Category: Mindless33703c5669

Hurricane Heist?

9/15/2017

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

As Hurricane Irma turned toward Florida, an angry consumer shared a screen shot of a 24-pack of 16.9 ounce bottled water that Best Source Office Supplies was selling on Amazon for $99.99. Inflating the prices of necessities ahead of an impending natural disaster is a tactic that most people find deplorable, but not everyone. Of course, companies taking that tack rationalize their actions, but certain others also make a compelling case for such price hikes.

Price gouging is "the practice of raising prices on certain types of goods and services to an unfair level, especially during a state of emergency." Although it’s not uncommon for companies to increase prices on goods and services to levels that consumers think are too high, price gouging is different.

Consumers are price gouged when the item in question is something they must have (e.g., food, water), but the product’s supply is severely restricted, often to a single seller, so consumers have no choice but to pay the exorbitant price. In contrast, although the new iPhone X starts at a staggering $999, Apple is not guilty of price gouging because it’s possible to survive without the newest iPhone.

In the case of Hurricane Irma, certain sellers reportedly gouged consumers for water, ice, food, and fuel. One Orlando Shell station supposedly sold regular grade gas for $5.99/gallon and premium for $6.99. Even Disney got into the act: A Twitter user posted pictures from Disney’s Art of Animation Resort, which offered small bottles of water for $2 and juice boxes for $2.69 each. A Disney spokesperson later said that the situation was an isolated incident that had been rectified.

To document such abuse, Florida’s attorney general Pam Bondi set up a hotline that received over 8,000 calls about price gouging, which violates Florida law and is subject to “civil penalties of $1,000 for each violation, and up to $25,000 for several violations within a 24-hour period.” Beyond the legal penalties, Bondi promised violators personal retribution: “I will be saying your name all over national television and telling people not to go to your business ever again if you’re stealing from Floridians and taking advantage of Floridians in a time of need.”

Despite the fact that certain states have made price gouging illegal and most people consider it immoral, some claim that capping prices actually makes situations, like those surrounding hurricanes, worse. Writing for Forbes, Adam Millsap argues that pricing gouging laws are what empty store shelves, not natural disasters. The best thing, Millsap contends, is to let supply and demand determine prices like they normally do.

Similarly, in a New York Times article, Andrew Ross Sorkin states that “several respected economists from the Milton Friedman school of free-market theory” support the argument against price gouging laws because artificially low prices “remove the incentive for consumers to conserve essential supplies,” and they discourage sellers from increasing stock.

So, maybe Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is the best way to determine supply when natural disasters strike. That belief aligns well with an increasingly popular pricing strategy, dynamic pricing, in which firms like airlines use algorithms to quickly increase prices to whatever level the market will bear. Unfortunately, such approaches also tend to have some very undesirable side effects.

For one thing, higher prices naturally favor the wealthy. That advantage is understandable under normal circumstances: People with more money should be able to buy higher-priced items. In the case of natural disasters, however, it doesn’t seem right to price anyone out of the market for food, water, or other basic survival needs.

Also, there’s no reason retailers can’t impose limits on how much or how many of an item customers can buy. Stores successfully ration items all the time. For instance, a grocery store runs a sale on granola and dictates: “Limit, two boxes per customer.” Likewise, arguments against price gouging laws don’t give people much credit. When asked to conserve, most individuals will limit their consumption for the sake of others.

In addition, the notion that businesses should maximize profits at their customers’ expense is both antiquated and short-sighted. Sure, people may have no choice but to pay ridiculously high prices when they’re put between a rock and a hard place, but they won’t soon forget what it felt like to be treated as a means to an end. Firms that price gouge run a great risk of alienating consumers and ruining their reputations.

On the other hand, companies that show restraint and price “to create shared value,” generate considerable goodwill, especially in the face of a natural disaster. A few firms that bolstered their brands by taking this more enlightened and socially responsible approach when Irma struck were JetBlue, Airbnb, AT&T Wireless, and Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe.

It’s hard for most people to know how they will react in the face of life-threatening natural disasters like hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Businesses, however, should know not to take advantage of people in such vulnerable states. Companies that do are guilty of various offenses, and one of them is “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!

28 Comments

How Caffeine Can Kill

5/30/2017

0 Comments

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

“Teen died from drinking too much.” Unfortunately, this recent, tragic headline from USA Today probably didn’t surprise many. Underage drinking is linked to the deaths of thousands of young people each year. This situation was different, however, because the teen wasn’t drinking alcohol. His death was caused by caffeine.

Davis Allen Cripe was a 16-year-old student at Spring Hill High School in South Carolina, who was described as a great son and a passionate person who loved music. He also had no known health problems. On April 26, Davis drank a McDonald’s café latte, a large diet Mountain Dew, and an energy drink within a two-hour timeframe. Soon after, he collapsed in a classroom.

Sean Cripe, Davis’s father, blamed the energy drink for his son’s death:
"Like all parents, we worry about our kids as they grow up. We worry about their safety, their health, especially once they start driving. But it wasn't a car crash that took his life. Instead, it was an energy drink."

