Unfortunately, mascots perpetuate stereotypes, which may not be an issue for animals or inanimate things but can be problematic for people if the mascot is tied to a demographic like race or ethnicity that individuals do not choose.

In more recent years, it seems that sports leagues have become more ‘enlightened,’ as it’s rare for expansion teams to be given human names. For instance, since 1976, six new teams have entered the NFL, but only one was given a people name—the Houston Texans, which is not directly tied to race or ethnicity.

The Washington Post reports that the Cleveland Indians are now considering a name change. It may not be long before other teams named Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. do the same. Projecting further into the future, it’s conceivable that some of sports’ most storied franchises, e.g. Celtics, Fighting Irish, will do the same.

Mascots related to occupations, which people choose, can likely stay. However, team names based on race or ethnicity should be retired because of the narrow and unfair stereotypes they project. Years from now, if not sooner, people will see such team names and call them “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

How Marketing Still Needs Racial Redemption

7/4/2020

1 Comment

by Dr. Sonja Martin Poole, associate professor of marketing, University of San Francisco

Our nation is clearly in crisis. During a time focused on re-opening the economy after the onset of a viral pandemic, there are glaring signs that the United States is suffering from another type of pandemic—racism. While conquering COVID-19 lies mainly in the hands of certain medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies, overcoming racism depends on everyone and everything, including marketing.

Over the last few weeks, throughout cities across the United States and the world, people have been taking to the streets to express their pain and anger over the senseless deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and countless other Black people killed by police and vigilante whites. At the same time, videos of racial violence and racists threats toward Black people in America are flooding social media and news outlets.

Racism is not a new disease. It is a malady that has deep historical roots. It is a system of racial oppression and violence steeped in colonial and imperialist practices that sought to legitimize White privilege and power. That means it is not just a sum of the prejudicial acts of individual “bad seeds.” Rather, it is ingrained in the fabric of our society. Despite the elimination of explicit state-sanctioned policies, such as segregation under Jim Crow, many overtly racist practices are now interwoven into our institutions and normalized, and have a reverberating impact that still significantly affects the lives of racially targeted people.

So, what do these actions have to do with marketing? The short answer is, everything. Interpersonal, systemic and institutionalized racism are often normalized, immortalized, and (re)produced through marketing and marketplace practices.

Take the case of artificial intelligence (AI), a tool that is dramatically transforming industries, institutions, workplaces, and consumer behavior. The technology is being used to analyze and predict or generalize consumer behavior from their unique set of traceable digital activities, actions, contributions and communications. By being able to predict consumer behaviors, marketers can considerably improve their ability to target buyers with personalized promotions and advertising, or protect against fraud. AI is also used to benefit consumers throughout the consumption process, from automatic logins and entertainment suggestions based on viewing history, to self-driving cars and suggesting the fastest routes to and from work.

One application of AI is facial recognition technology which is used to check the identity of people based on the symmetry of facial features unique to every individual. It allows users to unlock their smart phone, verify their identification for travel and entry to sporting events, and complete purchase transactions. Major corporations such as Unilever also use it in the labor market to assess job candidates’ facial and linguistic performance against information compiled from successful prior interviews.

While facial expression technology has been praised as a bias-free tool, concerns have been raised that this powerful tool is imperfect and potentially dangerous. Numerous studies have found that the software is not 100% accurate in identifying individuals. In particular, studies have found that when two different people were wrongly identified as the same person, error rates for Black people were two times higher than for white people.

Even more unsettling, the software has been known to misidentify people of color as non-human, often as animals or objects. This happens because the accuracy of any machine learning tool depends on the machine’s ability to detect algorithms ‘taught’ to it by engineers who are, needless to say, human. Since humans perpetuate biases that exist in society, so can the machine.

Studies in marketing which address the use of AI technologies generally emphasize how consumer experiences are enhanced through AI-powered applications and assume that the impact is equal across all consumers. But these assumptions ignore disparities in lived experiences. These assumptions also ignore research evidence which indicates inherent (automated) bias in AI technology. This automated bias has serious implications in the treatment of and opportunities for people of color.

The issue outlined here is just one example of the insidious ways that racism operates in marketing. Keeping silent, becoming overly defensive and overgeneralizing are other ways racism is perpetuated. To adequately address racial injustice, it is important to move our discourse in marketing and business beyond marginalization in the workplace and harmonious interpersonal relationships. We must take a close look at the impact of racism in marketplaces and how these effects are shaped by intersecting forms of systemic oppression.

