Category: Promotion37eb4ea826

Whole Grain Isn't the Whole Story

2/8/2019

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

You’re at a restaurant with friends and order a pepperoni pizza. The waiter brings the pie, which has a single piece of pepperoni in the middle. Your whole table expresses surprise, to which the server replies, “The pizza has pepperoni, so it is a ‘pepperoni pizza.’” Most people would not appreciate that response, yet that appears to be the tack some food marketers are taking in promoting their whole grain products.

You’ve probably noticed the phrase “whole grain” appearing more and more on product packages, ranging from breakfast cereals to bread. What’s your interpretation when you see “whole grain” on the front of a box? It’s reasonable to assume that all of the product’s grain content comes from whole grains, or at least that whole grain is the primary/first ingredient. However, when you turn the box around to read the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) required nutrition and ingredient labeling, there’s often an unsettling surprise.

Many products that promote themselves as being made from “whole grain” actually contain very little whole grain. Instead, their primary ingredient is refined flour, “a pulverized version of what may, at some point, have been a whole grain.” Whole grain contains every part of a grain kernel, “the bran, the germ and the endosperm (the inner most part of the kernel),” whereas the process of refining flour often involves “stripping off the outer layer, where the [more nutritious] fiber is located.”

How is this potentially misleading labeling allowed? Many blame lax directives by the FDA, which last issued “draft guidance on whole grain labeling in 2006.” The FDA, which regulates food labeling, continues to allow food manufacturers to print “whole grain” on the front of their packages without any absolute or relative reference information, i.e., how many grams of whole grain the product contains or how much whole grain there is relative to refined flour.

But, does printing “whole grain” on the front of a food package really deceive consumers? Several significant stakeholder groups believe it does. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has advised the FDA to “require firms to disclose either the percentage of whole grains and refined grains on pack, or the grams of both refined and whole grains per serving.” Similarly, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a Washington DC-based consumer advocacy group, has “urged the agency to make whole grain labeling clearer to consumers.”

Whole grain labeling becomes even more confusing when it appears on “hearty-looking, and sometimes artificially colored,” food items like multigrain or wheat bread. Such mismatched visuals are especially misleading for the elderly.

But, as consumers, don’t we bear responsibility for what we place into our grocery carts and eventually into our mouths? All we need to do is turn the package around and read the FDA-mandated list of ingredients to see where whole grain ranks into the mix.

Consumers should be expected to act rationally and make logical interpretations about product labeling. However, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), it’s unfair to subject people to deceptive messages that a “reasonable consumer” would find misleading. Courts have applied this reasonable consumer standard in ruling against those employing whole grain deception.

The most notable litigation likely has involved one of the best-known snack crackers, Cheez-It, the product of one of the world’s leading food manufacturers--Kellogg’s. In December of 2018, a second circuit appeals court ruled against the packaged-goods icon in a class action lawsuit that claimed deceptive labeling on “Whole Grain” Cheez-Its, a relatively new extension to the company’s flourishing cracker line.

Printed on the front of the box, in large letters, is the phrase “WHOLE GRAIN.” Above those words, in a much smaller font, are the words “MADE WITH.” Meanwhile, a very big (4.5” x 4.5”) and unusually dark Cheez-It serves as a background image. Despite those distinct package design elements, which are very different than those of Original Cheez-Its, when one turns both boxes to the side, the nutrition facts for each list “enriched flour,” not whole grain, as the first ingredient.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that the second circuit appeals court agreed with the consumer plaintiffs, issuing a unanimous decision that said the whole grain cracker’s nutrition facts “contradict, rather than confirm, [Kellogg’s] ‘whole grain’ representations on the front of the box.”

Kellogg’s effort to include more whole grain in its crackers is good in that “scores of studies link the amount of whole grain [people consume] to better health.” So, the 8 grams of whole grain found in a serving of Cheez-Its can help get people closer to the target daily intake of 48 grams of whole grains for adults.

The problem, however, is that when the front of a package promotes “WHOLE GRAIN” in large letters, against a dark background, it’s reasonable for consumers to conclude that the product’s principal ingredient is whole grain. People might even presume that the crackers are somehow healthy, which is a hard argument to make for any snack cracker, including Cheez-Its, which have the following daily values: total fat–10%, saturated fat–8%, sodium–10%, and total carbohydrates–6%.

Consumers should read the labels and exercise good judgment for the products they use. However, food marketers also should help people make right choices and not mislead them with mixed messages on product packages. Their continued prevalence on supermarket shelves suggests that Kellogg’s Whole Grain Cheez-Its are a success, but the cracker's first ingredient really is “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

The Best an Ad Can Get?

1/26/2019

21 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!

21 Comments

It's About a <<Fiji Water>> Girl

1/12/2019

9 Comments

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

Have you ever been photobombed? Friends and family often have fun slyly inserting themselves into each other’s pictures. Sometimes it’s a complete stranger who appears in the background of a vacation photo, smiling for the camera. People are used to those kinds of photobombs, but do A-list celebrities expect such interlopers on the red carpet of a major awards show?

Fiji Water Girl, perhaps the most famous photobomber ever, rose to global prominence in Beverly Hills, just this past weekend. Like other award programs, the Golden Globes features a preshow red carpet event during which the many talented people of television and film stroll in front of the media while slowing making their way into the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

The promenade of stars in elegant evening gowns and stylish tuxedos provides countless photo opportunities that the celebrities graciously accommodate. This time, however, as many of them posed for the paparazzi, the same, solitary figure appeared behind them: Fiji Water Girl. Her intriguing presence in the background of so many popular celebrities’ pictures ignited a social media firestorm—Who is that girl and how did she get in the images of all those icons?

