Category: Promotion37eb4ea826

Capri Sun Practices Child’s Play

9/5/2020

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

Have you ever been food pranked? Someone gives you something to eat and “Yech!” it turns out to be much different than you expected—toothpaste inside an Oreo is a classic gag. Kids love to prank each other, but should the maker of one of the world’s most popular kids’ drinks fool its biggest fans?

Capri Sun, internationally-renowned producer of juice pouches, has decided to prank not just a few kids but a big portion of its target market by filling select silver packages with water. The company filmed reactions of several pint-sized punk’d consumers, who were given unmarked pouches and asked to test “a new flavor” of juice. It then edited the outtakes into a few video promotions.

Compared to most food pranks, which often elicit expressions of disgust, the responses to Capri Sun’s ruse were rather subdued. Perplexed young taste testers made comments like, “It’s very plain,” “tastes a little bit bland,” and “it doesn’t have any flavor.”

What made Carpi Sun’s prank poignant is that the company’s juice pouches are familiar to so many. Since its introduction in Germany in 1969, the company has expanded distribution of its drinks to 119 countries. According to its website, “ In 2014, our fans all over the world drank 6 billion pouches of Capri-Sun!”

One significant serving of drink sales have come from the greater Chicago area, where Kraft Heinz acts as distributor and a newly-formed advertising firm, Mischief at No Fixed Address, produced the prank. The campaign’s full scope includes distribution of five million filtered water pouches labeled, “We’re sorry it’s not juice,” to Chicagoland schools for free. Also appearing prominently at the top of each package is “Capri Sun” in 70-point all capital letters.

Given the immense physical, mental, and financial stress the pandemic has placed on kids and their parents, it’s kind of Capri Sun to help schools, where fountains are shut down and children need other ways of getting water. But, will the company’s corporate social responsibility really remedy that problem, and what’s likely to be the long-term impact on the brand?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city of Chicago, not including the greater metropolitan area, has a population of 2.69 million, of which 21.2% are under the age of 18 and 6.5% are younger than five. Those stats suggest that there are nearly 400k school-age children in Chicago (570,280 - 174,850 = 395,430).

Providing all of those children with a drink a day for a week would mean 1,977,150 water pouches. A full month of water would entail a total of 7,908,600 (2.9 million more than Capri Sun’s pledge). Keeping kids hydrated from September through December would require about 31,634,400 pouches.

Of course, no one company should be expected to satisfy so much demand for free. Meeting massive public needs tends to take a team effort—collaboration among the public sector, for-profit companies, and other organizations.

Still, although it may seem cynical or even ungrateful, it’s reasonable to wonder whether the social impact of Capri Sun’s philanthropy is proportional to the promotional benefits the firm may receive: Do a few drinks of water warrant the brand splash in front of hundreds of thousands of captive young consumers?

When a company gives away something significant, it’s fair for its brand to benefit. However, the amount of that benefit should be on par with the amount of social good done. The rationale is analogous to a firm needing to ante up millions of dollars, not thousands, for naming rights to a building or stadium.

It’s hard to know Capri Sun’s costs in producing and distributing five million pouches of filtered water, but an estimate of .10 per packet would put the total cost at $500,000. That’s a significant spend, but not that much for a firm with annual revenues of about a half billion dollars. A few other issues further complicate the equation.

First, Capri Sun’s promotional benefits might be multiplied in that it seeks to put pouches with its name into the hands of the most impressionable of consumers—children. Kids are understandably less discerning of promotional messages than are adults, which is why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prioritizes protecting children.

Second, it seems that there should be some subtraction from the social good Capri Sun portends because of the message emblazoned on the foil pouches: “We’re sorry it’s not juice. [It’s just] Filtered Water.”

Is Capri Sun dissing in front of kids one of the most important substances for human existence? Of course, the company is trying to be funny. There is, however, the unhumorous reality that many children consume far too much sugar, much of it coming from sugary drinks. (1) To its credit, Capri Sun Fruit Punch contains a relatively low 13 grams of sugar. That’s not much compared to some drinks, but it is high compared to water.

Then, there’s an even more intriguing twist . . .

On August 5, the Chicago Sun Times announced major Lori Lightfoot’s decision to close Chicago Public Schools due to worsening coronavirus conditions—the city’s children will be learning online. That news would seem to punch a hole in Capri Sun’s water pouch plans; however, over two weeks later, on August 21, an AdAge editor’s pick article described the campaign with no mention of the district’s pivot away from in-person education.

Maybe AdAge missed the mayor’s announcement, or perhaps Capri Sun has found another way to distribute the water without access to kids in classrooms. Assuming the later, there’s still one more potentially serious flaw in Capri Sun’s ‘Got Juice?’ strategy:

By associating its iconic packaging with a less desirable drinking experience, the company risks leaving a bad taste in the mouth of young, impressionable consumers.

Can you imagine sipping a Starbuck’s coffee and discovering it was only warm water, or biting into a Hershey’s Bar and finding it was sans-sugar? It’s doubtful either company would intentionally give even one consumer such an indelibly unpleasant experience, let alone broadcast the negative reaction for millions of others to see and learn from vicariously.

As suggested at the onset, a large part of Capri Sun’s food prank success was the fact that so many people, including children, recognize the straw-impaled drink packs and associate them with sweet refreshment and other pleasant sensations. Those positive associations can be easily washed away, though, by even one unfavorable brand encounter that one experiences him/herself or sees others endure.

Of course, a natural retort is, “It was just a joke!” That’s true, and the prank itself was kind of funny. However, there are some things that food and drink companies just don’t joke about, a main one being the taste of their products. Any such negative association is too risky.

It’s a little like when Watergate-embroiled president Richard Nixon infamously declared, “I am not a crook.” Regrettably for him, many people forgot the words “I am not” and remembered Nixon and “crook.” Any negative frame is inherently precarious, particularly when it involves food.

Advertising humor can be very effective, and who loves to laugh more than kids? However, although Capri Sun’s water switcheroo may have been well-intended, the campaign threatens to spill much of the brand equity the drink maker has built over fifty-plus years, making “I’m sorry it’s not juice “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

21 Comments

Should People Be Mascots?

7/21/2020

5 Comments

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

After evading public pressure for decades, financial concerns have finally sacked the National Football League’s (NFL) Washington franchise, causing it to change a name that Merriam-Webster defines as “offensive.” While it’s good that Native Americans will no longer be subject to that denigration, a broader question remains: Should any sports team’s mascot be a person?

High school, college, and professional sports are peppered with teams named after people groups. In 2014, USA Today reported that of the 10 most popular high school mascot names, three had human connections: Vikings (#4), Warriors (#9), and Knights (#10). People names are also prevalent in Division I collegiate athletics, e.g., Knights and Spartans. Then there are professional sports franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, Milwaukee Brewers, and Cleveland Cavaliers.