The good news is that marketing and business leaders are starting to accept the challenge to acknowledge, affirm and act in ways that promote equity and justice and activate meaningful change. As was proclaimed by authors in a recent Harvard Business Review article, “racism isn’t just a Black people’s problem its everyone’s problem because it erodes the fabric of society.”

It’s good that certain companies finally have resolved to remove overtly racist branding (e.g., Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben), but as the example of AI-powered facial recognition shows, there’s still more, often less conspicuous marketing that needs to change in order to offer people of color the respect they deserve. Framed positively, many opportunities remain for racially-aware organizations to redeem the field in pursuit of more “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!

1 Comment

Business’s Best Path to Racial Justice

6/27/2020

0 Comments

by Abbigail Jones, former customer solutions specialist at Webstaurant Store;
current co-youth director at Middletown Presbyterian Church and mom

Although profitability is a priority for any successful business, it’s narrow to overlook the capacity that companies have to change the world for the better: to lift communities of color out of poverty and provide economic opportunity.

As an African American woman, a Christian, and a millennial, social justice is near and dear to my heart. When working for a company, I want to know that it cares about addressing the legacy of inequality in our nation, one hire at a time. The recruitment, hiring, and retention of persons of color is a vital factor in ensuring economic development and justice for all.

By interacting intentionally with their surrounding communities, businesses can help heal broken relationships, including those that cross racial lines. Now more than ever, business leaders must expand their rubric for success beyond financial achievement and assess how their firms function as responsible citizens, consistent with Elkington’s “triple bottom line.”

It’s difficult to embrace such outcomes, however, without first acknowledging that the great racial divide within our country and lack of representation of black and brown Americans in the workplace stems from structural inequalities deeply entrenched in society. We continue to reap a harvest of racism sown by a legacy of slavery, segregation, violence, and voter suppression.

The consequences of Jim Crow laws and red-lining have endured for generations along with the outcomes of other systematic efforts to exclude black and brown people from the American dream. Just as these injustices were not casually implemented, measures to undo them also must be comprehensive.

According to MarketWatch, for the past 70 years a wealth gap has existed that’s seen black households remain 80% poorer than white ones. Put another way, the typical white family has wealth of $171,000 versus $17,150 for an average black family. The National Economic Association, formed by black economists in 1969, suggests that the current widespread protests against police brutality are related to this wealth gap and as a result, racial conflict will likely continue until fundamental inequities are addressed.

But, why should businesses attempt to address deep-seated issues that span centuries and defy easy answers? Aren’t there governmental organizations and nonprofits already dedicated to solving this problem? I believe businesses are uniquely equipped to propel entire communities forward, thereby closing the wealth gap and making a lasting difference for people of color.

Furthermore, businesses that care about both the prosperity and unity of our nation can wield their economic influence to play a much-needed reconciling role. By tackling this issue of inequality, they will create stakeholder value even as they promote positive societal values.

Firms that employ a diverse workforce, benefit from a range of perspectives that ultimately make the organization stronger. Likewise, today’s customers increasingly care about the ethos of the brands they support. Millennials believe small acts of enlightenment can add up to larger societal change, while Gen Z sees its buying power as a means of activism: According to Forbes, 76% of this age cohort says it’s purchased from a brand in order to support the issues it espouses.

In the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a white police officer, we have seen CEOs across the county issue company-wide and public statements condemning racism within society as well as within their organizations.

I celebrate these leaders who have leveraged their influence to stand against injustice. These statements not only reflect sound leadership, they have allowed conversations against injustice to continue in the marketplace.

I would also encourage those same leaders to continue on this journey of racial reconciliation and racial justice even as this topic moves out of media coverage. It will take hard, long-term work and commitment in order to combat deep-seated and systemic racism. However, on the other side of this endeavor are meaningful relationships and networks with communities of color.

Businesses can accomplish this transformation most effectively by nurturing an employee base that gives meaningful work opportunities to people society has historically marginalized. People of color need access to quality, life-sustaining jobs with fair wages, as well as benefits like healthcare, retirement plans, childcare, and tuition assistance so they can begin to close the wealth gap and gain financial freedom.