For each Golden Globe awards, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) selects a small number of companies to be
“awards sponsors,” which means they help underwrite the cost of the program, and in return, they are permitted a demure presence at the event that includes sharing their prestige products with the program’s distinguished guests. This year’s awards sponsors were Moët & Chandon Champagne, Lavazza Coffee, Lindt Chocolates, and, of course, Fiji Water.

Fiji outfitted several young, attractive women in matching royal blue gowns, and positioned them on the red carpet, holding clear trays of the firm’s trademark bottles. Ostensibly, the idea was that thirsty guests would avail themselves of the product samples, appreciate the refreshment, and gain a positive impression of the brand. However, one particular model,
Kelleth Cuthbert, used some strategic photobombing to parlay her gig into so much more.

As mentioned above, Cuthbert somehow managed to place herself in the background of photos of a variety of top celebrities including Jim Carrey, Idris Elba, Judy Greer, Eric Lange, and Tony Shalhoub, often making “direct – and sultry – eye contact with the camera.” Social media shares of the pics quickly made Fiji Water Girl one of the web’s hottest trending topics and, according to Apex Marketing, earned Fiji about $12 million in free media exposure.

So, the $12 million question is: Was Cuthbert’s photobombing serendipitous, or was it planned?

Fiji seemed surprised by all the attention, suggesting that although it appreciated the extra exposure, it hadn’t tried to orchestrate it. The company tweeted: "We're so glad everyone is talking about our water! *senses ominous presence* She's right behind us, isn't she? #FIJIwatergirl.”

It’s also worth noting that of the several Fiji Water girls stationed on the red carpet at the Globes, Cuthbert was the only one whose presence went viral. If Fiji truly had been trying to gain mass media attention, wouldn’t more of its models have been found photobombing celebs?

All the above makes it seem like Cuthbert may have ‘gone rogue’ and taken up the photobombing herself. Since her meteoric rise to stardom, the model has had several opportunities to address such claims. She’s often suggested that her presence in so many celebrities’ pics was unplanned, for instance:

“There’s tons of photographers everywhere. It doesn’t matter where you stand, you’re in the crossfire of every shot.”

“No matter where you move, you’re in somebody’s shot. I don’t know, you just have to look at what you’re doing and be aware of where everyone is. But know that you can’t avoid it.”

“I don’t even think there was a point where I made any conscious decision [to lean into the photography]. I think from so many years of modeling, when I hear a shutter, I just kind of give a face.”

On the other hand, Cuthbert told a Los Angeles times reporter that “It’s all strategic” and “You’ve got to angle.” She also hasn’t shied away from the cameras since the Golden Globes, appearing on Inside Edition to describe her photobombing experience, taping her own mock award acceptance speech for YouTube, and making a cameo on the Late Show with James Corden.

Not having been there or spoken with Cuthbert, it’s hard to evaluate her somewhat conflicting statements and other disparate evidence. One person who was at the last Golden Globes and has many years of experience with paparazzi is accomplished film actress Jamie Lee Curtis . She expressed clear and strong sentiments about what happened to her on the red carpet:

“I specifically moved away from the blatant promotions by Fiji and Moet where young women with their trays filled with their wares stood near a designated camera. I knew why there was a photographer poised there and I moved away as I said out loud that I didn’t want to be doing advertising for either. Clearly this angle shows that I moved from her being behind me and yet from the side it still happens. The sponsors of events need to get permission from people when they get them to take their picture next to products.”

Some may suggest that Curtis overreacted to what occurred or was too cynical to think sponsors try to stage such photo ops. However, Business Insider has corroborated her claims, reporting that a specific Fiji-commissioned photographer was the initiator of the photobombing strategy.

Stefanie Keenan, the photographer contracted through Getty Images, was at the Golden Globes for the purpose of taking photos that would “elevate” Fiji, which mainly meant getting pictures of celebrities drinking the water. Cooler temperatures, however, led few stars to take the samples, so, according to Getty’s vice president of global entertainment Kirstin Benson, Keenan “came up with the idea to have a Fiji brand ambassador creep in to some shots.”

This revelation certainly supports Curtis’s experience, while contradicting many of the things that Cuthbert said. It seems, then, that the photobombing was the collaborative effort of Keenan and Cuthbert. Fiji corporate also bears responsibility in as much as it contracted with the companies that provided the photographer and the model.

But even if the photobombing was intentional, is there anything wrong with it? As mentioned at the outset of this article, it’s often funny when people photobomb others. That photobombing takes on a different meaning, though, when the pictures are used for commercial purposes.

As Curtis suggested, people, whether celebrities or ordinary citizens, have the right to choose the companies they support. You probably wouldn’t want your likeness associated with an organization whose mission you don’t endorse. You also wouldn’t want a company to profit from the use of your image without your consent.

However, that’s how Fiji unfairly benefited from the photobombing. Although the company undoubtedly paid for the privilege of being one of the few Golden Globe awards sponsors, it didn’t secure permission from or provide payment to Jamie Lee Curtis, Jim Carey, or other celebrities whose personal brands it co-opted without their consent.

Some may say that no one would assume Curtis endorses Fiji Water just because a model bearing the firm’s bottles appears behind her in a picture. A lack of an express endorsement is certainly significant; however, simply showing Curtis and Fiji together starts to establish a connection in people’s minds, especially when the picture keeps reappearing. Branding often leverages such repeat associations, as when a brand uses the same colors and fonts.

Cuthbert’s ‘performance’ on the red carpet at the Golden Globes made her and Fiji Water viral stars. They owe that celebrity status, however, to the real stars whose painstakingly-developed personal brands Fiji and company commandeered. Hopefully photobombing people with commercial content won’t catch on, as it’s clearly a picture of “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!

