Category: Mindless33703c5669

Just Blew It

2/23/2019

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%.

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.”

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

43 Comments

The Best an Ad Can Get?

1/26/2019

31 Comments

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.

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

31 Comments

Advertising Attacks Domestic Violence

8/24/2018

14 Comments

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

An Ohio State assistant football coach repeatedly beat his wife.

A Colorado man allegedly murdered his pregnant wife and their two daughters.

A week rarely goes by without another disturbing story of domestic violence. In the United States, 20 people are abused by an intimate partner every minute. It’s reasonable to think that such a mass problem requires a mass media solution, but is advertising the answer to decreasing domestic violence?

The United Kingdom’s National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV) thought so. The organization that provides “free, fast and effective legal support to survivors of domestic violence and abuse” enlisted the services of world-renown marketing firm J. Walter Thompson (JWT) to produce an anti-abuse ad campaign that ran in Europe during the recent FIFA World Cup.

The “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign’s target marketing and timing were insightful: Unbeknown to most of us, there is an unfortunate “correlation between domestic abuse and [soccer].” In England, for instance, domestic violence increases by 26% when its national team plays, and if it loses, incidents rise by 38%.

Such alarming statistics encouraged the NCDV and JWT to unleash a jarring counterattack. The ad campaign featured very graphic images of the results of physical abuse, each with a specific soccer team tie-in. For instance, two bandages resembling a Swiss cross barely covered the large gash on a young woman’s bruised right cheek, while the caption read “If Switzerland gets beaten, so will she.”

Another gruesome image was a straight-on shot of the lower third of a young woman’s face, stained and still dripping bright red blood from her nose and lips. The caption read, “If England gets beaten, so will she." Among other media, the ads appeared on Instagram and billboards.

A few years ago, I did a study of shock advertising and found, among other things, that marketers have long used startling words and images to gain attention for everything from clothing to fast food.

Nonprofit organizations seem especially open to employing shock, probably because they find it easier to rationalize it for what are arguably more noble ends, like alleviating hunger and decreasing smoking. It’s not surprising, therefore, that the NCDV campaign was not the first to use shock in the fight against physical abuse. For instance, a few years ago, the Salvation Army of South Africa invoked social media’s famous “black and blue” dress in an ad that showed a woman covered in bruises, with the caption “Why is it so hard to see black and blue?”

Such ads certainly grab attention, but are they effective in accomplishing the creators’ objectives, e.g., decreasing domestic violence? The results I found were mixed: In some instances the target market responded as intended, but in other cases the shock was ineffective or even counterproductive; for instance, it pushed people further from the purpose of the ad because graphic images and language repulsed viewers or overshadowed the ads’ unique selling proposition.

Regular readers of this blog know that effectiveness is only one of the assessments that Mindful Marketers make. The other involves ethics. In terms of shock, even if it works, should advertisers use it to combat domestic violence? Is shocking people the right thing to do?

I don’t know the results of NCDV’s “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign, so I’d like to consider the ads’ efficacy and ethicality by posing four specific questions:

1. Were the ads actually a deterrent? A key assumption of the NCDV ads seemed to be that potential abusers would see close-ups of the blood and gore and resolve not to do that to someone. Maybe that motivation works; I honestly don’t know, but it’s easy to imagine that the gruesome visuals could have the opposite effect, i.e., they set off in people predisposed to such violence a visceral reaction similar to sharks sensing blood in the water.

Whenever marketers develop ads, it’s critical that they understand the target market’s underlying reasons for acting. In the case of domestic violence, maybe it would be more effective to appeal to perpetrators’ fear of arrest, like many drunk driving ads do. Or, perhaps these abusers would be motivated by concern over lower self-esteem (“Don’t be a coward”) or by lost love (“She will leave you”).

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

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

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

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

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

That lack of audience selectivity is inefficient, but the bigger problem pertains to those who could be traumatized by shocking images, namely children. Advertisers also should consider the increasingly large number of people who have been victims of domestic violence. They don’t deserve to be vividly reminded of their experience when walking down a street or browsing online.