In fact, nearly a third of teams in the United States’ four major professional sports leagues use people as mascots (39/123 = 31.7%). Here’s the breakdown by league:

Major League Baseball (MLB): 13/30= 43.3%
National Football League (NFL): 13/32= 40.6%
National Hockey League (NHL): 9/31= 29%
National Basketball Association (NBA): 4/30= 13.3%

To argue to change a team name that serves as a racial slur is pretty straightforward, but what about the dozens or hundreds of other anthropological nicknames? Is society failing to see now a practice that in years to come will be deemed abhorrent?

Apparently, few people objected in 1933 when George Preston Marshall changed the name of the then-Boston-based football franchise from Braves to the current one. Likewise, few appeared to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision in 1967 that gave the name legal protection.

In 1972, a variety of Native American organizations asked team president Edward Bennet Williams for a name change, but their plea evidently gained little public support and ultimately failed to alter his attitude.

The point is this: Just as the majority of the population was apathetic about the need for the Washington football team name change for most of its history, people might look back 20 years from now and wonder, “How could individuals in 2020 have been so ignorant to have people as mascots for sports teams?”

Now, however, many see being chosen as a team mascot as a sign of respect. After all, sports are about competing and winning. So, teams tend to pick mascots that are known for strength, speed, or ferocity or that possess some other desirable qualities that might reflect positively onto the franchise. Although sports teams called Acorns and Spudders actually exist, they are the exceptions. Instead, most team names are chosen because they suggest power and inspire confidence, like Wildcats and Warriors.

At first glance, Merriam-Webster’s definition of mascot reinforces the notion that being chosen as one is a positive thing: A mascot is “a person, animal, or object adopted by a group as a symbolic figure especially to bring them good luck.” How many people, however, want to be someone else’s good luck charm? Most people probably want to be the one enjoying success, not the token symbol responsible for helping someone else win.

A mascot, therefore, is a kind of ‘second class citizen,’ more of a possession or pet than a person. Of course, many mascots are actual animals, kept in cages or put on leashes and paraded in front of fans on gameday. Although mascots are typically chosen for their prowess, it's strength subdued in service to another.

At this point, some of you may be understandably thinking, “Relax! They’re just mascots. Sports are supposed to be fun!” I get that. I’ve appreciated mascots for many years and still do.

When I was much younger, I played for Danville, PA’s high school basketball team, whose mascot name still is the “Ironmen” (granted, not very gender friendly); the town was a key player in America’s 19th century iron industry. I’m also a long-time fan of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers. Honestly, I never thought much about implications of these mascots being people . . . until now.

Would an iron mill or steel mill worker mind that their occupation was selected for mascot status? I'm speculating, but my guess is they wouldn’t; in fact, they might even feel honored. Their reputations as occupations that require unique physical and mental toughness probably makes their selection seem complimentary.

These two examples, however, help identify a potentially important distinction: Not all human mascots involve occupations, which people self-select. Some mascots are based on demographics like race and ethnicity (e.g. Cleveland Indians), over which people have no say.

That lack of choice is compounded by the issue of stereotypes. Any human mascot suggests a certain image for all those belonging to the demographic. For instance, the name Braves implies that all Native Americans are courageous and strong.

But, what could be bad about being perceived as strong and courageous? Aren’t they attributes that anyone would want? Perhaps they are, but the reality is, not everyone has them to the same extent. For Native Americans, that 'positive stereotype' might negatively impact them in at least two ways.

First, the Braves mascot stereotype might make those who weren’t born with as much natural strength or courage feel inadequate, like they’re not living up to an important social standard. Second, a seemingly positive stereotype still pigeonholes people, or presents an unnecessarily narrow or inaccurate view of their abilities.

For example, I’ve been around sports enough to know that African American men are often stereotyped as great athletes. At first blush, that stereotype may seem positive, but if you’re an African American man, you may not appreciate people assuming that you played and/or excelled in sports, especially if you never did. You also wouldn’t like it if people discounted your intellect, as they sometimes do for athletes, inaccurately assuming that a strong body means a weak mind.

There really is no such thing as a positive stereotype. Unfortunately, mascots perpetuate stereotypes, which may not be an issue for animals or inanimate things but can be problematic for people if the mascot is tied to a demographic like race or ethnicity that individuals do not choose.

In more recent years, it seems that sports leagues have become more ‘enlightened,’ as it’s rare for expansion teams to be given human names. For instance, since 1976, six new teams have entered the NFL, but only one was given a people name—the Houston Texans, which is not directly tied to race or ethnicity.

The Washington Post reports that the Cleveland Indians are now considering a name change. It may not be long before other teams named Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. do the same. Projecting further into the future, it’s conceivable that some of sports’ most storied franchises, e.g. Celtics, Fighting Irish, will do the same.

Mascots related to occupations, which people choose, can likely stay. However, team names based on race or ethnicity should be retired because of the narrow and unfair stereotypes they project. Years from now, if not sooner, people will see such team names and call them “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!

5 Comments

Business’s Best Path to Racial Justice

6/27/2020

0 Comments

by Abbigail Jones, former customer solutions specialist at Webstaurant Store;
current co-youth director at Middletown Presbyterian Church and mom

Although profitability is a priority for any successful business, it’s narrow to overlook the capacity that companies have to change the world for the better: to lift communities of color out of poverty and provide economic opportunity.

As an African American woman, a Christian, and a millennial, social justice is near and dear to my heart. When working for a company, I want to know that it cares about addressing the legacy of inequality in our nation, one hire at a time. The recruitment, hiring, and retention of persons of color is a vital factor in ensuring economic development and justice for all.

By interacting intentionally with their surrounding communities, businesses can help heal broken relationships, including those that cross racial lines. Now more than ever, business leaders must expand their rubric for success beyond financial achievement and assess how their firms function as responsible citizens, consistent with Elkington’s “triple bottom line.”

It’s difficult to embrace such outcomes, however, without first acknowledging that the great racial divide within our country and lack of representation of black and brown Americans in the workplace stems from structural inequalities deeply entrenched in society. We continue to reap a harvest of racism sown by a legacy of slavery, segregation, violence, and voter suppression.

The consequences of Jim Crow laws and red-lining have endured for generations along with the outcomes of other systematic efforts to exclude black and brown people from the American dream. Just as these injustices were not casually implemented, measures to undo them also must be comprehensive.

According to MarketWatch, for the past 70 years a wealth gap has existed that’s seen black households remain 80% poorer than white ones. Put another way, the typical white family has wealth of $171,000 versus $17,150 for an average black family. The National Economic Association, formed by black economists in 1969, suggests that the current widespread protests against police brutality are related to this wealth gap and as a result, racial conflict will likely continue until fundamental inequities are addressed.

But, why should businesses attempt to address deep-seated issues that span centuries and defy easy answers? Aren’t there governmental organizations and nonprofits already dedicated to solving this problem? I believe businesses are uniquely equipped to propel entire communities forward, thereby closing the wealth gap and making a lasting difference for people of color.

