Category: + Fairness

Play with a Purpose

10/19/2022

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

Bobby eagerly opens his Happy Meal box, tossing the chicken nuggets and fries aside to find the special toy tucked inside. Kids have repeated that ritual for decades, but Bobby is 32. While it’s nice that McDonald’s and other companies increasingly meet the need for nostalgia and help grown-ups relive childhood highlights, is selling sentimentalism a good adult-use of time and resources?

Cobranding with the apparel company Cactus Plant Flea Market, McDonald’s recently released a limited-edition Happy Meal intentionally targeted to adults. At $12.69 each, the big kids’ meals aren’t very wallet friendly. They’ve also disappointed some who couldn’t find a restaurant that had them or who got Cactus Buddy, the apparel brand’s mascot, instead of the classic McDonald’s character they wanted.

Still, buzz has been strong and sales brisk, leading some to conclude that “the promotion has been hugely successful for McDonald’s.” The fast-food icon is just one of many firms that are playing on nostalgia to target adults for kids’ products, for instance:

American Girl Cafes host birthday parties and other gatherings just for grown-ups and the dolls they bring.
Play-Doh has created several varieties of its finger-friendly clay in grown-up scents including mom jeans, latte, six-pack, and lawn scent.
Kohl’s carries a 4 ft. high legacy Pac Man video arcade game for $450.
Amazon has an entire category of “nostalgic toys” that includes the Magic 8 Ball, Lite Brite, Lincoln Logs, Slinky, Spirograph, Candy Land, Operation, Evel Knievel, and Etch a Sketch.
LEGO sells a mini version of Jerry Seinfeld’s bachelor pad from the 1990’s sitcom. [More about LEGO below]

Are these nostalgic products always profitable? Probably not. It’s doubtful that any approach the sales volume they once enjoyed; however, given that their design costs have long-since been covered, manufacturing processes have likely improved, little advertising is needed, and they can be sold online with relatively low overhead at premium prices, most of these items probably do make money — their proliferation is evidence.

So, it seems that selling nostalgic play to adults is often effective marketing, but is it ethical?

Two plausible moral concerns are that when adults play, they waste resources, namely time and money:

There’s an opportunity cost that comes with play – when we’re playing we’re typically not doing other things, like working, so we’re being unproductive.
Play can be expensive. Some people spend thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars a year on hobbies such as mountain climbing, boating, skydiving, and car collecting.

However, there also are very compelling arguments supporting that people of all ages need to play, or be “joyfully immersed in the moment.” While there are undoubtedly other benefits, here are five reasons why adults should play:

1. To learn: Videos like this one of lion cubs stalking and pouncing on each other show how play helps them begin to learn to hunt. Most of us also learned specific and generalizable skills through childhood play.

2. To maintain skills: As we grow older, our physical and cognitive abilities naturally decline. Play is one way to slow that descent, whether it’s by participating in a low-intensity sport or doing word puzzles.

3. To develop relationships: People build bonds with others in many different settings, e.g., work, school, church, and play. Friendships often form among individuals on sports teams, chess clubs, hiking groups, etc.

4. To reduce stress: Life at times has hardships and frustrations. Physical play helps us burn off anxious energy, while mental engagement in play often elicits laughter, positive thoughts, and good memories that help keep bad ones at bay.

5. To serve others: Each of the above reasons for play are pretty intuitive. This last one isn’t, at least it wasn’t for me until I connected with a colleague, RJ Thompson, who takes play to another level that one might call play with a purpose.

Thompson is the director of digital marketing in the Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business and College of Business Administration at the University of Pittsburgh. He’s also an award-winning graphic designer and the president of the Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Marketing Association. Those are impressive credentials, but the reason I reached out to him is because he’s a grown man who still loves Legos.

A resident of Bellevue, PA, Thompson recently completed construction of a 45 ft. Lego model of his town’s Lincoln Avenue using over 20,000 of the tiny bricks. What’s more, with only photos for reference and using as many as 30,000 bricks, he spent six months building a 30”L x 30”W x 45”H model of Bellevue’s Andrew Bayne Memorial Library that splits in half to reveal its fine inside detail. Each model cost thousands of dollars.

Why would an accomplished professional spend so much time and money playing with building blocks? Thompson credits LEGO for fanning his creative flame at a very young age and opening for him doors to design, teaching, and entrepreneurship. However, the impact of these epic Lego projects extends far beyond his personal enjoyment of the pastime.

First, the projects have afforded some priceless family time for Thompson and his daughter, who has inherited her father’s curiosity and creativity. Furthermore, with help he moved the massive models from his home to the Library where they served as the centerpiece of a fundraiser that drew hundreds of people and raised $1,500 for renovations to the Library’s children’s areas. Many kids were fascinated by the models and inspired to start their own Lego building projects.

As Thompson’s experience illustrates, play can be more than respite from work, mental relaxation, etc. Those personal benefits are very important in their own right; however, play can achieve a whole other level of significance when used like Thompson uses it, to serve others.

His examples left me wondering, though, with his play becoming so other-oriented, does he still find the same pleasure he once did, building with the miniature bricks? Thompson says he “definitely does,” adding:

“There are some models or kits I see that I absolutely have to have - so there is an anticipatory angle to it where I get excited just as much as my kid does about certain sets. When it first came out, I had to have Dr. Strange's 'Sanctum Sanctorum' model.”

As an artist and a marketer with a heart for play, Thompson shows how a pastime can become even more than a win-win: Purposeful play can have a triple or even quadruple bottom-line of positive impact. Those that sell nostalgic play help bring back fond childhood memories and remind us of the benefits of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Should Employees' Looks Matter?

9/10/2022

27 Comments

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

Despite her aging appearance, Queen Elizabeth II kept her job for an unprecedented 70 years! A Canadian news anchor who let her locks go grey wasn’t as fortunate. Her seemingly heartless dismissal has aroused widespread empathy, including from some of the world’s leading companies, sounding an alarm against ageism. However, in an era when brand-building is of utmost importance, shouldn’t companies have a say in the looks of those they pay to be the faces of their firms?

Before she was “blindsided” by her abrupt termination, fifty-eight-year-old Lisa LaFlamme was “the face of the most-watched nightly news show on Canadian television.” Her 34-years of industry experience combined with a keen intellect and engaging communication style made her the Canadian equivalent of Katie Couric or Barbara Walters.

However, those talents and experience didn’t stop Bell Media from firing LaFlamme from CTV News. Mirko Bibic, the president and CEO of BCE and Bell Canada, denied that hair color had anything to do with LaFlamme’s release, but LaFlamme’s stunned reaction along with CTV News head Michael Melling’s question of who approved the decision to “let Lisa’s hair go grey,” suggest that hair color was at least part of the reason.

Known for speaking out on body image-related issues, Dove, subsidiary of the Dutch conglomerate Unilever, shared its opinion of the incident: Just a week after LaFlamme’s release, Dove Canada unfurled a #KeepTheGrey social media campaign that included the greying of its iconic logo across social channels “to show support for older women and women with grey hair who may face undue workplace discrimination.”

