Category: Mindless33703c5669

Dynamic Pricing or Discrimination?

6/14/2019

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.

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

0 Comments

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.”

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

Paying with Your Personal Brand

3/23/2019

1 Comment

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.”

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

1 Comment

Just Blew It

2/23/2019

43 Comments

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

19 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!

19 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.”