Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind! >
      • More Ads
    • Forum - Speak Your Mind
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

When TV Commercials Wink

2/14/2021

14 Comments

 
Picture

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

As a Seinfeld fan, one of my favorite episodes is when George’s eye catches a piece of flying grapefruit, causing him to confuse everyone with his involuntary winking.  Such hijinks are funny for a television sitcom, but what happens when commercials use conflicting verbal and visual cues, particularly on TV’s biggest stage?
 
Before the recent big game, a friend graciously invited my analysis of the ads—You don’t have to ask twice for my opinion on advertising, especially Super Bowl commercials, so I shared thoughts about one particular ad that seemed strange.
 
Toyota’s “Upstream” commercial featured the adoption story of Jessica Long, a 13-time gold-medal-winning Paralympic swimmer.  Long’s rise to success despite severe adversity was inspiring; however, there was also something unsettling about the ad.
 
Pushing against the positive verbal messages of parental love and athletic achievement was a literal stream of cold, dark water that ran through every scene, including the family’s home and other indoor places.  That’s a disconcerting sight that can cause anguish for anyone, especially those who have experienced floods in their home, school, or work.
 
Picture

The negative visual of flood water worked against the ad’s affirmative verbal messages, significantly diluting the positive affect Toyota likely wanted for its ad, and making it “Simple-Minded Marketing.”  The automaker certainly had good intentions, but I doubt the inadvertently somber spot did much to boost the company’s brand.
 
I remembered this ad partly because of its unpleasant aftertaste but also because I’ve studied such verbal-visual disconnects before.  Several years ago, I did research on the same phenomenon found in pharmaceutical ads, which are probably the worst offenders when it comes to sending mixed commercial messages.
 
When we watch a prescription drug ad, we usually hear a list of the medication’s side effects, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates.  However, as a narrator recites those potential negative outcomes, the commercial often shows very pleasant visuals, like the ones seen in this ad for Lipitor.  At about 33 seconds into the spot, a narrator starts to quickly read several serious warnings:
 
 “Lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing or pregnant or may become pregnant.  You need simple blood tests to check for liver problems.  Tell your doctor if you are taking other medications or if you have muscle pain or weakness.  This may be the sign of a rare or serious side effect.”
 
Ironically, the visual backdrop for these weighty words is a guy and his dog taking a pleasant walk through the woods and later jumping into a lake for some swimming fun.  Yes, we hear the side effects in such ads, but are we really listening to and understanding their gravity, given that very positive visual scenes distract us from those negative verbal messages?
 
Picture

That’s the question I set out to answer through research that began with a group of students in an Advertising Ethics class I was teaching.  In a controlled empirical study that involved commercials for fictitious pharmaceuticals, we found that people do indeed discount drugs’ negative side effects when shown positive “dissonant” visuals at the same time.
 
I presented those findings at the American Marketing Association’s Marketing & Public Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., where a member of the FDA commended the research and asked for a copy of the presentation.  Health Marketing Quarterly later published the study.
 
So, one “Simple-Minded” Super Bowl ad failed to make effective use of reinforcing, or “redundant,” visuals—no big deal.  Actually, several other $5.5 million+ spots made the same mistake in similar ways and in doing so conveniently completed the other three quadrants of the Mindful Matrix:
 
 “Alexa’s Body” - Amazon claimed the steamiest spot in this year’s Super Bowl.  For nearly sixty seconds, a female Amazon employee fantasized about handsome Black Panther star Michael B. Jordan, who replaced the smart speaker in her lustful daydreams, which included Jordan removing his shirt and joining her in a bubble bath for two.
 

Picture

The commercial was uncomfortable to watch in mixed company and may have posed problems for parents, but the real issue was the spot’s repeated sexual objectification of Jordan.  Role-reversal (a woman mentally undressing a man) may have seemed funny, but no one should be reduced to their body parts or have their personhood downgraded to a “vessel.”  Similarly, it’s dangerous to objectify men as doing so suggests that it’s also okay to objectify women.
 
The ad involved dissonant visuals in that images of a sexy superstar have nothing to do with voice commands about ‘the number of tablespoons in a cup’ or ‘turning on the sprinklers.’  The pairing of an A-list celebrity with Alexa probably has helped keep Amazon’s smart speaker top-of-mind, but all the gratuitous sexual innuendo made the ad “Single-Minded Marketing.”
 
“Happy” - In its “Ultra” light beer ad, Michelob employed an entire lineup of past and present all-star athletes.  For instance, there were still shots and/or video clips of Serena Williams, Mia Hamm, Anthony Davis, Usain Bolt, Billy Jean King, Arnold Palmer, Wilt Chamberlain, Jimmy Butler, Peyton Manning, and more.
 
Picture

I wonder whether Michelob got permission from all these athletes, or their estates, to associate their images with its brand, but assuming it did, there’s still another problem that directly involves dissonant visuals:  People don’t ascend to those kinds of athletic heights by downing much beer.  There’s little to suggest that alcohol enhances athletic performance; in fact, alcohol has exactly the opposite effect:  It reduces aerobic efficiency, impairs motor skills, decreases strength, disrupts sleep, and slows recovery.
 
Michelob’s suggestion that happiness helps athletes win may have some truth to it, but there’s clearly much more to athletic achievement, namely physical and mental discipline both of which alcohol easily impairs.  For that reason, it was irresponsible of Michelob to show images of athletes in uniform, on their courts, fields, etc., along with alcohol-friendly soundbites such as, “fueling the run toward greatness” and “something more vital.”
 
How ironic and tragic it was that Kansas City Chief’s outside linebacker coach Brit Reid, son of head coach Andy Reid, caused a multi-vehicle accident days before Super Bowl, apparently due to alcohol impairment.  The accident caused him to miss the game and left a young girl fighting for her life.  Alcohol and athletics definitely don’t mix, and it’s doubtful that such precarious positioning will give Michelob’s brand much boost, which makes the beermaker’s ad “Mindless Marketing.”
 
“Get Back to Nature” - After the three commercials just described, it’s easy to be suspicious of all Super Bowl spots, believing that most played with consumers’ minds and sacrificed social mores.  Thankfully however, the preceding ads were exceptions.  Most of the commercials employed redundant, not dissonant, visuals that appropriately reinforced their verbal messages.
 
One of the best examples of such visual-verbal consistency was Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s 60-second spot that featured clips of ordinary people planning for and enjoying beautiful places in the great outdoors while hiking, fishing, camping, and more.
 

Picture

Sprinkled into some scenes was gear that one could probably purchase from the outfitter, but none of the product placement was overdone; rather, all subtly and artfully supported the simple call to experience nature.  Consequently, viewers were likely both to remember the firm’s ‘enjoy the outdoors’ value proposition and to believe its closing promise, “We’re there for you.” 
 
Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s commercial wasn’t the only advertiser to hit a home run in terms of verbal-visual consistency that was both effective and ethical.  A couple of other best-practices ads belonged to Huggies for “Welcome to the World, Baby” and to Indeed for “The Rising.”
 
A wink is the epitome of a dissonant visual—it slyly states, “Don’t believe what I’m saying.”  Advertisers shouldn’t ‘wink’ with their ads, i.e., use dissonant visuals that contradict their spots’ verbal messages.  Instead, commercials should enlist strategically-chosen redundant visuals that reinforce the right verbal messages.  In Super Bowl ads and in other communication, that consistency makes for “Mindful Marketing.”


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

Natural Light Imitates Art

1/23/2021

5 Comments

 
Picture

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

Often those fortunate enough to earn a college degree proudly display their diploma in their office or another personal location.  Now the credentials of one large group of college grads are on exhibit in a much more public place—New York City's Grand Central Terminal.  But, at a station known for transportation, is the art’s creator paying homage to higher education or throwing a college degree under the bus?
 