It’s understandable for Davis’s father to be heart-broken over his son’s terrible and untimely death. It’s also reasonable for him to want to lay blame for his son’s senseless passing. However, is Sean Cripe justified in levying that level of responsibility squarely on the energy drink maker, particularly given that his son drank two other caffeinated drinks in a relatively short period of time?

Energy drinks in the U.S. represent a multibillion dollar market that is expected to hit $61 billion in sales by 2020. According to 2015 revenue reports, the leading players are Red Bull ($4.55 billion), Monster ($3.69 billion), and Rockstar ($820 million).

Among the reasons so many people purchase energy drinks are that they provide fast caffeine delivery, they come in a variety of flavors, they’re cold, refreshing, and convenient (they don’t need to be heated, like coffee), and they come in zero-calorie options. The previous stats and these benefits suggest that millions of people enjoy energy drinks with little or no ill effect, but that’s not the whole story.

According to the Mayo Clinic, most healthy adults can consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine a day: the equivalent of 10 cans of cola, four cups of brewed coffee, or two “energy shot” drinks. By comparison, a 1.6 oz. Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bar contains just 9 mg of caffeine, and a 12 oz. Mountain Dew has 55 mg. Several of the energy drinks with the highest caffeine content come close to the 400 mg limit, for example:

Rage Inferno – (24 oz.) 375 mg of caffeine
Spike Energy Drink – (16 oz.) 350 mg of caffeine
Wired X344 Energy Drink – (16 oz.) 344 mg of caffeine

Consuming too much caffeine can result in side effects like migraines, insomnia, nervousness, irritability, muscle tremors, and fast heartbeat. Caffeine overconsumption also can lead to stroke, cardiac arrest, and death. According to the coroner who examined Davis Cripe, he died from “a caffeine-induced lethal cardiac arrhythmia.”

But, maybe Davis’s death was an anomaly. Are there really that many others who suffer serious consequences from energy drinks? Unfortunately, the answer is ‘yes.’ In 2016, “there were more than 20,000 emergency room visits attributable to the ingestion of energy drinks,” which represented a doubling of the number of reported cases over the last decade. In other words, the problem is increasing.

What makes matters worse is that young people disproportionately endure the negative impact, partly because energy drink makers often target younger demographics, as evidenced by the use of neon colors, sensational names (Rockstar, Full Throttle), and edgy promotion (“Red Bull Gives You Wings”).

It’s estimated that 30 to 50 percent of children, adolescents, and young adults consume energy drinks and that “almost one-third of teens between 12 and 17 years drink them regularly.” They are “the most popular dietary supplement consumed by American teens and young adults” next to multivitamins.

Of course, young people are physically and developmentally different than fully-grown adults, meaning added risks from consuming energy drinks, which have no nutritional value and are high in calories and sugar. In fact, “the World Health Organization has stated that energy drinks ‘may pose a danger to public health,’ and the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that ‘children should not consume’ these drinks.'”

Unfortunately, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate or even evaluate the safety of energy drinks because most manufacturers don’t label them as food but rather as dietary supplements, sidestepping the agency’s scrutiny. It’s shocking to realize that for these reasons there are no health warnings, and “energy drink companies don’t even have to reveal how much caffeine each drink can contains.”

What’s worse, energy drink makers often position their products alongside exercise and other physically demanding activities, which is especially enticing to active and competitive young people. In reality, energy drinks and exercise don’t mix, as the highly-caffeinated beverages have a diuretic effect that causes dehydration. Even worse, energy drinks’ have a propensity to increase one’s heart rate and blood pressure at the same time that high caffeine levels “may reduce arteries’ ability to increase the blood flow necessary to bring more oxygen and nutrients to the heart.” Teaming such outcomes with exercise can be fatal.

Another potentially lethal energy drink additive is alcohol, which, of course, impairs judgment. Diminished sobriety is always dangerous, but that risk is magnified when an intoxicated person also feels an extra rush of adrenalin. A lack of life experience may make the energy drink/alcohol combination an even more volatile cocktail for young people, thereby putting themselves and others at risk.

Although extremely high, the caffeine content of energy drinks is not always the highest among commonly consumed beverages. For instance, several Starbucks’ coffees contain over 300 mg of caffeine, and one specific brew is especially egregious: A Starbucks Blonde Roast, venti (20 oz.), has a whopping 475 mg of caffeine.

So, energy drinks aren’t the only offenders, but a major difference, again, is that their makers often target young people and position the drinks as complements to strenuous physical activity, without offering adequate warning of the potential risks.

Davis’s dad is justified, therefore, in implicating an energy drink in his son untimely passing. Optimistically, energy drink makers will do some serious soul-searching related to their roles in such tragedies. More realistically, regulatory agencies need to intervene and exert their influence on this very serious “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

Jeans with a View

5/12/2017

2 Comments

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

Everyone who wears jeans is entitled to their favorite cut and color, whether they’re relaxed fit or skinny, midnight black or sky blue. For clothing in general, and especially jeans, beauty is on the waist of the wearer, but does that belief apply to jeans cut out of clear plastic?

Yes, you heard right. One trendsetting retailer, Topshop, has decided to market clear plastic jeans. You can click here for more pics of the disappearing denim, which kind of seems like wearing a giant, form-fitting Ziploc bag. In this case, not seeing is believing.