Here are seven steps that businesses should take to market themselves as employers of choice who offer real economic opportunity to people of color:

Assess the current organizational climate: Evaluate existing recruitment practices and organizational culture by asking, “Is our workplace one where an individual from a minority group feels welcomed and accepted? and “Is there no tolerance for racist rhetoric or innuendo?” Answers to such questions will help to clarify community-building goals and to determine if the workplace is an inviting one, likely to retain people of color once they are hired.
Enlist internal champions: While your goal may be for everyone in your organization to embrace the idea of racial reconciliation, not all will be equipped or enthusiastic about this plan. Consequently, it’s important to identify and engage specific leaders: individuals who are well-suited and passionate about the initiative and who can garner support from entire teams.
Build external relationships: Partner with civic organizations and non-profits that focus on placing qualified, ethnically diverse people into corporate environments. Also, solicit the aid of local government in tackling this societal issue. Ask each entity for initial input and ongoing support, including leveraging their networks to help identify qualified people of color for particular positions.
Develop a strategic diversity and inclusion plan: Using feedback from internal and external stakeholders, draft a document that outlines the general strategies and specific tactics the organization should implement in order to achieve measurable outcomes for diversity and inclusion.
Create a roadmap for success: Develop strategies that will help retain people of color within your organization. While each new hire’s needs may be different, recognize that their new position likely will pose a major life transition; for example, the employee may need to relocate. Provide the new hire with real estate contacts in the area or even an apartment to rent in order to make relocation easier.
Keep the conversation going: At the launch of the initiative and thereafter, host regular discussions aimed at encouraging racial reconciliation in the workplace and at ensuring that restorative programs continue to be seen as top priorities.
Make higher education possible for employees’ children: To truly break the pattern of wealth disparity, it’s important to provide educational opportunities for future generations, which can happen by offering current employees support in saving for their children’s education. By the way, those children may even decide to join the same organization when it’s their time to enter the workforce.

By intentionally reaching out to communities of color with offers of gainful employment, organizations clearly communicate that they see injustice in society, they understand that separate is not equal, and they are willing to do everything they can to make opportunities available to those often marginalized, because they care.

Committing to a more diverse workforce can bring its own set of challenges, which may at times cause business leaders to wonder if their effort is worth the reward. Ultimately, though, the investment in inclusive excellence will pay generous dividends to those organizations and our world, making employment initiatives aimed at racial restoration “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!

0 Comments

Listen and Act, for Marketing and Racial Reconciliation

6/13/2020

6 Comments

by Will Young IV, business administration major, marketing minor,
and member of the men's basketball team at Messiah College

As a Christian, to consider marketing’s role in racial reconciliation means understanding reconciliation from a biblical perspective. Four times in his letters to the early Church, the apostle Paul used the Greek word katallage, which means to exchange one thing for another. That definition of reconciliation reminds me of my first marketing class in which we discussed the discipline being about “mutually valuable exchange,” powered by two important activities: listening and doing.

Business transactions often culminate with the exchange of need-satisfying products, but they begin with more basic exchanges of time, questions, answers, and ideas. Driving the process is one critical activity—listening: offering one’s ears along with a genuine desire to understand.

Just as listening sustains good marketing, listening is the first step toward racial reconciliation.

Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese peace activist once said, “In order to reconcile, you have to possess the art of deep listening.” Following the tragic murder of George Floyd, the world, specifically the black community, was outraged. The reason was not necessarily that we were shocked it had happened because, quite frankly, there has been a plethora of deaths of unarmed black men and women throughout the years, many a result of police brutality. The uproar, protests and rioting were infused with so much force and rage because for years we had been trying to call attention not just to police brutality but to other racial injustices, but we were never really heard. Very few would listen.

The nation’s collective failure to listen to the voices of those crying out about racism has allowed many senseless events, like the killing of Floyd, to happen time and time again. Martin Luther King Jr. predicted what happens when injustice meets apathy when he said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” While I in no way support rioting or looting, it is important to note that such actions typically don’t happen when people feel like they’re being heard—when others are listening.

No competent marketers ignore the needs of their consumers. No country should ignore the needs of its citizens, particularly those crying out about racial injustices. Both fail to create mutual value. Businesses have a unique opportunity to hear the voices of the black community and others crying out for change by having open and honest conversations with their employees, customers, and other stakeholders. Large and small companies are in prime positions to break down the racial barriers they once avoided by genuinely listening.

As important as listening is to marketing and racial reconciliation, it only gets you in the room. Action is what allows you to stay there.