The intensely competitive alcohol industry has led many beer manufacturers to become very creative marketers: from elaborate point of purchase displays in retail stores to highly produced commercials during Super Bowls.  Now the world’s biggest brewer, Anheuser-Busch InBev, has found an especially innovative way to broadcast a brand message—a work of art, in the heart of New York City, valued at $470 million!
 
The exhibit, called “the Da Vinci of Debt,” is a collection of 2,600 real diplomas that Natural Light, one of Anheuser-Busch’s signature brands, has rented from degree earners.  Resembling a blizzard of super-size snowflakes, the white diplomas cascade downward from ceiling to floor of Grand Central Terminal’s Vanderbilt Hall.  It’s an installation that’s both impressive in its grandeur and appealing to the eye.
 
Picture

So, what’s behind Natural Light’s foray into ‘fine art’ and its claim to have constructed “the most expensive piece of art in the world”?  The company says it wants to bring attention to the burgeoning problem of student debt, which helps explain the firm’s valuation of the exhibit at $470 million--the average total cost of a four-year college education times 2,600 degrees.
 
As someone who’s taught in higher education for 20 years and paid for two children to attend college, Natural Light’s cost estimate seems right:  $470 million divided by 2,600 diplomas is $180,769 per degree, or $22,596 per semester.  Unfortunately, this price has risen precipitously over the years, increasingly exceeding families’ abilities to pay, save for significant financial assistance, often in the form of student loans.
 
To some extent, faculty members like me are responsible for the extreme price up-tick:  Employee salaries often represent organizations’ biggest costs.  However, higher ed’s steeply-sloped expense history is more complicated.
 
When those who attended college several decades or more ago visit campuses today, they’re often awestruck by the number and nature of amenities today’s students enjoy:  from beautifully-appointed apartments, to state-of-the art classrooms, to expansive sports centers.  These expensive and largely consumer-driven upgrades also have contributed to rising college costs.
 
Regardless, it’s important to affirm Natural Light’s suggestion that student debt is a serious problem.   That doesn’t mean, though, that the Da Vinci of Debt is an impeccable piece of art:  A real concern is that the exhibit conveys a misguided message:  That a college education is not worth its price.
 
Some may not gather that interpretation from the exhibit, which is good; however, it’s reasonable to believe that many who see or hear about the art will draw the conclusion that those willing to part with their diplomas must feel dissonance about their degrees.
 
Unfortunately, some do get a less-than-ideal return on their college investments for various reasons that can include choosing the wrong school or major but more likely stems from failing to take their academics seriously—a tragic misstep that’s ironically related to Natural Light.  I’ll say more about that and two other 'art ironies' in a moment.
 
First, it’s important to note that the experiences college students enjoy and the relationships they form are often invaluable, or at least defy quantification.  At the same time, some like Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce have calculated the typical financial payback a college education offers:
  • A Bachelor’s degree is worth $2.8 million on average over a lifetime.
  • Bachelor’s degree holders earn 31 percent more than those with an Associate’s degree and 84 percent more than those with just a high school diploma.
 
So, is a college degree expensive?  Yes.  Is it worth the cost?  Yes, provided that the student properly ‘consumes the product,’ which leads to the three art ironies referenced above.
 
Irony #1:  Most Anheuser-Busch executives hold one or more higher education diplomas.
 
Here is a partial list of Anheuser-Busch’s U.S. leadership team members and their degrees:
  • Nick Caton, U.S. Chief Financial Officer:  Bachelor of Science in mathematics from Stanford University; Juris Doctorate from Yale University
  • Agostino De Gasperis, U.S. Chief People Officer:  Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Toronto
  • Ingrid De Ryck, U.S. Chief Sustainability and Procurement Officer:  bachelor’s and master’s degree in business engineering from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
  • Benoit Garbe, U.S. Chief Strategy Officer: MBA from Harvard Business School
  • Craig Katerberg, General Counsel:  degrees from the University of Chicago and from Northwestern University School of Law
  • Elito Siqueira, U.S. Chief Logistics Officer:  a degree in mechanical engineering; two executive MBAs; completed supply chain programs from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University​
​
Picture

This list could include several other Anheuser-Busch executives, with equally impressive pedigrees, all of whom appear on the company’s website.  It’s unusual for businesses to mention their leaders’ academic credentials so prominently, which makes Anheuser-Busch’s higher ed highlighting even more unique.
 
Moreover, given the positions these individuals hold with a firm that ranks #205 in Fortune’s Global 500, it seems that all have gotten good returns on their college and master’s degrees.  I wonder if any of them regret the educational expenses they incurred, or if they chose to include their diplomas in the Da Vinci display.
 
Irony #2:  Beer and higher education are notoriously bad partners.
 
Unfortunately, alcohol abuse on college campuses is legendary:  If you haven’t witnessed it personally, you’ve likely seen it portrayed in movies or on TV.  I’ve written two other pieces that have highlighted the coed alcohol epidemic:
  • Alcohol Ads and College Athletics Don't Mix
  • Coopting Commencement
 
The first piece questioned Dos Equis being made “The Official Beer Sponsor of the College Football Playoff.”  In light of the destruction alcohol has done to so many young lives, I argued that college-related events should never have a “beer sponsor.”
 
The second piece had a similar theme, but this time the event was graduation and the sponsor was . . . wait for it . . . Anheuser-Busch.  Yes, Natural Light was making the same dangerous association of beer and books, attempting to put an intoxicating brand spin on what should be a very meaningful if not solemn ceremony.
​
Picture

I wonder how many people have had their college careers completely derailed by alcohol, or graduated but so frequently missed classes or walked around buzzed that they failed to gain nearly what they should have from their college experience.
 
Such lackluster collegiate performance correlates with low GPAs and lack of good post-college employment opportunities.  I wonder how much alcohol abuse has increased the cost of college and made it more difficult for graduates to pay off their diploma-related debt?
 
Irony #3:  Anheuser-Busch doesn’t mention student debt relief among its social initiatives.
 
In 2018, to the company’s credit, Anheuser-Busch launched “an annual College Debt Relief program” that annually awards “$1 million to students under financial pressure.”  The plan is to pay out $10 million toward college debt relief over 10 years.
 
Of course, $10 million is a ‘drop in the keg’ compared to the $1.7 trillion level college debt is projected to reach in 2021, but no one company can be expected to do it alone.  By the same token, however, Anheuser-Busch had total operating income of over $16 billion in 2019, and in the same year spent $1.53 billion in the U.S. on advertising.  
 
A million bucks a year is a nice donation, yet it does seem somewhat paltry for a firm dealing in billions of dollars.  Perhaps that’s the reason Anheuser-Busch makes no mention of education or student debt relief on its social responsibility website page, “Purpose Beyond Brewing.”  The one CSR area that comes closest is “Economic Impact,” but that page just describes the company’s commitment to care for employees, support the restaurant and bar industry, and create jobs for farmers. 
 
So, under which of Anheuser-Busch’s expense lines does student debt relief really belong?  Is it serious social responsibility or is it a straightforward advertising-spend?
 
Regardless, I’m not sure how much the Grand Central Terminal art exhibit will make a positive impact for Natural Light.  The brand communicates many countervailing messages, such as images on its website that seem more like an ode to spring break in Fort Lauderdale than any serious concern for student well-being.  That disconnect and relative lack of exposure may doom Da Vinci.
 
Admittedly, the author of this piece has an employment-influenced bias in favor of higher education and against alcohol consumption by young people.  He’s also not an accomplished art critic.  Still, his professional opinion suggests that Natural Light’s Da Vinci of Debt is a monument to “Mindless Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
5 Comments

Committed to Cursing

1/5/2021

9 Comments

 
Picture

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

Do you have a resolution for 2021?  According to Parade, the most popular annual self-promise is to lose weight.  Given interests in appearance and health, it’s understandable that many people want to watch what they put into their mouths.  What’s surprising is that individuals seem increasingly unconcerned about what comes out of their mouths.  In fact, an ad campaign from an unexpected source is encouraging people to let profanity fly.
 