9 Comments

Targeting Teens for E-Cigarettes

11/30/2018

31 Comments

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

Remember when teenagers would rush from high school so they could light a cigarette? Some would even try to sneak a smoke in the bathroom between classes. Those days are now back with a 21st century twist. Like many other things, cigarettes have gone high-tech, which makes them more appealing to minors, but has the biggest e-cigarette maker intentionally targeted teens?

During a recent marketing class, our discussion turned to e-cigarettes and one student, who was just a year or two removed from her own secondary education, mentioned that e-cigarette use is rampant in high school. I didn’t realize that lighting up electronically had become such an obsession for adolescents. A little online research, however, quickly supported the student’s claim.

According to the National Institute on Drug abuse, 16.2% of 12th graders used e-cigarettes in the past month, with the rate among boys being twice that of girls. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reported that more than 2 million middle schoolers and high schoolers regularly used e-cigarettes in 2017, making e-cigarettes “the most commonly used form of tobacco among youth in the United States.”

Some describe an “epidemic” of e-cigarette use among adolescents. In fact, certain high schools, like Plainedge High School in New York, have installed special chemical detectors in bathrooms to sense changes in the air and notify administrators when students are “vaping.” All of this is happening despite the fact that FDA regulations prohibit minors from buying e-cigarettes in stores and online.

For those who find a way to purchase e-cigarettes, there are plenty of choices--over 460 different brands are competing for consumers. However, the biggest brand by far is Juul, which has about 72% of the market. Juul Labs, soared past $1 billion in sales after just its third year in business.

As might be expected, Juul has drawn special scrutiny when it comes to young people’s use of e-cigarettes. This past September, the FDA warned Juul and four smaller competitors (Vuse, MarkTen, blu, and Logic) that they had “60 days to convince the agency that they have adequate plans to stop kids from vaping with their products.” If Juul and the others can’t show how they’ll do a better job keeping minors from vaping, they will need to cease selling.

When e-cigarettes first hit the market in 2004, there was a sense of optimism: ‘Here’s a safer way for smokers to satisfy that desire and hopefully kick the habit entirely.’ So, what happened to that prediction, and why are so many teens, most of whom never smoked before, such a significant part of the e-cigarette market?

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “e-cigarettes are not an FDA-approved quit aid, and there is no conclusive scientific evidence on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for long-term smoking cessation.” In fact, for teens, the relationship between e-cigarettes and cigarettes seems to be the opposite.

Of teenagers who use e-cigarettes 30.7% start smoking regular cigarettes within 6 months, compared to just 8.1% of those not using e-cigarettes. Similarly, a study found that “students who had used e-cigarettes by the time they started 9th grade were more likely than others to start smoking cigarettes and other smokable tobacco products within the next year.”

Plaintiffs have brought several lawsuits against Juul specifically, alleging that its products’ high levels of nicotine caused the users to become addicted. Ironically, some of them choose to use JUUL because they thought it would help them quit smoking.

E-cigarettes are addicting because, just like traditional cigarettes, most contain nicotine. Juul’s products’ have especially high levels of the chemical: A single JUUL pod contains “as much nicotine as a pack of 20 regular cigarettes.” In addition, Juul’s particular formulation of nicotine salt “increases the rate and amount of nicotine delivered into the blood, compared with other formulations.”

Nicotine is particularly detrimental for young people because it can impede brain development, which is critical in the teen years. In addition, adolescents who are exposed to nicotine are at greater risk of future drug addiction.

One good thing is that e-cigarettes don’t have as many harmful chemicals as burned cigarettes. However, e-liquids still contain “at least 60 chemical compounds.” One study found that the vapor from some e-cigarettes carried toxic chemicals and known carcinogens, while the devices themselves contained “potentially toxic metal nanoparticles.” Also, unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are susceptible to explosion, given that they are electronic devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid.

So, e-cigarettes are dangerous in more ways than one, but did Juul really take any specific steps to target teens? This is where analysis becomes complicated. Despite an organization’s sharpest marketing strategies and best intentions, consumer behavior sometimes goes in directions that are very hard to predict. Take Tide Pods.

Perhaps Proctor & Gamble, maker of Tide, could have anticipated the candy-like appeal its colorful, round detergent balls would have to consumers. However, it’s hard to imagine anyone predicting the viral rise of the ill-advised Tide Pod Challenge in which young people put pods in their mouths, sometimes ingesting them. P & G certainly did not encourage that behavior.

Are e-cigarette sales to teens Juul’s equivalent of the Tide Pod Challenge—an unfortunate, unforeseeable happenstance? Probably not. For one thing, young people’s use of e-cigarettes has proven to be much more than a fad. Moreover, unlike P & G, Juul employed several specific strategies that made its marketing attractive to teens.

For example, Juul used young, attractive models in its ads, who might appeal to anyone but would be especially alluring to image-obsessed teens. On its website, the company surrounded its product with “luscious-looking images of fruit.” It also chose youth-friendly flavor names like crème brulee and mango. In addition, Juul designed its products to be trendy and sleek, like flash drives, which could be accessorized with colorful skins.

Despite this circumstantial evidence, there doesn’t appear to be any ‘smoking gun,’ i.e., a Juul executive’s on-the-record admission or a leaked internal document outlining intentional targeting of teenagers. Does that lack of explicit evidence of clear intent absolve Juul? It should not, for two main reasons:

First, marketers at Juul should have realized that their tactics would have significant teen-appeal. If Juul really wanted to convert seasoned smokers to e-cigarettes, not enlist teens, it would have taken a different approach, like featuring older, former tobacco smokers in its ads. Interestingly, Juul initially did take that tack, but when it “failed to gain traction on social media and failed to gain sales,” it switched to the more kid-friendly strategy. Juul has since returned to its original adult approach, but only after considerable external pressure.