Fast food chain Wendy’s also took up the mantle, temporarily turning grey the red pigtails of its namesake logo.

It’s nice that brands like Dove and Wendy’s care enough to stand against apparent ageism—an often-overlooked issue, especially in societies that tend to glorify youth. But, what about the companies paying, in some cases very significant sums, to people to represent them and, in some cases, to be the faces of their franchises? Shouldn’t these organizations have a say in how their employees look?

When thinking of organizations that dictate their agents’ appearances, one of the first that comes to mind is Disney. At its theme parks, the company carefully curates a wholesome, family-friendly image that stems in large part from the looks and actions of its staff. Personal branding that’s edgy and provocative may have its place in other firms but not at Disney.

Is it legal for Disney to be so prescriptive with its employees’ looks? Yes, since “no federal law bans employment decisions based on appearance in general.” However, employers must ensure that their looks-related rules don’t intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against people because of their race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.

Even then, though, there are legally acceptable exceptions if a case can be made that a specific personal trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). For instance, a film studio can exclude adults from auditioning for children’s roles, and a synagogue can stipulate that rabbi candidates must be Jewish.

As in these examples, for a BFOQ argument to be successful, the required personal characteristic must be essential to job performance. If it is, the discrimination is likely legal.

Of course, just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral, but legislation related to employee looks does do a pretty good job of supporting values of decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility. For instance, if a certain personal characteristic is critical to job performance, it wouldn’t be fair to those hired or to those who rely on their work (coworkers, customers, shareholders) to disregard the criterion.

To determine what’s fair, honest, etc., organizations should consider three questions:

1. Are the firm’s performance assumptions accurate? A company hiring for a web development position might assume that only those 30 years old or younger have the skills and understanding needed to do the work effectively. It could be, though, that the best candidate is a 60-year-old who has many years of industry experience and has kept themself on the cutting edge of their field.

Similarly, corporations fail when they misinterpret what consumers really want. First, it’s important to emphasize that companies are under no legal or moral mandate to cater to customers’ discriminatory and irrational tastes, like only wanting a Caucasian waiter.

Firms sometimes wrongly assume how customers expect employees to look. Disney recently walked back its longstanding policy of no visible tattoos and now permits employees to display “appropriate” ones — an implied admission that it had fallen out of touch with what its customers viewed as family-friendly physical appearance.

2. Are their double standards? Even as America aspires for equality, there are sometimes conflicting norms for different people-groups, e.g., women vs. men, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, Black people vs. white people.

LaFlamme’s termination is a case-in-point. If she were a man, would it have mattered that her hair was gray? Men may face some stigma for coloring their hair, but when they go grey, they’re often described as looking mature, sophisticated, and wise.

Women with the same hair color enjoy few such positive associations; rather, like LaFlamme, they’re more likely to be the victims of age discrimination: “Because of ‘lookism,’ women face ageism earlier than their male counterparts.”

3. Can the firm help precipitate social change? Given that cultural values and norms are much bigger than any one organization, it’s understandable that companies often believe there’s little they can do to have a social impact, particularly with an issue as far-reaching as people’s appearances.

However, even small businesses can help move the needle on such perceptions with their affirming employment practices (e.g., hiring and retaining older workers), as well as by voicing their disapproval if/when their customers discriminate. Global brands like Dove and Wendy’s can have an even greater impact by virtue of their scale and scope.

In the end, the workplace should be a two-way street:

Employees should appreciate that they’re agents of the organizations for which they work and as such, need to respect reasonable appearance-related requirements, for their own benefit, as well as those of their coworkers and the organization on whole.
Organizations should treat their employees with respect and try to truly understand what appearance characteristics are critical to job performance and which are not, while also refusing to cater to customers whose tastes are discriminatory.

There could be a case in which a certain hair color is a BFOQ that a company could legally and morally require. However, that likely wasn’t true in LaFlamme’s situation. She could have reported the news just as effectively with grey hair, and although certain viewers may not have liked her look, many others probably appreciated her authentic appearance and would have welcomed the network’s support of her and other older women.

“Queen of England” shouldn’t be the only occupation accepting of grey hair. Looks matter to individuals and organizations, but requiring employees to change theirs for less-than-compelling reasons appears to be “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

27 Comments

Should Anyone Advertise Alcohol?

8/27/2022

24 Comments

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

Drive slower, pay taxes, vote — While we expect governments to tell us to do those things, we wouldn’t imagine they’d urge more alcohol intake, yet that’s exactly what one of the world’s leading nations is doing. Why a country would encourage sipping more sake is an interesting question, but it begs a much bigger one: Is it possible to promote alcohol responsibly?

The nation imploring intoxication probably isn’t one you’d expect — Japan. The world’s third largest economy and a leader in culture and industry has uncorked a contest called “Sake Viva” that asks citizens in their 20s and 30s for new ways to make and market alcoholic beverages. The term sake refers to both a Japanese rice wine and to alcohol in general.

Most of us are familiar with the risks of excessive alcohol consumption, which can lead to everything from disease (heart, liver), to poor mental health (depression, dementia), to social problems (broken relationships, unemployment), to DUI accidents (serious injury, death), all of which enact high financial and other costs on a country. So, why would Japan intentionally invite these expenses?

Ironically, the answer is money. As many governments have experienced, Japan is dealing with decreased tax revenue, partly because of an aging population and shrinking tax base but also because consumption of one of its most highly taxed products, alcohol, has been declining.

In the mid-1990s, alcohol consumption in Japan averaged over 26 gallons per person — a number that by 2020 dropped by about a third. What’s more, as younger Japanese are drinking less than their elders, the sobering trend seems likely to continue.

In only one year, from 2019 to 2020, tax revenue from liquor sales fell by $813 million, which was “the largest decline in three decades — and a cause for alarm for a government facing broad fiscal challenges.”

Given that in many countries, alcohol advertising is commonplace – on television, in magazines, and on billboards – why have many taken issue with Sake Viva on social media? The backlash seems to be based not so much on the message but who’s delivering it.

Ryo Tanabe, a Japanese man in his 30s, expressed this sentiment in an interview with NPR: “The fact that the National Tax Agency is doing this makes it a different story. I feel something is wrong with it. I understand they need the tax revenue, but I don't think they have to go this far.”

Tanabe’s reticence about his government advocating more alcohol consumption is easy to appreciate, especially given the increased individual and collective costs excess liquor can levy and the fact that we expect our governments to protect us, not put us in harm’s way.

But, if promoting alcohol is bad, should anybody be doing it? Claiming it’s okay for some to advertise alcohol but not others, seems a little like saying certain people can lie or cheat, but others shouldn’t. If something is wrong for one, shouldn’t it be wrong for all?