If you’ve never heard of Topshop, you may be like me, plodding a good distance behind cutting-edge style. Those familiar with the high-end fashion world, however, know that Topshop is an avant-garde “multinational fashion retailer of clothing, shoes, make-up and accessories.” Based in Britain, Topshop has 510 store locations in 37 countries, as well as a significant online presence.

The retailer is known for displaying designer brands, such as those of supermodel Kate Moss and ultra-celebrity Beyoncé. These high-fashion collections, in turn, help drive foot-traffic to flagship stores in places like New York City, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. A few of these locations even offer Topshop Personal Shopping, “a premium, complimentary shopping service” that gives patrons “one-on-one style advice and access to the latest arrivals in the comfort of [their] own private dressing suite.”

So, why does a retailer of such exclusive style decide to come out with clear plastic jeans? It’s hard to say for sure, but the best guess is that Topshop is just doing what other fashion-forward companies regularly try: to push the envelope of clothing design. We’ve all seen video of runway models wearing designers’ latest creations, some of which seem completely crazy—“There’s no way anyone would wear that in public,” you’ve probably thought.

My suspicion is those ridiculous apparel innovations are often just for effect: to get a designer recognized and hopefully remembered. Sometimes, however, certain styles stick and become a fad, or even a trend, for instance, bell-bottom, or flare, jeans. Interestingly, the Gap is currently positioning another novel pair of pants as the new must-have fashion for men: wader jeans. The mid-market retail icon describes the denim as “ankle-length jeans you can wear all-year long.” Think capris for guys, only a little longer.

So all of this analysis takes us right back to the beginning: Style is a subjective and personal thing. But does individual fashion preference mean there should be a place for clear plastic jeans? I’d like to suggest ‘no.’ Others probably can offer even better rationale than mine, but here are my reasons for pooh-poohing clear plastic pants:

No Coverage: A fundamental function of attire is concealment. In other words, we wear clothes to cover, or hide, what’s below them, i.e., our undergarments and naked bodies. What’s the point, then, of wearing something that doesn’t serve that basic purpose?
Invisibility: We also wear clothes for less practical and more aesthetic reasons, i.e., we like the way certain colors complement our complexions or accessorize with other clothes we wear. This purpose of attire is also largely missed by clear clothing.
Uncomfortable: The words ‘plastic’ and “comfort’ are hard to put together. The thought of sitting on plastic is less-than-desirable for most people. Why would you want to have your whole bottom half encased in a material that tends not to be very soft or breathable?
Health Threat: There is evidence that plastics may be harmful to humans: “Chemicals added to plastics are absorbed by human bodies. Some of these compounds have been found to alter hormones or have other potential human health effects.” Perhaps plastic is not something that should be constantly pressing against our skin.
Environmentally Unfriendly: Most of us have heard that plastics are notoriously slow to biodegrade, especially when buried in landfills, out of range of sunlight. Over time, therefore, plastics pose an increasing environmental problem for our planet.

Will plastic jeans become the next bell-bottoms or any significant fashion fad? Probably not . . . hopefully not. Just like “The Emperor's New Clothes,” most people will ultimately see the silliness of wearing clothes that you can’t really see, and they’ll show concern for the other problems described above. In sum, few people will pull out their plastic (credit cards) to buy plastic clothes, making Topshop’s transparent pants a clear case of “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!

2 Comments

My Pooch is Too Plump

4/5/2017

0 Comments

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

You’ve heard of first world problems (FWP), for instance: “My toaster doesn’t have a bagel setting” and “My wallet is too small.” Well, add another trivial trouble to the list: “My pet is too fat.” The difference with this FWP is that Animal Planet is turning it into a TV show.

Yes, the network known for such shows as "River Monsters" and "Tanked," is planning a program about pets that have packed-on the pounds, hence the name of the new show, “My Fat Pet.” US Weekly aptly describes the new series as “The Biggest Loser makes its way to the animal kingdom.” In other words, for everyone who has grown bored of watching just people shed pounds, it will now also be possible to see pets slim down.

More specifically, “My Fat Pet” will feature animal trainer Travis Brorsen, who “will work with families and their pets to create individualized exercise and diet plans” aimed at making the animals thinner and healthier, all within a period of about four months. Along the way, Brorsen promises to employ some unconventional motivational tactics like making owners wear weighted vests so they can experience the extra weight that their chubby canines, felines, and other animals are carrying.

Although the idea of furry friends shedding fat may seem kind of funny, obesity is a serious problem for all those who suffer from it, humans and animals alike: “Obesity increases an animal’s chances of getting diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease, just like in humans.” Overweight pets are also prone to pancreatitis and joint disorders. Ultimately, these animals are “risking their lives at their current weight.”

It’s also important here to recognize the positive impact that pets have on many people’s lives. In the United States, about 62% of households have pets, which often provide companionship and are sometimes seen as family members. In addition to this social good, certain health benefits also can accrue to animal owners, such as reduced: blood pressure, anxiety, cholesterol, and depression.

So, there’s truth to the idea of “man’s best friend,” and there's something to be said for keeping furry friends fit. Does that mean, though, that there should be a TV show about fat pets? As important as the wellness of our creature companions may be, and notwithstanding their positive impact on people, there are good reasons to not sit around watching others’ plump pets battle the bulge.