Second, Juul knew who was using its products, even though Juul executives have denied knowing how many teens were buying Juuls—a claim that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has called “incredulous.” Even if Juul somehow didn’t have access to accurate retail sales data, it could have easily seen the multitude of young people posting pictures of themselves using Juul products on social media. These users even coined a company-specific term to describe their actions: “Juuling.” That kind of branded verb creation is typical of teens and only tends to happen for the biggest social phenomena, e.g., Photoshop, Google.

Regardless whether Juul intended to target teens, its strategies encouraged their action, catching many in an unwitting cycle of addiction, which fits the description of an unfortunate legal/ethical concept: adverse impact.

Pressure from the FDA and the Massachusetts attorney general has compelled Juul to drop most of its kid-friendly tactics, but at this point, it will be difficult to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. Juul and other e-cigarette makers who ‘inadvertently’ targeted teens may continue to deny responsibility, but they will always be known for their “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!

31 Comments

Just Divided over Nike's New Ad

9/9/2018

42 Comments

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

Nike just aired a new commercial that has quickly become entangled in controversy. The two-minute “Dream Crazy” ad is a well-produced spot that features footage of inspiring amateur athletes, as well as a couple of the brand’s superstar spokespeople. Surprisingly, the source of conflict is the ad’s narrator, who people seem either to admire or revile, which makes marketing analysts ask, “What did Nike just do?”

Marking the 30th anniversary of the company’s iconic “Just Do It” campaign, Nike’s new ad uses narration from NFL-quarterback-turned-activist Colin Kaepernick, who also appears briefly in the spot to urge viewers to, among other things, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”

If you’re not familiar with Kaepernick, he was one of the first professional football players to choose to kneel during the national anthem as a sign of protest against what many believe has been growing racial injustice in America. The last game he played was in January of 2017, but Kaepernick has since become the face and voice of a movement that extends well beyond professional sports.

Of course, not everyone has appreciated Kaepernick’s activism. Some resent that his example has encouraged others to kneel during the national anthem, which they believe is either unfounded protest or a misplaced act that disrespects the flag and demonstrates a lack of patriotism. Anthem protests have since become a point of contention for many NFL fans, causing some to swear off the league entirely.

In short, whether right or wrong, Nike’s use of Kaepernick has struck a raw nerve in a nation deeply divided.

Before going further, I need to say that I really didn’t want to write about this ad. Maybe it’s my Swiss heritage that makes me lean toward neutrality and dislike discord, especially political. It’s not fun for me to tackle an ad that arouses such strong social division. However, after much debate and several stops and starts, I still felt compelled to address the ad and so decided to “just do it.”

The first step in this Mindful Marketing analysis is ethics: Does Nike’s ad uphold societal values? Given the sometimes-ambiguous nature of “societal values,” that question is inherently hard to answer, but the circumstances surrounding the Nike commercial make this inquiry especially difficult.

The ad’s ‘dream big’ theme is positive and hopeful and probably not something with which many people would take issue. Instead, the debate seems to fall squarely on the company’s use of Kaepernick and whether what he represents is decent, fair, honest, respectful, and responsible (the five core values Mindful Marketing seeks to uphold).

Unfortunately, for those like me trying to make a moral judgment, both sides can make a compelling case based on the same principles. People who oppose Kaepernick can argue, for instance, that his activism unfairly characterizes police officers who are honest and considerate of others. His opponents also may contend that the anthem protests dishonor members of the armed forces who risk their lives to protect the freedoms the flag represents.

On the other hand, those who support Kaepernick can claim that the social justice movement he signifies is fundamentally about showing everyone respect. Similarly, this side shares that its aim is to ensure the fair treatment of all people.

Admittedly, the issues are more complicated than what I am presenting here; however, the point is that both sides have strong countervailing points that are difficult to adjudicate. For sake of argument, therefore, let’s give the ad the benefit of the doubt and assume that it does support societal values.

The second question, then, considers the ad’s effectiveness, which is also very difficult to discern. After the ad was released online this past Monday, several of the first news reports were of anger. Some consumers vowed to boycott Nike products, while others took more immediate and drastic action by burning their Nike shoes and socks.

Newer reports, however, have been that after the ad was released, Nike’s sales “grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.”

On the other hand, Nike’s stock (NKE), which had closed at $82.18 a share on Friday, August 31, closed at $80.30 a share this past Friday, September 7.

So, does Nike really know what it’s doing with the Kaepernick ad? A recent Washington Post article makes a convincing case that Nike does. Columnist Sally Jenkins maintains that the commercial positions Nike well in national and global contexts that are increasingly multicultural. She also argues that young shoppers, who are especially important to sneaker makers, want to buy products from companies that support social causes.

Public opinion is not so clear. This past Friday morning, September 7, Apex Marketing Group reported that the ad had produced $220 million in publicity for Nike: $69 million positive, $67 million negative, and $83 million neutral. Apex also noted that the percentage of positive publicity had fallen by 9 percentage points from Thursday to Friday.

Some may argue that any publicity is good publicity. That assertion, however, seems to be a myth, especially after considering organizational examples like Volkswagen and individual ones like Harvey Weinstein.

Public favor for the ad also might wane as people take more time to process the financial context surrounding Nike’s and Kaepernick’s participation in the promotion. For a few years, Kaepernick was a very good NFL quarterback, who even played in a Super Bowl. Before he began his anthem protest, he had been demoted to backup status.

Kaepernick made a total of $43 million as an NFL quarterback, of which he has donated over $1 million to a variety of social justice causes. It’s difficult to know how much, if any, money he has made as an activist, but sports agents estimate that his new Nike endorsement could be worth “millions of dollars per year.”

For these reasons, some have taken issue with the ad’s suggestion that Kaepernick ‘sacrificed everything,’ especially when compared to individuals who have given their lives in service to their country.

