Category: Promotion37eb4ea826

Tinder-garten

9/9/2017

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

It’s great to watch kids grow and mature, for instance, as they take their first steps, attend their first day of school . . . have their first hook up?! Most parents don’t want to imagine that last experience, especially if their children are still young; yet, some companies are making meeting apps that many are calling “Tinder for Teens.”

If you’re not familiar with Tinder, that’s not a bad thing. It’s one of the seemingly hundreds of dating apps that have hit the market over the past few years, helping people find significant others. However, there are big differences between Tinder and some of the more traditional dating sites.

For instance, eHarmony users answer a lengthy set of probing questions, aimed at finding one’s true soulmate, which takes over an hour. The cost for one month is $49.95. A Tinder profile, on the other hand, is free at the basic level and takes only a few minutes to setup: “You simply download the app to your smart phone, link to your Facebook account, choose up to six photos of yourself, and write a brief bio. That’s it!”

The use of Tinder is equally easy, and as many would say, pretty superficial. Even though bios are available “it’s all about the photos.” Users review others’ pics, and if they see someone they like, they swipe right, while everyone unattractive gets swept left. If two people swipe right on each other, the app invites them to start chatting.

This quick and easy vetting reflects the way many users regard the people they meet through the platform, i.e., users turn to Tinder to find candidates for casual sex, i.e., one-night stands, i.e., “hook ups.”

Sexual intimacy without commitment tends to end badly for people of any age. It’s especially abhorrent to encourage lascivious behavior among adolescents, who are even less cognizant of the consequences of their actions. Some teen-targeting apps are doing just that, however. What’s more, there can be other consequences for these young people that are even worse than those of casual sex with their peers.

Probably the most popular friend/dating app for teens is Spotafriend, which describes itself as “the hottest teen swiping app for meeting new friends.” The company’s website goes on to claim that it is “not a teen dating app, it’s a new way to make friends.” However, that self-assessment is quickly questioned as Spotafriend’s own LinkedIn site says: “Meet teens near you with Spotafriend, the Tinder alternative for people ages 13-19.”

But, maybe Spotafriend’s comparison to Tinder is just puffery; or perhaps it’s only referencing the more demure uses of the adult app. It’s hard to make those interpretations, however, after reading one of the featured posts on Spotafriend’s blogsite titled “5 Major Hook-Up Ground Rules.” Here are a few excerpts from the article:

“Hookups in high school and college are exciting, and can be your first real meeting with the issues of love and sex, issues that most of us don’t really understand in our teenage years.”

“If you’re just kissing, or going all the way, make sure both participants are comfortable and willing to continue with the interaction.”

“Do Whatever Makes You Comfortable”

“Many acts that people consider “hooking up” carry the risk of infectious diseases being spread from person to person.”

Unfortunately, the possibility of reckless sex with someone the same age is not the only serious risk to teens using Spotafriend. Given that the app’s parameters are “for people age 13 to 19,” there’s built-in potential for 18 or 19-year-old men, legally adults, to interact with 13-year-old girls. What’s even worse is the ease with which even older adults can access the app and join the mix.

Lisa Schmidt, a 42-year-old dating coach and matchmaker, was curiously concerned about the rise of dating apps for teens, so she decided to check-out Spotafriend. In her guest blog post on Global Dating Insights, she recounts how easy it was for her to access the app and pose as a 15-year-old girl. It was even easier for her to change her birthday once inside.

As Schmidt’s experience suggests and leading child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg confirms, apps like Spotafriend are “‘on-line playgrounds’ for paedophiles.” Carr-Gregg adds, “All it would take is a smooth-talking paedophile to send some silky little messages to these kids and away we go.” The fact that such apps are location-based and work seamlessly with messaging apps like Snapchat makes teens all-the-more vulnerable to predators.

It’s great when people use social media to build friendships. Spotafriend’s name and promotion, however, are misleading. The app’s real aim appears to be more about helping teens “hook up,” while providing few safeguards against sexual predators. Unfortunately, many innocent young people fall victim to the appeal, making Spotafriend an example 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

Virtue or Vice?

8/25/2017

2 Comments

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

When you hear “ice cream,” you probably don’t think of diet, healthy, or nutritious; rather, words like creamy, rich, and luscious come to mind. After all, most people don’t eat ice cream to be healthy or to get fit; they just want to indulge in something they really enjoy. That’s the motivation one upstart ice cream maker is tapping into, in a way like no other.