One might guess the campaign comes from a company like Budweiser, which a few years ago ran an infamous Super Bowl ad featuring outspoken British actress Helen Mirren who delivered a caustic anti-drunk-driving rant that had parents rushing to cover their kids ears.  Amazingly, the current profanity-laced campaign is from the Mental Health Coalition.
 
Actually, “laced” is an understatement.  The 90-second spot’s central theme and action are the F-word and its accompanying hand gesture.  Why so much obscenity?  The premise is that since people have suffered so much over the last 12 months from a global pandemic, racial injustice, and an extremely combative election, the best thing to do is to blow off steam by telling 2020 exactly what we thought of it.
 
The ad ends with a fittingly obscene call-to-action: “Text [middle finger emoji] to 1-877-EFF-THIS and donate $5 to the Mental Health Coalition.”
 
Why would the Mental Health Coalition want to connect its mission and brand to cursing?  The rationale is not as tenuous as you might first think.  In fact, there’s a body of literature that suggests that expressing anger through swearing is good for mental health.
 
One study, which asked participants to submerse their hands in ice water, discovered that swearing increased pain tolerance by nearly 50%.  Other research found that people could achieve greater physical performance, pedaling a bike, when employing profanity.
 

Picture

Writing for Psychology Today, Neel Burton, M.D., a psychiatrist and philosopher who teaches in Oxford England, offers “The seven best reasons for swearing,” which he suggests are:
  1. Pain relief
  2. Power and control
  3. Non-violent retribution
  4. Humor
  5. Peer and social bonding
  6. Self-expression
  7. Improved psychological and physical health
 
It’s hard to argue against empirical science and respected health professionals, but it seems that the preceding research and writing gives less than adequate treatment to a pair of important considerations, which the following two questions address:
 
1) What’s the long-term impact of swearing on self-concept?  Even if uttering a curse word helps reduce pain in the moment, it seems that swearing could affect one’s extended mental health, which is partly a function of others’ perceptions of us.
 
First, to be forthright and hopefully avoid seeming self-righteous:  I have sworn.  I’m not sure that any of those irreverent expressions helped me in the moment, but one thing is certain: I never felt good afterward about what I said; rather, I regretted each of those instances.
 
While it’s uncomfortable for me to admit that I’ve sworn, it would be very painful if I had to think of myself as ‘a person who swears,’ and it would be unacceptable if I in some way encouraged others to have such a perception of me.  I don’t want to swear and, for various reasons that include my faith, I would never want swearing to be something that defines me.
 
A few years ago, triggered by what I saw as a troubling increase in casual cursing, I wrote an article for The Marketplace, “Don’t curse your own brand.”  In the piece I identified five adjectives, or “unbecoming brand qualities,” that profanity projects: unintelligent, angry, unproductive, indecent, and untrustworthy.
 

Picture
 
Granted, it may be more important for some people/professions to maintain the impression of piety than it is for others.  Still, a vulgar vocabulary fuels the preceding unfavorable perceptions in others, which is hard to believe have a positive net impact on anyone’s self-concept. 
 
2) What’s the impact of profanity on others?  Almost all of the research and writing of others I referenced above suggests that ‘You should swear because it’s good for you.’  Largely missing in the analyses is the affect that one’s cursing has on those exposed to it, especially if the unpleasantries are directed at them.
 
Burton does mention that swearing can foster “peer and social bonding.”  I believe there are better ways to foster social bonds than swearing, but I can understand how cursing could work to that end, if it’s ‘friendly’ and mutually accepted.
 
In most instances, though, being on the receiving end of a curse word is not appealing.  That’s why in any kind of potentially volatile situation, from a customer service encounter to a hostage negotiation, swearing rarely helps.  In fact, it usually increases the tension by making people more uncomfortable, angry, or upset.
 
Overlooking the impact of cursing on others is probably the biggest irony of the Mental Health Coalition’s ad campaign.  On the organization’s own website, its homepage expresses an important truth: “The language we use is powerful, so let’s talk about it.”  Yes, words are powerful, and, contrary to the “sticks and stones” adage, poorly chosen ones can hurt deeply. 
 
Of course, being bullied or shamed can’t be good for anyone’s mental health, but how that belittling often occurs is particularly pertinent here.  A report on workplace bullying by Safe Work Australia found that “The most common forms of bullying included being sworn at or yelled at (37.2 per cent).”  Others affirm the connection between cursing and bullying, for instance:
 
  • “Shouting and swearing while doing criticising is bullying” (Business-Live.Co.UK)
  • An example of bullying is “yelling or using profanity” (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety)
  • A report from an Anita Hill-led Hollywood Commission for Eliminating Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace identified “swearing” as a specific act of bullying that with other undesirable actions can serve as “a gateway to sexual harassment and other abusive conduct.” 

To summarize:

Cursing --> Bullying --> Low Self-Concept --> Poor Mental Health
 
These relationships are a big miss of the ad campaign, but there’s one more notable fail:  Tourette syndrome, “a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics.”  Though rare, some individuals with the disorder experience coprolalia, which includes “uttering socially inappropriate words such as swearing.”

Although Tourette’s is a disorder of the nervous system, not a mental illness, one can imagine that people who suffer from the syndrome are easy targets for bullies, and that those social interactions could be especially strained if the individual’s specific symptoms include swearing.  
 
At the risk of getting waylaid on memory lane, many of us can remember a time, not that many years ago, when it was unusual to hear people swear outside of an R-rated movie or a locker room, both of which carried ‘language warnings,’ express or implied.
 
Now it’s not unusual to be shopping in a grocery store or watching ESPN and hear conversations punctuated with profanity.  It’s also puzzling that, unlike those in the Mental Health Coalition ad, the people cursing often don’t appear to be angry or upset; rather, swearing has simply become part of their routine communication.  Do ads like the one in question normalize such indecency?
 
The Mental Health Coalition serves a very important societal mission in aiming to “to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness.”  Unfortunately, however, its ‘swearing ad’ curses that very purpose, making the campaign an unfortunate example of “Mindless Marketing.”


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

Peloton's Psychological Problems

12/13/2019

4 Comments

 
Picture

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

“If my husband gave me a Peloton for Christmas, I’d give him divorce papers.”  Such raw emotion has typified reactions to the spin cycle maker’s “Gift that Gives Back” commercial.  People are permitted their opinions about the ad, and Peloton is entitled to explain its position, but a few principles from psychology might help both sides see how the cycle commercial could have avoided such a controversial turn.
 
Many reactions to the spot suggest that ‘no husband should surprise his wife with a piece of exercise equipment,’ regardless of her body-type.  That’s a valid point; however, before dismissing Peloton’s ad as complete incompetence, Abraham Maslow’s classic hierarchy of needs may remind us that there is often more than one reason for riding a stationary bike:
 
  • Physiological Needs:  Exercise doesn’t satisfy hunger or thirst; in fact, burning calories increases those needs.  Similarly, anyone ‘spinning’ isn’t resting; however, exercise can lead to better sleep.  That connection proves true for many, as it did recently for me:  After walking around New York City one day with family for hours, I enjoyed one of my best night’s sleep in months.
 
  • Safety Needs:  Exercise doesn’t immediately make us safe; however, cardiovascular fitness is an investment in long-term health, which connects to the second level of Maslow’s hierarchy.  Many viewers of Peloton’s ad have bemoaned that “Grace in Boston,” an already slim woman, even needs to exercise, but they’re missing the point that working out isn’t just about losing weight.  Thin people also reap health benefits from aerobic activity.
 