Kaepernick may not be serving as a Nike spokesman for the money, but it’s hard to imagine that Nike’s choice of Kaepernick was without consideration of its bottom-line, given that it’s a for-profit company that must answer to shareholders in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Not surprising, some have accused the company of “commercializing activism,” i.e., profiting from a social cause.

Another concern for Nike should be its relationship with the NFL. This past March, the NFL announced that Nike would continue to be its official supplier of uniforms and sideline gear through 2028. It’s not known how much these rights cost Nike, but it’s likely the company paid more than the $1.1 billion it reportedly invested for similar exclusivity in 2012.

The anthem protests that Kaepernick initiated continue to be a thorn in the side of the NFL. What’s more, Kaepernick has sued the NFL, claiming that the league has colluded to keep him off the field since he last played. All this to say, there are probably few people the NFL would rather not see exalted in a commercial than Kaepernick. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Nevertheless, the league has tried to put on a good face about the ad. NFL executive vice president of communications and public affairs Jocelyn Moore offered the following:

“The National Football League believes in dialogue, understanding and unity. We embrace the role and responsibility of everyone involved with this game to promote meaningful, positive change in our communities.” “The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action.”

Despite Moore’s conciliatory tone, one has to imagine that the ad places a significant strain on the relationship between the league and Nike that will only be exacerbated if there are further defections of NFL fans. Although her response makes it seem unlikely that the NFL is considering the commercial to be any kind of contractual breach, the ad will at a minimum cause the league to think more carefully about Nike and future sponsorships.

Like the ethical analysis, assessment of the commercial’s likely effectiveness has also been complicated. In the short-term, people may continue to applaud Nike for its social conscience. The ad and Kaepernick’s lawsuit, however, must be straining its relationship with the NFL.

Moreover, the ad’s theme of “sacrificing everything,” coming from a multimillionaire and a Fortune 100 company, will increasingly ring hollow with people, especially those working two jobs to make ends meet, or mourning loved ones who truly sacrificed everything in service to their country or community.

Credible cases can be made for placing Nike’s Kaepernick commercial in any one of the four Mindful Marketing quadrants, particularly given the ad’s multifaceted social implications. The ad’s effectiveness is also debatable. However, given the strained relationship with the NFL and a likely increase in public disaffect, there’s good reason for calling the commercial “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!

42 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

Smile, You're on Social Media

8/9/2018

16 Comments

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

"When it's least expected - you're elected. You're the star today. Smile! You're on Candid Camera!” It used to be that a hidden camera TV show was the only way others might see our most embarrassing or intimate moments. Thanks to cellphones and social media, millions can now easily watch outtakes from our lives, whether we like it or not, which is what one unsuspecting airline traveler recently experienced.

A few weeks ago, Helen (last name unknown) was settling into an Alaskan Airlines flight from New York to Dallas when another passenger, Rosey Blair, asked if she’d switch seats. Blair wanted to sit next to her boyfriend, Houston Hardaway, who was in the row behind her. Helen obliged, which put her in front of Blair and Hardaway, and next to an attractive stranger, who later identified himself as Euan Holden, a former professional soccer player.

As the plane took off, so did an apparent romance between Helen and Holden. The unexpected seatmates’ casual conversation turned flirtatious and eventually the two were touching elbows on that ambiguous middle armrest. When the flight landed and passengers deplaned, the two could be seen strolling through the terminal together.

Given 40,000+ flights in the United States each day, how do we know so much about the interaction between two ordinary air travelers? We’re privy because Blair chronicled everything about the blossoming relationship from the row behind them.

Around 15 times, Blair tweeted about things she saw and overheard such as the couple discovering that they were both personal trainers and vegetarians. Pictures and videos accompanied some of the tweets, as well as the hashtags #PrettyPlaneGirl and #PlaneBae. In very little time, Blair’s tweets amassed 630,000 likes and 250,000 retweets, then mainstream news media began to share the touching tale.

Sounds like a relationship and social media success story, right? Not quite. Helen was unaware of Blair’s inflight antics and was very unhappy to be flung into the national media spotlight, especially after the attention led to online harassment and the need to delete her social media accounts. Helen issued a statement through an attorney that included: “I did not ask for and do not seek attention. #PlaneBae is not a romance - it is a digital-age cautionary tale about privacy, identity, ethics and consent.”

Wow. That’s a strong reaction, but did Blair do anything wrong? After all, it’s legal to photograph people in public places where there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The incident occurred on a commercial airliner, apparently in coach, where hundreds of people are packed like sardines. It’s hard to get much less private.

“Reasonable expectation of privacy,” however, is subject to interpretation. Yes, a commercial airliner is a rather pubic place, but most passengers wouldn’t expect the people behind them to be eavesdropping on them throughout an entire flight or photographing them from above and between the seats.

An even bigger issue involves Blair’s occupation. According to her Twitter page, she a plus-size fashion, lifestyle, and travel blogger, which means her livelihood depends on sharing content on social media. Gaining likes, shares, and followers is key to her success, and to have a post go viral is golden.

Blair’s profession matters because it reframes her motives and recontexualizes her actions. She’s no longer just a person sharing with friends a few photos she took of strangers. She’s an entrepreneur employing visual and verbal accounts of others to advance her business interests. She’s a marketer using Helen and Holden, without recompense, to build her brand. Jayson DeMers describes such situations in a 2014 Forbes article:

“The danger in using photos of individuals for your online marketing purposes is that your efforts could be seen as commercial. The rules when it comes to using photos for commercial purposes differ from when you’re merely sharing vacation photos with your buddies. Even if you aren’t directly making money off of the usage, a photo in a social media campaign can easily be seen as similar to using a photo in a print brochure or billboard ad.”

What Blair did was not clearly illegal, but her actions could easily land her on the losing end of a lawsuit, as DeMers continues to explain: “If your subject believes his likeness was used to sell a product without his permission, you may find yourself on the losing side of an argument in front of a judge.”