Furthermore, businesses that care about both the prosperity and unity of our nation can wield their economic influence to play a much-needed reconciling role. By tackling this issue of inequality, they will create stakeholder value even as they promote positive societal values.

Firms that employ a diverse workforce, benefit from a range of perspectives that ultimately make the organization stronger. Likewise, today’s customers increasingly care about the ethos of the brands they support. Millennials believe small acts of enlightenment can add up to larger societal change, while Gen Z sees its buying power as a means of activism: According to Forbes, 76% of this age cohort says it’s purchased from a brand in order to support the issues it espouses.

In the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a white police officer, we have seen CEOs across the county issue company-wide and public statements condemning racism within society as well as within their organizations.

I celebrate these leaders who have leveraged their influence to stand against injustice. These statements not only reflect sound leadership, they have allowed conversations against injustice to continue in the marketplace.

I would also encourage those same leaders to continue on this journey of racial reconciliation and racial justice even as this topic moves out of media coverage. It will take hard, long-term work and commitment in order to combat deep-seated and systemic racism. However, on the other side of this endeavor are meaningful relationships and networks with communities of color.

Businesses can accomplish this transformation most effectively by nurturing an employee base that gives meaningful work opportunities to people society has historically marginalized. People of color need access to quality, life-sustaining jobs with fair wages, as well as benefits like healthcare, retirement plans, childcare, and tuition assistance so they can begin to close the wealth gap and gain financial freedom.

Here are seven steps that businesses should take to market themselves as employers of choice who offer real economic opportunity to people of color:

Assess the current organizational climate: Evaluate existing recruitment practices and organizational culture by asking, “Is our workplace one where an individual from a minority group feels welcomed and accepted? and “Is there no tolerance for racist rhetoric or innuendo?” Answers to such questions will help to clarify community-building goals and to determine if the workplace is an inviting one, likely to retain people of color once they are hired.
Enlist internal champions: While your goal may be for everyone in your organization to embrace the idea of racial reconciliation, not all will be equipped or enthusiastic about this plan. Consequently, it’s important to identify and engage specific leaders: individuals who are well-suited and passionate about the initiative and who can garner support from entire teams.
Build external relationships: Partner with civic organizations and non-profits that focus on placing qualified, ethnically diverse people into corporate environments. Also, solicit the aid of local government in tackling this societal issue. Ask each entity for initial input and ongoing support, including leveraging their networks to help identify qualified people of color for particular positions.
Develop a strategic diversity and inclusion plan: Using feedback from internal and external stakeholders, draft a document that outlines the general strategies and specific tactics the organization should implement in order to achieve measurable outcomes for diversity and inclusion.
Create a roadmap for success: Develop strategies that will help retain people of color within your organization. While each new hire’s needs may be different, recognize that their new position likely will pose a major life transition; for example, the employee may need to relocate. Provide the new hire with real estate contacts in the area or even an apartment to rent in order to make relocation easier.
Keep the conversation going: At the launch of the initiative and thereafter, host regular discussions aimed at encouraging racial reconciliation in the workplace and at ensuring that restorative programs continue to be seen as top priorities.
Make higher education possible for employees’ children: To truly break the pattern of wealth disparity, it’s important to provide educational opportunities for future generations, which can happen by offering current employees support in saving for their children’s education. By the way, those children may even decide to join the same organization when it’s their time to enter the workforce.

By intentionally reaching out to communities of color with offers of gainful employment, organizations clearly communicate that they see injustice in society, they understand that separate is not equal, and they are willing to do everything they can to make opportunities available to those often marginalized, because they care.

Committing to a more diverse workforce can bring its own set of challenges, which may at times cause business leaders to wonder if their effort is worth the reward. Ultimately, though, the investment in inclusive excellence will pay generous dividends to those organizations and our world, making employment initiatives aimed at racial restoration “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!

0 Comments

Listen and Act, for Marketing and Racial Reconciliation

6/13/2020

3 Comments

by Will Young IV, business administration major, marketing minor,
and member of the men's basketball team at Messiah College

As a Christian, to consider marketing’s role in racial reconciliation means understanding reconciliation from a biblical perspective. Four times in his letters to the early Church, the apostle Paul used the Greek word katallage, which means to exchange one thing for another. That definition of reconciliation reminds me of my first marketing class in which we discussed the discipline being about “mutually valuable exchange,” powered by two important activities: listening and doing.

Business transactions often culminate with the exchange of need-satisfying products, but they begin with more basic exchanges of time, questions, answers, and ideas. Driving the process is one critical activity—listening: offering one’s ears along with a genuine desire to understand.

Just as listening sustains good marketing, listening is the first step toward racial reconciliation.

Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese peace activist once said, “In order to reconcile, you have to possess the art of deep listening.” Following the tragic murder of George Floyd, the world, specifically the black community, was outraged. The reason was not necessarily that we were shocked it had happened because, quite frankly, there has been a plethora of deaths of unarmed black men and women throughout the years, many a result of police brutality. The uproar, protests and rioting were infused with so much force and rage because for years we had been trying to call attention not just to police brutality but to other racial injustices, but we were never really heard. Very few would listen.

The nation’s collective failure to listen to the voices of those crying out about racism has allowed many senseless events, like the killing of Floyd, to happen time and time again. Martin Luther King Jr. predicted what happens when injustice meets apathy when he said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” While I in no way support rioting or looting, it is important to note that such actions typically don’t happen when people feel like they’re being heard—when others are listening.

No competent marketers ignore the needs of their consumers. No country should ignore the needs of its citizens, particularly those crying out about racial injustices. Both fail to create mutual value. Businesses have a unique opportunity to hear the voices of the black community and others crying out for change by having open and honest conversations with their employees, customers, and other stakeholders. Large and small companies are in prime positions to break down the racial barriers they once avoided by genuinely listening.

As important as listening is to marketing and racial reconciliation, it only gets you in the room. Action is what allows you to stay there.

People say, “be the change you want to see,” but actually being the change involves effort and often uncomfortableness. If marketers want to play a role in racial reconciliation, they need to move beyond words and model what racial reconciliation looks like.

Ben & Jerry’s is a good example of such action. The company’s website displays a staff composed of many different races, from African-American, to White, to Asian, to American Indian. The firm shows the world that despite our nation’s racial and political divisions, people of all races, cultures, and ethnicities can work together to achieve a common goal. Ben & Jerry’s is not just speaking about the change that should occur. It is clear the company is intentional in hiring so it can be the change.

The firm also has introduced an ice cream flavor called “Pecan Resist,” centered on exchanging narratives of exclusiveness for inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color. In many ways, this product represents the gold standard of what marketing should do to be the change.

Businesses wondering about the role they can play in racial reconciliation should recognize that people have largely done their part. Movements like Black Lives Matter have expressed anger and voiced concerns, upholding their role of the exchange. They’re now looking for something in return for their voice, which, again, first means others who will listen. Businesses should lead by example in lending an ear, but not stopping there.