  • Social Needs:  In one tweet about the ad, a Peloton user mentioned that she appreciates the bonding that comes with working out with others.  People don’t need to be physically present to build relationships.  Social benefits can also accrue when interacting in the virtual realm, which apparently happens for at least some Peloton users.
 
  • Self-Esteem Needs:  All of us want to feel good about how we look and the kind of person we are.  Sticking to an exercise regimen can bolster both of those self-concepts.  Most viewers of Peloton’s ad don’t notice any physical change in Grace, but perhaps she experiences something intangible, like feeling more self-disciplined or self-confident.
 
  • Self-Actualization Needs:  There aren’t many products that can legitimately claim to help people reach their full potential in some significant area of life, but a piece of exercise equipment used seriously might produce such top-level benefits, partly like the way basic training transforms marines.  We don’t know exactly what Grace meant by the statement, “A year ago, I didn’t realize how much this would change me,” but if it wasn’t physical change, maybe a year of Pelton transformed her mentally or emotionally.
 
Picture
 
The five levels of Maslow’s hierarchy offer consumers useful lenses for processing the controversial commercial.  A psychological principle can also teach Peloton an important lesson, summed up in one sentence:  “Perception is reality.”
 
We perceive when a stimulus crosses our senses, we attend to it, and we make an interpretation, for example:  “The big dog bounding toward me looks dangerous.”  Sometimes our interpretations are correct; other times they’re wrong.  However, whether they’re accurate or not, our perceptions determine our reactions.
 
As thousands of social media posts have suggested, people perceived things to be true of Peloton’s ad that the company apparently didn’t intend, for instance:
  • that Grace was initially overweight
  • that she wanted to become even thinner
  • that her husband pressured her to use the bike
 
Peloton can argue that these interpretations are incorrect, but ultimately the court of public opinion rules based on objective judgment of cues in the ad, prevailing social norms, and the broader cultural context, because perception is reality.
 
Some may suggest it was Peloton’s plan to cause a controversy that would capture publicity.  If so, the company probably didn’t anticipate a 14% stock price decline in three days.  Consumers can use Maslow to better understand what the cycle maker likely intended, but more importantly, companies like Peloton can learn to more effectively pretest their ads so corporate perceptions better align with consumer reality and don’t spin into “Mindless Marketing.”


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

Dynamic Pricing or Discrimination?

6/14/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture

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

Eric, a friend of mine who happens to be a CPA, realized he was running low on string for his grass trimmer, so he went shopping where he’d purchased the product before—Amazon.  Finding what seemed like a good price ($18.94) for the same 3-pack of spools he bought a few years earlier, he placed the item in his cart.  Then he discovered something that might make all of us question the prices we pay for products.
 
Eric decided to check the price for the same Amazon item, using a different web browser—one he had never used before to order from Amazon.  Entering the website, he navigated anonymously to the item page, where his suspicion was confirmed:  The price he saw was just $16.89, i.e., $2.05 lower than the price for the same item he had placed in his shopping cart minutes before.
 
Although most of us haven’t been so clever as to catch an ecommerce giant in apparent pricing hypocrisy, many of us probably have wondered whether Amazon and other online retailers were somehow taking advantage of us through increasingly-sophisticated pricing strategies.  Responses to Eric’s Facebook post about the incident confirmed such concerns:
 
“I wonder if the price is also because you're a logged in Prime user in one and they compensate for some of the free shipping.”
 
“I’ve worked with some sellers on Amazon. They are a beast to deal with and it can really wreck a small business. And there is nothing the business owner can really do to combat their practices. They are the 8 million pound gorilla in the room.”
 
“I read [your post] out loud to my daughters, I thought it was so significant.”
 
“The exact same thing happened to me just recently. I was going to protest the increase in price over a year's time. What can we do?”
 
Frustration over similar experiences may lead to accusations of “price discrimination,” i.e., when a seller changes the price of the same product for different consumers.  Generally speaking, it’s not fair to charge people different prices for the same item, but there are some seemingly legitimate exceptions, for example:
 
Quantity discounts:  Buying a 36-pack of bottled water should be cheaper per bottle than buying a single bottle of the same water.
 
Good credit ratings:  Individuals with better credit scores deserve lower interest rates on loans compared to those with weaker credit ratings.

New customers:  The risk of trying  a new business or products may warrant giving a discount to first-time buyers.
 
In reality, none of the preceding truly represents price discrimination because people can, if they choose, put themselves in the more favorable pricing position.  For instance, they could:  buy more bottles of water and store them, follow sound financial practices to improve their credit scores, or assume the risk of purchasing from a new company.
 
If Eric’s experience falls into any of these three categories, it might represent the last one.  Perhaps because of his lack of history with the second web browser, Amazon pegged his subsequent shopping visit as that of a new customer and wanted to offer him an extra incentive for making a first-time purchase.  
 
That explanation may be right, but it has some flaws, namely that companies tend to clearly communicate when they’re offering discounts for new customers; otherwise, loyal customers may locate the discrepancy, as Eric did, question the companies’ motives, and even become resentful:  “I’ve given them my business for all these years; if anyone deserves a discount, I do.”
 
Chances are, Amazon wasn’t practicing any form of price discrimination.  It’s more likely that Eric’s experience was a result of the strategy that many online retailers increasingly apply: dynamic pricing.
 
Dynamic pricing involves changing prices continually, based on prevailing market conditions, which includes factors such as consumer demand, purchase intent, and competitors’ prices, as well as company goals for customer acquisition, retention, and brand-switching.
 
If you’re thinking that dynamic pricing is a new phenomenon, you’re partially right.  Sellers have lowered and raised product prices on the spot for millennia, based on factors as simple as weather conditions and buyers’ apparent interest.   
 
Over the past 30 years or so, airlines probably have been the most common users of dynamic pricing, as they’ve perpetually adjusted prices to keep flights at or near capacity.  To a lesser extent, those selling hotel rooms and tickets to popular entertainment events have done the same.  Frequent historic fluctuations in gasoline prices also suggest dynamic pricing.
 
However, recent advances in digital technologies have really enabled dynamic pricing to thrive.  For instance, from 2008 to 2010, the average time between regular price changes was 6.7 months.  In the time period from 2014 to 2017, that average fell to 3.7 months.
 
Today, to implement far-reaching price change is no more difficult than a few computer key strokes, and it’s as easy as allowing a third-party software program, like an algorithmic repricer, determine when to make price adjustments and how big they should be.
 
Although Amazon, which reportedly makes millions of prices changes a day, is probably the greatest single user of dynamic pricing, it is far from the only retailer employing the strategy.  Walmart, the biggest retailer in the world, has taken a remarkable step away from its long-standing ‘everyday low pricing’ strategy and embraced repricing software for its online sales.
 
Most other e-tailers are following suit.  In fact, some predict that within 5-10 years, dynamic pricing will become so fine-tuned that “everything you buy will be based on personalized offers.”
 
So far this discussion has been about what has happened and will continue to happen with dynamic pricing.  However, at the core of Eric’s experience is an ethical question:  Should Amazon or anyone be pricing products this way?  Or, as Nick Saunders, director of GlobalData Retail has said, just because something is technologically feasible “doesn’t mean it’s socially desirable.”
 
On one hand, it does seem like dynamic pricing puts purchasers at an added disadvantage.  Companies already have a natural information-advantage over consumers since “knowledge is power” and every business knows more about its products and its industry than does the average consumer.
 
What’s more, sellers have always known more than buyers about when prices will change, so with dynamic pricing dramatically increasing the frequency of those deviations, consumers experience even more uncertainty while sellers gain greater leverage.
 
But, the digital age also has been a significant boon to consumers.  For much of human history, sellers only had to compete on price with competitors physically close to them.  Sears, Roebuck & Co. and other catalog retailers changed that situation somewhat.  The Internet and ecommerce have turned traditional retail on its head.
 