Ethics, however, is not simply a matter of ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’ It’s about doing the right thing no matter what the law says. In that light, a good question for Blair or anyone in a similar situation to ask is “Would I want someone else to eavesdrop on my conversation, take pictures of me without my knowledge or permission, and share those things on social media?”

Most of us would say, “Of course not.” So, if that’s the kind of consideration we’d like for our own privacy, we should obey the Golden Rule and show the same respect to others.

Everyone makes mistakes, and Blair seems to recognize that her social media sharing of two strangers’ personal interactions was wrong. She has offered an apology; although, she failed to delete most of her tweets about the incident. For this reason and all of the above, Blair’s creation and promotion of “Plane bae” should be considered “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!

16 Comments

Branding "One and Done"

6/29/2018

3 Comments

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

Clever t-shirt sayings have long been part of American culture, from “I’m with Stupid -->” to “My parents went to _________ and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.” Foot Locker’s recent promotion of “One and Done” tees, featuring NBA prospects in an infomercial parody, was a slam dunk, but could such a tagline lead people to fall short of their dreams and drop the ball in commitments to others?

The phrase “one and done” is used in a variety of contexts; for instance, parents with one child and no plans for others might say “We’re one and done.” More often, the expression is associated with college athletics, particularly top-tier basketball players who compete at the collegiate level for a single season before turning pro. Driving this behavior is the National Basketball Association’s (NBA’s) one-and-done rule, which requires that players be “at least 19 years old and one year removed from high school” before entering the league.

This b-ball context was the impetus for Foot Locker’s limited edition “One and Done” t-shirt, which it sold strategically, just during NBA draft day and only online and in its Time Square store. One of the commercials that advertising giant BBDO created for the exclusive offer featured projected NBA draftees Trae Young and LiAngelo Ball, both well-known one-and-done players. Meanwhile, comedian Reggie Couz played the over-the-top pitchman, pushing the tees for $29.99 each.

How did the ads do for Foot Locker? They 'scored'—the shirts sold out online. Draft night also went well for Young, who the Dallas Mavericks selected with the fifth overall pick before trading him to the Atlanta Hawks. Unfortunately, one and done didn’t work out well for Ball, who went undrafted.

Many have debated the legitimacy and the efficacy of the NBA’s one-and-done rule, which seems poised for change. Some maintain that the policy hurts college basketball, while others argue that no artificial criteria should keep qualified adults from entering employment. Still, others point to the great success of certain one-and-done players like two-time NBA champion and Finals MVP, Kevin Durant.

The aim here isn’t to resolve the complicated NBA one-and-done debate; rather, it’s to raise a question that affects an even wider swath of people—especially young, impressionable ones:

Should a company brand and promote “one-and-done” products?

I can already hear readers groaning: “Loosen up. They’re just t-shirts!” That’s true. What’s more, Foot Locker’s commercials were parodies that made fun of the annoying infomercials we love to hate, so it was hard to take the campaign too seriously.

Still, real shirts were sold thanks to actual ads that promoted them. Most importantly, those shirts shared a message that socially and developmentally is not a very constructive one: It’s okay to stop after one try.

Yes, we need to realize when it’s time to cut our losses and “pull the plug” on efforts that just aren’t working. That approach, however, is pretty much the opposite of one and done, which more accurately suggests things like, ‘I’ve arrived’ and ‘Don’t mess with perfection,’ or in the case of basketball, ‘I’m NBA material.’

Of course, the problem is that very few people have ‘arrived’; most of us are far from perfect. Instead of quitting and moving on, we need to keep churning and grinding: pushing ourselves to get better by finding even small ways to improve. Rather than ‘one and done,’ our mantras should be things like ‘life is a marathon, not a sprint’ and ‘failures are the path to success.’

But does a saying like 'one and done' really have that much sway over people? Some of the best advertising slogans do make their way into common language use, influencing people’s perceptions and values. For instance, Wendy’s famous 1984 ‘big bun’ commercial made “Where’s the Beef” a national catchphrase that presidential candidate Walter Mondale even invoked. Or, think of all the times you've heard someone quote Nike’s iconic “Just Do It” theme to move themselves and others forward.

Some may still argue that rational adults know better than to take these taglines seriously. Even if that’s true, there’s the issue of who else these marketing messages reach, probably most effectively: young people.

The NBA has one of the youngest fan bases of all sports, with 43% of fans under the age of 35 and 13% between the ages of two and seventeen. By using potential NBA players to promote its One and Done t-shirts on Draft Day, Foot Locker was likely targeting this same youthful demographic.

One problem with this approach is that there has been considerable concern about “children's ability to fully comprehend and evaluate advertising messages.” Of course, very young children are not the ones online buying One and Done t-shirts, yet they are still exposed to the advertising. Young people of all ages experience the social impact of the slogan as they see peers wearing the shirts in school and elsewhere.

It’s easy for any of us to be overconfident in our abilities. Individuals with less life experience, who are still developing in many ways, need to be especially careful of such hubris. In many ways, young people are the last ones who should be thinking about being “one and done,” and marketers should be especially sensitive about encouraging such misguided notions.

Besides potential individual failure, there’s also possible social fallout from a one-and-done mentality, namely the impact on others affected by a person’s premature decision to move on. Granted, few relationships come with long-term assurances, but a rash departure caused by a lack of commitment can leave a gaping hole in others’ lives.

In his class business book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni identified lack of commitment as the third fatal flaw organizations face. Some believe that Millennials have unique struggles with commitment. In any case, no one needs encouragement to end allegiances or to be disloyal, as the one-and-done message might suggest.

Kenny Rogers famously sang that card players need to know “when to hold 'em,” and “when to fold 'em.” Unfortunately, a one-and-done message encourages many individuals, especially young people, to play their hands too soon. Not everything that people say should appear on a t-shirt. Let’s hope Foot Locker permanently retires its ill-advised tees so its “Single-Minded Marketing” also becomes one and done.