Brands like Häagen-Dazs and Ben & Jerry’s have made decadent ice cream for decades, but even they have not capitalized on the concept of uninhibited indulgence as much as Boston-based Vice Cream. As the company name implies, its ice cream isn’t just good; it’s sinful. Other elements of the company’s brand support the unusual positioning.

Most notably, the product itself is very ‘full-bodied.’ Pictures and descriptions on Vice Cream’s website illustrate various flavors overflowing with add-ins such as “stacks on stacks of mint-chocolate coins,” “rich peanut butter ice cream mixed with chopped toffee bars,” and “chunks of chocolate chip cookie dough, salted caramel truffles, and thick swirls of chocolate fudge and caramel.”

As you might imagine, those kinds of ample, rich ingredients add up to some sizeable, undesirable numbers on the ice cream’s nutritional labels. For instance, one particular flavor boasts the following stats per half cup serving: 270 calories, 15g of fat, 10g of saturated fat, 50 mg of cholesterol, and 30g carbohydrates. By the way, I wonder how many people can eat just a half cup of ice cream; I can’t.

While those “nutrition” numbers are certainly high, they aren’t unusual for indulgent desserts. For instance, a small Brownie Batter Blizzard at Dairy Queen has 440 calories, 14g of fat, and 9g of saturated fat. Those stats are puny, however, compared to desserts at the Cheesecake Factory, where a piece of Oreo Dream Extreme Cheesecake has 1,490 calories, 53g of saturated fat, and 162 carbs.

If Vice Cream isn’t setting any records for nutritional negligence, what makes it so sinful? Well, beyond its product composition, the company has decided to play upon the idea of immorality with other aspects of its branding, such as its product names and promotion. More specifically, Vice Cream has opted for the classic low-brow strategy—serving up sex, with a side of profanity.

The company’s 'sex-sells' approach starts with the names of its ice creams, which may seem innocuous, until you start to unpack and compare them. For instance, there’s “Toffee Wife,” a play on the sexist term “trophy wife,” and “Afternoon Delight,” homage to the Starland Vocal Band’s 1976 hit by the same name, which was all about making love. There’s also “Breakfast in Bed,” a flavor name that seems benign until you interpret it in context with the other monikers and you see some of the company’s additional branding.

Vice Cream’s most blatant sex appeal is through a promotional video, which is the first thing you see on the firm’s homepage and which is easily found on YouTube. The slightly less than two-minute spot features an attractive young woman, wearing a short black dress and high heels. The actress’s words and actions exude sensuality, while an enticing instrumental arrangement plays in the background.

Granted, the ad doesn’t rely exclusively on sex appeal. There’s also a heavy dose of humor that seems like an attempt to offset some of the strong sexual innuendo. For instance, the main premise of the spot is that although consumers can’t get a free sample of Vice Cream, they can call the company’s “vice-line” and listen to “virtual tasters” describe in “sumptuous detail what it’s like to eat any of our delicious flavors.”

Of course, the unambiguous reference is to phone-sex, but the silliness of listening to others sensually describe ice cream downplays that allusion. Vice Cream also tries to take the edge off the sexual imagery by showcasing one rather unappealing virtual taster, “Gary,” who gets dropped by a caller who’s not aroused by his less-than-sexy product description.

Meanwhile, there’s also a smattering of profanity throughout the promotion, as the main actress lets slide “son of a [bleep] that’s good” and “F[bleep]’n Gary.” The spot censors the specific expletives, but it’s easy to understand what she’s saying.

What should we make of Vice Cream’s unabashed approach to confectionery marketing? On one hand, the company can be commended for not putting on pretenses. Yes, there are a handful of companies striving to make 'healthy' ice cream, like Halo, but ice cream is an indulgence, and Vice Cream calls it what it is. People tend to appreciate candid communication—even if it’s a little negative, at least it’s honest.

On the other hand, Vice Cream makes gratuitous use of sex to sell its products. Unlike a honeymoon vacation or Viagra, there’s no natural connection between ice cream and sex. As many other unscrupulous companies have done, Vice Cream tries to take the feelings people have for sex and, by way of classical conditioning, transfer them to its product.

Appetites for food and desires for sex are two separate things that can be disturbing, if not dangerous, to combine. Such an artificial pairing could be especially hazardous for adolescents, who, amid surging hormones and ravenous hunger, have enough to handle separately for each biological and physiological drive.