Now people sitting in their living rooms use shopping bots to search products from retailers around the world, while shoppers in brick-and-mortar stores pull out their smartphones and ask for price matches in checkout aisles.
 
In addition, dynamic pricing itself has produced some benefits for consumers.  As described above, the strategy does favor individual sellers in specific transactions; however, the fact that all sellers can easily alter their prices means they must compete more against each other on price.
 
In short, buyers and sellers both enjoy advantages in the digital age with dynamic pricing—a phenomenon that Eric recognizes, as he astutely reflects:
 
“This [experience] strikes me as another example of the free market and competition driving markets and pricing.  As much as I might not like it, in my opinion Amazon as the seller has every right to offer its goods to me, their customer, at whatever price point they desire.  And I, in turn, have every right to buy it or not!”
 
“Furthermore, there are times when I might willingly pay a higher price from Amazon because of other factors such as shipping speed or knowing that Amazon customer service is incredible for dealing with product issues or returns.  From Amazon’s perspective, if they do the hard work of building loyalty with me, their customer, then it’s their privilege to offer me goods at a price point which might, at times, be higher than necessary.”
 
“The risk they take is that if I conclude that Amazon is no longer competitively priced, they might experience a decline in my loyalty.  Which undoubtedly is another data point Amazon tracks about me!  If they sense my purchasing loyalty is deteriorating, I suspect their pricing algorithms will work to win back my loyalty!”

 
Although I haven’t asked Eric directly, I think we both agree that frequent price changes don’t necessarily mean price discrimination.  In fact, dynamic pricing can be an example of “Mindful Marketing.”
 
    Eric Wenger is managing partner at RKL, LLP in Lancaster, PA.


Picture
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

Preying on Older People

4/5/2019

2 Comments

 
Picture

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

As I chatted with prospective students and their parents at a luncheon in our college’s cafeteria, I suspected that something wasn’t going well for one of the families.  While others talked and laughed around the table, one mom seemed distracted, checking her phone and whispering with her daughter.  Then suddenly she stood up, apologized for needing to make a call, and walked quickly from the room, leaving us to wonder what was wrong.
 
Sometime later, she returned to the table with a look of relief.  After others left, she told me what had happened.  Her own mother, a senior citizen, had received a ‘distressed’ phone call from someone claiming to be her grandson, who said he was sick and needed money.  Confused but ready to act, the grandmother called and left messages for her son and for her daughter, the mom at our table, who fortunately was able to explain to her mother that someone was trying to trick her.
 
I told the mom I was very sorry to hear what had happened and was glad she was able to intervene.  I also said I could empathize because the same thing had happened to my mother just a couple of years before!  Then the real irony of the situation hit me.  Here was a family, attending a luncheon to talk with a professor about marketing, all while they became the victims of a ‘telemarketing scam.’  How could their college visit and any interest in marketing be redeemed?
 
People do some terrible things under the auspices of “marketing.”  Granted, most people are probably quick to differentiate this type of telephone scam from any legitimate business; still, these calls and others involving more or less manipulation form a continuum that many likely lump together as telemarketing.  Allow me to paint a picture of that spectrum as I see it, then I’ll return to the targeting the older consumers.
 
On one end of the scale, call it the left, are calls like the one described above, or worse.  Some extremely ruthless individuals conduct “virtual kidnappings” in which they contact victims by phone or social media messaging and pretend they have abducted one of their loved ones in order to collect a ransom.  Kidnapping is illegal and considered immoral by most rational people, so it’s nonsensical to support it as legitimate business or valid telemarketing.  The practice also involves blatant deception and coercion in that the perpetrators lie to their victims and exert pressure to try to force them to act.
 
On the opposite, or right, end of the continuum are examples like this one:  Your bank calls to ask if you’d be interested in a home equity loan or a great rate on a certificate of deposit, etc.  You may or may not appreciate such calls, but you do know your bank is a legitimate business that can follow through fairly on its offerings.  Furthermore, if product descriptions are accurate and you don’t feel forced to accept them, there is no deception or coercion.    
 
Occupying the middle of the spectrum are a variety of other phone calls with different degrees of deception or coercion.  For instance, at our home we regularly receive calls “about our electric bill.”  The voicemail messages are vague enough to make me wonder if they’re from our current utility provider, wanting to correct some kind of billing mistake.  However, I realize it’s actually some other company, hoping to gain our business. 

Those types of calls are probably not coercive, i.e., if I ever spoke with one of their representatives, I could freely choose whether or not to make a switch.  The initial calls, however, are deceptive and, therefore, unethical, which is not a good way to begin a business relationship or any other relationship.
 
Also in the middle of the scale are calls that say your computer’s software is out of date or it memory is running low, etc.  Most of us recognize that those claims are untrue and there’s no way such outsiders could know if they were.  So, most people see through the deception, ignore the coercion, and dismiss the calls as scams.  However, not everyone does.
 
Not as technologically savvy as those in the younger generations, many older folks are unsure if the supposed computer issues are real or how serious they may be.  So, their relative lack of knowledge makes them more easily deceived.  Furthermore, concern that something bad may happen to their computer can coerce them to take unneeded action.  Fortunately, however, many senior citizens will first call one of their children, grandchildren, or other trusted individual and ask their advice.
 
Any of us can be duped about products/services that we don’t know well.  For older individuals, there’s the added challenge of declining mental and physical faculties.  Their minds often aren’t as sharp as they once were.  They may not process information as quickly or remember as many details, both of which can negatively affect their decision making.
 
In addition, declining physical skills further complicate decreased cognitive capabilities.  As we age, our vision and hearing decline, which can prevent us from doing things like reading small print on product packages or catching every word a phone caller says.  For these reasons older people are particularly vulnerable to illegitimate forms of telemarketing.
 
That last sentence and my earlier bank example point to my opinion that, despite the many bad examples, there are legitimate forms of telemarketing, namely ones that provide a fair value to consumers, that use honest communication, and that allow freedom in response, all while respecting individuals’ home lives.  For instance, someone in need of extra money may appreciate a phone call from their bank informing or reminding them that it offers a good rate on home equity loans.
 
In contrast, telemarketing that’s fraudulent is against the law.  Title 18 of U.S. Code § 1343 identifies such illegal activity as wire fraud, which involves any interstate or foreign commerce that uses electronic communication to gain “money or property by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”   Using the phone to scam people is a “common example” of wire fraud.  Those found guilty of wire fraud are subject to fines as high as $1 million and up to 30 years in prison.
 
However, fraudulent telemarketing is not just illegal, it’s also unethical.  It’s deceptive to mislead others about who’s calling and the nature of the call.  Similarly, it’s coercive to play on people’s emotions and/or to apply unnecessary time pressure in order to force quick action.  It’s especially abhorrent to do those things to individuals who are more vulnerable to such tactics.
 
So, how did this professor try to help marketing save face with a family and young person considering a career in the field?  I explained that such occurrences of coercion and deceit don't represent marketing's core tenet of mutually beneficial exchange.  At the same time, such examples are good reminders that those of us in marketing need to work harder to distance such illegitimate behavior from proper practice of the discipline.
 
I also mentioned Mindful Marketing and the possibility of writing a piece related to the incident for the blog.  We talked about more typical college visit items afterward, but as the family was leaving, the mom’s attention returned to the telemarketing scam, and she suggested it would be good if I’d write about those issues.
 
When Gallup presents its annual research about the honesty and ethical standards of various professions, telemarketers typically rank near the bottom of the results.  There are legitimate forms of telemarketing, but phone scams aimed at our moms, grandmas, and other older people certainly aren’t among them.  Given that these practices hurt those targeted and can land the perpetrators in jail, such schemes make it easy to call them “Mindless Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
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

Paying with Your Personal Brand

3/23/2019

4 Comments

 
Picture

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

It was shocking to hear the news:  TV’s beloved “Aunt Becky” charged with fraud in “the biggest college admissions scam ever prosecuted in the U.S.”  Most people understand that a business model based on bribery is wrong, but there’s another angle to this story that's relevant to each of us, as marketers of ourselves.
 