People say, “be the change you want to see,” but actually being the change involves effort and often uncomfortableness. If marketers want to play a role in racial reconciliation, they need to move beyond words and model what racial reconciliation looks like.

Ben & Jerry’s is a good example of such action. The company’s website displays a staff composed of many different races, from African-American, to White, to Asian, to American Indian. The firm shows the world that despite our nation’s racial and political divisions, people of all races, cultures, and ethnicities can work together to achieve a common goal. Ben & Jerry’s is not just speaking about the change that should occur. It is clear the company is intentional in hiring so it can be the change.

The firm also has introduced an ice cream flavor called “Pecan Resist,” centered on exchanging narratives of exclusiveness for inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color. In many ways, this product represents the gold standard of what marketing should do to be the change.

Businesses wondering about the role they can play in racial reconciliation should recognize that people have largely done their part. Movements like Black Lives Matter have expressed anger and voiced concerns, upholding their role of the exchange. They’re now looking for something in return for their voice, which, again, first means others who will listen. Businesses should lead by example in lending an ear, but not stopping there.

After listening, organizations and individuals must go a step beyond and act on what they’ve learned, which is strengthened by understanding the history of racism, having uncomfortable workplace conversations, and donating to movements that advocate for racial equality and shared justice. Simply stated: They must do something. Don’t leave the exchange relationship one-sided; make it mutually-beneficial, thereby encouraging racial reconciliation and creating priceless value for generations to come.

No two companies are the same. Likewise, every business that chooses to listen and act will play a different yet important role on the road to racial reconciliation. All such actions, however, must uphold common values: fairness, honesty, and respect. Whatever their specific role, companies that facilitate mutually beneficial exchange leading to racial reconciliation create a life-giving legacy of “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!

6 Comments

Can Marketing Make a Difference?

6/13/2020

4 Comments

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

When considering our world’s challenges, people tend to see marketing as part of the problem, not the solution. Such perceptions surface in Gallup’s annual poll about the honesty and ethics of various occupations: Respondents consistently rank marketing roles like advertising practitioner, insurance agent, and car salesperson near the bottom of the list. So, who would ever claim that marketing can combat prejudice and even encourage racial reconciliation?

One of those marketing optimists is me. More than a decade ago, I wrote a paper about marketing and reconciliation in which I made a rather simple observation: People who buy and sell from each other tend to stay on good terms and build healthy bonds. In contrast, fractured relationships often lack any meaningful exchange: verbal, material, or other.

Marketing often brings together people from different backgrounds, whose paths wouldn’t otherwise cross, for shared economic gain as well as other mutual benefit. For instance, a white family enjoys food from a restaurant owned by an Indian couple; a black salesperson appreciates her Asian client, and vice versa; a Hispanic CEO values contributions from hundreds of employees representing an array of race and ethnicity.

Business, in general, and marketing, specifically, are catalysts for countless positive interracial interactions and relationships. As people’s lives interlace with individuals who are different than them, while partnering for a common purpose, they often come to respect and appreciate their differences.

There’s also the notion that racial equality is closely tied to economic opportunity. When people can work in well-paying jobs or even start their own companies, aspirations and optimism replace desperation and despair. Marketing helps provide such hope-inspiring possibilities.

While I truly believe all I’ve just shared, I need to remind myself and disclaim that these words come from someone who, because of his own background, has not experienced significant racial prejudice and who will never truly understand the struggles that the black community and other people of color have endured for centuries.

One thing I can do is share this platform of Mindful Marketing with some who have experienced racial injustice firsthand, who wake up each morning to its effects, and who, also importantly, see business and marketing as a way forward—not necessarily as “the” answer, but as part of it.

I recently reached out to a few black friends, asking if they would be willing to share their perspectives on the roles that business and marketing may play in racial reconciliation. I received four enthusiastic and thoughtful responses from: a current student, a former student, a college classmate, and a research partner. My intent is to share each person’s reflection in its entirety over the next several blog posts.

It's a small gesture that I feel led to make for several reasons:

I care about these friends and their families.
I want to understand the current situation from the perspectives of those most affected.
Our opinions impact what others believe and do.

In an age of social media, the third bullet point may seem glaringly obvious; however, it takes me back fourteen years to my doctoral dissertation in which I applied Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to accounting clients’ referral intentions. Key to the TPB, which hundreds of studies have validated, is that our intent to do anything is impacted by societal (subjective) norms, or what we perceive others believe is good or bad.