The addition of profanity only makes matters worse, particularly when one considers that anyone with an internet connection, from nine to ninety, can see Vice Cream’s ad. Users don’t need to verify that they’re 18 or older, for instance, to enter the company’s website or to watch the ad on YouTube.

Some may argue, “But the ad is supposed to be funny.” That may be true, but couching an ad or anything else in humor doesn’t cover-up the unseemly content. The sexualization and profanity are still easily seen and heard. To think that the humor makes them okay is like believing you can call someone a nasty name, then quickly disclaim, “I was just joking.”

Vice Cream looks delicious and probably tastes great too. Those positives likely explain most of the company’s rapid growth and early success. It’s okay for people to indulge in a decadent dessert every once in a while, but it’s never okay for companies to use sex gratuitously to sell products. For this reason, Vice Cream’s ingredient list also includes “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!

2 Comments

Dressing for Social Media

8/18/2017

7 Comments

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

Remember the first day back-to-school? Amid the excitement, there’s concern about classes, stress about relationships, and, of course, wondering what to wear. Social media has relieved some of that first-day wardrobe pressure in that people now post pics of themselves and others online all the time. However, that constancy also makes the stress about what to wear continual. One major retailer is tapping into the trend.

Department store icon Macy’s has introduced a promotional campaign that plays on teenage girls’ tendencies to seek affirmation through the pictures they post of themselves on social media. The ads, which appear on BuzzFeed, feature a variety of fashion photos, similar to those found on the retailer’s website for junior girls. The difference is the accompanying text, which makes an unambiguous social media appeal, for instance:

“Get ready to have a fashionable feed this fall, only with Macy’s.”
“11 Back-To-School Outfits That Were Totally Made for Social Media”
“You won’t blend into anyone’s feed dressed in this style trifecta.”
“Be an influencer and upload this cold-shoulder outfit.”
“Show off some shoulder and kitschy denim for a look that's guaranteed to get you the likes.”
“Make your #OOTD camera-ready with this edgy look.”
“There's #NoFilter necessary with this boho-chic style.”
“Get the double-taps in this fluttering floral outfit.”
“Make your followers starry-eyed in this influential outfit.”

From a strategic perspective, Macy’s can be commended for matching its tactics to its target market. So many people spend significant time on social media, as well as on websites like BuzzFeed, and teenage girls are among the most active users.

A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that “24% of teens go online “almost constantly,’” while 56% go online several times a day, enabled by the widespread use of smartphones. While teen boys are somewhat more likely to visit Facebook, teen girls are more often on Instagram and Tumblr. Overall, “Girls dominate social media,” while “boys are more likely to play video games.”

Frequent use of something is not necessarily a problem. Many people are heavy users of technology and other tools that help them do their jobs or manage their personal lives more efficiently and effectively. The problem is when those things become obsessive, which unfortunately is the way teen girls’ use of social media has evolved. A 2017 CNN article explains:

“It's not a law that you have to post a selfie before, during, and after every activity. But for kids, it's pretty much mandatory. The resulting likes, thumbs-ups, and other ratings all get tallied, both in the stark arithmetic of the Internet and in kids' own minds. For some -- especially girls -- what starts as a fun way to document and share experiences can turn into an obsession about approval that can wreak havoc on self-image.”

A survey titled “Children, Teens, Media, and Body Image,” provides some telling statistics that further detail teenage girls’ preoccupation with approval from others online:

“35 percent are worried about people tagging them in unattractive photos.”
“27 percent feel stressed about how they look in posted photos.”
“22 percent felt bad about themselves if their photos were ignored.”

For young women, the unfortunate outcomes of social media obsession are things like unhappiness, anxiety, depression, and over-sexualization, as a 2016 Time article explains: “One of the easiest ways to get that validation is by looking hot. Sex sells, whether you’re 13 or 35.” Some girls even post provocative videos of themselves on YouTube, asking others to answer the question, “Am I pretty or ugly?”

This troubling context casts Macy’s social media ad appeal in a much different light. While involvement in social media has many potential benefits, that participation has unfortunately turned into an addiction for some people, especially young women, who feel unique pressure to look good and to be liked online.

As such, teenage girls are probably the last people who should be promised that a certain outfit will “Make your followers starry-eyed” or that clothes will give “a look that's guaranteed to get you the likes.” When someone is struggling with an addiction, we shouldn’t tempt them with the very thing that’s holding them hostage. Macy’s ads aimed at a young female target market, however, are analogous to putting a beer in front of an alcoholic and encouraging him to “Take a drink.”