After listening, organizations and individuals must go a step beyond and act on what they’ve learned, which is strengthened by understanding the history of racism, having uncomfortable workplace conversations, and donating to movements that advocate for racial equality and shared justice. Simply stated: They must do something. Don’t leave the exchange relationship one-sided; make it mutually-beneficial, thereby encouraging racial reconciliation and creating priceless value for generations to come.

No two companies are the same. Likewise, every business that chooses to listen and act will play a different yet important role on the road to racial reconciliation. All such actions, however, must uphold common values: fairness, honesty, and respect. Whatever their specific role, companies that facilitate mutually beneficial exchange leading to racial reconciliation create a life-giving legacy of “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!

3 Comments

Can Marketing Make a Difference?

6/13/2020

2 Comments

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

When considering our world’s challenges, people tend to see marketing as part of the problem, not the solution. Such perceptions surface in Gallup’s annual poll about the honesty and ethics of various occupations: Respondents consistently rank marketing roles like advertising practitioner, insurance agent, and car salesperson near the bottom of the list. So, who would ever claim that marketing can combat prejudice and even encourage racial reconciliation?

One of those marketing optimists is me. More than a decade ago, I wrote a paper about marketing and reconciliation in which I made a rather simple observation: People who buy and sell from each other tend to stay on good terms and build healthy bonds. In contrast, fractured relationships often lack any meaningful exchange: verbal, material, or other.

Marketing often brings together people from different backgrounds, whose paths wouldn’t otherwise cross, for shared economic gain as well as other mutual benefit. For instance, a white family enjoys food from a restaurant owned by an Indian couple; a black salesperson appreciates her Asian client, and vice versa; a Hispanic CEO values contributions from hundreds of employees representing an array of race and ethnicity.

Business, in general, and marketing, specifically, are catalysts for countless positive interracial interactions and relationships. As people’s lives interlace with individuals who are different than them, while partnering for a common purpose, they often come to respect and appreciate their differences.

There’s also the notion that racial equality is closely tied to economic opportunity. When people can work in well-paying jobs or even start their own companies, aspirations and optimism replace desperation and despair. Marketing helps provide such hope-inspiring possibilities.

While I truly believe all I’ve just shared, I need to remind myself and disclaim that these words come from someone who, because of his own background, has not experienced significant racial prejudice and who will never truly understand the struggles that the black community and other people of color have endured for centuries.

One thing I can do is share this platform of Mindful Marketing with some who have experienced racial injustice firsthand, who wake up each morning to its effects, and who, also importantly, see business and marketing as a way forward—not necessarily as “the” answer, but as part of it.

I recently reached out to a few black friends, asking if they would be willing to share their perspectives on the roles that business and marketing may play in racial reconciliation. I received four enthusiastic and thoughtful responses from: a current student, a former student, a college classmate, and a research partner. My intent is to share each person’s reflection in its entirety over the next several blog posts.

It's a small gesture that I feel led to make for several reasons:

I care about these friends and their families.
I want to understand the current situation from the perspectives of those most affected.
Our opinions impact what others believe and do.

In an age of social media, the third bullet point may seem glaringly obvious; however, it takes me back fourteen years to my doctoral dissertation in which I applied Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to accounting clients’ referral intentions. Key to the TPB, which hundreds of studies have validated, is that our intent to do anything is impacted by societal (subjective) norms, or what we perceive others believe is good or bad.

So, even if I’m not promoting racism, my silence might lead others to believe that I think it’s okay, which is not okay. I want to use my voice to help establish the social norm that racism is wrong and that respecting others, regardless of their skin color, is right. My friends who have kindly accepted the offer to share this platform want to do the same.

In my Marketing Principles classes, students learn that people can market three types of “products”: physical goods, intangible services, and ideas. Now is the time for all of us to leverage our own social influence to market reconciliation—one of the most important applications of “ 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!

2 Comments

Some Good Payout for John Krasinski

5/31/2020

2 Comments

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

Life for Dunder Mifflin paper salesman Jim Halpert revolved around two things: pleasing Pam and pranking Dwight; it was never about the money. Now some suggest that John Krasinski's acting is even better than we believed after he surprisingly cashed-in on his homespun, positivity-in-the-face-of-a-pandemic YouTube program. Millions enjoyed watching Some Good News, and many people contributed content, so should Krasinski pocket millions for selling the series?

It was seven years ago when Krasinski first had the idea for Some Good News (SGN), but he only decided to capitalize on the concept after an isolation-induced tweet on March 25, in which he asked his followers to share things that made them feel good or smile. The tweet astoundingly received over 3,000 comments and nearly 20,000 likes.

Seeing the virus-plagued public’s voracious appetite for feel-good stories, the actor/director/producer launched SGN on March 29, with production partner Allyson Seeger. Together they aired eight YouTube episodes, overflowing with pleasant programming from regular people, as well as occasional celebrity cameos by the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Brad Pit, and former Krasinski coworkers from The Office.

In the first episode, former Dunder Mifflin manager Steve Carell (aka Michael Scott) stopped by to chat about favorite Office memories, which garnered over 17 million YouTube views. The other seven SGN installments also drew big audiences, each in the millions.

That kind of instant internet success rarely goes unnoticed, especially when featuring a star like Krasinski. Soon corporate sponsors such as AT&T and the Boston Red Sox entered the action with giveaways, while others floated a much bigger proposition—purchasing the series.

At first, Krasinski resisted the “wave of incoming calls from a wide variety of suitors,” but at some point, in the midst of a “massive bidding war,” the paper salesman conceded and decided to close “an expansive deal with ViacomCBS,” the value of which “has yet to be reported,” but is very likely “rich.”

For many, Krasinski’s media contract changed the narrative from Some Good News to One Big Sellout. Fueling the social media storm were tweets of disappointment and anger, some snarky, others more serious:

So he made 8 YouTube videos comprised largely of unpaid contributions from fans, sold the brand to a major conglomerate, and isn't even going to make it anymore? Just cashed out? Does this rub anyone else the wrong way, kinda? (@Lons, May 22)
Remember when he created this free feel good YouTube show to “make people feel good” and now he is................selling it for $$$? really cool, 100% honorable (@lindseyweber, May 21).
Super awesome how you found a way to take a genuinely heartwarming viral series and sell out to the highest bidder (@kswa1987, May 22).
This whole 'Some Good News' sh-- was so transparent. John Krasinski basically monetized feel good stories when there was an opportunity to do so. It's just all about money while, appearing relatable to the unwashed masses, and it's super obvious (@EckhartsLadder, May 26).
You are profiting off Some Good News!?! I bought you hook like me and sinker... believed you were just trying to bring goodnesses to light. Going from YouTube (free) to a pay service...so disappointed...sellout!!! (@hydenson, May 22).
The "Good News" that @johnkrasinski had on his program is that he is now a sell out and putting his program behind a paid service so way less people can see it. He has made money off his "Good News" program while people are dying, laid off, can't get food, etc. Smart, John (@JustAHikerinVA, May 22).