So, even if I’m not promoting racism, my silence might lead others to believe that I think it’s okay, which is not okay. I want to use my voice to help establish the social norm that racism is wrong and that respecting others, regardless of their skin color, is right. My friends who have kindly accepted the offer to share this platform want to do the same.

In my Marketing Principles classes, students learn that people can market three types of “products”: physical goods, intangible services, and ideas. Now is the time for all of us to leverage our own social influence to market reconciliation—one of the most important applications of “ 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

Some Good Payout for John Krasinski

5/31/2020

6 Comments

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

Life for Dunder Mifflin paper salesman Jim Halpert revolved around two things: pleasing Pam and pranking Dwight; it was never about the money. Now some suggest that John Krasinski's acting is even better than we believed after he surprisingly cashed-in on his homespun, positivity-in-the-face-of-a-pandemic YouTube program. Millions enjoyed watching Some Good News, and many people contributed content, so should Krasinski pocket millions for selling the series?

It was seven years ago when Krasinski first had the idea for Some Good News (SGN), but he only decided to capitalize on the concept after an isolation-induced tweet on March 25, in which he asked his followers to share things that made them feel good or smile. The tweet astoundingly received over 3,000 comments and nearly 20,000 likes.

Seeing the virus-plagued public’s voracious appetite for feel-good stories, the actor/director/producer launched SGN on March 29, with production partner Allyson Seeger. Together they aired eight YouTube episodes, overflowing with pleasant programming from regular people, as well as occasional celebrity cameos by the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Brad Pit, and former Krasinski coworkers from The Office.

In the first episode, former Dunder Mifflin manager Steve Carell (aka Michael Scott) stopped by to chat about favorite Office memories, which garnered over 17 million YouTube views. The other seven SGN installments also drew big audiences, each in the millions.

That kind of instant internet success rarely goes unnoticed, especially when featuring a star like Krasinski. Soon corporate sponsors such as AT&T and the Boston Red Sox entered the action with giveaways, while others floated a much bigger proposition—purchasing the series.

At first, Krasinski resisted the “wave of incoming calls from a wide variety of suitors,” but at some point, in the midst of a “massive bidding war,” the paper salesman conceded and decided to close “an expansive deal with ViacomCBS,” the value of which “has yet to be reported,” but is very likely “rich.”

For many, Krasinski’s media contract changed the narrative from Some Good News to One Big Sellout. Fueling the social media storm were tweets of disappointment and anger, some snarky, others more serious:

So he made 8 YouTube videos comprised largely of unpaid contributions from fans, sold the brand to a major conglomerate, and isn't even going to make it anymore? Just cashed out? Does this rub anyone else the wrong way, kinda? (@Lons, May 22)
Remember when he created this free feel good YouTube show to “make people feel good” and now he is................selling it for $$$? really cool, 100% honorable (@lindseyweber, May 21).
Super awesome how you found a way to take a genuinely heartwarming viral series and sell out to the highest bidder (@kswa1987, May 22).
This whole 'Some Good News' sh-- was so transparent. John Krasinski basically monetized feel good stories when there was an opportunity to do so. It's just all about money while, appearing relatable to the unwashed masses, and it's super obvious (@EckhartsLadder, May 26).
You are profiting off Some Good News!?! I bought you hook like me and sinker... believed you were just trying to bring goodnesses to light. Going from YouTube (free) to a pay service...so disappointed...sellout!!! (@hydenson, May 22).
The "Good News" that @johnkrasinski had on his program is that he is now a sell out and putting his program behind a paid service so way less people can see it. He has made money off his "Good News" program while people are dying, laid off, can't get food, etc. Smart, John (@JustAHikerinVA, May 22).

When so much harsh criticism is hurled at one of America’s most admired celebrities, one has to wonder if maybe there’s some merit to the sentiment: Did Jim Halpert’s biggest sale come at the people’s expense? Answering four key questions may help clarify the controversy:

1) Was creating SGN part of some diabolical plan? Lest we forget, the same actor who played Jim now portrays a more cold and calculating character, CIA analyst Jack Ryan. In fact, Krasinski has blamed Jack Ryan for selling SGN; although, it’s not exactly like it sounds—more to come below.