So, there are certainly significant moral concerns related to Macy’s promotion. There are also strategic ones. A review of the comments on BuzzFeed suggests that people are not enamored with the ads. Several of the posts mention that the outfits are more revealing than what most schools will allow. Moreover, it’s likely that Millennials are skeptical about such an overt pitch. These media-savvy and cynical consumers are already leery of ads, let alone ones that make improbable promises.

At first glance, Macy’s social media-connected ad campaign seems benign. Deeper analysis, however, suggests that the promotion could easily aggravate the target market’s already unhealthy social media obsession; that is, if the young women believe the ads. Consequently, the campaign looks like a case of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

7 Comments

E*Trade Encourages Envy

7/14/2017

0 Comments

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

People often point to advertising as the main influence on individuals’ buying decisions. Certainly ads can be effective, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many of them; however, another major influence on what we buy is other people, e.g., "keeping up with the Jones." E*Trade’s new ad campaign leverages the persuasive power of peers, but is the firm’s two-pronged promotion effective and ethical?

E*Trade bills itself as “the original place to invest online” and “the first to give Main Street the chance to trade like Wall Street.” The company has become well-known for empowering ordinary people to trade like professional stockbrokers. Instead of paying costly commissions, individuals who open E*Trade accounts put down just $6.95 per trade of stocks, bonds, and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and that fee drops to just $4.95 after 30 trades in a given quarter.

Do E*Trade and similar on-line trading platforms (e.g., Ameritrade and Scott Trade) work? They can, if you know what you’re doing. Online trading is much like do-it-yourself (DIY) home projects. Getting the tools to renovate your own kitchen is easy; using them properly is the hard part. Some, however, have been very successful using online trading tools, like the New Jersey high school student who turned $10,000 into $300,000 in about a year, by buying and selling on E*Trade.

This information provides an important backdrop for E*Trade’s new advertising campaign, as each spot features an unambiguous attempt to pit poor against wealthy. The commercials entice the “have nots” to long for the lifestyle of the “haves.”

For instance, in one commercial a young cubicle-dweller gets blown-off by his much more affluent boss, which launches the young office worker into imagining the extraordinary lives of the exceptionally well-to-do: lounging around lavish pools, hitting golf balls off yachts, doing donuts in super cars, feeding exotic pets, waterskiing behind helicopters, having food fights with expensive edibles. A music bed of “If I were a rich man” from Fiddler on the Roof plays beneath these and several similar clips, all culminating with an arousing call to action: “Don’t get mad, get E*Trade.”

The campaign’s other spots feature different video footage and music but suggest the same problem/solution: Your life is lacking because you don’t have what the rich have, but you can get it all with E*Trade.

What’s been the reaction to E*Trade’s campaign? Adweek gave it the designation of “Ad of the Day” for June 19, 2017, describing the ads as “remarkable,” while adding that the company “stokes rage at the 1%.”

Fast Company’s take was more critical: “By using opulence to sell its investment services, the online broker patches together a plutocratic vision of the American dream, ignoring how entrenched inequality is–and how much more difficult it is to overcome.”

In addition, CNET succinctly summarized the campaign’s ironic prescription: “The rich are awful, so use ETrade to become one of them. That seems to be the logic behind the company's new ad campaign.”

I tend to agree with these analyses and draw my own conclusion about the campaign’s mindfulness through a combination of these points and several new ones. Here are the five unfortunate outcomes I believe E*Trade’s ads inspire:

1. Unrealistic expectations. Certainly people can go from rags to riches by trading stocks, but how likely is it to happen? Making a fortune in the stock market requires considerable skill and some luck—much more than just opening an online account.

2. Envy: Benchmarking helps businesses get better by showing them how they might improve their products and processes. Personal comparisons, however, are often problematic, especially when they involve wishing for what others have.

3. Terminal Materialism: Money isn’t inherently bad; it depends on what one does with it. Many of its uses in the E*Trade ads, however, suggest owning for the sake of owning, vs. buying practical things (instrumental materialism), or using money to help others, e.g., paying for education, creating jobs.

4. Poor Stewardship: Beyond being impractical, much of the behavior the campaign glamorizes is overindulgent and outright wasteful.

5. Inaccurate Perceptions: While some extremely rich people live lives of ridiculous luxury, most are not so crass and careless with their spending. The way they became wealthy was not by being frivolous but frugal. Also, many use their money in ways that benefit others.