When so much harsh criticism is hurled at one of America’s most admired celebrities, one has to wonder if maybe there’s some merit to the sentiment: Did Jim Halpert’s biggest sale come at the people’s expense? Answering four key questions may help clarify the controversy:

1) Was creating SGN part of some diabolical plan? Lest we forget, the same actor who played Jim now portrays a more cold and calculating character, CIA analyst Jack Ryan. In fact, Krasinski has blamed Jack Ryan for selling SGN; although, it’s not exactly like it sounds—more to come below.

It's hard to know for sure, but there’s little to suggest that it was Krasinski’s original intent to build up SGN only so he could sell it to the highest bidder. In fact, most evidence points to the opposite, for instance:

He launched the first episode saying, “I am John Krasinski, and if it isn’t clear yet, I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing.”
Among the show’s “low production values,” his daughters drew the SGN signage behind the ‘news desk’ and his own hand held the spinning globe used in the show’s opening.
The Hollywood Reporter claims that “His original plan was to continue to make SGN for the free and wide audience that YouTube provided” and that he “initially resisted the urge to sell the series.”

2) Did Krasinski ‘use’ people to make the program? There’s little doubt that SGN wouldn’t have succeeded without the voluntary contributions of a wide variety of regular people. Did the unpaid populace get a raw deal in that exchange? Probably not, for these reasons:

It’s unlikely that anyone was promised compensation for their participation, i.e., they did so eagerly for free.
Those whose content SGN featured enjoyed what was likely for them a very exciting once-in-a-lifetime experience.
No one needed to pay to watch SGN. People could view it for free on YouTube.
Krasinski gave far more to SGN than anyone else. For instance, he “self-financed and self-produced” the show from his own home; he utilized his considerable professional talent; he leveraged his own fame to attract followers and his personal connections to enlist other A-List celebrities. Which of us can get the casts of Hamilton or The Office to show up on our Zoom calls?

3) Did Krasinski have a right to sell the series? It certainly seems like he was entitled to monetize his investment for the reasons suggested above and because of the following two points:

The show was his baby. He created and developed it through much of his own time, talent, and resources.
He made no promises about what he would do or not do with the show. A few of the negative reactions shared above suggest there was some sort of implied social contract: “John, you keep producing SGN at your expense, a few of us will contribute content to each show, and millions of people will watch if for free, indefinitely.”

4) Did his reasons for selling make sense? Most people, understandably, have focused on the considerable cash Krasinski will likely collect from the sale. As the first point below expounds, there’s nothing inherently wrong with making money, but there are also other reasons why selling SGN was the sensible thing for him to do.

This blog has suggested many times: If you can give someone good value in an exchange and make money for yourself, it's a good thing. Furthermore, unless someone else is supporting us, we all need to make money in order to take care of our own needs and hopefully help others in need. Even if Krasinski doesn’t need more money, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t earn more and maybe use it to benefit others. The fact that he had the conscience to create SGN suggests he’s the type of person who is likely to do so.
Krasinski is a busy man. Besides being an actor (e.g., Jack Ryan), a director, and a producer, he’s a husband and a father, and he probably plays several other significant life roles. So, we can believe him when he recently explained that continuing to produce SGN “wouldn’t be sustainable with my prior commitments.”
More people may be exposed to good news. In justifying his decision to sell, Krasinski added that he was excited about the potential for SGN to be seen by “so many more people.” Of course, millions were already watching the show for free on YouTube, but his suggestion is more than a convenient excuse or wishful thinking. It’s reasonable to believe that an organization with the experience, resources, and reach of ViacomCBS could carry the concept of SGN much further than a guy (even a top celebrity) working out of his living room. Plus, if SGN gains even broader appeal, it’s likely to attract knockoffs from other media, which wouldn’t be a bad thing for a society desperately needing to focus more on the positive.

Do all the above bullets mean that Krasinski’s decision-making was perfect? No. Before the sale was announced, he could have clearly communicated his intentions, which wouldn’t have satisfied everyone, but it would have significantly softened the blow. As such, my own takeaway from the events are:

Good marketing communication responds considerately in a crisis.
Great marketing communication avoids a crisis by anticipating reaction and proactively shaping the narrative.

As a rule, people are much more accepting of unpleasant information when we tell them in advance, rather than letting them hear it later from someone else.

So, back at Dunder Mifflin, maybe Michael gives Jim a little grief for not telling him he had such a big deal in the works. Still, The Office’s manager is elated that Halpert scores the Scranton White Pages (it’s a hypothetical metaphor; you have to watch the show). In the end, everyone can appreciate that John Krasinski’s sale of SGN was “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!

2 Comments

Sick and Healthy "Viral Marketing"

3/21/2020

13 Comments

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

Difficult times bring out the best and worst in individuals and organizations. You’ve likely seen some of each during recent days. Although it’s frightful to find our world battling a pandemic, it’s a healthy occasion to diagnose what is and isn’t Mindful Marketing.

One of the ‘sickest’ cases has involved two entrepreneurial brothers from Tennessee. When Matt and Noah Colvin heard of the first U.S. death from coronavirus, they quickly began buying all the hand sanitizer and antibacterial wipes they could find—around Chattanooga, across Tennessee, and throughout Kentucky.

After emptying stores of the valuable virus-fighting products, they piled palettes of their pillage in a garage and began selling the items online for a premium: between $8 and $70 each for the first 300 bottles of hand sanitizer M. Colvin listed on Amazon.

The gig lasted for about a day before “Amazon pulled his items and thousands of other listings for sanitizer, wipes and face masks” and “eBay soon followed with even stricter measures.” The retailers’ swift actions and accusation of price gouging left Colvin sitting on over 17,000 bottles of sanitizer he couldn’t sell, even as people around the world were desperate to get their hands on the products and the product on their hands.

Was Colvin “profiteering from a pandemic,” or were Amazon and eBay unnecessarily constraining capitalism? Colvin claimed he provided a “public service” by exploiting market inefficiencies and redistributing products to other parts of the nation where they were needed more.

Could he be right? Perhaps he was improving the supply chain. Also, how different were his actions than someone making a significant purchase of a publicly-traded stock with the hope that their big investment will help push the security’s price upward?

First, it’s safe to assume that national and regional retailers like CVS and Walmart, with decades of logistics experience and cutting-edge supply chain processes, didn't need Colvin to help get products to places in the country where they’re in short supply. Furthermore, any person with an internet connection could conceivable buy hand sanitizer online and have it shipped directly to them, no matter where they live.

Second, there’s a big difference between playing the stock market and ‘playing the hand sanitizer market,’ especially in the face of a pandemic. People don’t need to own Apple, Tesla, or any other specific stock; however, Individuals do have to have products that can help them avoid contracting a serious illness that could kill them or someone they might infect.