Advertising that employs shock, like the “Not-So-Beautiful Game” campaign, often rationalizes that ‘the ends justify the means.’ That line of thinking is highly questionable. It’s also unclear whether such advertising actually produces net benefits. The NCDV’s ads may have been well-intended, but they were most likely “Mindless Marketing.”

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

14 Comments

Mindless to Mindful: Super Bowl LII Ads

2/9/2018

14 Comments

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

The latest NFL championship was one for the ages. The football was exciting, and the ads were pretty good too. How did the spots stack up in terms of Mindfulness? There was at least one commercial for every category of the Mindful Matrix.

Given the weighty issues facing our nation and our world, it’s not surprising that a variety of spots took on important social concerns like diversity, overcoming physical limitations, and the role of families. These ads gave us a warm hug and put a smile on our face.

However, a few days later, do we even remember the companies that paid $5 million for a 30-second spot. For instance, which firm showcased a variety of people serving others while an audio clip of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played in the background? The answer--Dodge Ram.

Dodge did attempt to make a reasonable connection between its trucks and the ad’s theme (“Built to Serve”), but most of the video footage had nothing to do with pickups (e.g., a pregnant woman having an ultrasound). Meanwhile a few very short clips of Dodge trucks were overshadowed by all of the ad’s other visual and audio activity. I doubt I would have remembered that the spot was for Dodge had I not been keeping track of every ad.

It was kind for Dodge to spend millions of dollars to extol service, but will one 60-second spot make people any more inclined to serve, and will they associate Dodge with that call to action? Two likely “No’s” make this ad and most of the game’s other social cause spots “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

Speaking of ambiguous advertising, there was also an ad that featured actor Keanu Reeves motorcycle surfing. Even as I wrote this paragraph, I remembered the ad, but couldn’t recall to whom it belonged until I checked my list and saw it was for the online website creation software Squarespace.

However, the fact that the commercial had no discernable connection to web design was not the ad's only problem. One can imagine that the stunt, which Reeves preformed himself, was extremely dangerous for him and other drivers, like the one in the pickup truck that flashes through the scene going the opposite direction about seven seconds into the ad.

The Los Angeles Times reports that 103.4 million people watched the latest Super Bowl, which represents every age demographic from toddlers to senior citizens and unfortunately includes any number of daredevils who need little encouragement to attempt Reeve’s stunt. The Tide Pod Challenge, which has killed at least eight people, is a tragic reminder of the power media has to spur irrational imitation. It’s irresponsible for Squarespace to glamorize another dangerous act, which makes its Super Bowl ad “Mindless Marketing.”

Thankfully there were also commercials for which it was very easy to identify the advertiser. Diet Coke’s Twisted Mango spot was one of those ads. The commercial is pretty simple in terms of its creative execution. A girl with short bangs and long legs mentions the name of the beverage and starts dancing. Could anything be wrong with that ad? Well . . . yes.

The dance gets a little “sexier” near the end, but that’s not the main concern. The potential issue is that the actress in the ad is extremely thin. Skinny people deserve to feel good about their bodies like everyone else, but this young woman looks emaciated, skeletal. In other product/ad contexts, such a body image might not be as problematic, but this commercial is for Diet Coke.

When people talk about dieting, it almost always means they’re trying to lose weight. About 30 million people in the U.S., or a little less than 10% of the population, suffer from eating disorders, which “have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.” It’s reckless for the Coca-Cola Company to use an actress whose body type can easily become a dangerous aspiration for people already thinking about dieting. Diet Coke’s ad will likely help sell soda, but it’s “Single-Minded Marketing.”

There were many ads from the latest Super Bowl that both created stakeholder value and upheld societal values. One of the best of the lot was for Pringles snack chips. The Kellogg Company’s iconic chips-in-a-can have been around for over 50 years, during which time there have been some new flavors, but little else has changed. How, then, could the company get enough bang for the buck from a Super Bowl spot?

Kellogg’s rose to the occasion by using its ad to suggest a very simple yet intriguing concept: stacking different types of Pringles to create unique flavor combinations, for instance, jalapeño-barbeque-pizza. Such palette-pleasing options are probably especially appealing to Gen Z and Millennials, who likely are the biggest consumers of these types of snacks.