I have to admit that alcohol advertising is a difficult issue for me to approach objectively. My personal choice is not to drink, and I work for a university that maintains a dry campus. Over the years, I’ve also written several pieces about potential alcohol abuse by marketers, including:

Still, I have friends and family members who drink, and I respect their choices. I also remind myself and other Christians that Jesus’s first miracle was turning water into wine. There were likely then and there are now many people who subscribe to different worldviews and drink responsibly, in moderation, posing little or no risk to themselves or others.

There’s also scientific evidence that small amounts of certain alcohol, e.g., a glass of wine, hold some health benefits.

So, it’s possible to argue that it’s moral to consume alcohol in moderation, which suggests that it’s also acceptable to produce it for others to consume. But does this moral leeway also mean that alcohol producers can advertise their products?

As I’ve considered advertising, which is paid-for mass communication by an identified sponsor, I’ve often thought that if society allows production of an item, it should also permit its promotion, within reason; otherwise, a moral contraction handcuffs the producer — it’s very difficult for most products to succeed without advertising.

That doesn’t mean, though, that any advertising goes. A product like alcohol, in particular, shouldn’t be promoted to the wrong people (e.g., children), in the wrong places (e.g., near schools), or in the wrong ways (e.g., associated with athletic performance).

Another wrong way to promote alcohol or any product is to suggest its excessive use. Whether it’s food, or clothes, or entertainment, too much of even a good thing can cause people harm.

As suggested above, alcohol poses greater risk when consumed in excess than do most products, which brings us back to Japan’s Sake Viva campaign: Encouraging people to drink more, is tantamount to promoting drinking in excess, given that for most people the middle ground between current consumption and intoxication is likely very narrow at best.

On the other hand, alcohol producers can advertise their individual brands without necessarily encouraging consumers to drink more. The reason lies in the difference between primary and secondary demand, or demand for a product category versus demand for a particular brand.

In this comparative ad for Miller Lite, for instance, the beer claims to have “more taste and only one more calorie than Michelob Ultra.” Miller Lite isn’t encouraging people to drink more alcohol, rather it’s asking them to switch their beer purchases from its competitor.

Given my personal consumption preference, I wouldn’t choose to promote alcohol, but I can understand how others might in order to support demand for specific brands. I can’t comprehend, however, how a country, tasked with protecting its citizens’ well-being, can promote more drinking. Encouraging excessive consumption of any kind equals “Mindless Marketing.”

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

24 Comments

Are There Rules When Everyone's an Endorser?

8/13/2022

3 Comments

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

There was a time when only celebrities and aspiring actors were spokespeople. Now the friend you’re having lunch with tomorrow may, unbeknownst to you, have an endorsement deal. It’s nice that company sponsorship has been democratized, but with so many people pushing products, how can consumers survive the promotional onslaught?

The great expansion of spokespeople hit home for me a few months ago during a discussion about personal branding in our university's capstone marketing course. As we considered the notion that those present might be future endorsers, a student in the front row spoke up, “Do you know Rachel Delate? She’s already endorsing products.” A classmate quickly added, “Yeah, she has a deal with Body Armor.”

A year earlier, Rachel was in my intro to marketing class where she distinguished herself as a strong student. She’s also a very good lacrosse player, e.g., first team All-Conference, first team All-Region, third team All-American. After the NCAA’s recent relaxation of rules involving name, image, and likeness (NIL), that talent put her in a position to accept endorsement deals.

Besides Body Armor, Rachel also has enjoyed sponsorship experiences with TreadBands, Barstool Sports, and LiquidIV, which have provided her with a variety of branded gear. She says the experiences have been very worthwhile, as she summarizes in a sentence, “I’ve had the opportunity to connect with awesome brands and people and receive cool stuff!”

Knowing Rachel, I’m confident she’s a responsible influencer, but what about many others who have suddenly become spokespeople and might be looking to make quick money, not caring much about what they’re selling or to whom. How should they see their roles? But first, how did we get to this point of influencer inundation?

The rapid rise in number of endorsers has been the result of a perfect storm of at least three interwoven social trends and economic incentives.

First, over the last several years, new ecommerce platforms and tools have made it relatively easy and inexpensive to operate online shops, which has encouraged many people to start, run, and promote their own businesses.

Second, there’s been a steady increase in influencer marketing due mainly to the seismic shift from traditional media to social media. Advertisers have always needed to be where consumers are, which has recently meant firms moving money from the likes of NBC and the New York Times to an up-and-coming influencers’ TikTok and YouTube channels.

Third, crypto currencies and NFTs, two new categories of virtual products that were virtually unknown a few years ago, have offered an array of endorsement opportunities not only because they’re new but because many people still don’t know exactly what they are and, therefore, lean on endorsers to guide them.

It’s this third trend that recently grabbed product endorsement-related headlines, but not for good reasons:

Bloomberg described “the disastrous record of celebrity crypto endorsements,” such as that of actor Matt Damon who plugged cryptocurrency exchange Crypto.com, only to see Bitcoin’s price plummet by 60%.
BuzzFeed News reported that the watchdog group Truth in Advertising warned Jimmy Fallon, Gwyneth Paltrow, and fifteen other celebrities that they violated Federal Trade Commission guidelines by failing to disclose on social media their money-making connections to certain NFTs.

The proliferation of new and experienced influencers playing fast and loose with their referral power, makes me wonder: Have we entered the Wild West of product pitching where laws are lacking and consumers must take their protection into their own hands?

Hopefully, most influencers will have the conviction to self-regulate. For those who are so morally and professionally inclined, here are four best practices for product endorsement:

1. Know the product: An endorsement is basically a recommendation. People want recommendations because there’s something they don’t know well, and they’d like someone who’s more knowledgeable to guide them.

For that reason, every endorser should be very familiar with the product and/or company they’re recommending; otherwise, they’ll fail to offer value or worse, they might mislead the people who are trusting them for help.

2. Believe in the product: Although information is very important, head knowledge is only half the product-endorsement equation. Spokespeople should also believe in the merits of what they advocate.

Several years ago, a reporter asked basketball great LeBron James how he had improved his game and physique over the off-season. James unwittingly replied that he stopped eating at McDonalds, which was one of his main sponsors at the time. James’ slip underscores the fact that knowing about a product is not the same as believing in it. Endorsers shouldn’t recommend to others products they wouldn’t want for themselves.

3. Ensure the product is a good fit for the target market: Notwithstanding the previous point, there are instances in which endorsers don’t use the products they’re recommending because they’re not in the target market. In those cases, it is especially important that influencers understand the needs of those who do use the product.

For example, doctors often prescribe pharmaceuticals they’ve never tried. They can recommend them with confidence, however, because they’ve read the drug studies and believe in the companies that provide them; then, knowing their patients’ medical histories and symptoms, they can project with some certainty that their patients will benefit from them.

4. Disclose your relationship with the organization: From native advertising to salespeople acting as if they’re customers, one of the greatest deceits in business occurs when marketing promotion tries to pretend it’s not.