To summarize the scandal, Lori Loughlin, who played Rebecca Donaldson-Katsopolis on the classic ABC sitcom Full House and the Netflix sequel Fuller House, and starred in the Hallmark's When the Heart Calls, was one of fifty people implicated in the admissions scandal that also netted actress Felicity Huffman, known for her role in ABC’s Desperate Housewives.  The mastermind of the manipulation was Rick Singer, CEO of The Key, which promised to help “the wealthiest families in the US” get their children into some of the country’s most prestigious colleges.

Many tutors, SAT prep courses, and other admissions aids honestly and legally help students improve their chances of acceptance to their preferred colleges.  So, how did Singer run afoul of the law?  He allegedly helped his clients’ children cheat on ACT and SAT tests, and he bribed college athletic department personnel so they would claim that certain students were recruits for their teams, even when some never played the sport in question.
 
However, perhaps the most devious thing Singer did was create “The Key Worldwide Foundation,” which was supposedly a charity that funded programs for underprivileged children in the U.S. and abroad.  In reality, the Foundation served as a front for money-laundering, or a way for the wealthy to pay Singer who then channeled bribes to accomplices on college campus that included USC, Yale, and New York University, among other prestigious schools.
 
As someone who works in higher education, has one child who recently graduated from college, and has another who is currently making his college decision, the admissions scandal hit close to home.  However, the scandal is even more unsettling to me as a marketer.
 
No, I’m not just talking about what Singer did.  His bad decisions to build a business based on cheating and bribery and to operate a fake foundation were certainly appalling and surprising.   What was even more amazing to me was the apparent ease in which he secured willing parties to the schemes, not just from the general population but from those representing high society and higher education—people who stereotypically ‘should know better.’ 
 
In addition to accomplished actresses Loughlin and Huffman, alleged scandal participants include an array of elite professionals from business, academia, and other fields.  Some of the specific individuals implicated, along with their current or former positions, are:
  • Rudolph Meredith, head women’s soccer coach at Yale University
  • John Vandemoer, sailing coach at Stanford University
  • Igor Dvorskiy, director of West Hollywood College Preparatory  School
  • Gordon Ernst, head tennis coach at Georgetown
  • Donna Heinel, a senior associate athletic director at USC
  • Jorge Salcedo, the head coach of UCLA men’s soccer
  • Gordon Caplan, New York attorney and co-chairman of the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher
  • Gregory Colburn, a radiation oncologist in Palo Alto
  • Robert Flaxman, chief executive and co-founder of Crown Realty & Development, and a Beverly Hills resident
  • Homayoun Zadeh, associate professor at USC’s Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry and director of the school’s Advanced Program in Periodontology

Why would so many smart and talented people risk their reputations and/or careers to associate with Singer.  The motives were likely mixed.  Of course, many of the participants were parents who may have been willing to do anything to see their children succeed.  Those who accepted bribes, probably wanted the money.  Some may have felt pressure to assist for the good of their institution.  Maybe some saw or heard of others doing similar things and rationalized ‘there’s safety in numbers.’
 
Whatever the motive, I doubt that many of the participants, if any, seriously thought that they would get caught.  If they did, they probably wouldn’t have participated.  Instead, they operated under the delusion that what could be hidden from public view didn’t matter.
 
That misconception is one of the biggest fallacies of marketing, in general, and personal branding, specifically.  In an article I wrote a couple of years ago, I aimed to debunk that myth by suggesting that a personal brand consists of three elements: character, competencies, and communication.  I likened the first two components to the layers of a cake and the last one to its icing.
 
Some individuals erroneously act as if they can overcome flawed character and inferior skills by spreading on a thick layer of overly flattering or even disingenuous communication.  Besides being dishonest, this approach only works for so long.  Eventually cracks in ‘the cake’ show through the communication.  Unfortunately for them and others impacted by their indiscretions, those involved in the college admissions scandal seemed to subscribe to this hollow approach to personal branding.
 
As I was writing this blog post, my wife shared with me some very sad news.  A good friend of ours from early in our marriage had passed away suddenly at home, at the age of 58.  Mark Sneff was someone who built his personal brand the right way.  Even as he developed his competencies to rise to the top of the HR profession, his character exuded integrity.  Mark also was uniquely gifted at communicating “the truth in love”: He could offer an honest critique that felt like a high compliment.
 
As the outpouring of fond remembrances on his LinkedIn page suggests, Mark was a widely loved individual who many held in high regard.  I’m not sure he thought much about personal branding.  I am very confident, though, that he never would have resorted to a ruse to advance the educations or careers of his two children, who he loved greatly.  Interestingly, Mark was the first person I ever invited to speak to my college classes.
 
It’s so nice to know people who
‘market themselves’ the right way.  The recent college admissions scandal should be a reminder that it only take a moment to destroy a personal brand that took decades to build.  Unfortunately, that fact means that Loughlin and all who participated in Singer’s schemes, not only injured themselves and others, they’re also guilty of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

Just Blew It

2/23/2019

45 Comments

 
Picture

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

The stage for a college basketball game couldn’t get much bigger:  two top-ten teams in a packed arena,  one of the best rivalries in all of sports, several projected NBA draft picks in the lineup, two hall of fame coaches on the sidelines, the likely NCAA player of the year on the court, and the 44th president of the United States in the stands.  Then a piece of footwear malfunctioned, and the stock price of the world’s most iconic sports brand took a dive.
 
This past Wednesday, #1 Duke hosted #8 North Carolina for one of the most highly-anticipated men’s college basketball games in recent memory.  Tickets were selling at Super Bowl-like prices, not just to see the two storied programs clash, but also to witness what was sure to be a marquee performance by one of the most talented and exciting college athletes ever—Duke’s Zion Williamson.
 
Just an 18 year old, standing 6’ 7” and weighing 285 lbs., Williamson’s unique combination of extraordinary basketball skill and incredible athleticism had captured the attention of all college basketball fans, international news media, and every NBA team, making him the odds-on favorite to be the first choice in the league’s next draft.  Then the unimaginable happened.
 
Just 33 seconds into the game, Williamson received the ball, took a few dripples, planted his foot near the foul line, and fell awkwardly to the floor, while a look of pain raced across his face.  As those watching gasped, the cause of the slip quickly became apparent:  Williamson’s foot had burst through his Nike sneaker.  Camera footage even caught former President Obama, pointing to the court and saying “His shoe broke.”
 
The story spread like wildfire over traditional and social media, as sports analysts, basketball fans, and others reacted.  Many expressed amazement at the occurrence.  Rival sneaker maker Puma tweeted snarkily “wouldn’t have happened in the pumas.”
 
Nike execs were undoubtedly reeling from what must have felt like their worst nightmare:  The best known player in college basketball and a likely NBA superstar had just suffered an injury because of their shoe.  Not only did the chances of signing Williamson to a future multi-million-dollar endorsement deal drop precipitously, the endless images of the prodigy wreathing in pain with foot popped through the side of his Nikes, was a picture that athletes and other sneaker buyers would not soon forget.
 
Nike did wish Williamson well: “We are obviously concerned and want to wish Zion a speedy recovery.”  The same company spokesman added, “The quality and performance of our products are of utmost importance. While this is an isolated occurrence, we are working to identify the issue.”  Still, the day after the blowout, Nike’s stock fell by 1.05%.
 

Picture
 
Was Nike simply the sufferer of a very unfortunate accident at one of the worst possible moments?  Probably not.  It seems that Williamson’s shoe blowout could have been predicted and prevented in light of previous player experiences, as well as others’ product reviews.
 