Two other things going for the ad were its use of comedian/actor Bill Hader, well known for his work on Saturday Night Live and recognizable to many young people. Also, TV viewers consume a significant number of snacks, especially while watching the Super Bowl. That relevant context makes remembering snack food ads easier, and all of the above make Pringle’s commercial “Mindful Marketing.”

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

14 Comments

Beer Belly Briefcase

12/1/2017

34 Comments

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

Wondering what to get for that guy on your holiday shopping list who doesn’t need anything? How about buying him some belly fat? I’m not talking about a giant box of chocolates or gift cards for his favorite fast food—they would take too long. There’s a much quicker way to give him the perfect paunch.

As the newest edition to the series ‘I can’t believe somebody would make that,’ British art designer Albert Pukies has created a fanny pack called the “Dadbag” that looks exactly like a middle-aged man’s beer belly. It even has hair.

What’s the point of these paunches? In terms of functionality, Pukies says they’re a great place to store “typical dad items, like beer, medicine, a sandwich, wallet, sunglasses, keys.” That’s right, a beer belly that can hold a couple cans of Budweiser, literally.

While the Dadbag is outwardly a practical product, Pukies purpose in creating it was apparently more about image. He claims he was “desperate to have a dad bod” but didn’t want to assume the associated health risks. What’s a “dad bod?” The designer says it’s a term a college student coined a few years ago in describing coeds going crazy over guys with “a nice balance between a beer gut and working out.”

Pukies admits that the Dadbag is “a pretty silly product,” which he originally had no intent to mass produce; however, given the interest the fanny pack has found, he’s decided to explore production partnerships with the idea of retailing the Dadbag for about $30.

If offered, there would be different versions of the bag, as Pukies has prototyped six separate styles featuring a range of skin tones and quantities of belly hair--qualities that caused one potential user to praise the product’s inclusivity. The designer has also demonstrated his marketing savvy by giving each style a distinct name: the Allen, the Derek, the Magnus, the Bobby, the Sherman, and even the sunburned Wolfgang.

So, what should we make of the Dadbag? Obviously, it’s an item to be taken with a grain of salt, not with complete seriousness—Some products are meant to be fun. However, at $30 a pop, it’s not like buying a whoopee cushion, dribble glass, or some other cheap gag gift. Besides the significant cash outlay, there are other factors that just make the Dadbag wrong :

1. Looks Disgusting: Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I bet most initial reactions to the Dadbag are a similar “Gross!” Such repulsiveness wouldn’t matter as much were it not for the facts that fanny packs are typically used in public and the hairy belly looks extremely real. So, wearing a Dadbag is like actual inappropriate exposure (e.g., a visible but crack) that no one should have to see.

2. Impractical: I suppose there are still some individuals who buy fanny packs, but it seems that most people prefer other means of carrying their valuables, e.g., pockets, purses, backpacks, etc. Plus, putting a couple of beer cans inside the Dadbag would make for a pretty heavy paunch. All that to say that producing Dadbags is probably not the best use of materials and time, i.e., it’s bad stewardship.

3. Denigrating Dads: As described above, the pack is objectionable for other reasons, but the fact that it’s called the Dadbag makes the offense even worse. Dads have taken exceptional abuse over recent years, including in advertising. They don’t need any more unflattering stereotypes. Yes, I’m a dad, so maybe I’m overly critical, but can you imagine a firm offering a similar product called a “Mombag”? The backlash would be brutal, and rightly so. Dads’ bodies deserve the same respect.

4. In Poor Taste: The Dadbag not only unfairly ridicules fathers, it also makes fun of something else that should be taken very seriously: fat. Many nations, like the United States, battle obesity epidemics that add billions of dollars to healthcare and cost millions of individuals their lives. What makes matters worse is that some other countries can’t get enough food, as many of their citizens live and die undernourished. In sum, belly fat is no laughing matter.