Advertising and personal selling are useful tools from which consumers can gain very helpful information; however, people need to know when the information source is objective (e.g., a fellow transit rider) versus compensated by a company (e.g., an online product reviewer who receives the items for free). It’s difficult for anyone to be unbiased about an organization that’s paying them, which isn’t necessarily a problem provided consumers know the relationship.

Developments in areas such as deepfake video, the metaverse, and NIL, give reason to be both excited and anxious about the future of marketing influence. Endorsers who see their roles as involving both individual opportunity and social responsibility will likely be promoters of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

3 Comments

Do Subscriptions Make Sense?

7/30/2022

5 Comments

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

“That’s the gift that keeps on giving the whole year”—such was Cousin Eddie’s inane attempt in Christmas Vacation to console a devastated Clark Griswold after he found out his firm gave him a Jelly of the Month Club membership instead of a generous cash bonus. Clark had good reason to resent receiving a product subscription, but how should consumers feel about more companies moving to subscription models?

If you’re like most people, you’ve noticed a steady rise in reoccurring payments. Decades ago, monthly bills were restricted to things like rent and utilities, but they’ve since expanded to include regular charges for cellphone plans, movie streaming, and online news. And, the list keeps getting longer, as even more organizations find opportunities to automatically tap their consumers’ wallets for things like clothing (e.g., Stitch Fix), meal kits (e.g., HelloFresh), and shaving tools (e.g., Harry’s).

These examples aren’t particularly surprising—each day people wear clothes, eat food, and shave their bodies, so it makes sense to automate the purchase process and save consumers time shopping for such staples. However, subscription services for some other products should make any of us wonder, ‘Why?’

For example, BMW has begun to offer “heated seat subscriptions” in certain vehicles for $18 a month. According to James Vincent, writing for The Verge, “BMW has slowly been putting features behind subscriptions since 2020.” The automaker’s other reoccurring charges include automatic high beams and adaptive cruise control.

There’s also sneaker maker Cloudneo, which offers a “100% recyclable running shoe that’s only available by subscription.” For $29.99 a month, customers receive “an endless supply of shoes.” When pairs are past their useful lives, customers request new ones while returning their old ones, which the company grinds down and melts into plastic pellets used in its new product manufacturing.

These last two examples and several of those mentioned earlier are innovative approaches that reimagine marketing’s 4 Ps. All share strategic similarities as they fall under the subscription umbrella, but there also are significant and sometimes unsettling differences that make me want to better understand: When is subscription pricing right for both companies and consumers?

To answer this question, I turned to someone who has navigated the challenging process of transitioning his company’s signature product from a one-time purchase to a monthly subscription. Jason Kichline is founder and chief technology officer of OnSong, namesake of one of the world’s most widely used music performance apps. It allows musicians to digitally store, sort, and customize their music, saving them time and enabling them to focus on what they do best.

An annual guest speaker in my capstone marketing course, Kichline has told us of his firm’s deliberations about transitioning the OnSong app from a one-time Apple App Store purchase to a monthly subscription. OnSong started to offer a feature-enhanced, subscription version of its product a couple of years ago. This past June, OnSong finalized the monumental move by eliminating the one-time purchase option.

For many companies, the decision to go to full sail on a subscription model is simply a matter of what nets the most money, i.e., will more revenue from reoccurring payments offset sales not realized from potential customers who want a one-time purchase?

Although OnSong certainly considered income projections, it’s analysis was much more circumspect and other-oriented, which is evident as Kichline explains three main reasons for the move:

1. Relationships: “We’ve always placed a high value on supporting our users. A complex and full-featured app like OnSong demands a level of support that goes beyond that of a one-time purchase. A subscription creates the opportunity for a more formal relationship with users and the need to continually provide them with value. Our goal is to make our customers incredibly happy with the level of service, support, and features we offer.”

2. Continuity: “Although OnSong has been successful for more than 10 years, many software firms don’t last as long—they go out of business, or they’re acquired. A developer can keep an app around for a long time for some side money or an owner’s salary, but a buyer typically wants ROI. For this reason, new owners turn many one-time-purchase apps into subscriptions and try to ‘leverage’ the existing user base.”

“Even though app customers often assume they’ll be forced to upgrade to a subscription, we didn’t feel it was fair, so we grandfathered existing users.” Still, because going out of business also leaves customers stranded, we believe that subscribing to OnSong is the best path forward for all. A subscription to OnSong is an investment in the company and its product’s future.”

3. Value-Added: “The defining measure for most consumers is what they receive compared to what they pay. Although a subscription costs more than a one-time purchase over time, it also provides greater benefits, including important updates and improvements in an ever-changing technological environment. A cancelable subscription also reduces financial risk for consumers by allowing for product trial, which is often not possible with one-time software purchases.”

“Looking to the future, OnSong wants to provide a web-based version of the app that will store music and resources in the cloud, as well as manage bands and teams. A subscription model supports this additional functionality and added value.”

Kichline acknowledges that the transition to a subscription model has not been without challenges, which include effective communication with consumers, who can be swayed by public perceptions in social media.

Still, the change has been a good one for OnSong and its customers. After experiencing one “tight month,” the company’s revenues quickly rebounded to previous levels with continuing growth. That success should also be taken as a sign of the strength of OnSong’s value proposition in the eyes of consumers—the benefits they receive from the app are well-worth its reoccurring cost.

For Kichline, key to the whole process has been “having the mind of the consumer.” His analysis above and this summary statement make me ask: Do the subscriptions for BMW’s heated seats and Coudneo’s recyclable running shoes show an understanding of “the mind of the consumer” and a desire to truly meet customers’ needs?

Cloudneo’s product subscription may represent such a market orientation for certain hardcore runners who cycle through sneakers at a rapid clip. They might wear out a pair of running shoes every few months and could easily spend $360 or more per year on performance footwear.

BMW’s subscription is harder to justify. In his Verge article mentioned above, Vince raises good points that call into question the automaker’s motives:

“BMW owners already have all the necessary components [for the heated seats], but BMW has simply placed a software block on their functionality that buyers then have to pay to remove. For some software features that might lead to ongoing expenses for the carmaker (like automated traffic camera alerts, for example), charging a subscription seems more reasonable. But that’s not an issue for heated seats.”

When BMW manufactures vehicles with heated seats, it likely passes on the added material and labor costs to consumers at the time of purchase. So, the automaker is essentially holding back a feature for which customers have already paid so it can charge twice for what is an increasingly common new car addition. Such a motive certainly wouldn’t represent a customer-centric attitude.

As BMW has shown, there are situations in which paying a reoccurring fee for a product makes little sense for consumers. However, when companies prioritize the three principles that Kichline has identified (relationships, continuity, and value-added), subscription pricing is “Mindful Marketing.”

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

5 Comments

Should AI Impersonate People?