Overweight pets really are a first-world problem. We live on a planet where one in nine people (11.1%) suffer from chronic undernourishment. Individuals who can’t find enough food for themselves probably aren’t pet owners, and they certainly aren’t overfeeding animals. Of course, those struggling to survive aren’t the audience for “My Fat Pet,” but in light of their plight, it seems insensitive for the other 88.9% of us to enable animal obesity and elevate it to TV show status.

Granted, the apparent purpose of “My Fat Pet” is not to celebrate overweight creatures but to trim them down. Still, in a media-crazed society in which so many people are looking for “Likes” and seeking their 15 minutes of fame, it’s unfortunately possible that at least a few unbalanced people will find owning an overweight pet a way of gaining recognition. If you think such speculation is silly, checkout My Fat Pet on Facebook.

Moreover, there are undoubtedly more efficient, effective, and discrete ways for the owners of heavy hamsters and other animals to get help, e.g., on websites like bestfriends.org and from veterinarians.

There’s also something sadly ironic about a television audience sitting around on recliners and couches, watching other people’s pets try to lose weight. Sedentary lifestyles and lack of exercise are a big part of the obesity problem for humans and animals. Whether one is an overweight pet or a person, replacing TV time with more active interests can be a significant contributor to weight loss.

Finally, some may be thinking, as I am, “Who are you to tell people what to watch?” Chances are, some would find the sports or other programs I like to watch unenjoyable or unedifying. People do have widely different tastes in entertainment, and for the most part, we should respect those preferences. Still, that doesn’t mean that any slice-of-life that can be produced for television, should be. Some topics are just too trivial or tactless, even though there are people willing to watch them.

Despite satisfying some demand, I doubt that “My Fat Pet” will attract an adequate long-term viewing audience. There probably are not that many owners of obese animals who are serious about solving their pets’ weight problems, and I suspect that the vast majority of pet lovers will have more discriminating TV viewing tastes. As a result, Animal Planet’s “My Fat Pet” seems like a cancellation in-waiting and a case of “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!

0 Comments

A Dirty Mr. Clean

2/4/2017

3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Comments

Bowing Out of Bowl Games

12/30/2016

7 Comments

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

Given the growth in college football bowl games over the past decade, even the most passionate fans must decide which of this season’s 41 post-season contests they will watch on TV and which they will forgo. However, fans aren’t the only ones making tough choices about bowl games. Even some players are deciding whether or not they will participate in their own teams’ games.

Aside from the very few NCAA Division I programs that can compete for a national championship, winning a bowl game is the pinnacle accomplishment for most college football teams. In the past, players, would never miss their bowl games, unless they were kept out, for instance, because of injury, violation of school policy, etc. Furthermore, most elite athletes love to compete. Whether it’s preseason or the playoffs, if there’s a game going on, they want to be part of it.

Why, then, would some of college football’s top players choose to sit out their teams’ bowl games? To understand, one needs to consider the two most notable cases: Running backs Christian McCaffrey of Stanford Leonard Fournette of LSU have opted to sit out of the Sun Bowl and Citrus Bowl respectively, saying they want to start preparing for their likely NFL careers and avoid the risk of injury that comes with bowl game competition.

In its analysis of the 2017 NFL Draft, Sports Illustrated has estimated that Fournette and McCaffrey will be chosen second and third among all eligible running backs. In the 2016 NFL Draft, only one running back was chosen in the first round. He was Ezekiel Elliott, who the Dallas Cowboys took with the fourth overall pick and signed to a four-year, $24.9 million contract. In a recent 2017 NFL mock draft, CBS Sports predicted that the Indianapolis Colts would take Fournette 13th overall, while the New England Patriots might choose McCaffrey with the 31st pick of the first round. However exactly the draft plays out, both young men are looking at sizeable paydays.

Most of us haven’t had the opportunity to land jobs that pay many millions of dollars a year or to reach the pinnacle of our professions while still in our twenties, so we probably shouldn’t be too quick to judge these young men’s decisions. Likewise, football is a dangerous sport in which players often get hurt. Some injuries are minor, but others can end a player’s season or even his playing career.

For example, in the first quarter of the 2016 Fiesta Bowl, Notre Dame linebacker Jaylon Smith suffered serious tears to two knee ligaments, which ended his college career and caused his draft stock to slip from a likely top-five pick to a second round choice, where the Dallas Cowboys selected him. While it’s still questionable whether Smith will ever reprise his former dominance, the Cowboys do expect him to play next season.

All said, it’s understandable that players who have the potential to play football professionally don’t want to take any unnecessary risks. On the other hand, by forgoing their teams’ bowl games, there are other consequences these talented athletes may not be taking into account that could both impact their future football careers and carry significant negative consequences for others.

While these players are safeguarding their physical well-beings, they may not be fully considering how their decisions are shaping their personal brands, which are increasingly important for professional athletes. Others may start to see the bowl-bystanders as individuals who think of themselves first, who are inclined to dial back effort when personally advantageous, and who won’t sacrifice self for the interest of the team. All of these are undesirable reputations, especially when competing in team sports at a professional level. In fact, such perceptions of a player could easily raise red flags for prospective NFL front offices and coaches.