The Colvin brothers’ actions were the epitome of “Single-Minded Marketing,” which quickly turned “Mindless” once Amazon pulled the plug on their online sales. Such blatantly selfish actions are pretty easy to diagnose, but what about the wide continuum of tactics other organizations have employed amid the outbreak?

Some emails that have hit my inbox within the last few days seem tone-deaf to health advisories that have asked us to forgo nonessential services, to practice social distancing, and to be extra careful with hand hygiene. Although less extreme than those of the Colvin brothers, these tactics also seem “Mindless”:

Groupon: specials on Swedish massage, axe throwing, ice skating, and even “group bowling”
Local Flavor: offers on experiences such as billiards, salt room, and climbing walls
Bed Bath & Beyond: promotional copy reading, “Put a spring in your hosting game with fresh and EXCLUSIVE picks”; “Dazzle guests without breaking a sweat (or the bank)”
Old Navy: ad image showing two women walking with arms wrapped tightly over the other’s shoulders while smiling at each other, with faces about eight inches apart

Meanwhile, certain other companies have shown healthier situational awareness by quickly adjusting their marketing communication from “Mindless” to “Mindful”:

Coors: pulled its “Official beer of ‘working’ remotely” spots that lampooned the nation's annual loss of productivity during March Madness
Hershey: removed ads that featured people shaking hands and hugging while sharing candy.
KFC: pulled its ‘finger lickin’ ads in the UK

There’s also been an abundance of vibrantly “Mindful” correspondence from companies aimed at calming our anxieties by describing what they’re doing to keep employees and us safe:

Enterprise: “Aligned with guidance from health authorities, we are implementing additional measures to clean and disinfect our locations and vehicles.”
Chase: “We've ensured that our branches, including ATM screens and keypads, are cleaned daily with EPA-approved disinfectants and we have hand sanitizer available in our branches.”
Best Buy: “The first [goal] is to protect our customers, employees and their families. The second is to do the best we can to serve the millions of Americans who are looking to us for increasingly vital technology tools to stay connected, as well as household necessities.”
Office Depot: “We’ve reinforced existing Office Depot policy encouraging employees who exhibit flu-like symptoms to stay home and consult with a medical professional.”

Finally, a few firms have ascended to the highest level of corporate health and community consciousness by going above and beyond what might be expected even for “Mindful Marketing,” for instance:

U-Haul is offering 30 days of free self-storage to students who need to move due to coronavirus.
Highmark Blue Shield has waived all copays, deductibles, and coinsurance for 90 days for those with telemedicine access “because the safest place for you if you’re sick is at home.”
Wiley is providing instructors and students who do not have an online learning solution free access to its courseware for the remaining spring 2020 term.
Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe has increased production of its popular potato rolls and other bread products in order to keep stores stocked during periods of intense demand.

To unpack the last example, there are few things as anxiety-inducing as walking into a grocery store during a crisis, only to find shelves empty of bread, which may be the most staple of foods for Americans. However, people living in areas where Martin’s distributes can still find its products on their store’s shelves every day, even on Sunday. Scott Heintzelman, vice president of finance and administration for Martin’s explains:

“Almost no commercial bakeries deliver [Sunday]. However, our awesome bakery and transport teams have been working around the clock to make and move truckloads of extra product to our warehouses. The result is on Sunday morning, many of our amazing distributors and sales teams are out making deliveries to help feed people. I am truly humbled by our team members.”

As a writer, I should disclose that Martin’s is a faithful supporter of Messiah College, where I teach. Also, Heintzelman, who I call “Scott,” was my college roommate, the best man in my wedding, and still a best friend.

During this moment of nearly unprecedented uncertainty, many people probably feel like Martin’s and other firms that have gone above and beyond to meet important, life-sustaining needs are their best friends. It’s times like these when we really need friends, and when we can be especially grateful for organizations that practice “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!

13 Comments

The Impossible 'to Stomach' Whopper

2/22/2020

26 Comments

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

Green bumps, black specks, white fuzz. You saw the telltale signs when a piece of once fresh fruit or an edible vegetable fell to the back of a refrigerator drawer where it laid low for a few months. It took a deep breath and all the courage you could muster to pick up the nauseating produce and pitch it into the trash. So, why would one of the world’s leading fast food restaurants want consumers to see its most iconic menu item in a similarly sickening state?

Few food companies have the mettle to play with such fire, but one known for flame-broiling and often flagrant marketing does: Burger King. The fast food icon recently launched a “global, integrated advertising campaign showing its iconic Whopper® sandwich covered in mold.”

A video from the company begins with the staging of a very attractive Whopper. Then, against a music bed of “What a difference a day makes,” filming turns to a rapid time lapse and the burger ages abhorrently before our eyes.

First, the lettuce starts to wither. Then the bun sags and mayonnaise melts. Before we can look away, white fuzz flows over the beef patty and a green/blue ‘foam’ appears, making a cross-section closeup look like a storm at sea. Thankfully, the camera pans out, but only to show a bun enveloped in mold with some black substance oozing from the burger’s epicenter.

The visual agony eventually ends as a text overlay briefly appears: “The Whopper DAY 34.” The grotesque burger vanishes into an all-black screen that frames the tagline “THE BEAUTY OF NO ARTIFICIAL PRESERVATIVES,” followed by an all-white Burger King logo.

Most organizations agonize over advertisements, trying to ensure that their products are presented in the most positive light. Those in food industries seem especially attuned to their ads’ optical appeal, and for good reason: Studies have found that visual stimuli such as color, evenness, and shape “exert cognitive top-down influences that can and sometimes do alter assessments of taste and flavor.” In other words, there is truth to the old adage: ‘We eat with our eyes.’

So, why would Burger King flame-broil conventional wisdom by plating a burger that could make the Geico racoons retch?

The main reason stems from the spot’s tagline, “The beauty of no artificial preservatives.” The company wants consumers to realize that it has made a clean-break from past practice and it no longer uses nonorganic life-extenders, at least not in “most European countries and select markets in the United States.” Furthermore, according to Christopher Finazzo, Burger King’s Americas President:

“The Burger King® brand is currently rolling out the Whopper® sandwich with no preservatives, colors, or flavors from artificial sources in the U.S. The product is already available in more than 400 restaurants in the country and will reach all restaurants throughout the year.”

Unfortunately, in terms of touting “real food,” Burger is painfully late to the game. Chipotle, Panera, and a crowd of fast-casual restaurants have been making that claim for a few decades. Even many processed food manufacturers, like General Mills, have kept better pace with consumer desires for healthier food. The company has already removed artificial ingredients from most of its cereals.

So, maybe Burger King needed to do something shocking to grab the attention of a populace likely to overlook or be unimpressed by what is an increasingly common change. The promotion certainly has gained the company free media exposure and gotten marketers like me talking about it.