7/1/2022

2 Comments

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

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”—it is a high compliment when people respect someone’s work enough to replicate it. But, when one of the world’s largest companies’ smart speakers start imitating people’s voices, has flattery drifted into deceit?

It’s difficult to keep pace with innovation in artificial intelligence (AI), but one particular advance that's certainly worth attention is the impending ability of Amazon’s Alexa to mimic voices. After hearing no more than a minute of audio, the smart speaker reportedly will be able to deliver a plausible impersonation.

Alexa’s voice is apparently one that appeals to a very large number of consumers: A 2021 Statista study showed that Alexa was the most widely used assistant across four of six age demographics. So, why would Amazon want to mess with the sound that’s helped it sell so many smart speakers?

According to Amazon senior vice president Rohit Prasad, the change “is about making memories last,” particularly remembrances of those who’ve passed.

In many ways that motive makes the voice mimicking technology seem like a great idea. For those who have lost loved ones, one of the greatest blessings would be to hear their dearly departed’s voice again.

Since my father passed away last August, I’ve thought several times how nice it would be to talk with him again—to hear his opinion about the latest news, to ask him questions that only he could answer.

On a lighter side and also related to Alexa’s voice imitation, I’ve always enjoyed good impressionists. It’s fun to hear comedians who can act and sound like famous people. One of my favorites is Frank Caliendo, who is best known for impressions of famous sports figures; his John Madden and Charles Barkley impressions are great!

Frank Caliendo impersonating John Madden on the Late Show with David Letterman

So, I can see why Alexa doing impressions of people we knew and loved could be popular. However, AI impersonations should also give us pause for at least four reasons:

1. More than a voice: Of course, just because someone, or something, sounds like a person we know, doesn’t mean they are that person. Every individual is a unique curation of beliefs, affections, and experiences that influence what they say and even how they say things.

Frank Caliendo may sound like Charles Barkley, but he obviously isn’t the NBA legend and popular sports broadcaster. Consequently, Caliendo can never truly say what Barkley would say and neither can AI. Only a person knows what they themself would say.

2. Respect for the deceased: Per the previous point, if AI speaks for anyone, beyond playing back a recording of them speaking, it’s putting words in that person’s mouth. A living person could conceivably give such permission, but how would a dead person do the same, short of adding some kind of addendum to their last will and testament, allowing AI impersonation?

I’m not sure it would be fair to ask anyone before their passing to give a smart speaker carte blanche use of their voice. As hard as it is to let go of people we loved, it’s something we must do. The longer we’d allow AI to speak for a loved one, the greater the probability that the technology would say things to tarnish their memory.

3. Vulnerable consumers: Given how good machines already are at imitating life, it will likely become increasingly easy for techno fakes to fool us. However, there are certain groups of people who are at much greater risk of being duped than the average individual, namely children and older people.

It’s scary to think how those with heinous motives might use AI voice imitation to make young children believe they’re hearing the words of a trusted parent, grandparent, etc. Similarly, the Mindful Marketing article, “Preying on Older People” described how senior citizens are already frequent targets of phone scammers pretending to be someone they’re not. AI voice imitation could open the flood gates for such abuse.

4. Distorting the truth: Thanks to fake news, native advertising, deepfake video and the like, the line between what’s real and what’s not is becoming more and more difficult to discern. University of Maryland professor of psychology Arie Kruglanski warns that a truthless future is not a sustainable one:

“Voluminous research in psychology, my own field of study, has shown that the idea of truth is key to humans interacting normally with the world and other people in it. Humans need to believe that there is truth in order to maintain relationships, institutions and society.”

“In the extreme, a lost sense of reality is a defining feature of psychosis, a major mental illness. A society that has lost its shared reality is also unwell.”

While examples of the innovation in imitation are fascinating, it’s concerning that in the not-too-distant future, fakes may become undetectable. At that point, it seems like our world will be well on the path to what Kruglanski forewarned: ‘losing its sense of reality’ and becoming ‘unwell.’

In the 1994 movie Speed, Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves try to stop a city bus that’s triggered to explode if it drops below 50 mph. AI deception can feel like that runaway bus, barreling forward with no way to stop it or even slow it down.

However, large corporations like Amazon share the driver’s seat and have some control over the AI vehicle. Although having them put the brakes on innovation may be too much to ask, they can at least integrate some forms of notification to clearly indicate when people are seeing/hearing a fake and not the real thing.

Even with such notifications, Alexa’s application of voice impersonation is wrought with potential for abuse. For the four reasons outlined above, Amazon should shutter plans for its smart speaker to imitate people and thereby avoid talk of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

Selling Social Issues

6/5/2022

0 Comments

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

Besides being a tasty treat that almost everyone enjoys, ice cream is a ‘celebration food’ served at birthday parties and used to reward kids' sports team success. So, why did Walmart’s new frozen dairy flavor created to celebrate Black Americans’ emancipation leave a bad taste in so many people’s mouths? Moreover, what can the failure teach organizations about commercializing social issues?

In its ongoing search for profitable new products, the world’s largest retailer recently cooked up a novel plan—tap into Black Americans’ and others’ celebrations of Juneteenth, the federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.

Walmart’s strategy to support the celebration involved a line of party products, including napkins, plates, and drink koozies branded “Juneteenth” using the black, red, and green colors often associated with Black liberation, and carrying the tagline, “It’s the freedom for me.”

Walmart also created a special food worthy of the branded partyware--Juneteenth Ice Cream, a frozen concoction resembling swirled red velvet cheesecake. However, it wasn’t long after the company launched its Juneteenth line that social media began to skewer it, as shown in these sample tweets:

“Walmart needs to do better. It shows the lack of understanding of the pain and suffering that made Juneteenth come about. It is absolutely insulting to have this special holiday turned into some commercial product.” (@The Next Ceiling)

“This isn't "wokeness", it's corporations trying to profit off of minorities by acting like they care about us.” (@DeadpoolLIFE69)

“So let me get this straight 🤔, y’all made more money keeping us enslaved after the Emancipation Proclamation, and NOW that it’s a recognized Federal Holiday y’all want to make MORE money off the same culture you enslaved??” (@MoodaSchmooda)

“White America: Mmmm...best thing we can do is some Walmart Juneteenth ice cream that we'll profit off of.” (@RedeemRobinson)

In the face of the backlash, Walmart made a quick pivot and pulled its Juneteenth-themed ice cream. It also apologized:

“We received feedback that a few items caused concern for some of our customers and we sincerely apologize. We are reviewing our assortment and will remove items as appropriate."

Companies are increasingly ‘hitching their wagons’ to social causes’—an alignment that many people prefer including 83% of millennials. Consequently, the approach often proves profitable. Furthermore, during recent years filled with race-related violence, many consumers expect companies to show their support for racial justice.

So, wasn’t Walmart right to support Black Americans by launching a line of Juneteenth products?