There’s also the impact that the players’ nonparticipation has on others. Division 1-A football teams often have 85 or more players; although, on average about 55 see playing time. Still, that’s many young men depending on others to excel at their positions. With 11 players per side on every down and positions as specialized as left tackle and strong safety, football is in many ways the quintessential team sport, in which substitutions across positions are usually very hard to make.

As mentioned above, most of these elite college athletes want nothing more than to win, especially in the last game of their season, which for some is also the final contest of their football careers. After starting in a Pop Warner league and practicing faithfully throughout middle school and high school, they made it to the top of the college ranks, where they again worked hard for years, for their own love of the game, but also for the benefit of their teammates and schools. The final wish of virtually all of these players is to leave the game on top—to go out a winner, which is not easy when competing against another outstanding team, especially in the absence of one of your team’s best players.

Of course, the football programs and their schools also suffer when they don’t win or they get badly beaten in a bowl game. High school recruits watch these games, which help them decide for whom they want to play. Likewise, although every season is different, bowl selection committees probably remember from year to year which teams tend to bring their ‘A-games’ when invited to play on a national stage. With that consideration also comes the fact that college bowl games are significant sources of revenue for the conferences that participate in them. For instance, conferences receive “$4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl.”

One also can’t help but wonder what the fate of college football will be if opting out of bowl games becomes a trend. These contests will really lose their luster if more and more top players decide not to participate in them. And, the temptation to sit-out could extend even earlier, for instance, players pulling out of conference championships or final regular season games for similar self-centered reasons. If the level of competition declines, so will fan and advertiser interest, which is the death knell for any major sport.

Given this likely fallout for their teammates and their schools, as well as because they are grateful for the scholarships they’ve received, some players believe they have a duty to play in their teams’ bowl games. One such player is Clemson safety Jadar Johnson, who says:

“A school gives you an opportunity to play football and gives you an education for free, and you’re already worrying about the next level? I just feel like that’s just thinking too far ahead,” he said. “It’s really a privilege to play college football. There’s a lot of people who wish they were in your situation. I’ve got people I played with in high school who didn’t get a chance to play college football at all. They still dream about it every day. They go into work every day dreaming, wishing to play college football.”
“No matter how big the bowl is, that’s still a big game,” he said. “You win that as a team, and you’ll still celebrate it like it’s the biggest game of your career. You just say you don’t want to play in it? That’s not me.”

Johnson, by the way, will be playing in at least one post-season contest this college football season. His second ranked Clemson Tigers take on #3 Ohio State in the PlayStation Fiesta Bowl, one of the semifinal games of the College Football Playoff. Also, CBS Sports predicts that Johnson will be the 11th strong safety chosen in the 2017 NFL Draft.

Most of us market ourselves in one way or another. Elite college athletes about to enter the NFL draft certainly do, which also comes with tough decisions about their football futures. It’s tragic when any one of these young men suffers a serious injury ahead of a promising professional career. However, they also need to consider the consequences their decisions have for their personal brands as well as the impact on many others. For these reasons, the choice to opt out of a college bowl game isn’t a play that’s fair to others; rather it’s a personal foul worthy of a flag for “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!

7 Comments

Sexy Claus

12/23/2016

2 Comments

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

When you think of “Santa Claus,” what Saint Nick pic comes to mind? Maybe it’s the cherry-cheeked Santa drinking a Coca-Cola, the stately Miracle on 34th Street Santa, the bird-legged cartoon Santa from “Rudolph,” or even Tim Allen in “The Santa Clause.” Whatever your preferred picture, you probably don’t think of Santa as sexy—at least not until you’ve seen Fiat’s new ads.

To promote its Black Friday event a few weeks ago, Italy’s largest automaker began airing commercials that cast Santa Claus as “a playa.” The ads feature a slimmed-down, suave-looking Santa, sporting a chic haircut and a manicured beard. The forty-something Santa is decked out in a red blazer with pocket kerchief, white shirt, and black slacks. A red-checked scarf flows from his shoulders.

“So, they’ve updated Santa’s image,” some may be thinking. “It’s about time Kris Kringle got a makeover.” There’s much more to the ads, however, than just Santa’s new look. Accompanying Santa are two attractive, twenty-something female elves. The tall and shapely sidekicks wear matching, form-fitting red dresses with scoop necks. Black stilettos and an amble layer of red lipstick accessorize their outfits.

The lady elves don’t speak. Rather, they simply saunter around the showroom, sensually stroking vehicles they pass. At the end of one of the ads, with no apparent concern for Mrs. Clause, the women lock elbows with their boss, solidifying the arm-candy stereotype and making one wonder in exactly what sense they are Santa’s little helpers.

Yes, the ad looks very alluring, but that’s not all. In an uncharacteristically deep and raspy voice, Santa delivers several sultry and suggestive one-liners:

“That’s too hot for the North Pizzle.”
“That’s naughty and nice.”
“You better not be jingling my bells.”

This isn’t the first time Fiat has used sex to sell cars. You might remember the firm’s ‘little blue pill’ ad that aired during the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. Although, if you’re like many others, you may have thought it was an ad for Viagra.

In any case, what’s the big deal? So what if a car company offers a more adult-friendly Santa? It’s all in good fun, and, by the way, **SPOILER ALERT** Santa isn’t real. Yes, there was once an actual Saint Nicholas, a venerable man, but the modern-day Santa is a fanciful holiday add-on who has no historic connection to the events of the first Christmas.

These points have merit, but there’s still the fact that Fiat has sexualized Santa! Even though he doesn’t actually exist, many still respect the kind-hearted altruism Santa symbolizes and appreciate his promotion of that same holiday spirit. Kids, of course, are the ones who love Santa most, which is understandable given that the legend is specially intended for children. That’s why kids look forward to sitting on his lap at the mall and leaving milk and cookies for him Christmas Eve. That’s also why Fiat’s sexualized Santa is so misguided.

If you haven’t noticed, for many years there’s been a trend toward sexualizing asexual things: everything from food to fitness have been made in some way to be sexual stimulating. It’s bad enough to feed this frenzy; what’s even worse is to sexualize things intended for children, like Santa.

It’s true that humans are sexual beings and children at some point need to understand that facet of life, but it can prove costly to prematurely end their innocence, especially when leading kids to believe that their sexual identity is their entire identity. In the current cultural context, young girls are particularly at risk with such mistaken messages about sex and are likely to live with the consequences for years to come.

“But wait,” you may be thinking, “elementary schoolers don’t drive cars, adults do, so Fiat can’t be targeting kids with its ads.” That’s probably true, but television commercials are often susceptible to spillover such that individuals outside the target market see the ads: think of Sunday afternoon football games, beer commercials, and all the families seeing both. For that reason, it’s especially perilous to market an adult product using a character that captivates children. R.J. Reynold’s Joe Camel did so until the company bowed to public pressure in 1997 and settled a lawsuit that alleged that use of the character was turning kids onto cigarettes.

Granted, these two examples aren’t exactly alike. There’s nothing inherently wrong with cars, but there’s much to dread about cigarettes. On the other hand, a cartoon camel isn’t intrinsically bad, but an oversexualized Santa is, for the reasons mentioned above.

Despite its prior use of sex in ads, Fiat probably isn’t trying to push a sexual agenda. Chances are it just wants to sell cars and believes that it can use sex as a means to that end. The sex appeal probably does work to a certain extent: It grabs people’s attention and keeps their interest—the first two steps in AIDA. Unfortunately for Fiat, however, such a gratuitous use of sex is unlikely to spur desire for cars or to stimulate action, i.e., purchases. The fact that many Super Bowl viewers forgot that the “little blue pill” ad was for a car, let along for Fiat, is a classic case in point.

So, Fiat’s use of a sexy Santa and two enticing elves is unlikely to better its bottom-line. Instead of creating a desire for its cars, the company is more likely stimulating unhealthy views of sex that potentially harm children and definitely objectify women. For these reasons Fiat’s campaign ends up on the “naughty list” with other examples of “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!

2 Comments

Resting Stars

12/17/2016

1 Comment

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

Imagine you’re a twelve-year-old basketball fan who loves LeBron James. Living in St. Louis you’ve never gotten to see him play in-person; in fact, you’ve never even gone to an NBA game. You notice online, however, that the Memphis Grizzlies will host the Cleveland Cavaliers on December 14, so many months ahead, you ask if the game could be a birthday gift. Memphis is a four-hour drive from St. Louis, and the tickets will cost over $100 each, but your parents graciously agree. You can hardly wait.

December 14 comes, and you and your dad set-out from St. Louis. Many miles and a couple of stops later, you arrive at a packed FedExForum. The atmosphere is already electric, as you settle into your seats. Scanning the court, you see a variety of NBA players engaged in their pregame rituals, but no LeBron. The crowd quiets as the announcer introduces the Cavaliers starting line-up.

Surprisingly, James’ name is not called. You look to the bench, but he’s not sitting there either. Then you hear a couple of fans behind you grumbling:

“I can’t believe the Cavs aren’t playing LeBron tonight.”

“Yeah, and Love and Irving [two of the team’s other best players] aren’t here either.”

“Where are they? They can’t all be injured.”

“No, they’re fine. I heard the Cavs are ‘resting’ them tonight.”

“What a rip-off.”

Such a scenario would be frustrating for almost any NBA fan. For the twelve-year-old described above, it would be more like devastation. Unfortunately, the situation is not fiction. A few days ago, this scenario actually played out in Memphis. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the same thing is occurring across the league with increasing frequency: Teams selectively sitting out their star players, not because of injury or illness but to “rest” them, has become an epidemic of sorts.

But, doesn’t everyone deserve time-off? Plus, basketball is a physically demanding and exhausting sport. If you’re competing at its highest level against players who are among the best athletes in the world, you’re going to get tired. Over the course of a long season, NBA players may need a rest, especially the best ones who tend to play the most minutes.

There’s some truth to all of those points. With games beginning in October and ending in June (for those who make the Finals), the NBA has one of the longest seasons in professional sports. Also, unlike NFL teams that play once a week, NBA teams often have 3 or even 4 games in the same span, some of which are on consecutive nights. Granted, basketball players don’t take the beating that football players do, but they still experience some significant physical contact, on top of constant running, jumping, stopping, and starting.