A similar tact also must have worked, at least somewhat, when the firm unearthed its Halloween-inspired “Nightmare King” in the fall of 2018. Although it never seemed that the green-bun burger was a big seller, it did grab headlines and likely helped keep the restaurant top-of-mind among those who frequent fast food.

It’s also possible that the Moldy Whopper promo resonates with Gen Zs and Millennials, who are used to unconventional advertising and who demand transparency from the brands they buy. These age cohorts might uniquely appreciate the combination of candor and irreverence.

Still, the avant-garde ad campaign takes an extraordinary and nearly unprecedented risk by essentially forgoing the Maslow-level-one appeal of appetizing food. Maybe having “no artificial preservatives” hits a higher tier of the hierarchy, such as safety or self-esteem, but according to the theory, people’s desires will never ascend to those upper levels if their hunger is unsatisfied.

Burger King apparently is banking on viewers remembering the pristine burger that appears at the beginning of the ad for a few seconds, rather than the progressively repulsive Whopper that fills the other forty-five seconds. “Negativity bias,” however, upends that hope: Our brains are “simply built with a greater sensitivity to unpleasant news.” Said another way, there are some things we simply can’t ‘unsee’ and a mold-covered Whopper is probably one of them.

Although few organizations are so daring as to cast their products in a negative light, many do fall into the same general AIDA-defying trap: In an all-out effort to grab attention and retain interest, they sacrifice desire and action. As evidence, recall all the commercials you can from the last Super Bowl, then try to remember the companies responsible for each of them.

Like many other restaurants, Burger King is in an existential battle with all kinds of new competitors, especially those in the fast-casual space. It’s great that the fast food icon has taken steps to make some of its menu items more user-friendly, but those health benefits will never accrue to people who are put off by what they see in the company’s stomach-turning promotion. The new burger may be better for you, but etching the image of a moldy Whopper onto people's minds must be “Simple-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!

26 Comments

Should the FCC Have Thrown a Flag?

2/7/2020

10 Comments

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

The latest Super Bowl was another big game mired in controversy. This time the debate wasn’t whether a fourth-quarter play was a penalty, but whether the halftime show was pornography. Should the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have thrown a flag for ‘illegal use of the hips’ or ‘unnecessary raunchiness’? As armchair apologists argue, mindful marketers aim to analyze the action from each angle, hoping to make ‘the right call.’

Rocking hips, pulsing pelvises, and legs wrapped around a stripper pole sound like a scene from a gentleman’s club, but they were just part of the Super Bowl LIV halftime show featuring superstar entertainers Shakira and Jennifer Lopez.

Whether one enjoyed the performances or not, most agree that the show was a production spectacle, complete with elaborate scenery, extravagant costumes, moving stages, dozens of talented dancers, and amazing fireworks. The production level was fitting for the biggest television viewing event of the year, which this time drew an astounding 102.1 million U.S. viewers, making it the “11th most-watched TV show ever.”

With so many people watching the same thing, it’s not surprising that the show spawned differences of opinion. Some, like former Florida governor and U.S. presidential candidate Jeb Bush loved it; he tweeted, “Best Super Bowl halftime show ever.”

Many ordinary citizens have also sung its praises, including 2.3 million people who liked the YouTube video. Some of those fans have said:

“One of the most amazing shows ever.”—Lucy B.
“Loved both”--manel manel
“whos watched this more than 10 times? i know i aint the only guy”—Maxwel Rajcic
“I love JLo but i can't get over that Shakira performance. Damn.”—Annitah Lesley
“One of the best Super Bowl halftime show ever”—grace khuvung

However, a smaller but still substantial number (134K YouTube viewers) didn’t think the show was ‘so hot’; actually, they thought it was too hot. Some tweeted:

“I saw way more of J-Lo than I ever wanted to. There was a moment there that actually made me blink my eyes. Everybody in the room was blinking their eyes.”— @TheAnnoyedMan
“When your crotch shot reveals your panty liner than you’ve definitely crossed a line”—@meredithdicken1
“I’d settle for a halftime that is somewhere between Karen Carpenter and a pelvic exam.”—@Bookwormdearlor
“My 13 year girl old said ‘man, that was TRASHY.’”—@FilthyMcN
“My 9 year old asked, ‘Is this what sexy is?’”—@kdonohuenj
“It was inappropriate for the venue. They can't sell it as a family entertainment and then present something that millions of people had to quickly turn off AFTER their little people got an eyeful of soft porn.”—@Plainsspeak

Maybe detractors are being over-sensitive or narrow-minded, not giving enough consideration to factors such as:

The empowerment of women: The halftime show showcased two women’s exceptional voices and dance skills, physical strength and stamina, as well as their abilities to command one of the world’s largest stages. Furthermore, both women are over 40 years of age.
The celebration of Latin culture: The show served up large portions of energy and excitement, along with vibrant sounds and colors, for which Latin culture is known.

Those are valid arguments that we may not fully appreciate, depending on our own demographics. On the other hand, one may wonder if those lauding the performance have considered issues like these:

Demographics: Unlike most TV shows, an extremely wide swath of the population watches the Super Bowl—everyone from two-year-olds to 92-year-olds. The lower end of that range should not be exposed to sexually explicit content, and many would argue that no one should see it without warning at 8:00 pm, on broadcast television.
Legality: The halftime show may have violated the FCC’s mandate that “Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.” It’s hard to imagine that the agency would have allowed the same sexual content, which included very revealing apparel and highly suggestive camera shots, as part of a 30-second Super Bowl commercial; yet, the FCC permitted 14 minutes of the ‘exposure’ as a Pepsi-sponsored mini-program.
Addiction: If the halftime show represented ‘soft porn,’ as some have said, there’s a risk that the show encouraged pornography addiction for some viewers. Lest one think that’s a wild claim, check out Google search results: In the period from January 29, 2020 through February 4, 2020, at the exact time of the Super Bowl halftime show, there were extreme peaks in searches for terms such as: Hustlers (name of the film about strip clubs, staring Lopez), pole dance, stripper, and jlo hustlers dance.

Cultural relativism: Virtually every culture, past and present, has had good things to offer, but not everything in a given culture is good (e.g., segregation, subjugation of women). Latin dancing is known for its sensuality, which people may debate is good or bad, but for the situation at hand, the discussion should consider the prevailing culture and composition of Super Bowl viewers, as well as when, where, and with whom most watched the halftime show.
Empowerment or Objectification: As implied above, my maleness limits my ability to appreciate the ways in which Shakira and J Lo’s performances may have made other viewers feel empowered. However, as one who has studied oversexualization in advertising, I saw many signs of objectification of women, i.e., reducing their personhood to specific body parts (e.g., legs, bottoms) and ‘serving them up’ as objects for others’ sexual gratification. For instance, in the YouTube video of the performance, there’s a camera shot at about 2:22 focused just on Shakira’s belly and hips, i.e., no head or feet, and another at 7:06 centered squarely on Lopez’s bottom, as she bent over, back to the camera.