In 2016, the foot of Orlando Magic’s Aaron Gordon blew through the side of some Nikes when he landed after a dunk.  Two years earlier, in the same NBA season, Golden State’s Andrew Bogut, the Spur’s Manu Ginobili, and the Sixer’s Tony Wroten, all experienced major Nike malfunctions.
 
Of course, one can argue that Williamson and these professional athletes put more strain on a pair of basketball shoes than the average sneaker wearer does, which is probably true.  Many average wearers, however, also have experienced quality issues with their Nikes.  Some have been frustrated enough to upload their sneaker stories to YouTube, for instance:
 
  • One consumer shows how the soles separated from the rest of his $200 Nikes after limited wear.
 
  • Another tells how several different pairs of his Air Jordans have fallen apart after moderate use. 
 
  • A golfer shows how the soles came off his new-looking Nike golf shoes while playing. 
 
  • Another user shows how his Nike Shox are falling apart after about six months.  He laments, “I spend so much money on a shoe, and this is what it comes down to.  I thought better of Nike, but this is what it is, y’all.”
 
Besides these sad stories, others have posted about similar durability issues with their Nike Air LTD’s, their Nike TN’s, and their Nike SB Diamond Dunks.
 
Four years ago Nike pulled the Lebron 12 from the market on the day of its scheduled release due to quality concerns.  About three years ago KicksOneTwo noted ongoing quality control issues with Nike sneakers.
 
But, Nike’s annual footwear revenue is over $21 billion, which means it sells hundreds of millions of shoes a year, so aren’t there bound to be some production problems?  Yes; however, it’s curious that in so many of the defect videos, the problem is the same even for different kinds of Nikes—the shoes just come apart, similar to the way they did for Williamson and for the NBA players mentioned above.
 
I’ve also had a similar experience with the brand.  It had been several years since I’d gone running, when I decided to put on an old pair of Nike running shoes I owned and take a jog around the neighborhood.  It wasn’t long into the run when I started to hear an unusual noise and feel a flapping under my feet.  I soon realized the soles were falling off my running shoes.  Granted, it was an old pair of sneakers.  Still, I’ve owned many different styles and brands of athletic shoes over the years, including ones that I’ve worn much harder, but that’s been the only time anything like that has happened to me.
 
So, maybe Nike does have quality issues that need to be addressed, but some may be wondering what they have to do with the company’s marketing?  Well, effective marketing involves much more than what a company says, or communicates.
 
Every marketing students learns the four P’s of the traditional marketing mix:  product, place, promotion, and price.  A primary objective of an entire organization, not just its marketing department, should be to ensure that each “P” meets the target market’s needs, as well as the organization’s goals, ultimately creating a mutually beneficial exchange.
 
However, if a company’s product is deficient in some way, it may overcompensate with another P, often promotion, which reminds me of a metaphor I've used before—baking a cake.  Sometimes a cake comes out of the oven with cracks, which can be hidden with a layer of icing.  The deeper the cracks, the thicker the icing needed to cover them.
 
It seems that Nike shoes on whole have some “cracks,” which the company has adeptly covered over the years through enticing layers of communication, ranging from highly-produced TV commercials, to prominent team sponsorships, to superstar endorsers.
 
That’s not to say that Nike’s value proposition is just a façade—not by a long shot.  The company generally makes good quality products that serve people well, otherwise it wouldn’t be the world’s most valuable sports brand.  Still, a significant number of people probably do buy into Nike more because of the icon’s icing than the consistency of its cake.
 
I still haven’t seen from Nike a true apology to Williamson for the shoe blowout.  Saying that it wishes him well and promising to investigate the issue do not constitute a confession.  Perhaps for legal reasons, Nike really hasn’t taken ownership of the incident.
 
No company or product is perfect; accidents happen.  However, even for a company as big as Nike, the reoccurrence of such high-profile product malfunctions should give everyone pause, from the guy wanting to jog around his neighborhood to the next NBA superstar looking to ink a multi-million-dollar shoe deal.  Nike will recover from the latest incident, but the injury to Williamson and the damage to the company's brand make what led up to the shoe blowout “Mindless Marketing.”


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

The Best an Ad Can Get?

1/26/2019

32 Comments

 
Picture

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

When I was growing up, our family had a small, easily-provoked dog.  He was responsible for holes in many pairs of my socks from times I tried to slip past him while he was in an especially protective mood.  The person he guarded was my mother because she made sure he had food.  Our dog knew better than to ‘bite the hand that fed him.’   I wonder, was our pet smarter than one of the world’s leading consumer products companies?
 
If you haven’t seen it, Gillette, the global purveyor of men’s personal care products, recently released a video ad titled “We Believe: The Best a Man Can Be.”  The 1:49 minute commercial doesn’t push razors, rather it’s an image-building ad that renounces two contemptable behaviors that some men commit: sexual harassment and bullying.
 
The ad showcases an array of mainly scripted clips in which males, some old, some young, enact a variety of despicable acts like groping women and punching their peers.  Meanwhile, a chorus of other men chants a unison refrain of rationalization, “Boys will be boys.”
 
The ad’s narration and text overlays provide corrective commentary:
“We believe in the best in men.”
“It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more that we can get closer to our best.”
“We are taking action at thebestmencanbe.org”
 
In many ways, Gillette’s messaging makes sense.  The company has taken a stand against two terribly wrong and destructive behaviors and called out the men who commit them.  Using a powerful quote from actor-turned-sexual-harassment-activist Terry Crews, the ad also encourages every man not to stand idly by when they see such reprehensible actions but to intervene: “Men need to hold other men accountable.”
 
Despite all the apparent good, the commercial has quickly become a lightning rod for controversy.  Dozens of media, from Advertising Age, to Glamour, to USA Today, have run articles about the ad.  As one might imagine, some commentary from the authors as well as from the general public has been positive, while other responses have been quite negative.
 
For instance, @pstdavid_ tweeted, “Finally got a chance to see this #GilletteAd. Quite honestly, I don’t get what all the fuss is about. In my opinion, they’re not “taking a stand on toxic masculinity” or ‘stealing your manhood.’  All they’re suggesting is that you be a decent human being. It’s not that difficult.”
 
Another Gillette consumer, however, tweeted a picture of his hand poised above a trash can, about to discard the Gillette razor he received on his 18th birthday and used for the past 15 years, including through basic training and four deployments. (1)  The soon-to-be-former customer lamented, “since @Gillette thinks I’m a bad person, I’m throwing it away.”
 
Another user, @davidliedtka, took an even more extreme approach, placing his Gillette shaving creme and razor in an oven and setting the temperature to 505 degrees.
 
Wow.  Those are strong reactions.  Does Gillette or any organization that’s trying to right serious social wrongs deserve such reprisals?
 
The first time I saw the commercial, my reaction was generally positive: A strong brand that has built a solid reputation among millions of men was using that influence to ask them to be better.  Such a plea from a huge corporate player might stand a chance of making a difference in our world.  Still, there were things about the spot that didn’t seem right.
 
A second time through the ad, I noticed more of the agency’s specific creative decisions.  For instance, while the spot’s small amount of real video footage worked, the many acted segments looked overly artificial and contrived, even though they depicted terrible events that unfortunately occur.  The use of both real and scripted video seemed like a mismatch.
                                                    
I hadn’t thought much more about the ad, until one of my marketing students emailed me a link to another company’s commercial that was purportedly a response to Gillette’s ad.  The next day he asked if I had watched the ad.  I had been very busy, so I replied I hadn’t but I was looking forward to seeing it soon.
 
That night I opened his email and clicked the YouTube link, which took me to an ad posted by Egard Watch Company.  Viewing the 1:57 minute commercial just once, changed my perspective of Gillette’s ad.
 