Against these points, some may argue that the ads are puffery, i.e., extreme exaggerations meant to be funny and not taken seriously. While some of the scenes are over-the-top, e.g., the all-out food fight among elites, most of the cuts are realistic and certainly could happen, if they haven’t already. For instance, a Google search of “helicopter water skiing” produces over a million hits, including a variety of real pictures and the story of a father who towed his son on water skis with a copter, to the chagrin of others.

Will the E*Trade ads be effective? Probably. As mentioned at the onset, the desire to emulate others, especially in terms of their possessions, is a very powerful one. Consequently, E*Trade’s appeal to become one of the very rich will strike a nerve with many, and the oversimplification of achieving the dream will help induce people to try online trading. As suggested above, however, the campaign rests on a foundation of deception, disrespect, and excess, among other indiscretions, which results in E*Trade earning this return: “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

Hotdog Heroes?

7/7/2017

0 Comments

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

What did you enjoy eating during your recent 4th of July celebration: a burger, some watermelon, a side of potato salad? How about 72 hotdogs? If you’re competitive eater Joey Chestnut, that’s exactly what you downed on Independence Day, in just ten minutes.

According to Nathan’s Famous, people have been gathering at its first hotdog stand on Coney Island, NY every July 4th since 1916, to see who could devour the most dogs. The first recorded contest came in 1972. Since that time, Nathan’s has built the event into a media spectacle that attracts contestants from around the world, draws over 40,000 spectators to Coney Island, and engages nearly two million viewers on the ESPN broadcast.

Yes, ESPN televised the event live, and SB Nation provided a thorough recap of the action. Does that mean that eating qualifies as athletics? If so, the United States, which ranks as the 12th most obese country in the world, might also be one of the most athletic!

Although we shouldn’t expect eating to become an Olympic event anytime soon, it’s helpful to understand exactly what competitive eating is and why it’s so popular:

“Competitive eating, or speed eating, is an activity in which participants compete against each other to consume large quantities of food in a short time period. Contests are typically eight to ten minutes long, although some competitions can last up to thirty minutes, with the person consuming the most food being declared the winner. Competitive eating is most popular in the United States, Canada, and Japan, where organized professional eating contests often offer prizes, including cash.”

Beyond individual participants, there are actual organizations whose mission is consumption as sport, most notably Major League Eating (MLE), “the world body that oversees all professional eating contests.” Its logo features a hand holding a fork. MLE’s website lists dozens of official eating contests ranging from oysters to ice cream sandwiches, with prize purses between $1,750 and $40,000. Chestnut has won many of these events, including Nathan’s contest 10 times, which gives new meaning to the saying “eat to live.”

Surprisingly, Chestnut, Miki Sudo, who ate 41 hotdogs to take the women’s title, and most other competitive eaters are not big people; they’re average-size, and some are even very fit. So, how do they eat so much? Here’ the basic strategy:

“Many competitive eaters, like those competing in the Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest, practice stretching out their stomachs for the main event by drinking gallons of milk or water very quickly, or by downing lots of filling, fibrous foods like watermelon and oatmeal in a matter of minutes.”

Nathan’s website goes on to explain the exercise and eating regimens of many of its contestants:

“Despite consuming mass quantities of high-calorie foods during competition season, most professional competitive eaters are very fit. Many contestants weight train and exercise vigorously to build muscle and increase their metabolism. Most also eat healthy, low-calorie diets after competitions. Why? Because their stomachs are so stretched out, they can no longer tell when they’re full!”

So, maybe competitive eaters are athletes who deserve more recognition for their accomplishments. Not so fast. It’s also important to consider the ‘damage’ they do to themselves and potentially others through their day-of-event activities.

For instance, Chris Weller of Business Insider wrote an article titled “The terrifying totals of calories, fat, and sodium consumed at Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest,” in which he presented the nutritional numbers for the 72 Nathan’s Famous skinless beef franks (4 kg) and 72 Ball Park hot dog buns (3 kg) that Chestnut quickly consumed this past July 4. Here are some of those statistics, which include the metric weights and their respective percentages of daily nutritional values:

Fat: 1 kg, 1606%
Saturated Fat: 360 g, 1800%
Cholesterol: 2 g, 667%
Sodium: 46 g, 1917%

To help put these numbers into perspective, that’s about 16 days’ worth of fat, 18 days’ worth of saturated fat, and over 19 days’ worth of sodium, all packed into a ten-minute timeframe. Of course, Chestnut and his colleagues aren’t downing those kinds of calories (19,433), every day, but if competitive eating is their job, they’re engaging in similar indulgence more than a few times a year. Even if someone exercises regularly and maintains a trim physique, it’s hard to imagine that kind of extreme consumption doesn’t take its toll over time.