It's hard to know for sure, but there’s little to suggest that it was Krasinski’s original intent to build up SGN only so he could sell it to the highest bidder. In fact, most evidence points to the opposite, for instance:

He launched the first episode saying, “I am John Krasinski, and if it isn’t clear yet, I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing.”
Among the show’s “low production values,” his daughters drew the SGN signage behind the ‘news desk’ and his own hand held the spinning globe used in the show’s opening.
The Hollywood Reporter claims that “His original plan was to continue to make SGN for the free and wide audience that YouTube provided” and that he “initially resisted the urge to sell the series.”

2) Did Krasinski ‘use’ people to make the program? There’s little doubt that SGN wouldn’t have succeeded without the voluntary contributions of a wide variety of regular people. Did the unpaid populace get a raw deal in that exchange? Probably not, for these reasons:

It’s unlikely that anyone was promised compensation for their participation, i.e., they did so eagerly for free.
Those whose content SGN featured enjoyed what was likely for them a very exciting once-in-a-lifetime experience.
No one needed to pay to watch SGN. People could view it for free on YouTube.
Krasinski gave far more to SGN than anyone else. For instance, he “self-financed and self-produced” the show from his own home; he utilized his considerable professional talent; he leveraged his own fame to attract followers and his personal connections to enlist other A-List celebrities. Which of us can get the casts of Hamilton or The Office to show up on our Zoom calls?

3) Did Krasinski have a right to sell the series? It certainly seems like he was entitled to monetize his investment for the reasons suggested above and because of the following two points:

The show was his baby. He created and developed it through much of his own time, talent, and resources.
He made no promises about what he would do or not do with the show. A few of the negative reactions shared above suggest there was some sort of implied social contract: “John, you keep producing SGN at your expense, a few of us will contribute content to each show, and millions of people will watch if for free, indefinitely.”

4) Did his reasons for selling make sense? Most people, understandably, have focused on the considerable cash Krasinski will likely collect from the sale. As the first point below expounds, there’s nothing inherently wrong with making money, but there are also other reasons why selling SGN was the sensible thing for him to do.

This blog has suggested many times: If you can give someone good value in an exchange and make money for yourself, it's a good thing. Furthermore, unless someone else is supporting us, we all need to make money in order to take care of our own needs and hopefully help others in need. Even if Krasinski doesn’t need more money, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t earn more and maybe use it to benefit others. The fact that he had the conscience to create SGN suggests he’s the type of person who is likely to do so.
Krasinski is a busy man. Besides being an actor (e.g., Jack Ryan), a director, and a producer, he’s a husband and a father, and he probably plays several other significant life roles. So, we can believe him when he recently explained that continuing to produce SGN “wouldn’t be sustainable with my prior commitments.”
More people may be exposed to good news. In justifying his decision to sell, Krasinski added that he was excited about the potential for SGN to be seen by “so many more people.” Of course, millions were already watching the show for free on YouTube, but his suggestion is more than a convenient excuse or wishful thinking. It’s reasonable to believe that an organization with the experience, resources, and reach of ViacomCBS could carry the concept of SGN much further than a guy (even a top celebrity) working out of his living room. Plus, if SGN gains even broader appeal, it’s likely to attract knockoffs from other media, which wouldn’t be a bad thing for a society desperately needing to focus more on the positive.

Do all the above bullets mean that Krasinski’s decision-making was perfect? No. Before the sale was announced, he could have clearly communicated his intentions, which wouldn’t have satisfied everyone, but it would have significantly softened the blow. As such, my own takeaway from the events are:

Good marketing communication responds considerately in a crisis.
Great marketing communication avoids a crisis by anticipating reaction and proactively shaping the narrative.

As a rule, people are much more accepting of unpleasant information when we tell them in advance, rather than letting them hear it later from someone else.

So, back at Dunder Mifflin, maybe Michael gives Jim a little grief for not telling him he had such a big deal in the works. Still, The Office’s manager is elated that Halpert scores the Scranton White Pages (it’s a hypothetical metaphor; you have to watch the show). In the end, everyone can appreciate that John Krasinski’s sale of SGN was “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!

6 Comments

<<Previous

Can Google Be Trusted?

Moving Aside To Let Consumers Drive

Capri Sun Practices Child’s Play

Too Attached to an App?

Should People Be Mascots?

How Marketing Still Needs Racial Redemption

Business’s Best Path to Racial Justice

Listen and Act, for Marketing and Racial Reconciliation

Can Marketing Make a Difference?

Some Good Payout for John Krasinski

Editor

Archives

Categories