Egard’s commercial opens with several male firefighters battling an inferno, then quickly cuts to one of them carrying a young girl safely away from the flames.  Meanwhile, a narrator asks, “What is a man?”  The ad continues with a wide variety of real video clips, many showing men doing very difficult or even dangerous physical labor, while the narrator poses additional questions like “Is a man brave?”, “Is a man a protector?”, and “Is a man disposable?”
 
The spot also shares some very sobering statistics, such as:
  • Men account for 93% of workplace fatalities.
  • Men comprise over 97% of war fatalities.
  • 79% of all homicide victims are male.
  • Men account for 80% of  all suicide victims.
 
The commercial concludes on a positive note, asking “Is a man trying?” and offering the company’s view of masculinity:  “We see the good in men.”
 
As marketer, I realize that the right music with moving images can tug at one’s emotions; however, Egard’s ad resonated with me, and perhaps the 324,000 people who have liked, it for another reason.  Egard reminded us of the many men in our lives that we have known and loved.
 
The ad caused me to remember my grandfathers: one a coalminer, the other a farmer.  To support their families, both  did very hard, physical work that must have greatly tested both their bodies and their minds.  Having experienced the ravages of WW II, my father-in-law, emigrated from Ukraine, to Brazil, to the United States, where he worked for over 30 years in a bearing factory as a tool and die maker—labor that likely explains his great loss of hearing today.  My own father was not able to finish high school, yet he started his own business at age 25 and worked tirelessly with my mother to earn enough to put four children through college.
 
None of these men were/is perfect.  Neither is their grandson/son—I’ve made plenty of mistakes; although, I don’t think I’ve done anything that someone could call bullying or sexual harassment.  Most men probably can say the same.  Most of the mistakes we make are not because we’re men; they’re because we’re human.
 
The problem with Gillette’s ad is that it stereotypes men.  Not all males act like Harvey Weinstein or ‘Scott Farkus,’ the bully from A Christmas Story.  In fact, the vast majority do not.  Of course, Gillette’s ad doesn’t directly say that all men are sexual predators or bullies, but it does put all men in the same stereotypical boxes through some subtle visual and verbal suggestions.
 
One such insinuation in Gillette’s spot is the seemingly infinite lineup of men, all standing behind their BBQ grills with arms folded, chanting in unison, “Boys will be boys.”  The ad’s narration also makes a stereotypical suggestion by tagging onto Crew’s “Men need to hold other men accountable” quote, adding: “ . . . accountable to act the right way; some already are, in ways big and small.  But some is not enough.”  I’d like to reiterate the belief that it’s most men who are acting the right way, not some.
 
Another Twitter user, Melissa Chen (@MsMelChen), who self-identifies as Asian, supports the suggestion that Gillette’s ad stereotypes men.  She says:
“I can get behind the message that we all can be better.  But the #GilletteAd ended up painting an entire demographic with a negative stereotype perpetuated by a few.  Imagine the uproar if it was an ad about a racial group with higher crime rates saying, “‘you can be better.’”
 
Of course, on top of all this analysis is the fact that men are Gillette’s main target market.*  Its iconic tagline is “The Best a Man Can Get.”  Given that our family’s dog knew better than to bite the hand that fed him, it’s hard to imagine why one of the world’s biggest brands would want to risk ‘cutting the faces it shaves,’ especially when already on the ropes in a fight against Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club.
 
One instance of bullying or one case of sexual harassment is one too many.  As such, Gillette can be commended for taking a stand against those injustices and for suggesting that others do the same.  However, the company should have known much better than to unfairly throw its entire target market under the bus with broadly generalized talk of “toxic masculinity.”  It’s wrong to degrade others in any way, including by negatively stereotyping, which makes Gillette guilty of “Mindless Marketing.”

*An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Gillette does not make products for women.


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

Advertising Attacks Domestic Violence

8/24/2018

16 Comments

 
Picture

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

An Ohio State assistant football coach repeatedly beat his wife.

A Colorado man allegedly murdered his pregnant wife and their two daughters.
 
A week rarely goes by without another disturbing story of domestic violence.  In the United States, 20 people are abused by an intimate partner every minute.  It’s reasonable to think that such a mass problem requires a mass media solution, but is advertising the answer to decreasing domestic violence? 
 
The United Kingdom’s National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV) thought so.  The organization that provides “free, fast and effective legal support to survivors of domestic violence and abuse” enlisted the services of world-renown marketing firm J. Walter Thompson (JWT) to produce an anti-abuse ad campaign that ran in Europe during the recent FIFA World Cup.
 
The “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign’s target marketing and timing were insightful:  Unbeknown to most of us, there is an unfortunate “correlation between domestic abuse and [soccer].”  In England, for instance, domestic violence increases by 26% when its national team plays, and if it loses, incidents rise by 38%.
 
Such alarming statistics encouraged the NCDV and JWT to unleash a jarring counterattack.  The ad campaign featured very graphic images of the results of physical abuse, each with a specific soccer team tie-in.  For instance, two bandages resembling a Swiss cross barely covered the large gash on a young woman’s bruised right cheek, while the caption read “If Switzerland gets beaten, so will she.”
 
Another gruesome image was a straight-on shot of the lower third of a young woman’s face, stained and still dripping bright red blood from her nose and lips.   The caption read, “If England gets beaten, so will she."  Among other media, the ads appeared on Instagram and billboards.
 
A few years ago, I did a study of shock advertising and found, among other things, that marketers have long used startling words and images to gain attention for everything from clothing to fast food.
 
Nonprofit organizations seem especially open to employing shock, probably because they find it easier to rationalize it for what are arguably more noble ends, like alleviating hunger and decreasing smoking.  It’s not surprising, therefore, that the NCDV campaign was not the first to use shock in the fight against physical abuse.  For instance, a few years ago, the Salvation Army of South Africa invoked social media’s famous “black and blue” dress in an ad that showed a woman covered in bruises, with the caption “Why is it so hard to see black and blue?”
 
Such ads certainly grab attention, but are they effective in accomplishing the creators’ objectives, e.g., decreasing domestic violence?  The results I found were mixed:  In some instances the target market responded as intended, but in other cases the shock was ineffective or even counterproductive; for instance, it pushed people further from the purpose of the ad because graphic images and language repulsed viewers or overshadowed the ads’ unique selling proposition.
 
Regular readers of this blog know that effectiveness is only one of the assessments that Mindful Marketers make.  The other involves ethics.  In terms of shock, even if it works, should advertisers use it to combat domestic violence?  Is shocking people the right thing to do?
 
I don’t know the results of NCDV’s “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign, so I’d like to consider the ads’ efficacy and ethicality by posing four specific questions:

1.
Were the ads actually a deterrent?  A key assumption of the NCDV ads seemed to be that potential abusers would see close-ups of the blood and gore and resolve not to do that to someone.  Maybe that motivation works; I honestly don’t know, but it’s easy to imagine that the gruesome visuals could have the opposite effect, i.e., they set off in people predisposed to such violence a visceral reaction similar to sharks sensing blood in the water.
 
Whenever marketers develop ads, it’s critical that they understand the target market’s underlying reasons for acting.  In the case of domestic violence, maybe it would be more effective to appeal to perpetrators’ fear of arrest, like many drunk driving ads do.  Or, perhaps these abusers would be motivated by concern over lower self-esteem (“Don’t be a coward”) or by lost love (“She will leave you”).


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

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

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

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

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

That lack of audience selectivity is inefficient, but the bigger problem pertains to those who could be traumatized by shocking images, namely children.  Advertisers also should consider the increasingly large number of people who have been victims of domestic violence.  They don’t deserve to be vividly reminded of their experience when walking down a street or browsing online.
 
Advertising that employs shock, like the “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign, often rationalizes that ‘the ends justify the means.’  That line of thinking is highly questionable.  It’s also unclear whether such advertising actually produces net benefits.  The NCDV’s ads may have been well-intended, but they were most likely “Mindless Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
16 Comments
<<Previous
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

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

    Archives

    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly