Category: + Fairness

It's About a <<Fiji Water>> Girl

1/12/2019

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

Have you ever been photobombed? Friends and family often have fun slyly inserting themselves into each other’s pictures. Sometimes it’s a complete stranger who appears in the background of a vacation photo, smiling for the camera. People are used to those kinds of photobombs, but do A-list celebrities expect such interlopers on the red carpet of a major awards show?

Fiji Water Girl, perhaps the most famous photobomber ever, rose to global prominence in Beverly Hills, just this past weekend. Like other award programs, the Golden Globes features a preshow red carpet event during which the many talented people of television and film stroll in front of the media while slowing making their way into the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

The promenade of stars in elegant evening gowns and stylish tuxedos provides countless photo opportunities that the celebrities graciously accommodate. This time, however, as many of them posed for the paparazzi, the same, solitary figure appeared behind them: Fiji Water Girl. Her intriguing presence in the background of so many popular celebrities’ pictures ignited a social media firestorm—Who is that girl and how did she get in the images of all those icons?

For each Golden Globe awards, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) selects a small number of companies to be
“awards sponsors,” which means they help underwrite the cost of the program, and in return, they are permitted a demure presence at the event that includes sharing their prestige products with the program’s distinguished guests. This year’s awards sponsors were Moët & Chandon Champagne, Lavazza Coffee, Lindt Chocolates, and, of course, Fiji Water.

Fiji outfitted several young, attractive women in matching royal blue gowns, and positioned them on the red carpet, holding clear trays of the firm’s trademark bottles. Ostensibly, the idea was that thirsty guests would avail themselves of the product samples, appreciate the refreshment, and gain a positive impression of the brand. However, one particular model,
Kelleth Cuthbert, used some strategic photobombing to parlay her gig into so much more.

As mentioned above, Cuthbert somehow managed to place herself in the background of photos of a variety of top celebrities including Jim Carrey, Idris Elba, Judy Greer, Eric Lange, and Tony Shalhoub, often making “direct – and sultry – eye contact with the camera.” Social media shares of the pics quickly made Fiji Water Girl one of the web’s hottest trending topics and, according to Apex Marketing, earned Fiji about $12 million in free media exposure.

So, the $12 million question is: Was Cuthbert’s photobombing serendipitous, or was it planned?

Fiji seemed surprised by all the attention, suggesting that although it appreciated the extra exposure, it hadn’t tried to orchestrate it. The company tweeted: "We're so glad everyone is talking about our water! *senses ominous presence* She's right behind us, isn't she? #FIJIwatergirl.”

It’s also worth noting that of the several Fiji Water girls stationed on the red carpet at the Globes, Cuthbert was the only one whose presence went viral. If Fiji truly had been trying to gain mass media attention, wouldn’t more of its models have been found photobombing celebs?

All the above makes it seem like Cuthbert may have ‘gone rogue’ and taken up the photobombing herself. Since her meteoric rise to stardom, the model has had several opportunities to address such claims. She’s often suggested that her presence in so many celebrities’ pics was unplanned, for instance:

“There’s tons of photographers everywhere. It doesn’t matter where you stand, you’re in the crossfire of every shot.”

“No matter where you move, you’re in somebody’s shot. I don’t know, you just have to look at what you’re doing and be aware of where everyone is. But know that you can’t avoid it.”

“I don’t even think there was a point where I made any conscious decision [to lean into the photography]. I think from so many years of modeling, when I hear a shutter, I just kind of give a face.”

On the other hand, Cuthbert told a Los Angeles times reporter that “It’s all strategic” and “You’ve got to angle.” She also hasn’t shied away from the cameras since the Golden Globes, appearing on Inside Edition to describe her photobombing experience, taping her own mock award acceptance speech for YouTube, and making a cameo on the Late Show with James Corden.

Not having been there or spoken with Cuthbert, it’s hard to evaluate her somewhat conflicting statements and other disparate evidence. One person who was at the last Golden Globes and has many years of experience with paparazzi is accomplished film actress Jamie Lee Curtis . She expressed clear and strong sentiments about what happened to her on the red carpet:

“I specifically moved away from the blatant promotions by Fiji and Moet where young women with their trays filled with their wares stood near a designated camera. I knew why there was a photographer poised there and I moved away as I said out loud that I didn’t want to be doing advertising for either. Clearly this angle shows that I moved from her being behind me and yet from the side it still happens. The sponsors of events need to get permission from people when they get them to take their picture next to products.”

Some may suggest that Curtis overreacted to what occurred or was too cynical to think sponsors try to stage such photo ops. However, Business Insider has corroborated her claims, reporting that a specific Fiji-commissioned photographer was the initiator of the photobombing strategy.

Stefanie Keenan, the photographer contracted through Getty Images, was at the Golden Globes for the purpose of taking photos that would “elevate” Fiji, which mainly meant getting pictures of celebrities drinking the water. Cooler temperatures, however, led few stars to take the samples, so, according to Getty’s vice president of global entertainment Kirstin Benson, Keenan “came up with the idea to have a Fiji brand ambassador creep in to some shots.”

This revelation certainly supports Curtis’s experience, while contradicting many of the things that Cuthbert said. It seems, then, that the photobombing was the collaborative effort of Keenan and Cuthbert. Fiji corporate also bears responsibility in as much as it contracted with the companies that provided the photographer and the model.

But even if the photobombing was intentional, is there anything wrong with it? As mentioned at the outset of this article, it’s often funny when people photobomb others. That photobombing takes on a different meaning, though, when the pictures are used for commercial purposes.

As Curtis suggested, people, whether celebrities or ordinary citizens, have the right to choose the companies they support. You probably wouldn’t want your likeness associated with an organization whose mission you don’t endorse. You also wouldn’t want a company to profit from the use of your image without your consent.

However, that’s how Fiji unfairly benefited from the photobombing. Although the company undoubtedly paid for the privilege of being one of the few Golden Globe awards sponsors, it didn’t secure permission from or provide payment to Jamie Lee Curtis, Jim Carey, or other celebrities whose personal brands it co-opted without their consent.