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

A Marketing-Ethics Professor Grades Facebook’s Data Policy

4/21/2018

1 Comment

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

You’ve heard about Cambridge Analytica, data-sharing, the 2016 election, and Mark Zuckerberg’s two trips to Capitol Hill. Rather than add one more opinion of what went wrong and why, I’d like to share something a few of Facebook’s two billion users might find even more helpful: an evaluation of the social media giant’s current data policy.

As an educator, I wasn’t eager to tackle another big ‘grading’ project (I have plenty of others right now), but after pouring over the firm’s privacy-related webpages, I’m glad I did. I learned much in the process, and I believe there are several useful takeaways for others who have an interest in how Facebook manages our data.

Most of my analysis stems from Facebook’s Data Policy page, which describes at length the company’s approach to user privacy. This page also contains links to a variety of other pages that unpack specific components of the policy.

Here’s my evaluation:

Readability: "A"
We’ve all experienced contracts and terms of service that we can tell at a glance will be a ‘bear’ to get through, perhaps because of all capital letters or marathon paragraphs. Facebook’s formatting is much more user-friendly, which may seem like a small thing, but if people avoid reading the policy, what good is it?

The policy features short paragraphs, many with three sentences or less, prefaced by bolded headings, which help readers locate specific information. Likewise, the overall organization of material is clear and logical. For instance, several main headings, set in a larger blue font, delineate sections for answering: “What kinds of information do we collect?” “How do we use this information?” and “How is this information shared?”

Clarity: "A"
Organization and formatting are helpful, but they’re meaningless if we can’t interpret what’s said. Most of us have experienced the mind-numbing legalese that seems as if it were written to confuse and confound. Fortunately, Facebook uses language that’s much more accessible, and if technical terms that some users may not recognize are needed, the company explains the concepts. For example, here’s how the firm describes cookies:

“Cookies are small pieces of text used to store information on web browsers. Cookies are used to store and receive identifiers and other information on computers, phones, and other devices. Other technologies, including data we store on your web browser or device, identifiers associated with your device, and other software, are used for similar purposes. In this policy, we refer to all of these technologies as ‘cookies.’”

Sometimes, however, even a clear explanation is not enough. In those instances, Facebook goes a step further by providing specific examples like the following one to describe how it shares data with third parties:

“We may tell an advertiser how its ads performed, or how many people viewed their ads or installed an app after seeing an ad, or provide non-personally identifying demographic information (such as 25 year old female, in Madrid, who likes software engineering) [emphasis added] to these partners to help them understand their audience or customers, but only after the advertiser has agreed to abide by our advertiser guidelines.”

Ease of Use: "A-"
Given that Facebook’s business model is based almost entirely on managing user-provided information, it’s data policy is inherently complex, which makes it all-the-more important that users can easily find the information they want and make changes to fit their personal preferences.

The company facilitates those objectives by making ample use of hyperlinks to other pages, like this one for advertising preferences, which allows users to better understand and manage the ads they see. Facebook also has programmed a decent amount of flexibility into data-related settings. Similar to the previous example, users also can determine the specific information they’d like to keep private vs. make public through means such as managing their Public Profile and using the Activity Log tool.

In addition, Facebook allows users to delete their accounts whenever they wish, or deactivate them temporarily. With those options, however, comes an important caveat from the company: “Keep in mind that information that others have shared about you is not part of your account and will not be deleted when you delete your account.”

Facebook’s ease of use slips somewhat when it comes to reporting others’ objectionable content. On its webpage “Details on Social Reporting,” the company says, “We encourage people on Facebook to use the report buttons located across our site [emphasis added] to let us know if they find content that violates our terms of use so we can take it down.” However, no such buttons are readily visible. Instead, the intended option for such censure appears to lie under each post’s three-dot drop-down menu under the somewhat ambiguous selection “Give feedback about this post.”

Transparency and Thoroughness: "B+"
Brevity is a virtue, but that benefit is lost if there’s not enough information to adequately communicate a message. In many ways, Facebook does a good job detailing its multifaceted data policy. For instance, it identifies each type of third party with which it shares information about its users: advertising, measurement and analytics services, vendors, service providers, and other partners. Facebook also broadly describes the kinds of information these third parties receive and how they use it.

Along the way, the company provides links to other pages that contain more detailed information, such as advertiser guidelines, the kinds of information it collects, and how users can control the types of ads they receive. In addition, Facebook offers in its Help Center a “Security Checkup” and a series of security tips with links to additional resources such as password protection and antivirus software for Mac and Windows operating systems. Unfortunately, the Microsoft link is broken.

How could Facebook be more thorough and transparent? The company states:

“We do not share information that personally identifies you (personally identifiable information is information like name or email address that can by itself be used to contact you or identifies who you are) with advertising, measurement or analytics partners unless you give us permission [emphasis added].”

As a researcher, the notion that Facebook aggregates data and maintains individual users’ anonymity is reassuring. As a Facebook user, however, I’d like more explanation for the final part of the above statement: “unless you give us permission.” How exactly do we give Facebook permission to share “personally identifiable information,” where is it possible to view the permissions we have granted, and how can we rescind such permissions, if we want to do so? Similarly, Facebook’s data policy states:

“We transfer information [emphasis added] to vendors, service providers, and other partners who globally support our business, such as providing technical infrastructure services, analyzing how our Services are used, measuring the effectiveness of ads and services, providing customer service, facilitating payments, or conducting academic research and surveys. These partners must adhere to strict confidentiality obligations [emphasis added] in a way that is consistent with this Data Policy and the agreements we enter into with them.”