Such overeating reminds me of a now-defunct television show I watched several times, not without misgivings: the Travel Channel’s “Man vs. Food.” In each episode, host Adam Richman visited a different city where he interacted with locals at a couple of their favorite restaurants and eventually took on a mammoth eating challenge, like a 5 lb. sandwich.

After four seasons of such extreme consumption, Richman retired from the popular series without offering a specific reason; although, some suggested there were “concerns over ensuring Adam Richman's health if the show had continued in its previous format.” Richman has since lost about 70 lbs.

Some may argue personal choice: “If people want to tackle food challenges as TV show hosts or as competitive eaters, it’s their prerogative. They’re only affecting themselves.” Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

While an individual’s gluttony does primarily impact him/her, it also affects others by virtue of the fact that we’re social beings who often learn from and emulate the behavior of others. That influence is greatly magnified when mass media share the actions, and it’s even worse when the destructive behavior is presented in a positive light.

The bottom-line is competitive eating glamorizes gluttony. Chestnut and other eating contest winners receive prize money and they’re lauded as champions. There’s nothing praiseworthy, however, about stuffing oneself with 72 hotdogs in ten minutes.

True, few rational people will attempt to consume the quantities of food that competitive eaters do, but they’re still teaching wrong attitudes toward food, e.g., that eating is sport and that it’s okay to continue consuming even after you’re full. Those are likely the kinds of beliefs that have helped place America 12th on the list of the world’s most obese nations.

Competitive eating comes into even poorer taste when one considers the hundreds of millions of people around the world who don’t have enough to eat. “The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 795 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2014-2016.”

According to Poverty.com, it’s estimated that “a person dies of hunger or hunger-related causes every ten seconds.” That means about 60 people passed away during the time it took the Nathan’s competitors to each down several dozen calorie-heavy hotdogs.

Competition is generally a good thing that brings out the best in people. Competitive eating, however, showcases an unseemly side of humanity—one that’s harmful to its participants, as well as to hosts of others. Given the great attention it receives each year, Nathan’s Famous Hotdog Eating Contest appears to be effective promotion, but the bad behavior it encourages makes the competition an example 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!

0 Comments

Scary Good Marketing

6/23/2017

0 Comments

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

Parents of young children face many challenges as they try to get their kids to do things they don’t want to do, like pick up their toys, take a bath, and go to sleep! Perhaps the biggest battle involves having them eat healthy food, especially vegetables. Is it possible that better vegetable marketing can make this age-old impasse a thing of the past?

When I first saw The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article titled, “How Schools can get Children to Eat their Vegetables,” I was skeptical. Generations of very capable moms and dads have tried for decades to push produce with relatively little success. How could school districts suddenly crack the code?

What’s more, I’ve spoken to groups about the simplistic approaches that some marketers take, trying to sell vegetables to young people. For example, several years ago an alliance of carrot farmers led by Bolthouse Farms spent a couple of million dollars on a marketing initiative aimed at positioning baby carrots as junk food.

The strategy relied heavily on promotion, including over-the-top television commercials and “extreme” packaging, but it did nothing to make the product itself more appealing to young people. Although media embraced the campaign and suggested it was successful in two test markets, several years later I still haven’t come across the rebranded carrots in supermarkets or seen anyone eating them.

Marketing aimed specifically at kids also can be a concern. Compared to adults, children have less developed cognitive skills and more limited life experience, which makes them more susceptible to marketing tactics based on deception, coercion, and manipulation.