In an article that includes several helpful illustrations, Ronnie Richie develops a seemingly useful distinction between sexual objectification and empowerment, the bottom-line being that a person is sexually empowered, not objectified, when she/he holds power versus the person looking at them. That analysis likely works on one level, such as for superstar celebrities like Shakira and J Lo, but the reality is that oversexualized images in mass media often impact others within the same people group (e.g., women, children) with tragic consequences.

According to UNICEF, “The objectification and sexualization of girls in the media is linked to violence against women and girls worldwide.” On a personal level, former Yale University student Veronica Lira Ortiz shared her unfortunate experience as a child in a Latin culture infused with machismo: “I was twelve years old, and a man on the street [in Mexico] was already verbally harassing me. He looked at me as if I were a juicy steak instead of an innocent child. Shakira and J Lo may have held power in their Super Bowl situation, but many indirectly affected by their performances do not.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” but when the beholders number over 100 million, including millions of children and adults anticipating family-friendly entertainment, and when many others are indirectly affected by what’s shown, the creators and broadcasters of ‘said beauty’ should demonstrate better discretion. So, the replay of the action suggests that the FCC should have flagged Fox, Pepsi, and others associated with the Super Bowl LIV halftime show for a broadcast communication violation, as well as for “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!

10 Comments

Fighting Fire with Desire

1/12/2020

6 Comments

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

Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods—natural disasters are unfortunate reminders of how powerful earth is and how weak humans are. Yet, in the wake of such tragedies it’s encouraging to see caring people help others in need. So why has one woman’s philanthropy aimed at fire relief for Australia sparked a media firestorm?

Since late July, “Australia is [still] being ravaged by the worst wildfires seen in decades.” A terrible drought and record-high temperatures are helping fuel the horrific flames. So far, the tragic toll includes 27 people dead, over 2,000 homes destroyed just in the state of New South Wales, smoke 11-times the hazard level in Sydney, more than 17.9 million acres of land burned, and millions of animals likely dead.

Thankfully there are organizations and individuals responding to the tragedy. One of those people is Kaylen Ward. An attractive 20-year model from Los Angeles, Ward tweeted a promise on January 3 to send a picture of herself to anyone who sent her proof of a donation of $10 or more to a legitimate fire relief organization such as the Australian Red Cross or Salvation Army Australia. Ward kept her promise, and within four days, her efforts helped raise an amazing $1 million!

Why has Ward’s work been so successful and controversial? It was because she wasn’t wearing anything in the photos; Ward was nude.

The people receiving the pictures, weren’t surprised—they got exactly what Ward promised and what might be expected from an “influencer and sex worker” who makes a living from nakedness, often by selling nude photos and videos of herself on OnlyFans. Recently, she’s come to call herself “The Naked Philanthropist.”

One reason people have taken issue with Ward’s promotion of wildfire relief was a perception that she must somehow be skimming money off the top for herself. However, she quickly clapped back at such allegations, tweeting that “none of the donation money to Australia has or ever will go to me. The only money I have made is money from my [Only]fans. I guarantee I am not pocketing any donation money.”

Given that people donated directly to the relief organizations and just direct messaged Ward copies of receipts, she had no access to the money. In contrast, Ward apparently incurred some direct costs from her philanthropy. After her initial tweet went viral (over 88K retweets and more than 226K likes), she said she had to hire four people to help her sort through all of the messages, verify the donations, and send out over 10,000 nude photos.

It’s likely, though, that whatever those cost were, they were more than offset by all the free media ‘exposure’ (sorry) she’s received, probably worth at least tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the contact list of future customers she undoubtedly built from all those who direct messaged her for a free pic.

Likewise, Ward’s social media following exploded. Before her first ‘fire relief post’ she had about 176K Twitter followers. She now has over 387K.

Knowing those positive personal outcomes, some may argue that her philanthropy was intentionally self-serving. Ward takes issue with that assessment, however, saying that she had seen the impact of the recent California fires firsthand and knows “how devasting” they can be.

Also, soon after stopping her nude photos promotion, Ward started a GoFundMe campaign aimed at raising money for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and the World Wildlife Fund. She stated: “I want to continue raising funds to save the people and animals of Australia,” because the causes are “very important to me.”

It’s hard to judge motives. There’s also not necessarily anything wrong with a person wanting both to help others and to advance his/her own career. Many forward-thinking organizations take a similar strategic approach to their philanthropy such that they do well financially while doing good socially.

But, then there’s the specific nature of Ward’s career. It’s pornography.

Many individuals and organizations believe that there are standards of decency that should be upheld, including ones involving sexual explicitness. Facebook, which owns Instagram, is one of those organizations: It disabled Ward’s Instagram account because she apparently violated the site’s prohibition of offering nude images.

Some may say, though, that the means justify the ends, i.e., given the devastation Australia has endured, ‘baring’ oneself is acceptable in order to provide relief to those in need. Such an argument usually stems from a belief in consequentialism, or that the greatest net happiness is what determines whether an action is ethical, not freestanding moral principles like decency, dignity, and decorum.

But, if one considers consequences, there’s a need to look at all the consequences likely to come from Ward sharing her nakedness. Those include consequences associated with pornography. Here are several of the negative outcomes that individuals often experience from using porn, provided by Caron Andrews:

Changes the brain: Through the release of dopamine each time, the brain requires more and more porn.
Affects behavior: Porn users often have more violent attitudes toward women and exhibit more domineering and harassing behavior toward them.
Leads to sexual dysfunction: Actual physical intimacy becomes less stimulating.
Harms one’s sense of sexuality: Porn can cause people to have deviant and even dangerous sexual tastes.
Stunts real-life relationships: Users often draw away from others and keep secrets from them.
Teaches that women are sexual objects: Women are often ‘stripped’ of dignity and presented as vehicles for men’s sexual satisfaction.
Makes people feel bad about themselves: The lack of congruity between one’s values and actions causes stress and feelings of hypocrisy.
Changes moods: People who use porn are often easily annoyed, angered, and depressed.

The preceding list isn’t comprehensive. Besides negative impacts on individual users and those close to them, some suggest that pornography carries a major economic price: $16.9 billion a year in lost productivity.

Again, it’s impossible to know Ward’s true motivation, but even if she really did mean well, her philanthropic approach was greatly misguided. The nude photos probably pleased their recipients and the corresponding donations likely helped ease Australia’s pain, but Ward discarded basic decency while fueling the flames of a terrible social problem, which makes her work “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!

6 Comments

<<Previous

Capri Sun Practices Child’s Play

Should People Be Mascots?

Business’s Best Path to Racial Justice

Listen and Act, for Marketing and Racial Reconciliation

Can Marketing Make a Difference?

Some Good Payout for John Krasinski

Sick and Healthy "Viral Marketing"

The Impossible 'to Stomach' Whopper

Should the FCC Have Thrown a Flag?

Fighting Fire with Desire

Editor

Archives

Categories