“Transfer information” seems like another way of saying ‘share data,’ which is reminiscent of the Cambridge Analytica debacle. Of course, Facebook adds that “these partners must adhere to strict confidentiality obligations,” but how exactly is that third-party confidentiality monitored and enforced? Perhaps the answer is ‘above our pay grade’ as consumers; yet, it would be comforting to know that new and more effective standards for accountability are in place that will help to avoid a similar Cambridge Analytica breakdown.

Conclusion
Along with the preceding assessment, it’s important to note three things:

1. We use Facebook for free. Since users don’t pay for Facebook, the social media platform needs to cover its costs somehow. Like most other media, it does so through advertising revenue. Advertisers aren’t going to foot the bill, however, unless they know who they’re reaching, hence the need to share at least some user data.

2. The purpose of Facebook is to share information. If we posted things on Facebook and no one ever saw them, we’d be upset. The very reason we use the platform is to share information. Granted, we may only want to share things with our friends or certain others, but in keeping with the prior point, ‘beggars can’t be choosers.’

3. Users enjoy a better experience when Facebook utilizes their data. Granted, we don’t want to be taken advantage of, but seeing ads for products we want or content related to topics we like are usually preferable to exposure to things that are of no interest to us. Such customization is possible because of the data we provide.

As the preceding analysis has suggested, Facebook’s data policy isn’t perfect. However, given the information-intensive nature of the company’s operations and the many different stakeholder groups who rely on that data, the company is doing a commendable job—one that warrants recognition as “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!

1 Comment

Women: No Longer Auto Accessories

3/4/2018

31 Comments

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

People love auto shows: the stylish bodies, the sleek lines, the alluring curves. While those descriptions fit the latest concept cars, they also work for the scantily dressed women seen standing next to them. Almost as long as there have been automobiles, companies have used attractive young women to help sell their vehicles. Some organizations, however, have taken a bold step to separate sex appeal from automotive appeal.

A variety of media, from calendars to TV commercials, couple women wearing suggestive attire with cars. The rationale for these pairings is that sex sells; i.e., certain companies believe that they can gain interest in their autos’ bodies by leveraging the natural allure of the human body.

Over the years, auto shows have been notorious for their use of highly-sexualized female models: Poised next to a manufacturer’s hot new car are one or more attractive young women, often sporting stilettos and wearing tight-fitting dresses with low necklines and high hemlines.

However, use of women as commercial eye-candy isn’t unique to automobiles. A variety of other industries like video gaming and consumer electronics employ ladies at tradeshows in the same sultry capacity. In fact, there’s even a belittling name for the women: “booth babes.” TMS Agency, a modeling firm with locations in virtually every state, specializes in such talent, describing the women’s function as follows:

“A booth babe is a female model hired to staff a booth at a trade show. The term implies a girl who is focusing more on her physical attributes to entice customers rather than her intellect to represent a company. Booth babe is also slang for a booth girl. Booth babes serve two purposes: 1. Attract attention to your exhibit due to their looks; 2. Assist with activities and demonstrate products”

It’s not hard to find women serving this primeval purpose at some of the world’s largest and most renown auto exhibitions like the Paris Motor Show and the North American International Auto Show. However, visitors to another major auto exhibition will no longer be exposed to the practice.

In its 88th year, the Geneva International Motor Show has hosted more than its fair share of booth babes. Just last year, for instance, Lexus, Fiat, and Alfa Romeo used attractive young women, outfitted in evocative attire, to help draw attention to their respective automotive entries. It appears, however, that this March in Geneva will be different.

Fortune reports that many of the exhibitors at this year’s show will not be bringing both babes. Some companies, like Lexus, won’t have any people accompany their cars. Other manufacturers, such as Fiat Chrysler, will use both men and women, outfitted in more conservative attire.

What’s caused the sudden change of heart for so many automobile manufacturers? Some cite the recent rise in cases of sexual harassment and a desire not to get caught on the wrong side of the #MeToo movement. Switzerland-based Nissan spokeswoman Sara Jenkins frames her firm’s decision in a straightforward, positive light: “It makes more sense to use product specialists because we’re selling cars.”

Anyone in marketing should appreciate Jenkins’ rationale—If your company is selling a product, particularly a complex and expensive one like a car, you want people who can talk intelligently about the vehicle’s features and benefits. That’s one of the top requirements for effective personal selling.

But, why not have both? Certainly, there are individuals who are very attractive and very smart. Why don’t automobile manufacturers hire them to wear skimpy clothes and work their tradeshows? One reason is that smart, hard-working people aren’t as easily enticed, and they know they have options other than putting their bodies on display.

Hopefully these car companies also realize what they’ve been doing to the women they’ve had on exhibit for so many years. The manufacturers have relegated these young women to human hood ornaments—items to ogle and awe at, like the masses of metal they’re posed to adorn. Just as the car companies have minimized the models’ attire, they’ve stripped away each woman’s personhood.

Unfortunately, that sexual objectification doesn’t only impact the models who participate in the tradeshows. It affects all people indirectly. The more we see women, or men, treated as objects, the more likely we are to think that such representations are normative, i.e., to believe that they’re okay.

Ironically, while reading the aforementioned Fortune article, an ad appeared on the side of my screen titled “Dream Big, Princess.” The link connects to Disney’s website where a 90- second video highlights many of the company’s animated heroines, interspersed with clips of young women today engaged in adventurous activities. The promotional piece encourages girls to become things like teachers, politicians, preachers, astronauts, and leaders. Of course, there’s no charge to grow up to be a booth babe.

Automobile manufacturers might not be banishing booth babes because of social conscience, but at least they're banishing them. Our world’s women and men will be better off as a result. The car companies also should be more successful in the long run, especially when targeting market segments that are increasingly and rightly appalled by the primitive practice. Showing people genuine respect will always be a foundation for “Mindful Marketing.”