On the other hand, isn’t that what these elite athletes are trained for and paid millions of dollars to do? Yes, basketball can be physically taxing, but probably not as much as many other jobs, for example: farmer, lumberjack, miner, etc. Most of these workers do their jobs eight hours or more a day, five days a week, fifty or so weeks a year, for decades. They don’t get a day off during the middle of the week to “rest” even though their schedules add to up to many more hours than the 36.7 minutes per game that James averages. Meanwhile these other workers make only a small fraction of The King’s $30.9 million annual salary.

But, LeBron is probably not to blame--the decision might not even be his to make. Rather, it’s likely that the team’s coach and/or management decides to rest a superstar like LeBron. Usually owners and fans want the same thing—to see ‘their’ team win. But fans also want to see a star play when they pay a hefty price for a ticket. Owners, on the other hand, aren’t as interested in single-game success as in the team’s performance over the entire season, which will hopefully end in a championship. To even make it to the Finals, however, they need to ensure that their players, especially the top ones, stay strong and injury-free.

Shouldn’t fans understand and embrace that same long-term perspective? Yes and no. First, fans of opposing teams don’t care if their adversaries win a championship, but they still want to watch the other teams’ stars. That’s why Michael Jordan filled NBA arenas a couple of decades ago and why LeBron James does so today.

Second, any professional sport is first and foremost entertainment. Yes, being able to root for a winning team, or even a championship team, adds extra value to the experience, but in entertainment, it always about the individual game, concert, or show, after which all entertainers should be asking, “Did we give the audience an outstanding experience that was well worth the price of admission?

If asked to answer the preceding question, it’s likely that the twelve-year-old basketball fan mentioned above would say “no.” Such perceptions of unfairness are not unfounded. The average NBA ticket price is $96.57. When you add-in the cost of food, drink, and parking, the total comes to $442.28 for a family of four. Again, that’s the average. In New York and Los Angeles, those totals come to $878.20 and $789.20, respectively. Anyone paying those prices, or even the $262.50 total family cost for an Indiana Pacer’s game, deserves to see the stars play, provided that they’re healthy.

So, in marketing terms, the NBA might need to make changes to its product. If the season is too long or there are too many games in a week, the league should take action and streamline the schedule. Concert promoters probably have similar considerations in deciding how many performances their stars can do well in a given week, month, or year. You never go to a concert and not see the headliner. If the star gets sick, etc. the concert is cancelled and refunds are paid. The NBA shouldn’t be very different.

Ultimately, it’s unfair to deny fans, who have paid a pretty penny, a potentially once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see their favorite player, simply because someone decided to rest him. That approach may work in the short-run, but it’s not a long-term strategy that fans will continue to tolerate. A little rest is usually a good thing, but in the entertainment industry, sidelining stars, without any consideration of the audience, can only count as “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!

1 Comment

Advertising Aleppo

10/21/2016

11 Comments

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

People have a variety of preferences when it comes to vacations. For some, an ideal getaway is relaxing poolside, while others enjoy more adventurous activities, like scuba diving or mountain climbing. Even the most fearless folks, however, usually don’t want to put their life on the line for a little leisure—something Syria doesn’t seem to understand.

The Syrian Ministry of Tourism has released a pleasant promotional video for Aleppo, aimed at encouraging travelers to visit one of Syria’s most historic cities. The one-minute piece, entitled “Aleppo . . . Will of Life,” features sweeping shots of the city’s unique architecture, lush parks, and other landmarks. The enticing visuals play over a familiar music bed--the theme song for HBO’s Game of Thrones.

The creatively choreographed clips could cause one to give a visit to Aleppo serious consideration; that is, if one is like former governor of New Mexico and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson who infamously asked in a television interview what Aleppo was.

With a population of over 1.6 million and an area of about 70 square miles (about twice as big as Paris), (5) Aleppo is Syria’s largest city. It was first settled around 5000 BC and has been recognized as a UNCESCO World Heritage site; although, most of the ancient architecture that earned it that designation now lies in ruins thanks to a civil war that has ravaged Syria and the city for about five years.

Because of the fighting, Aleppo has literally become a city torn in two. Under control of government forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad, the western half has retained some semblance of normalcy. That’s the part of the city that the Syrian Board of Tourism is promoting. However, the eastern half of the city, controlled by rebels, Kurds, and ISIS, presents an entirely different picture. “Entire blocks of buildings are reduced to rubble” causing much of eastern Aleppo to look like “an obliterated wasteland” where people struggle to find daily necessities for survival. In short, “It is a nightmare.”

As a result of the extremely volatile situation in Aleppo and other parts of the country, many nations (e.g., the UK, Australia) have advised their citizens not to travel to Syria. Americans have been similarly advised:

“The Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens against all travel to Syria and strongly recommends that U.S. citizens remaining in Syria depart immediately. The security situation remains dangerous and unpredictable. Violent conflict between government and armed anti-government groups continues throughout the country. There is a serious risk for kidnappings, bombings, murder, and terrorism.”

So, why is Syria inviting outsiders into this dangerous environment? An obvious answer would be that Syria is just trying to do what many other countries do—encourage tourism, which is an important source of income, especially for nations that lack other significant industry. On the other hand, advertising Aleppo and other Syrian cities could be an attempt by the Assad regime to persuade a world concerned about the increasing loss of life and refugees that the country has everything under control: ‘All’s good here—see how peaceful it looks.’