So, I started reading the WSJ article about kids and vegetables with more than a little disbelief. The article did a good job, however, highlighting and synthesizing research results that in general found that kids were more likely to eat vegetables when schools employed several specific strategies. I’ve summarized those strategies here and categorized each (in parenthesis) using the traditional 4Pmarketing mix:

1. Putting vegetables at the front of the cafeteria: When children saw vegetables first, they were more likely to take them, as primacy effect would predict. (Place)

2. Offering vegetables as snacks: Another study found that timing mattered in as much as kids were likely to take vegetables when they were the only thing offered as snacks outside of regular meals. (Place)

3. Making food easy to eat: Children, especially those with braces, were more likely to eat fruit that was sliced into pieces, rather than try to eat a whole apple. (Product)

4. Creating an appealing presentation: Like adults, kids ‘eat with their eyes,’ which explains why children took more healthy food when it was placed in colorful bowls instead of in gray industrial tubs. (Product)

5. Using enticing promotion: Similarly, researchers at Cornell found that kids ate more fruits and vegetables when those items were promoted via attractive signage and brands (e.g., an Elmo sticker on an apple). (Promotion)

6. Tracking purchases: Two elementary schools in Chicago used digital technology to track the food kids took from the cafeteria line and what they threw away. As in a business environment, this kind of data proved valuable for deciding which menu items to keep and which to cut. (Product)

7. Hiring professional chefs: A key factor in making food taste good is its preparation. So, it’s not surprising that when experts were brought in either to cook the food or design menus, the vegetables tasted better and kids ate more of them. (Product)

8. Educating about vegetables: For many people, food will not make it into their mouth unless they know what it is. That’s why children who were taught about vegetables in their classrooms or on field trips were more likely to try them. (Promotion)

It’s worth noting that out of the eight strategies just described, two involved putting vegetables where and when it was most convenient for kids to eat them (i.e., Place) and four involved enhancing the vegetables themselves or their presentation (i.e., Product). Meanwhile only two of the strategies involved messaging designed to put a good spin on produce (i.e., Promotion). In contrast, promotion was by far the main focus of the ultimately ineffective baby carrots campaign described above.

So there’s empirical evidence to support that more systematic, serious marketing strategies can be effective in getting kids to eat vegetables, but what about the issue of marketing directly to children? Is it fair to use such tactics to target impressionable young people who are not seasoned consumers?

If that question were asked about many other, less edifying goods and services, the answer would be “no, it’s not right.” A society needs to protect people who might easily be taken advantage of by unscrupulous others. However, it’s hard to imagine anything but good coming from increased vegetable consumption, especially when the ones eating them are growing children.

There’s also a greater societal good here. The United States is suffering an obesity epidemic in which one in three adults is obese and another third is overweight. Meanwhile, about one in five school-age children (6-19 years old) is obese, which represents a threefold increase since 1970.

Of course, obesity poses serious health risks for individuals, e.g., high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and certain cancers. Aggregated across the population, such sickness presents a great strain on health systems and comes with considerable financial cost. In 2008, the medical costs of obesity were estimated at about $147 billion, while obesity-related absenteeism was believed to be responsible for lost productivity costing between $3.38 billion and $6.38 billion.

Furthermore, there is the social estrangement the comes with being obese. “Overweight and obese individuals are often targets of bias and stigma, and they are vulnerable to negative attitudes in multiple domains of living including places of employment, educational institutions, medical facilities, the mass media, and interpersonal relationships.” Add to this the unfortunate fact that kids are now experiencing body shaming at younger ages than ever.

Are vegetables the cure for obesity? No, but eating more of them and less of other food, especially simple carbohydrates, definitely helps. Likewise, marketing that is effective in getting kids to eat more vegetables is good because it is in the best interest of the children and society on-whole. In short, strategies that work to get young people to pick produce represent “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

How Caffeine Can Kill

5/30/2017

0 Comments

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

“Teen died from drinking too much.” Unfortunately, this recent, tragic headline from USA Today probably didn’t surprise many. Underage drinking is linked to the deaths of thousands of young people each year. This situation was different, however, because the teen wasn’t drinking alcohol. His death was caused by caffeine.

Davis Allen Cripe was a 16-year-old student at Spring Hill High School in South Carolina, who was described as a great son and a passionate person who loved music. He also had no known health problems. On April 26, Davis drank a McDonald’s café latte, a large diet Mountain Dew, and an energy drink within a two-hour timeframe. Soon after, he collapsed in a classroom.

Sean Cripe, Davis’s father, blamed the energy drink for his son’s death:
"Like all parents, we worry about our kids as they grow up. We worry about their safety, their health, especially once they start driving. But it wasn't a car crash that took his life. Instead, it was an energy drink."

It’s understandable for Davis’s father to be heart-broken over his son’s terrible and untimely death. It’s also reasonable for him to want to lay blame for his son’s senseless passing. However, is Sean Cripe justified in levying that level of responsibility squarely on the energy drink maker, particularly given that his son drank two other caffeinated drinks in a relatively short period of time?