If there’s one potential virtue of the Dadbag, it’s that probably no one will try to steal anything from it. Beyond that benefit, the novelty fanny pack is interesting to talk about but unlikely to achieve significant demand. With that prediction and the pack’s associated social issues, the Dadbag is an unfortunate example 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!

34 Comments

Unclear Communication

10/21/2017

18 Comments

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

If a friend says her “head is spinning” or a coworker claims he could “eat a horse,” we don’t worry about a broken neck or a slaughtered stallion. Language is full of figures of speech. What’s more, we don’t need to be told every detail; a conversation’s context carries much of the meaning. That’s the way communication is supposed to work; although, it notably didn't during a recent college business class.

Professor Reb Beatty teaches financial accounting at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland. To aid his students on the first exam, he told them several times to bring a “3 x 5 note card,” on which they could write any information they might find useful during the text. Allowing students a small ‘cheat sheet,’ is not unusual for college courses, especially ones involving quantitative topics.

On the day of the exam, students filed into the classroom with their usual books and bags and the note cards. One student, however, carried something much more conspicuous. Ten minutes before the test, Elijah Bowen entered toting a 3 ft. x 5 ft. poster, packed with information for the exam.

When he first saw it, Professor Beatty disregarded the jumbo card, thinking it was just a study aid that Bowen was using to cram before the test. However, when it became apparent that he planned to use the poster during the exam, the teacher confronted the student. Bowen explained that all of the information Beatty had sent about the card just said 3 x 5. Nowhere was there any mention of inches.

After hearing the explanation, Beatty relented and allowed Bowen to use the card, but in the back of the classroom where other students couldn’t read it. Of course, Bowen was delighted that he got to use the super-sized exam aid, which he had spent over an hour creating the night before. He also was very surprised his professor allowed him to do so: "It was fabulous. I was shocked." "I gave it about a 5 percent chance he'd let me use it."

But what were his professor’s feelings about the liberal interpretation of his instructions? Beatty said he was impressed by the ingenuity: "I was actually very happy for him.” "You have to have a student with the intelligence to recognize the loophole and then have the audacity to put it together and come in and try it." Beatty even took a picture of Bowen with the card and posted it to Facebook, where over 28,000 people shared it. The professor also appended his syllabus, adding the note card’s true size.

So, the story had a happy ending, right? Well, if you’re familiar with this blog, you know there must be more to the analysis. Plus, what does an exam in a financial accounting class have to do with marketing? Let’s see.

There are at least two examples of branding that happened here, the first of which was personal branding. Bowen branded himself as someone who’s not averse to bending the rules, or gaming the system. Although he knew his professor meant inches, not feet, he still tried the ploy, even acknowledging afterward that he doubted it would work.

As mentioned above, reasonable people interpret information rationally based on the context. They don’t argue with a lumberyard that its two-by-four boards should be 2 ft. x 4 ft. thick, and they don’t pretend that note cards are of a similar large size. Perhaps Bowen meant to be funny, but ultimately he showed a lack of integrity: He plotted to gain an advantage over his peers and feigned an unrealistic interpretation of the note card size, which even he didn’t believe. Such behavior does not reflect the kind of individual with whom most people want to work or otherwise interact.

The second instance of poor branding involved the portrayal of accounting—a very important field and a noble profession. Accounting abhors creative manipulation and exploiting loopholes, for which Beatty praised Bowen. Good accountants want their firm’s books to accurately and honestly reflect their firm’s financial realities, as Investopedia suggests:

“Creative accounting capitalizes on loopholes in the accounting standards to falsely portray a better image of the company. Although creative accounting practices are legal, the loopholes they exploit are often reformed to prevent such behaviors. A primary benefit of public accounting statements is that they allow investors to compare the financial health of competing companies. However, when firms indulge in creative accounting they often distort the value of the information that their financials provide.”

By allowing and even exalting Bowen’s gigantic note card, Beatty encouraged behavior that is antithetical accounting. Over time, endorsing such illicit activity will taint the field’s image, i.e., people will think of accountants more as dishonest schemers and less as trustworthy advisors.