Whatever the motivation for the promotion, it’s unfortunately likely that some imprudent people will accept the tourism invitation and, defying sound judgment and the many state-sponsored travel advisories, venture into the war-torn land. Past indiscretions of travelers to Iran and North Korea offer some support for this speculation.

It doesn’t help that the Aleppo video is decidedly deceptive. Yes, advertising is advocacy, and advertisers are expected to put their best foot forward, but not at the expense of truthfulness. It’s one thing to portray a product in a positive light; it’s another thing to obscure the product’s real nature. Some have suggested that the Game of Thrones theme is an eerily appropriate choice for the Aleppo ad, given that “the show's fictional world of Westeros is a violent place engaged in its own bloody civil war.” The music, then, might be the only part of the video that isn’t misleading.

Thankfully, most people are rational and will reject Syria’s tourism invitation. Still, there are those few foolhardy folks who don’t need any extra encouragement to put themselves and others in harm’s way. For these reasons, advertising Aleppo as a travel destination must be considered “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!

11 Comments

Individual Accountability in Wells Fargo's Sales Sham

9/30/2016

12 Comments

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

John Stumpf, the CEO of Wells Fargo, America’s fourth biggest bank, recently returned to Capitol Hill for the second time in two weeks to explain how his firm allowed as many as 2 million fake accounts to be created over a five-year period. While it’s fitting for the House Financial Services Committee and others to question the systems that allowed such widespread abuse, one shouldn’t overlook that in every instance, an individual made the decision to do the wrong thing, possibly with superiors’ support, but against better moral judgment. Those personal actions also deserve some scrutiny.

About 5,300 Wells Fargo employees have been implicated in setting up the fake accounts, many of which were based on the information of real Wells Fargo customers. Over a period of several years, low-level bankers and tellers did things such as moving funds from customers’ existing accounts to fabricated ones “without their knowledge or consent.” These schemes resulted in some customers incurring a variety of unwarranted charges, including overdraft fees because their actual account balances were lower than they should have been. In other cases, Wells Fargo employees created “phony PIN numbers and fake email addresses to enroll customers in online banking services.” They also set-up 565,000 fake credit card accounts.

Those 5,300 employees have been fired, Wells Fargo has been fined $185 million, and the company has agreed to refund customers $5 million, but those remedies haven’t stopped the outrage over the illicit acts from spreading to persons not directly affected, including members of Congress who have grilled Stumpf about his role in the scandal. Some have compared Wells Fargo to Enron and suggested that the CEO is running a “criminal enterprise,” which should land him behind bars.

Stumpf, who is forfeiting at least $41 million in compensation as a result of the scandal, has apologized, saying he is “deeply sorry” for Wells Fargo failing its customers. At the same time, he has “rejected lawmakers’ attempts to cast the scandal as a consequence of broader failings in Wells Fargo’s leadership and corporate culture.” Instead, he has suggested that the 5,300 former employees each suffered from an individual ethical lapse.

How could over 5,000 people working for one company just happen to make the same moral mistake? The fact that so many precipitated the swindle, in the same organization, over a relatively short period of time, suggests that either something was being done to encourage the fraud, or there was a glaring lack of control for preventing it.

Some have suggested that the company’s product sales goals may have encouraged employees to fabricate accounts in order to meet their quotas. Although overly-aggressive goals could have contributed to the corruption, it’s unlikely that such a system was the sole cause. Many companies provide their salespeople with performance-based incentives, yet they don’t make-up orders. There must have been either other institutionalized efforts to cheat or shared negligence in preventing it.

However, whatever the corporate compromises were, they don’t absolve the individuals directly responsible for the fraudulent acts. In other words, Stumpf was right to suggest that there were thousands of individual ethical lapses—there had to be in order for the problem to multiply the way it did.

Each Wells Fargo employee who opened a fake account, borrowed a real customer’s email address, or invented a PIN, knew that what they were doing was wrong. It would have been impossible for them not to. Banking requires mental acuity, and a company doesn’t become the fourth largest in a very competitive industry without hiring sharp people.

Of course, cognitive ability doesn’t always translate into moral sensitivity; however, no Wells Fargo employee should have missed one major moral standard: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or, treat others the way you want to be treated. Virtually everyone can understand and appreciate the Golden Rule, which is found in every major world religion.

At some point, each person who participated in Wells Fargo’ sales sham must have thought to themselves, “I’m creating a fake account for someone, which will cost them money, compromise their identity, etc.; I wouldn’t want anyone doing that to me,” yet they went ahead and did it anyway. Did a corrupt corporate culture or misplaced incentives encourage or pressure employees to make the wrong choice? Probably. Still, each individual had a choice. Even if doing the right thing came at great cost to them, e.g. their job, that alternative should have been preferable to intentionally harming others and sacrificing their personal integrity.

Poor company policies and individual impropriety both likely led to Wells Fargo’s sales scandal. Regardless the cause, creating fake accounts cost stakeholders’ value and compromised societal values like fairness and respect. Consequently, all those responsible, from the bottom up, are answerable for “Mindless Marketing.”