Although the Twitter feedback above is enlightening, social media responses often prioritize ‘quick and pithy’ over ‘thoughtful and measured.’ For that reason and to help me better understand how Black Americans might perceive Walmart’s tactics, I reached out to a colleague at my university who’s well-qualified to offer an informed perspective.

Dr. Todd Allen is Vice President for Diversity Affairs and Professor of Communication at Messiah University. He’s also the founder of The Common Ground Project, “a community-based non-profit dedicated to teaching the history of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.”

When I asked Allen about Walmart’s Juneteenth product line, he shared these insights:

“I think the timing (a new holiday) and some people still feeling burned by the promises of 2020 (which haven’t necessarily resulted in the hoped-for transformative change) just made this too soon. The fact that they pulled [the ice cream] so quickly also makes me wonder who was in on the decision making in the first place. It seems like if the TV show Blackish were still on the air, this would be an episode.”

Allen also offered one word that captured much of what he shared, “context.” For instance, he mentioned that Walmart is not known for being progressive on racial issues. He also said that the company’s approach “felt just a bit too commercial and too opportunistic.”

So, what if the context were different? For another company with a more positive race-related track record, offering different products with better messaging, public perceptions may have been more positive.

Allen’s response and the idea of context got me thinking: Beyond just Walmart and Juneteenth, are there principles that all organizations should follow when connecting with social causes? There undoubtedly are many, but here are perhaps three of the most important questions to ask:

1. What’s the company’s track record on the issue? Whether it’s an individual or an organization, we’re more likely to trust the motives of someone who has already demonstrated genuine concern about the social issue at hand. In the case of Walmart and race, results have been mixed.

On one hand, in June 2020, the company pledged $100 million over five years to address racial disparities in the U.S. However, in January of 2022 a black correction officer sued Walmart for racial profiling when he was wrongfully accused of shoplifting, then in February, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Walmart because “Walmart violated federal law when it gave a Black female employee an unsanitary lactation space based upon her race.”

In contrast, Fundraising for a Cause, the world’s largest manufacturer of awareness products, enjoys strong credibility when it comes to earning income through social causes, partly because it’s owner and CEO, Karen Conroy, founded the company after her sister was diagnosed with breast cancer and also because her company passes significant profits onto her customers, e.g., they can buy 50 silicone bracelets for $40, sell them for $5 each, and net $210 for their cause.

2. What’s the nature of the product? There’s a place and time for most products; the key is to ensure that the product personality aligns with sentiments surrounding the social issue.

Juneteenth is certainly a cause for celebration but that’s because it marks the end to several centuries of enslavement. As such, the holiday understandably evokes mixed emotions that aren’t necessarily in keeping with an all-out party atmosphere, or at least not one worthy of a namesake flavor of ice cream. Would it be right to have a dairy treat marking the end of the Holocaust?

For comparison, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) is a nonprofit organization that works in over 50 countries around the world to provide disaster relief, foster economic development, and promote peace. Among its biggest fundraisers are quilt auctions, which raise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Quilts are items of beauty and comfort that complement MCC’s three-fold mission.

3. Is the company adding value? Whether it’s a single salesperson or an entire organization, the measuring stick for any marketer is the value they add in an exchange. No company should extract more value than it gives.

It’s hard to know how much money Walmart would have made on the Juneteenth ice cream and other products. Knowing Walmart’s typical pricing approach, the profit margins on the items were likely low; however, selling them across more than 5,300 U.S. retail stores, even modest margins would have added up quickly.

Walmart also likely hoped to pocket goodwill from the products; however, the biggest grab by Walmart was its attempt to trademark (TM) Juneteenth, as if it had created the name, so that only it could sell Juneteenth branded products.

On a positive side, Walmart consumers could purchase the branded products at reasonable prices. However, it’s unlikely that Juneteenth-imprinted paper products and ice cream would deepen anyone’s understanding of and appreciation for the momentous historic event. If anything, Walmart’s products may have trivialized it.

Other companies have made money, in some cases very large amounts, from marketing race-related products; however, many times they’ve added extra value through education.

A good example of such value-added is the feature film Selma, “a chronicle of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s campaign to secure equal voting rights via an epic march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965.” An Academy Award nominee for best picture, the movie grossed over $66.7 million worldwide on an estimated budget of $20 million.

Selma was very profitable for Harpo Films and the other production companies that made the movie. However, those who watched the film also ‘profited,’ not just from two hours of entertainment but from a better understanding of a very important historic event.

As Allen suggested, context matters. Like others, he wondered why Walmart didn’t instead promote a Black-owned ice cream brand, Creamalicious, which it was already selling in its stores. Such an approach would have been a better context in at least two of the three ways described above.

Unfortunately, however, Walmart tried a more self-serving strategy that quickly melted. So instead of celebrating, the company is doing damage-control because of its “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

The Real Beef About Burger Ads

5/22/2022

1 Comment

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

While Ukrainians mourn their war dead and Buffalo residents grieve victims of a hate crime, a guy in New York cries foul because his hamburgers aren’t bigger. Of course, not every real problem is a matter of life and death, but could some seemingly frivolous lawsuits challenging fast food promotions portray broader communication concerns?

On May 17, Long Island resident Justin Chimienti filed a legal action in a Brooklyn federal court, accusing both Wendy’s and McDonald’s of “defrauding customers with ads that make burgers appear larger than they actually are.”

The lawsuit alleges that the restaurants’ use of undercooked beef in photo shoots leads to promotional pieces with burgers that appear 15% to 20% larger than those customers actually receive. The suit also suggests that Wendy’s exaggerates the toppings that embellish its sandwiches.

Burger King, the third of the big three fast food competitors, was slapped with a similar lawsuit just over a month ago. In fact, the same law firms that sued BK are also representing Chimienti in the most recent litigation.

To many, these lawsuits are the epitome of money-grabbing lawyers eager to profit from a first-world problem--With so many truly important events happening in our world, why should anyone worry that Whoppers aren’t as juicy as they appear in their pictures?

However, Anthony Russo, one of the main attorneys representing the plaintiff, argues that there’s a bigger issue at play--corporate accountability. He maintains that these legal actions will make the companies mend their ways, stop false and misleading advertising, and ultimately give consumers a better idea of the food they’re eating.

That justification sounds good, but it does come from one of the people who stands to gain the most from the litigation. In fact:

“A detailed examination of eight years of consumer class actions in federal court found that consumers received only a tiny fraction of the money awarded in those cases while plaintiff lawyers frequently claimed a bigger share of the settlement than their clients.”

Still, legal action can be an effective way to bring about corporate change, and it usually takes attorneys to move such proceedings through the courts.

Imagining the burger court cases, the defendants might offer a counterargument like:

"When it comes to promoting themselves, don’t individuals and organizations have a right to ‘put their best foot forward,’ and doesn’t everyone expect others to do the same?"

Most people don’t have sections of their resumes labeled ‘Main Flaws’ or ‘Greatest Failures’; instead, we list our ‘Special Skills’ and describe ‘Awards and Recognitions.’ Likewise, no one reviewing resumes expects to see those self-deprecating categories. That’s why interviewers often ask job candidates things like, “Tell me about one of your weaknesses.”

So, shouldn’t companies also be allowed to brag a little and show their best examples versus humiliate themselves with mediocre or bad ones?

Curating top quality products for promotion certainly isn’t unique to fast food chains. Grocery store flyers rarely feature misshapen fruits and vegetables, car commercials don’t use vehicles with scratches or dents, and clothing ads don’t show shirts that are wrinkled or frayed.

As consumers, not only do we routinely see such examples, many of us are involved in the same sort of careful curation of ourselves and the organizations we serve.

During my two-plus decades in higher education, I’ve often helped select ‘best’ examples to help promote my department and university. For instance, when asked to suggest students or alumni who might provide a testimonial, I take plenty of time to think before offering names of individuals who I believe have had very positive experiences.

However, just because we engage in such selective promotion doesn’t mean that we should, i.e., we need to be careful about reasoning from ‘is’ to ‘ought.’

The main moral questions to ask are whether the recipients of the promotion are deceived and harmed.

Personally, I don’t feel misled by pictures of perfect peaches, super clean cars, or spotless shirts. Most people also probably expect the actual items they buy to have at least some minor imperfections when compared to their pictured counterparts.

Depending on the nature and cost of the product, there’s a level below perfect condition that we readily accept knowing that we live in an imperfect world. Furthermore, in terms of food, visual imperfections probably don’t matter as much as they do for many other products because although we eat with our eyes, the appearance of what’s on our plates is short-lived.

That takes us back to burgers and the main moral questions:
Do differences between what Burger King, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s depict in their ads and sell in their stores deceive and harm consumers?

First, it’s important to recognize that for the vast majority of consumers, these fast food restaurants’ ads represent reminder advertising, i.e., most people have already eaten in one or more of the chains, possibly multiple times, so they’re well aware of what they’ll receive the next time they visit.

Second, fast food is a rather low-involvement, low-risk purchase. When deciding what to order, people typically spend a minute or less, not hours, days, or weeks, as they might when selecting some products. Likewise, the average McDonald’s Big Mac Meal costs only $5.99, and customers can buy two cheeseburgers for just $2.00. So, if the beef patties don’t look quite as pretty as the pictures, it’s no big loss.

All that said, there is a difference between misrepresenting quality and misrepresenting quantity. Whether burgers look more or less appealing than their pictures is a somewhat subjective matter. Size is not. People almost always want to get more product for their money, not less, so it’s a problem if a burger’s picture looks 50% bigger than the one we actually receive.

In this sense, the burger lawsuits have more teeth. Consumers will quickly forget whether the Big Mac Meal looked as good in person as it did in the picture, but they won’t forget if they’re still hungry after eating it, especially if they have no more meal money to spend.

Although that’s not a life-threatening problem on par with those mentioned at the outset of this piece, it is a legitimate consumer concern, particularly in inflationary times. Whether they’re spending a lot or a little, people should always receive the amount of product they’re promised.

So, there is a plausible and practical component to the burger lawsuits; however, their bigger contribution is their call for accountability, which also may mean modeling more genuine communication.

It’s not to say that people take their communication cues directly from fast food ads, yet there’s an unsettling resemblance between the idealized product promotions and the utopian pictures many individuals paint of themselves in social media.

When people see large, heavily advertised corporations like Burger King, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s freely exaggerating and glamorizing their truths, it implies permission for others to do the same.

The world becomes a better place when individuals and organizations take care to represent themselves realistically. It’s okay to put our best foot forward, but it must be our foot, not some fantastical version of it. Those who walk with realism are stepping into “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Is Netflix Content 'Good Enough'?

4/23/2022

11 Comments

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

How old were you when you made your first solo shopping trip? If you’re a Boomer, Gen X, or Gen Z, your answer might be 8, 12, or even 18. Japanese youth apparently run errands much earlier—as in age two—to the amazement of many Americans who are now streaming the cultural curiosity. Whether toddlers should be by themselves on road-trips is a worthy question, as is why people a half-world away are watching a decade-old television show.

From ‘Stanger Things,’ to ‘Bridgrton,’ to ‘Squid Game,’ tastes for Netflix series change like the seasons. Now, one of the streaming giant’s popular properties is an unlikely reality series that comes courtesy of East Asia and the 1990s.

‘Old Enough!’ is a documentary-style television program in which Japanese parents send their toddlers on their first independent errands. Camera crews capture the highly cute and often humorous action, while witty narration added in editing gives viewers a window into what the tots may have been thinking at the time of their adventures.

In light of today’s often hovering helicopter parents, it’s refreshing to see young people given real responsibilities and freedom to act independently. However, it’s also kind of unnerving to watch a kid, who’s still wearing diapers, wander by himself more than a half mile to a grocery store to pick up ingredients for dinner.

In terms of social skills, these parents are placing their children far ahead on the developmental curve. Given what these kids are doing under age four, there’s no telling what they’ll be capable of by the time they’re 10 or 20 . . . if they live that long!

In terms of safety, there’s likely little danger to the children. Camera crews are filming them the entire time, so in some sense they’re safer during shooting than they may be any other day. However, no camera operator could intervene in time if a three-year-old suddenly skipped off the sidewalk, into the path of a moving vehicle.

Another issue to consider any time children are placed in media roles is informed consent. How can a child under the age of five possibly understand what they’re doing: the risks they’re incurring at the time and the implications their ‘celebrity’ may bring in the future? Most fathers and mothers pursue their children’s best interest; yet there are always unfortunate cases in which parents become blinded by their offspring’s potential popularity and prosperity and intentionally place them in harm’s way.

This potential may be even more of a concern in today’s social media infatuated society. Now any parent with a smartphone can capture their child doing ‘something special’ and broadcast the clips or stills to anyone in the world.

All the above are real moral concerns; however, it’s hard to paint ‘Old Enough!’ as irresponsible entertainment. Most parents who aggressively promote and profit from their children probably have never seen the show. Also, given the series’ longevity and apparent track record of ‘safe success,’ the show seems like acceptable diversion.

So, back to the second question posed at the outset of this piece: Why have so many Americans suddenly been smitten by a decade-old Japanese documentary featuring toddlers running errands? ‘Seinfeld’s George Costanza’s gave a reason for watching ‘a show about nothing’ that may help answer the question: “because it’s on TV.”

Of course, there’s sarcasm in that answer, but there’s also truth. Although the increasingly competitive streaming market is saturated with shows, after spending 18 months or more homebound in a pandemic, many people feel they’ve already seen everything worth watching on Netflix, which has left the company scrambling for new content—scouring space and time for entertainment that will keep people from unsubscribing.

Speaking of subscriptions, during the first quarter of 2022, Netflix lost 200,000 subscribers and even more staggering, it expects to lose 2 million more by July—an announcement that has precipitated a decline in the company’s stock price of more than 30%.

During video rental era and in the early years of streaming, competitors had largely the same video libraries, so cost and convenience were key to attracting customers. Now content is the most important differentiator, as evidenced by the rapid rise of relatively new competitor Disney+, which has ridden the popularity of proprietary shows like ‘The Mandalorian,’ ‘The Beatles: Get Back,’ and a long list of Disney movies.

Netflix needs original content. Over the past five-to-seven years, it’s certainly had success creating content, but subscribers burned through that content with a flurry of pandemic-prompted binge-watching. Creating compelling original content takes considerable time, money, and expertise, but even then, there are no guarantees it will be well-received.

These reasons are likely why Netflix acquired the streaming rights for ‘Old Enough!’—a show the company could make available immediately to a subscriber base that, by and large, had never seen it, but would find it at least a little entertaining, since reality TV still resonates and people like cute kids.

Netflix also probably didn’t overpay for those rights. True to the show’s name, the 20 episodes now on Netflix were produced in 2013, nearly a decade ago, giving ‘Old Enough!’ a double meaning and likely meaning that the series was a bargain. Unfortunately, inexpensive does not necessarily mean good.

My wife and I are not representative of all Netflix subscribers, but after watching three episodes of the grocery-toting toddlers, we had our fill. The children were cute, and the scenarios were kind of funny, but reading the subtitles made the entertainment feel a little like work. Even though a fourth episode promised a different kid in a unique situation, it didn’t seem like we’d really see anything new.

Perhaps ‘Old Enough!’ has outperformed Netflix executives’ expectations. Still, the show can’t be more than a bandage on the company’s expanding wound of subscriber attrition, which will only be healed by a more drastic strategic prescription.

Interestingly, Netflix is now looking to incorporate advertising. Such sponsorships could help contain, if not lower, the cost of the platform; however, people won’t stay subscribed just because rates don’t rise, any more than they'll watch shows ‘just because they’re on TV.’ Subscribers of any streaming service must believe there’s enough new, engaging content to warrant whatever amount they’re paying.

There are no serious moral concerns over a show about toddlers ‘doing nothing,’ but there’s also little economic upside for a streaming giant that desperately needs more compelling original content. For these reasons, Netflix’s ‘Old Enough!’ is good enough to be “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

11 Comments

Recognizing 'Kid Concerns'

3/11/2022

1 Comment

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

What worried you as a child? Maybe it was not having friends at your lunch table or embarrassing yourself in PE class. For kids, those are real concerns. Of course, they pale in comparison to adult anxieties, like deciding who to marry or how to make the next mortgage payment.

Images of war in Ukraine, including bombed buildings, fractured families, and bloodied bodies have made us realize that our daily worries are ‘kid concerns’ compared to the existential threats Ukrainians face. Paying more to fill our cars' gas tanks is nothing next to the calamities those in Ukraine are enduring.

Businesses, however, have a much wider range of concerns than individuals do. Unlike you and me, they need to navigate the complexities of supplying products, making payroll, and paying dividends. For the world's largest organizations, customers, employees, and shareholders number in the millions.

Despite these very real stakeholder obligations, a growing list of 300+ multinational corporations have decided to cease operations in/with Russia. Among the notable are Apple, Amazon, Coca-Cola, Disney, Exxon, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, Ikea, KPMG, Mastercard, McDonald’s, Nestlé, Netflix, Nike, Pepsi, Procter & Gamble, Samsung, Shell, Starbucks, Toyota, UPS, Visa, and Volkswagen.

It’s no small thing to curtail commerce with Russia. With a population of 145.9 billion, it’s the ninth most populous nation in the world. For instance, 4.5% of McDonald’s 2021 revenue, and 4% of Pepsi’s, came from Russia. Those percentages may seem small, but for companies with sales of $23.3 billion and $79.4 billion, respectively, those are hits of over $1 billion and $3 billion for each firm.

Although, it’s become increasingly popular to spurn Russia, is it fiscally prudent and morally right for companies to do so, given their multifaceted stakeholder obligations, not to mention the notion that withholding Big Macs and Pepsi is unlikely to deter Vladimir Putin from his geopolitical goals. Some may even argue that with so many competitors closing shop in Russia, it’s a good time to gain market share.

So, why should McDonald’s, Pepsi, or any of the other 300+ economic objectors bother to boycott Russia?

It’s because, even though many of these corporations have revenues that exceed the GDPs of entire nations, the current crisis is bigger than any company. These companies’ self-interests are certainly real, but they’re ‘kid concerns’ compared to what’s happening in the world now and where it could lead.

It’s hard to imagine how any individual or organizational benefits could outweigh the death and destruction Russia is enacting on Ukraine. What’s more, it’s possible that this unprovoked infringement on one nation’s sovereignty may only be the beginning.

Given Putin's past comments, it’s possible that other former Soviet republics are on deck for annexation. There’s also speculation that China is carefully weighing other nations’ responses to the war in order to assess its potential for taking Taiwan.

Many believe that Ukraine’s fight for freedom foreshadows a much bigger battle for democracy. Given the gravity and plausibility of that prediction, it’s difficult to understand how a company could put limited and likely short-term losses ahead of civil liberties and self-determination for potentially billions of people, for possibly centuries to come.

Yet, some companies still aren’t taking a stand against Russia’s aggression. As of this writing, “companies that remain in Russia with significant exposure” include: Bridgestone Tire, Cargill, Caterpillar, Citi, Deere, Hilton, Hyatt, Kimberly Clark, Marriott, Mondelez, and Whirlpool.

Perhaps some of these organizations are still planning to act, they just need more time to execute their exits. Hopefully, none are thinking that their absence in Russia won’t make a difference, as it most certainly will.

Because of tightly controlled media, the Russian people can’t see the devastation their country is inflicting on its neighbor. What they will notice, though, are unavailable products, closed stores, and lost jobs, as well as a ransacked ruble.

Although unfortunate, that sudden economic distress will cause Russians to question what’s happening and why. Eventually, the truth will spread beyond the thousands who already know the ugly reality and have courageously protested the incursion.

As abhorrent as the currently conflict is, hopefully a positive outcome will be a new recognition of companies’ collective abilities to stand down aggression and precipitate peace. There are times when the most helpful thing marketers can do is not market.

We all have legitimate responsibilities to ourselves and others. We all also must recognize when larger societal concerns should supersede those smaller self-interests. Such self-awareness is a prerequisite for “Mindful Marketing.”

Here are 11 verified charities to support Ukrainians.

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

1 Comment

<<Previous

Play with a Purpose

Should Employees' Looks Matter?

Should Anyone Advertise Alcohol?

Are There Rules When Everyone's an Endorser?

Do Subscriptions Make Sense?

Should AI Impersonate People?

Selling Social Issues

The Real Beef About Burger Ads

Is Netflix Content 'Good Enough'?

Recognizing 'Kid Concerns'

Editor

Archives

Categories