College campuses cultivate some crazy behavior, much of which is a fun and harmless part of the undergraduate experience. College is also a place, however, where students develop work habits and reputations that go with them for much of their lives. For these reasons, devious behavior that disparages individual and collective branding must be called “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!

18 Comments

Racial Representation Gone Wrong

10/13/2017

27 Comments

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

Comedian W.C. Fields famously advised, "never work with animals or children," the idea being, both are unpredictable and likely to steal the spotlight. A somewhat similar ultimatum for advertisers might be “never make race the focus of ads.” At least that’s what Unilever is probably thinking now.

The Dutch conglomerate responsible for brands such as Axe, Lipton, and Breyers, recently lit up social media with reactions to a Facebook ad for one of its most iconic brands: Dove. The fact that the video featured three women of different races didn’t cause the controversy. Many ads depict as much or more diversity. The issue for many people was how the ad portrayed racial differences.

The video showed “a young black woman taking off her T-shirt and then morphing into a white woman, who in turn takes off her T-shirt, and turns into a woman appearing to be Asian.” Although Dove said it was celebrating the beauty of different races, many viewers saw the ad differently: they thought each morph implied some kind of racial improvement.

Unfortunately, such a repugnant interpretation is not unfounded, considering the long history of unfair racial characterizations in advertising, especially certain ads that have expressly illustrated what Dove’s critics claim. For instance, a 1940s print ad by N.K. Fairbank Co. showed a white girl asking a black girl “Why doesn’t your mamma wash you with Fairy soap?” More recently, a Chinese detergent commercial drew overwhelming accusations of racism for showing a young black man being pushed into a washing machine, only to emerge happily as a lighter-skin Chinese man.

Even worse for Dove is the fact that it made a similar mistake not that long ago. In 2011, the brand created an ad for its VisibleCare product that featured three women—one black, one Latina, and one white—standing left to right in front of enlarged pictures of skin and two signs: “before” on the left and “after” on the right. The ad was supposed to illustrate dry skin before using the product and smooth skin after, but the positions of the women relative to the signs made it seem like the ad was advocating ‘dark skin before, white skin after.’

That interpretation isn’t unreasonable given that several well-known skincare companies, such as Nivea, market skin-lightening creams. Africa is a favorite target market for such products. In West Africa, skin bleaching is a “multibillion-dollar industry,” as advertising and social pressure lead many to adopt the misguided notion that lighter skin is more beautiful. The highest frequency of skin-lightening occurs in Nigeria where “77% of Nigerian women use the products on a regular basis,” despite significant health risks that come with the treatments.

Skin-lightening is not limited to Africa, however, and among the companies pushing such products around the world is, you guessed it, Unilever. In markets that include India, the firm promotes its Fair & Lovely line, using ads that “depict dark-skinned women transforming into light-skinned women with a direct result of success in romance and careers.”

So, what should we make of Dove’s latest misstep via its t-shirt morphing ad? Well, first it’s important to note that the company has offered what appears to be a sincere apology:

“Dove is committed to representing the beauty of diversity. In an image we posted this week, we missed the mark in thoughtfully representing women of color and we deeply regret the offense that it has caused.” “[The ad] was intended to convey that Dove Body Wash is for every woman and be a celebration of diversity, but we got it wrong and, as a result, offended many people.”

It’s also worth noting that Lola Ogunyemi, the black actress in the ad, has voiced her support for the promotional piece, saying that she understands the backlash but believes the ad was taken out of context. She adds she felt honored to be the face of dark-skinned beauty in the ad and doesn’t consider herself a victim. However, she was unaware of the order that she and the other actresses would appear in the ad.

Ultimately, Unilever/Dove should have: learned from its past mistakes as well as those of other advertisers, recognized the ad’s implied endorsement of physically and socially harmful skin-lightening, and more thoroughly vetted the new ad before deciding to publish it. Respectful representation of racial diversity in ads is great, but Dove’s imprudent approach is an unfortunate example 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!

27 Comments

Hurricane Heist?

9/15/2017

35 Comments

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!

35 Comments

How Caffeine Can Kill

5/30/2017

3 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!

3 Comments

Jeans with a View

5/12/2017

10 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.”