Some may say that no one would assume Curtis endorses Fiji Water just because a model bearing the firm’s bottles appears behind her in a picture. A lack of an express endorsement is certainly significant; however, simply showing Curtis and Fiji together starts to establish a connection in people’s minds, especially when the picture keeps reappearing. Branding often leverages such repeat associations, as when a brand uses the same colors and fonts.

Cuthbert’s ‘performance’ on the red carpet at the Golden Globes made her and Fiji Water viral stars. They owe that celebrity status, however, to the real stars whose painstakingly-developed personal brands Fiji and company commandeered. Hopefully photobombing people with commercial content won’t catch on, as it’s clearly a picture 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!

8 Comments

Mailing Away Your DNA

12/14/2018

4 Comments

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

Looking for a unique gift for a family member this holiday season? Have you thought of surprising them with the ‘gift of ancestry’? DNA testing has become increasingly easy, popular, and affordable, but do the benefits of sending one's saliva for genetic analysis outweigh the costs?

The market for genetic testing exploded in 2017, and it keeps growing. Some predict sales of over $22 billion by 2024, driven by top competitors like 23andMe, AncestryDNA, Family Tree DNA, MyHeritage DNA, and Living DNA. Over 12 million people already have had their DNA tested.

What exactly does DNA testing do? It depends on the test, of which there are three main types:

Autosomal: Both men and women can take this test, which estimates an individual’s ethnicity and cousin matches on both maternal and fraternal sides over about 5 to 6 generations.
YDNA: Only men can take this test, which tracks Y chromosomes passed from fathers to sons over many generations.
mtDNA: Both genders can take this test, which examines genetic markers only along mothers’ material lines, and also provides the user’s haplogroup.

Autosomal tests appear to be the most popular of the three, as they’re the ones we most often see advertised, with consumer-friendly price points between $49 and $99. These tests are good at helping users fill out their family trees. AncestryDNA, for instance, claims it can search for relatives of the test taker among its 10 million-person database and promises to “confirm ethnicity percentages and close relationships with a high level of accuracy.”

AncestryDNA is also able to help users see migratory patterns through its Migrations tool. This feature identifies a subject’s ancestors “associated with one of more than 300 genetically based communities in the years between 1750 and 1850” to determine migration paths in the U.S. and overseas.

Some autosomal tests have pushed the information envelope even further by providing health reports. For example, 23andMe’s Health+Ancestry test informs users of whether they appear to be a carrier for more than 40 genetic conditions, it provides insights on genetic-related wellness indicators such as lactose intolerance, and it identifies genetic risks for things such as Parkinson’s, late-onset Alzheimer’s and Celiac disease.

People who purchase DNA tests certainly receive unique information that’s at a minimum entertaining, if not educational and possibly helpful in addressing potential health problems. Considering how much many consumers spend on a dinner out, a concert, or a ballgame, a genetic test seems like a pretty good deal. However, there are potential costs for DNA testing beyond the initial cash outlay.

Perhaps the biggest nonfinancial cost is the risk of lost privacy. Genetic testing companies seem to have safeguarded customer information so far—there’s yet to be a major data breach—but the potential risk from carelessness or maleficence is considerable according to New York Senator Chuck Schumer (D), who contends: “Now, this is sensitive information, and what those companies can do with all that data, our sensitive and deepest information, your genetics, is not clear and in some cases not fair and not right.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) appears to share Schumer’s apprehension as evidenced by its investigation of the data policies of 23andMe and Ancestry and by the following statement: “A major concern for consumers should be who else could have access to information about your heritage and your health.”

What exactly are the risks of misappropriated DNA data? One possibility is that some organizations may conduct controversial research such as looking for connections between race and intelligence. Although such risks for entire people groups are probably few, there are many risks that could impact specific individuals.

This past spring, California detectives revealed that they tapped a public genealogy database to break the longstanding case of the Golden State Killer, identifying suspect Joseph James DeAngelo. Although few may object to the use of public DNA data to catch a serial killer, the possibility of government accessing such information for other reasons gives many people pause.

For instance, what if police were to use genetic information to predict those likely to commit crime, along the lines of the 2002 sci-fi thriller Minority Report? Such use is farfetched, but it’s not unreasonable to imagine public officials employing DNA data to identify government protestors or others who reject their policies.

Perhaps even more realistic is the possibility of businesses leveraging DNA data for profitability purposes. Life insurance companies, for example, might analyze genetic information in order to determine if someone is a good policy risk. Likewise, any company could take a similar tack in deciding whether to hire a prospective employee.

But, do these risks really exist if companies safeguard users’ data and only share it in anonymous form? First, an endless series of high-profile data breaches suggests that hackers are capable of penetrating the defenses of the largest and seemingly most secure organizations. Second, when people submit genetic tests, they often provide information that allows for individual identification, e.g., age, gender, address. Third, police and government might pressure companies to share their DNA data.

Why, then, do people continue in droves to mail their DNA to genetic testing companies and why do most of those users agree to share their DNA with the firms’ research partners. Maybe consumers don’t have a good understanding of the risks. More likely, they recognize that the potential risks are very remote, while the benefits they receive are very real and meaningful, for instance:

Knowing one’s family history: It can be deeply satisfying to learn things about one’s ancestors and the places from which they came. That kind of information often helps us better understand ourselves.
Realizing potential health risks: Of course, it’s important not to obsess about such risks; however, such knowledge can be a very helpful lens through which to view our bodies and perhaps take preventative steps
Reuniting with lost family members: This benefit doesn't apply to most genetic test takers, but some have discovered lost siblings and other relatives through the process.

Life is full of risks—much of what we do to survive and thrive involves deciding which risks are worth taking. Perhaps the risks of DNA testing will increase over the coming years. Right now, though, the risks seem remote while the benefits are real, which makes it easy to understand why so many people take genetic tests. It also makes it reasonable to suggest that the firms offering the tests are responsible for “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

Targeting Teens for E-Cigarettes

11/30/2018

30 Comments

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

Remember when teenagers would rush from high school so they could light a cigarette? Some would even try to sneak a smoke in the bathroom between classes. Those days are now back with a 21st century twist. Like many other things, cigarettes have gone high-tech, which makes them more appealing to minors, but has the biggest e-cigarette maker intentionally targeted teens?

During a recent marketing class, our discussion turned to e-cigarettes and one student, who was just a year or two removed from her own secondary education, mentioned that e-cigarette use is rampant in high school. I didn’t realize that lighting up electronically had become such an obsession for adolescents. A little online research, however, quickly supported the student’s claim.

According to the National Institute on Drug abuse, 16.2% of 12th graders used e-cigarettes in the past month, with the rate among boys being twice that of girls. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reported that more than 2 million middle schoolers and high schoolers regularly used e-cigarettes in 2017, making e-cigarettes “the most commonly used form of tobacco among youth in the United States.”

Some describe an “epidemic” of e-cigarette use among adolescents. In fact, certain high schools, like Plainedge High School in New York, have installed special chemical detectors in bathrooms to sense changes in the air and notify administrators when students are “vaping.” All of this is happening despite the fact that FDA regulations prohibit minors from buying e-cigarettes in stores and online.

For those who find a way to purchase e-cigarettes, there are plenty of choices--over 460 different brands are competing for consumers. However, the biggest brand by far is Juul, which has about 72% of the market. Juul Labs, soared past $1 billion in sales after just its third year in business.

As might be expected, Juul has drawn special scrutiny when it comes to young people’s use of e-cigarettes. This past September, the FDA warned Juul and four smaller competitors (Vuse, MarkTen, blu, and Logic) that they had “60 days to convince the agency that they have adequate plans to stop kids from vaping with their products.” If Juul and the others can’t show how they’ll do a better job keeping minors from vaping, they will need to cease selling.

When e-cigarettes first hit the market in 2004, there was a sense of optimism: ‘Here’s a safer way for smokers to satisfy that desire and hopefully kick the habit entirely.’ So, what happened to that prediction, and why are so many teens, most of whom never smoked before, such a significant part of the e-cigarette market?

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “e-cigarettes are not an FDA-approved quit aid, and there is no conclusive scientific evidence on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for long-term smoking cessation.” In fact, for teens, the relationship between e-cigarettes and cigarettes seems to be the opposite.

Of teenagers who use e-cigarettes 30.7% start smoking regular cigarettes within 6 months, compared to just 8.1% of those not using e-cigarettes. Similarly, a study found that “students who had used e-cigarettes by the time they started 9th grade were more likely than others to start smoking cigarettes and other smokable tobacco products within the next year.”

Plaintiffs have brought several lawsuits against Juul specifically, alleging that its products’ high levels of nicotine caused the users to become addicted. Ironically, some of them choose to use JUUL because they thought it would help them quit smoking.

E-cigarettes are addicting because, just like traditional cigarettes, most contain nicotine. Juul’s products’ have especially high levels of the chemical: A single JUUL pod contains “as much nicotine as a pack of 20 regular cigarettes.” In addition, Juul’s particular formulation of nicotine salt “increases the rate and amount of nicotine delivered into the blood, compared with other formulations.”

Nicotine is particularly detrimental for young people because it can impede brain development, which is critical in the teen years. In addition, adolescents who are exposed to nicotine are at greater risk of future drug addiction.

One good thing is that e-cigarettes don’t have as many harmful chemicals as burned cigarettes. However, e-liquids still contain “at least 60 chemical compounds.” One study found that the vapor from some e-cigarettes carried toxic chemicals and known carcinogens, while the devices themselves contained “potentially toxic metal nanoparticles.” Also, unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are susceptible to explosion, given that they are electronic devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid.

So, e-cigarettes are dangerous in more ways than one, but did Juul really take any specific steps to target teens? This is where analysis becomes complicated. Despite an organization’s sharpest marketing strategies and best intentions, consumer behavior sometimes goes in directions that are very hard to predict. Take Tide Pods.

Perhaps Proctor & Gamble, maker of Tide, could have anticipated the candy-like appeal its colorful, round detergent balls would have to consumers. However, it’s hard to imagine anyone predicting the viral rise of the ill-advised Tide Pod Challenge in which young people put pods in their mouths, sometimes ingesting them. P & G certainly did not encourage that behavior.

Are e-cigarette sales to teens Juul’s equivalent of the Tide Pod Challenge—an unfortunate, unforeseeable happenstance? Probably not. For one thing, young people’s use of e-cigarettes has proven to be much more than a fad. Moreover, unlike P & G, Juul employed several specific strategies that made its marketing attractive to teens.

For example, Juul used young, attractive models in its ads, who might appeal to anyone but would be especially alluring to image-obsessed teens. On its website, the company surrounded its product with “luscious-looking images of fruit.” It also chose youth-friendly flavor names like crème brulee and mango. In addition, Juul designed its products to be trendy and sleek, like flash drives, which could be accessorized with colorful skins.

Despite this circumstantial evidence, there doesn’t appear to be any ‘smoking gun,’ i.e., a Juul executive’s on-the-record admission or a leaked internal document outlining intentional targeting of teenagers. Does that lack of explicit evidence of clear intent absolve Juul? It should not, for two main reasons:

First, marketers at Juul should have realized that their tactics would have significant teen-appeal. If Juul really wanted to convert seasoned smokers to e-cigarettes, not enlist teens, it would have taken a different approach, like featuring older, former tobacco smokers in its ads. Interestingly, Juul initially did take that tack, but when it “failed to gain traction on social media and failed to gain sales,” it switched to the more kid-friendly strategy. Juul has since returned to its original adult approach, but only after considerable external pressure.

Second, Juul knew who was using its products, even though Juul executives have denied knowing how many teens were buying Juuls—a claim that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has called “incredulous.” Even if Juul somehow didn’t have access to accurate retail sales data, it could have easily seen the multitude of young people posting pictures of themselves using Juul products on social media. These users even coined a company-specific term to describe their actions: “Juuling.” That kind of branded verb creation is typical of teens and only tends to happen for the biggest social phenomena, e.g., Photoshop, Google.

Regardless whether Juul intended to target teens, its strategies encouraged their action, catching many in an unwitting cycle of addiction, which fits the description of an unfortunate legal/ethical concept: adverse impact.

Pressure from the FDA and the Massachusetts attorney general has compelled Juul to drop most of its kid-friendly tactics, but at this point, it will be difficult to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. Juul and other e-cigarette makers who ‘inadvertently’ targeted teens may continue to deny responsibility, but they will always be known for their “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!

30 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

Is Fortnite Addiction for Real?

10/19/2018

23 Comments

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

Alcohol, gambling, opioids: Out-of-control consumption of such things has upended the lives of many. Now some are arguing for an unlikely addition to the list of harmful obsessions—Fortnite. The wildly popular video game does seem like a compulsion for some, but does its play really rise to the level of addiction, and if so, who’s responsible?

If you’re like me--one of the few human beings who has never played Fortnite--you’re probably wondering what all the fuss is about: why 3.4 million people were all online at once playing the game one day during February 2018, why celebrity rappers like Drake and NBA stars like Paul George are promoting the craze, why an upcoming Fortnite tournament is promising $100 million in prize money, why the game is expected to produce revenues of $2 billion in 2018, and why some call Fortnite “the hottest game in the world.”

For those who don’t know, Fortnite is a shooter game based on a premise similar to that of the Hunger Games: “Players are dropped unarmed onto an island. There, they must make their way to ‘houses,’ where they find weapons they then use to shoot and kill, they build structures and try to avoid the destructive storm that threatens all outside its safe zone.” The winner is the last man/woman standing.

Apparently the most popular version of Fortnite is the multiplayer “Battle Royale” in which 100 people compete against each other at a time, either individually or on teams of up to four people. The game is free to play on systems like PlayStation, as well as on computers and mobile phones. Fortnite makes money by charging for in-game extras like costumes and special tools or weapons.

Few entrepreneurs worry about their products becoming addictive. In the beginning, they’re just hoping some people will be intrigued enough to try their products. The thought that anyone, let alone millions of people, would find his games impossible to put down, had to have been one of the furthest things from the mind of Tim Sweeney, creator of Fortnite and the CEO of Epic Games. Sweeney started his video game company, originally called Potomac Computer Systems, in 1991, at the age of 21, in his parent’s house in Potomac, MD. Epic Games is now one of the industry’s brightest stars.

However, phenomenal growth and popularity are not alone grounds for accusations of addiction. So, what are Fortnite players experiencing that leads some to levy such extreme charges? Here are a few examples:

A mother reported that her son stole her credit cards and spent $200 on in-game purchases.
A father found his nine-year-old daughter sitting in a urine-soaked chair as she played the game. He said “She was so hooked to the game she wouldn’t even go to the toilet.”
A mother forced her son to stop playing the game at 11:00 pm on a Friday night, only for him to wake up at 4:00 or 5:00 am Saturday to start playing again.
A mother suffered a concussion when her fourteen-year-old son headbutted her when she tried to take away the gaming system on which he played Fortnite.
At least 200 couples in the UK cited Fortnite and other online games as the reason for their divorces.

Such behavior certainly is unusual and disturbing, but does it really reflect addiction? To answer that question it’s important to understand exactly what addiction is. In the early 1950s, the World Health Organization adopted the following definition of drug addiction: “a state of periodic or chronic intoxication detrimental to the individual and to society, produced by the repeated consumption of a drug (natural or synthetic). From this definition, Isbell and White (1953) derived three characteristics of addiction:

"An overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means"
"A tendency to increase the dose"
"A psychic (psychological) and sometimes a physical dependence on the effects of the drug"

Of course, these descriptors are for chemical substances that people typically ingest, not video games they play; however, when Fortnite is substituted into the phrases, the criteria provide an eerily good fit for the shocking behaviors listed above:

An overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue to play Fortnite and to obtain the game by any means [stealing mother’s credit cards]
A tendency to increase play of Fortnite [waking up at 4:00 or 5:00 am in order to play more]
A psychic (psychological) and sometimes a physical dependence on the effects of Fortnite [headbutting mom when she tried to take the game away]

Isbell and White (1953) add that addiction is inherently about excessive, not proper, use of the substance, resulting in harm to the addict and/or others. That's another description that seems to fit the five Fortnite cases described above, like the divorces, but it also begs another important question: How common are such Fortnite occurrences?

In researching online for this blog post, I typed “Fortnite addiction” into Google, which produced around 68 million hits. As I read down the list of top results, however, I noticed that most were repeats of the same few stories: the girl who wouldn’t take a bathroom break, the boy who headbutted his mom, the UK divorces.

Chances are, the few Fortnite fanatics who show signs of addiction are anomalies. According to Business Insider 78.3 million people played Fortnite this past August. Among all those Fortnite fans, many probably play the game more than they should, but very few are likely addicted in any scientific sense. Contrast those proportions to statistics for drug and gambling addictions like the following:

In 2015, nearly 21 million Americans over the age of 12 had a substance use problem.
About 10% of Americans over the age of 18 “claim to be in recovery from an alcohol or drug abuse issue.”
The leading cause of accidental death in the United States is drug overdose.
“Approximately 2.6% of the U.S. population has some type of gambling issue.”
Among those aged 14 to 21, as many as 750,000 have gambling addictions.
About 6% of U.S. college students have gambling problems.

Beyond those sobering statistics, another drug stat pretty much says it all: “Out of 24 million Americans who have used illicit drugs in the preceding month, 19.6 million [81.7%] have had a substance abuse disorder in the preceding year.” It’s very telling of the addictive nature of illicit drugs that only about 18% of users escape drug abuse.

There are no comparable statistics for Fortnite, but it appears that a much smaller percentage of its players show signs of addiction. Of course, this lack of evidence doesn’t prove that people cannot become addicted to Fortnite; maybe they can. However, when a very large number of people is exposed to a stimulus such as a video game and an extremely small percentage exhibits addictive behavior, perhaps the abuse is more a function of those individuals and their unique situations, rather than the game itself.

Everyone needs to be accountable for their time and to use self-discipline to set limits on activities that they find so enjoyable they can become lost in them, e.g., televised sporting events, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, etc. Parents have the added responsibility of holding their children accountable, which is especially difficult when the kids really don’t want to put down the thing they love.

However, companies also can do things to discourage overindulgence in their own products. For instance, a few months ago, I wrote a blog post about iPhone addiction, describing Apple’s Digital Health Initiative, which includes new software that will monitor and set limits on users’ screen time.

Maybe Epic Games could consider a similar measure. The company should at least make sure there’s nothing in Fortnite that encourages people to shirk self-monitoring, e.g., in-game incentives tied to how long one has been playing. Again, I’ve not played Fortnite, so it’s hard for me to be more prescriptive. Perhaps those who are familiar with the game firsthand can offer more specific suggestions about limiting use.

Finally, it goes without saying that a ‘shooter game’ is violent. I’ve read, however, that Fortnite “isn’t as graphic as many other shooter games” because its characters are more “cartoony” and “its graphics are free of blood and gore.” Still, any activity that glamorizes killing others should give us pause. That aspect of the game, however, will need to be the focus of a future blog post.

As you can probably tell, I’m neither a big Fortnite fan or cynic. As I’ve tried to look objectively at the issue of video game addiction, I haven’t seen enough evidence to suggest that Fortnite itself is enabling abuse, certainly not compared to other activities commonly called addictive. For these reasons, it seems like Fortnite is a tenuous version 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!

23 Comments

Just Divided over Nike's New Ad

9/9/2018

42 Comments

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

Nike just aired a new commercial that has quickly become entangled in controversy. The two-minute “Dream Crazy” ad is a well-produced spot that features footage of inspiring amateur athletes, as well as a couple of the brand’s superstar spokespeople. Surprisingly, the source of conflict is the ad’s narrator, who people seem either to admire or revile, which makes marketing analysts ask, “What did Nike just do?”

Marking the 30th anniversary of the company’s iconic “Just Do It” campaign, Nike’s new ad uses narration from NFL-quarterback-turned-activist Colin Kaepernick, who also appears briefly in the spot to urge viewers to, among other things, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”

If you’re not familiar with Kaepernick, he was one of the first professional football players to choose to kneel during the national anthem as a sign of protest against what many believe has been growing racial injustice in America. The last game he played was in January of 2017, but Kaepernick has since become the face and voice of a movement that extends well beyond professional sports.

Of course, not everyone has appreciated Kaepernick’s activism. Some resent that his example has encouraged others to kneel during the national anthem, which they believe is either unfounded protest or a misplaced act that disrespects the flag and demonstrates a lack of patriotism. Anthem protests have since become a point of contention for many NFL fans, causing some to swear off the league entirely.

In short, whether right or wrong, Nike’s use of Kaepernick has struck a raw nerve in a nation deeply divided.

Before going further, I need to say that I really didn’t want to write about this ad. Maybe it’s my Swiss heritage that makes me lean toward neutrality and dislike discord, especially political. It’s not fun for me to tackle an ad that arouses such strong social division. However, after much debate and several stops and starts, I still felt compelled to address the ad and so decided to “just do it.”

The first step in this Mindful Marketing analysis is ethics: Does Nike’s ad uphold societal values? Given the sometimes-ambiguous nature of “societal values,” that question is inherently hard to answer, but the circumstances surrounding the Nike commercial make this inquiry especially difficult.

The ad’s ‘dream big’ theme is positive and hopeful and probably not something with which many people would take issue. Instead, the debate seems to fall squarely on the company’s use of Kaepernick and whether what he represents is decent, fair, honest, respectful, and responsible (the five core values Mindful Marketing seeks to uphold).

Unfortunately, for those like me trying to make a moral judgment, both sides can make a compelling case based on the same principles. People who oppose Kaepernick can argue, for instance, that his activism unfairly characterizes police officers who are honest and considerate of others. His opponents also may contend that the anthem protests dishonor members of the armed forces who risk their lives to protect the freedoms the flag represents.

On the other hand, those who support Kaepernick can claim that the social justice movement he signifies is fundamentally about showing everyone respect. Similarly, this side shares that its aim is to ensure the fair treatment of all people.

Admittedly, the issues are more complicated than what I am presenting here; however, the point is that both sides have strong countervailing points that are difficult to adjudicate. For sake of argument, therefore, let’s give the ad the benefit of the doubt and assume that it does support societal values.

The second question, then, considers the ad’s effectiveness, which is also very difficult to discern. After the ad was released online this past Monday, several of the first news reports were of anger. Some consumers vowed to boycott Nike products, while others took more immediate and drastic action by burning their Nike shoes and socks.

Newer reports, however, have been that after the ad was released, Nike’s sales “grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.”

On the other hand, Nike’s stock (NKE), which had closed at $82.18 a share on Friday, August 31, closed at $80.30 a share this past Friday, September 7.

So, does Nike really know what it’s doing with the Kaepernick ad? A recent Washington Post article makes a convincing case that Nike does. Columnist Sally Jenkins maintains that the commercial positions Nike well in national and global contexts that are increasingly multicultural. She also argues that young shoppers, who are especially important to sneaker makers, want to buy products from companies that support social causes.

Public opinion is not so clear. This past Friday morning, September 7, Apex Marketing Group reported that the ad had produced $220 million in publicity for Nike: $69 million positive, $67 million negative, and $83 million neutral. Apex also noted that the percentage of positive publicity had fallen by 9 percentage points from Thursday to Friday.

Some may argue that any publicity is good publicity. That assertion, however, seems to be a myth, especially after considering organizational examples like Volkswagen and individual ones like Harvey Weinstein.

Public favor for the ad also might wane as people take more time to process the financial context surrounding Nike’s and Kaepernick’s participation in the promotion. For a few years, Kaepernick was a very good NFL quarterback, who even played in a Super Bowl. Before he began his anthem protest, he had been demoted to backup status.

Kaepernick made a total of $43 million as an NFL quarterback, of which he has donated over $1 million to a variety of social justice causes. It’s difficult to know how much, if any, money he has made as an activist, but sports agents estimate that his new Nike endorsement could be worth “millions of dollars per year.”

For these reasons, some have taken issue with the ad’s suggestion that Kaepernick ‘sacrificed everything,’ especially when compared to individuals who have given their lives in service to their country.

Kaepernick may not be serving as a Nike spokesman for the money, but it’s hard to imagine that Nike’s choice of Kaepernick was without consideration of its bottom-line, given that it’s a for-profit company that must answer to shareholders in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Not surprising, some have accused the company of “commercializing activism,” i.e., profiting from a social cause.

Another concern for Nike should be its relationship with the NFL. This past March, the NFL announced that Nike would continue to be its official supplier of uniforms and sideline gear through 2028. It’s not known how much these rights cost Nike, but it’s likely the company paid more than the $1.1 billion it reportedly invested for similar exclusivity in 2012.

The anthem protests that Kaepernick initiated continue to be a thorn in the side of the NFL. What’s more, Kaepernick has sued the NFL, claiming that the league has colluded to keep him off the field since he last played. All this to say, there are probably few people the NFL would rather not see exalted in a commercial than Kaepernick. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Nevertheless, the league has tried to put on a good face about the ad. NFL executive vice president of communications and public affairs Jocelyn Moore offered the following:

“The National Football League believes in dialogue, understanding and unity. We embrace the role and responsibility of everyone involved with this game to promote meaningful, positive change in our communities.” “The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action.”

Despite Moore’s conciliatory tone, one has to imagine that the ad places a significant strain on the relationship between the league and Nike that will only be exacerbated if there are further defections of NFL fans. Although her response makes it seem unlikely that the NFL is considering the commercial to be any kind of contractual breach, the ad will at a minimum cause the league to think more carefully about Nike and future sponsorships.

Like the ethical analysis, assessment of the commercial’s likely effectiveness has also been complicated. In the short-term, people may continue to applaud Nike for its social conscience. The ad and Kaepernick’s lawsuit, however, must be straining its relationship with the NFL.

Moreover, the ad’s theme of “sacrificing everything,” coming from a multimillionaire and a Fortune 100 company, will increasingly ring hollow with people, especially those working two jobs to make ends meet, or mourning loved ones who truly sacrificed everything in service to their country or community.

Credible cases can be made for placing Nike’s Kaepernick commercial in any one of the four Mindful Marketing quadrants, particularly given the ad’s multifaceted social implications. The ad’s effectiveness is also debatable. However, given the strained relationship with the NFL and a likely increase in public disaffect, there’s good reason for calling the commercial “Simple-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!

42 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

Does Apple Really Care About iPhone Addiction?

6/15/2018

7 Comments

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

Like breathing, our smartphone use has become almost an involuntary action. Whenever we find a spare 60 seconds, we pull them out, sometimes without a specific reason. It’s no wonder research suggests that smartphones are addictive. What’s surprising is who wants to help us resist the urge: Apple.

That’s right, the global technology leader and iconic iPhone maker wants to lessen smartphone use. Such a notion sounds as believable as Dunkin limiting donut sales or Papa John’s restricting pizza purchases, but Apple actually has a strategy for curbing customer consumption.

At its recent Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in San Jose, Apple’s Craig Federighi described the plans, which are part of the company’s Digital Health Initiative: “a series of tools to help users monitor how much time they spend on their devices and inside of certain applications.”

More specifically, the new software features will allow users to do things such as:

Monitor and set limits on their screen time
Manage notifications more effectively in order to avoid distracting pings from texts, etc.
Set better parameters for Do Not Disturb, e.g., during meals or bedtime

All of this sounds nice, but let’s be real: Companies want consumers to use their products more, not less. Can you imagine a business meeting in which the CEO says, “We need to see a 15% decrease in sales next quarter”? Such self-limiting action almost never happens; however, it can occur, and there are plausible reasons for Apple to consider it.

First, it’s helpful to recognize Apple’s unique position of influence. With a market cap that’s approaching an unimaginable $1 trillion, Apple is the world’s most valuable company. It’s global share of smartphones is second only to Samsung, and in the fourth quarter of 2017, Apple’s sales surpassed those of its close rival. In the United States, Apple is the leading smartphone OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer).

For these reasons, Apple generates considerable public interest (big understatement), which comes with a higher degree of scrutiny than most companies ever experience. Almost anything Apple does, or doesn’t do, is newsworthy and plays out in the media spotlight.

Second, technology is, for many of us, a mixed blessing. We love the things it does for us, but we’re worried about everything from artificial intelligence taking our jobs to smart speakers co-opting our kids. We’re also concerned how digital devices, despite their benefits, may be adversely affecting our daily lives.

That’s the context in which Apple operates. In sum, the company is ‘the’ culture-tech leader in a world that’s still trying to figure out what’s appropriate use of smartphones and similar devices. By self-regulating, Apple seems to be stepping up and saying that it will be ‘the adult in the room.’

So, maybe Apple’s Digital Health Initiative is socially responsible and perhaps it will generate goodwill, but won’t the program also threaten the firm’s financial health? Probably not. Though rare, there are legitimate reasons why a company might try to decrease use of its own products:

To avoid legal issues: A classic example is a bar refusing to serve a patron who has already had one too many drinks. The pub could see a lawsuit if one of its customers drives drunk and injures another person.

To lessen crowding: No one wants to be packed like sardines into an airplane, train, etc. So, transportation companies often raise prices during peak travel times in order to decrease demand. Some highways have even implemented a similar approach of “dynamic tolls” in order to reduce rush-hour traffic.

To increase customer satisfaction: The law of diminishing marginal utility says that people gain less enjoyment per unit from each additional unit they consume and at some point, the cost of consumption starts to outweigh its benefits. No organization should push its customers beyond that point. Short-run sales may be nice, but customer regret will hurt the company in the long run.

This third reason is likely the one that Apple’s Digital Health Initiative has most squarely in mind. If consumers use their iPhones in excess, they could jeopardize their jobs, their education, their relationships, and more. At any of those points, their attitude toward Apple could change for the worse, which might lead them to drop their smartphones entirely, as some people have done, including a surprising set of A-list celebrities.

For these reasons, we can place some trust in Apple’s self-regulation initiative. Laws aimed at curbing smartphone use are very unlikely to come. Furthermore, the company deserves kudos for getting the jump on any significant social pressure to reform. In this case, less Apple is 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!

7 Comments

Should Alexa Be a Kid's Best Friend?

5/4/2018

0 Comments

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

When you were a kid, who did you go to for questions? You probably asked mom or dad, or if you were really desperate, you looked something up in an encyclopedia. In an age of artificial intelligence and voice assistants, such queries seem antiquated, but should Amazon be encouraging kids to ‘ask Alexa’?

Children are incredible imitators and adopters of the technology they see adults using. A few weeks ago, I was amazed at the savvy of a one-and-a-half-year-old I know. She isn’t old enough to talk, yet she knows how to swipe through photos on her grandpa’s smartphone.

Amazon introduced its Echo smart speaker with Alexa in November of 2014 to target adults. Since then, Alexa, Siri, and other voice assistants have begun making their way into more homes than Amway and Avon. According to TechCrunch, 16% of Americans, or about 39 million people own a smart speaker.

Voicebot breaks down those statistics further, reporting that nearly one out of every five adults has a smart speaker. It’s hard to believe that the market for such devices is already approaching saturation, which explains why a company like Amazon is looking at a new segment with less contested growth—children.

The ecommerce icon recently announced the addition of a smart speaker specifically made for kids: Echo Dot, Kids Edition. The newest addition to the Echo line will be available for sale May 9, 2018, for $79.99, or about $30 more than a regular Echo.

So, what makes the Echo Dot for tots kid-friendly and worth 37% more than the original? The device’s red, green, and blue color options certainly appeal to kids, but to penetrate the wallets of picky parents, this Echo definitely needs to do some different things, which it does. Here are several of the most notable tasks Alexa accomplishes for kids, all with flexible parental controls:

Answers questions, reads stories, and tells age-appropriate jokes
Plays music, including ad-free radio stations and Amazon music
Plays Audible books
Plays games from Disney, National Geographic, and Nickelodeon
Calls kids for dinner or tells them it’s bedtime via other Amazon Echo devices

It’s worth noting that much of this content comes courtesy of a subscription to FreeTime Unlimited which is included for the first year, then costs $2.99 a month thereafter.

Those are some impressive offerings from a product that’s about the size of a hockey puck. Kids will likely love having their own Echo Dot, partly because they appreciate having ‘their own’ anything, but also because of all that this one does just for them. Meanwhile, parents who buy these Dots will come out looking like heroes, mainly because of the product’s vast capacity to entertain.

So, it seems like a win-win for kids and parents. At the same time, there’s something unsettling about a device doing so much for children. Maybe you’re asking yourself these same kinds of questions about the kids’ Echo Dot:

1. Will it make kids rude? One of the concerns people have had about voice assistants is that by catering so quickly to our demands, they’re turning us into a society of ingrates. Amazon has taken into account that potential by programming politeness recognition into the kids’ Dot. For instance, if children say “please,” the device will thank them for asking nicely.

Such positive reinforcement sounds good, but one has to wonder how long it will take kids to realize that by skipping the pleasantries, they’ll get the same information, more quickly.

2. Will it undermine interpersonal skills? Being polite is important, but even more critical communication skills could be at stake. What happens over time when talking to machines replaces talking to people?

Individuals have had similar concerns about teens texting. Under the age of 12, children are really refining their language, conversation, and social skills, which makes it all the more important that they are learning helpful interpersonal communication habits.

3. Will it present a privacy risk? In the wake of high-profile data breaches and the case of Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, privacy should be a priority for every adult. Keeping our kids safe is an even bigger concern.

BuzzFeed reports that Amazon “does not use data harvested from user actions to compile a back-end profile (often called a ‘shadow profile’) for marketing or other purposes.” Rather, Amazon claims that any such data use is simply to customize and enhance the user’s experience. It has to be getting harder for Amazon to resist the temptation to leverage information gleaned from Alexa to promote its retail sales, but at this point, we probably need to take the company at its word.

However, there are other potential privacy concerns, one of which is hacking. A few years ago, a couple of hackers succeeded in breaking into a Jeep Cherokee’s computer system and controlled a variety of the vehicle’s features from afar. In the Internet of Things, it’s scary to think of a similar breach happening in a five-year-old’s bedroom, with a mic that’s always on and listening.

Another privacy concern might come from a much closer yet less obvious source: the children’s own parents. According to Amazon’s website, parents can “monitor activity from the Amazon parent dashboard,” as well as hear what’s happening in their kids’ rooms via Echo Dots’ mics and speakers. That kind of monitoring may be important for babies or very young children, but as kids get older, they deserve to have some privacy in their personal space.

4. Will it become a parenting substitute? Each of the preceding points are worrying, but in many ways, this last one is the most concerning. Given everything that the kids’ Echo Dot does, will it put parents out of a job?

Of course, that question is an exaggeration, but it’s sad to think that children will soon be asking Alexa, not their parents, to read them stories, play games, and answer questions that often spur important conversations.

On one hand, this isn’t the first time technology has threatened to disrupt parent-child relationships (e.g., television, VCRs, DVD players); however, those earlier examples aren’t quite the same. The artificial intelligence and ‘human-like-ness’ of voice assistants put them on a different plane than any other consumer technology.

Amazon’s latest Echo Dot is in many ways an exciting new product that promises considerable utility in terms of education and convenience. These benefits, however, probably don’t outweigh the risks related to things such as reduced privacy and weakened relationships. For these reasons, we need to tell Alexa that the kids' Echo Dot is “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

A Marketing-Ethics Professor Grades Facebook’s Data Policy

4/21/2018

1 Comment

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

You’ve heard about Cambridge Analytica, data-sharing, the 2016 election, and Mark Zuckerberg’s two trips to Capitol Hill. Rather than add one more opinion of what went wrong and why, I’d like to share something a few of Facebook’s two billion users might find even more helpful: an evaluation of the social media giant’s current data policy.

As an educator, I wasn’t eager to tackle another big ‘grading’ project (I have plenty of others right now), but after pouring over the firm’s privacy-related webpages, I’m glad I did. I learned much in the process, and I believe there are several useful takeaways for others who have an interest in how Facebook manages our data.

Most of my analysis stems from Facebook’s Data Policy page, which describes at length the company’s approach to user privacy. This page also contains links to a variety of other pages that unpack specific components of the policy.

Here’s my evaluation:

Readability: "A"
We’ve all experienced contracts and terms of service that we can tell at a glance will be a ‘bear’ to get through, perhaps because of all capital letters or marathon paragraphs. Facebook’s formatting is much more user-friendly, which may seem like a small thing, but if people avoid reading the policy, what good is it?

The policy features short paragraphs, many with three sentences or less, prefaced by bolded headings, which help readers locate specific information. Likewise, the overall organization of material is clear and logical. For instance, several main headings, set in a larger blue font, delineate sections for answering: “What kinds of information do we collect?” “How do we use this information?” and “How is this information shared?”

Clarity: "A"
Organization and formatting are helpful, but they’re meaningless if we can’t interpret what’s said. Most of us have experienced the mind-numbing legalese that seems as if it were written to confuse and confound. Fortunately, Facebook uses language that’s much more accessible, and if technical terms that some users may not recognize are needed, the company explains the concepts. For example, here’s how the firm describes cookies:

“Cookies are small pieces of text used to store information on web browsers. Cookies are used to store and receive identifiers and other information on computers, phones, and other devices. Other technologies, including data we store on your web browser or device, identifiers associated with your device, and other software, are used for similar purposes. In this policy, we refer to all of these technologies as ‘cookies.’”

Sometimes, however, even a clear explanation is not enough. In those instances, Facebook goes a step further by providing specific examples like the following one to describe how it shares data with third parties:

“We may tell an advertiser how its ads performed, or how many people viewed their ads or installed an app after seeing an ad, or provide non-personally identifying demographic information (such as 25 year old female, in Madrid, who likes software engineering) [emphasis added] to these partners to help them understand their audience or customers, but only after the advertiser has agreed to abide by our advertiser guidelines.”

Ease of Use: "A-"
Given that Facebook’s business model is based almost entirely on managing user-provided information, it’s data policy is inherently complex, which makes it all-the-more important that users can easily find the information they want and make changes to fit their personal preferences.

The company facilitates those objectives by making ample use of hyperlinks to other pages, like this one for advertising preferences, which allows users to better understand and manage the ads they see. Facebook also has programmed a decent amount of flexibility into data-related settings. Similar to the previous example, users also can determine the specific information they’d like to keep private vs. make public through means such as managing their Public Profile and using the Activity Log tool.

In addition, Facebook allows users to delete their accounts whenever they wish, or deactivate them temporarily. With those options, however, comes an important caveat from the company: “Keep in mind that information that others have shared about you is not part of your account and will not be deleted when you delete your account.”

Facebook’s ease of use slips somewhat when it comes to reporting others’ objectionable content. On its webpage “Details on Social Reporting,” the company says, “We encourage people on Facebook to use the report buttons located across our site [emphasis added] to let us know if they find content that violates our terms of use so we can take it down.” However, no such buttons are readily visible. Instead, the intended option for such censure appears to lie under each post’s three-dot drop-down menu under the somewhat ambiguous selection “Give feedback about this post.”

Transparency and Thoroughness: "B+"
Brevity is a virtue, but that benefit is lost if there’s not enough information to adequately communicate a message. In many ways, Facebook does a good job detailing its multifaceted data policy. For instance, it identifies each type of third party with which it shares information about its users: advertising, measurement and analytics services, vendors, service providers, and other partners. Facebook also broadly describes the kinds of information these third parties receive and how they use it.

Along the way, the company provides links to other pages that contain more detailed information, such as advertiser guidelines, the kinds of information it collects, and how users can control the types of ads they receive. In addition, Facebook offers in its Help Center a “Security Checkup” and a series of security tips with links to additional resources such as password protection and antivirus software for Mac and Windows operating systems. Unfortunately, the Microsoft link is broken.

How could Facebook be more thorough and transparent? The company states:

“We do not share information that personally identifies you (personally identifiable information is information like name or email address that can by itself be used to contact you or identifies who you are) with advertising, measurement or analytics partners unless you give us permission [emphasis added].”

As a researcher, the notion that Facebook aggregates data and maintains individual users’ anonymity is reassuring. As a Facebook user, however, I’d like more explanation for the final part of the above statement: “unless you give us permission.” How exactly do we give Facebook permission to share “personally identifiable information,” where is it possible to view the permissions we have granted, and how can we rescind such permissions, if we want to do so? Similarly, Facebook’s data policy states:

“We transfer information [emphasis added] to vendors, service providers, and other partners who globally support our business, such as providing technical infrastructure services, analyzing how our Services are used, measuring the effectiveness of ads and services, providing customer service, facilitating payments, or conducting academic research and surveys. These partners must adhere to strict confidentiality obligations [emphasis added] in a way that is consistent with this Data Policy and the agreements we enter into with them.”

“Transfer information” seems like another way of saying ‘share data,’ which is reminiscent of the Cambridge Analytica debacle. Of course, Facebook adds that “these partners must adhere to strict confidentiality obligations,” but how exactly is that third-party confidentiality monitored and enforced? Perhaps the answer is ‘above our pay grade’ as consumers; yet, it would be comforting to know that new and more effective standards for accountability are in place that will help to avoid a similar Cambridge Analytica breakdown.

Conclusion
Along with the preceding assessment, it’s important to note three things:

1. We use Facebook for free. Since users don’t pay for Facebook, the social media platform needs to cover its costs somehow. Like most other media, it does so through advertising revenue. Advertisers aren’t going to foot the bill, however, unless they know who they’re reaching, hence the need to share at least some user data.

2. The purpose of Facebook is to share information. If we posted things on Facebook and no one ever saw them, we’d be upset. The very reason we use the platform is to share information. Granted, we may only want to share things with our friends or certain others, but in keeping with the prior point, ‘beggars can’t be choosers.’

3. Users enjoy a better experience when Facebook utilizes their data. Granted, we don’t want to be taken advantage of, but seeing ads for products we want or content related to topics we like are usually preferable to exposure to things that are of no interest to us. Such customization is possible because of the data we provide.

As the preceding analysis has suggested, Facebook’s data policy isn’t perfect. However, given the information-intensive nature of the company’s operations and the many different stakeholder groups who rely on that data, the company is doing a commendable job—one that warrants recognition as “Mindful Marketing.”