Energy drinks in the U.S. represent a multibillion dollar market that is expected to hit $61 billion in sales by 2020. According to 2015 revenue reports, the leading players are Red Bull ($4.55 billion), Monster ($3.69 billion), and Rockstar ($820 million).

Among the reasons so many people purchase energy drinks are that they provide fast caffeine delivery, they come in a variety of flavors, they’re cold, refreshing, and convenient (they don’t need to be heated, like coffee), and they come in zero-calorie options. The previous stats and these benefits suggest that millions of people enjoy energy drinks with little or no ill effect, but that’s not the whole story.

According to the Mayo Clinic, most healthy adults can consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine a day: the equivalent of 10 cans of cola, four cups of brewed coffee, or two “energy shot” drinks. By comparison, a 1.6 oz. Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bar contains just 9 mg of caffeine, and a 12 oz. Mountain Dew has 55 mg. Several of the energy drinks with the highest caffeine content come close to the 400 mg limit, for example:

Rage Inferno – (24 oz.) 375 mg of caffeine
Spike Energy Drink – (16 oz.) 350 mg of caffeine
Wired X344 Energy Drink – (16 oz.) 344 mg of caffeine

Consuming too much caffeine can result in side effects like migraines, insomnia, nervousness, irritability, muscle tremors, and fast heartbeat. Caffeine overconsumption also can lead to stroke, cardiac arrest, and death. According to the coroner who examined Davis Cripe, he died from “a caffeine-induced lethal cardiac arrhythmia.”

But, maybe Davis’s death was an anomaly. Are there really that many others who suffer serious consequences from energy drinks? Unfortunately, the answer is ‘yes.’ In 2016, “there were more than 20,000 emergency room visits attributable to the ingestion of energy drinks,” which represented a doubling of the number of reported cases over the last decade. In other words, the problem is increasing.

What makes matters worse is that young people disproportionately endure the negative impact, partly because energy drink makers often target younger demographics, as evidenced by the use of neon colors, sensational names (Rockstar, Full Throttle), and edgy promotion (“Red Bull Gives You Wings”).

It’s estimated that 30 to 50 percent of children, adolescents, and young adults consume energy drinks and that “almost one-third of teens between 12 and 17 years drink them regularly.” They are “the most popular dietary supplement consumed by American teens and young adults” next to multivitamins.

Of course, young people are physically and developmentally different than fully-grown adults, meaning added risks from consuming energy drinks, which have no nutritional value and are high in calories and sugar. In fact, “the World Health Organization has stated that energy drinks ‘may pose a danger to public health,’ and the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that ‘children should not consume’ these drinks.'”

Unfortunately, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate or even evaluate the safety of energy drinks because most manufacturers don’t label them as food but rather as dietary supplements, sidestepping the agency’s scrutiny. It’s shocking to realize that for these reasons there are no health warnings, and “energy drink companies don’t even have to reveal how much caffeine each drink can contains.”

What’s worse, energy drink makers often position their products alongside exercise and other physically demanding activities, which is especially enticing to active and competitive young people. In reality, energy drinks and exercise don’t mix, as the highly-caffeinated beverages have a diuretic effect that causes dehydration. Even worse, energy drinks’ have a propensity to increase one’s heart rate and blood pressure at the same time that high caffeine levels “may reduce arteries’ ability to increase the blood flow necessary to bring more oxygen and nutrients to the heart.” Teaming such outcomes with exercise can be fatal.

Another potentially lethal energy drink additive is alcohol, which, of course, impairs judgment. Diminished sobriety is always dangerous, but that risk is magnified when an intoxicated person also feels an extra rush of adrenalin. A lack of life experience may make the energy drink/alcohol combination an even more volatile cocktail for young people, thereby putting themselves and others at risk.

Although extremely high, the caffeine content of energy drinks is not always the highest among commonly consumed beverages. For instance, several Starbucks’ coffees contain over 300 mg of caffeine, and one specific brew is especially egregious: A Starbucks Blonde Roast, venti (20 oz.), has a whopping 475 mg of caffeine.

So, energy drinks aren’t the only offenders, but a major difference, again, is that their makers often target young people and position the drinks as complements to strenuous physical activity, without offering adequate warning of the potential risks.

Davis’s dad is justified, therefore, in implicating an energy drink in his son untimely passing. Optimistically, energy drink makers will do some serious soul-searching related to their roles in such tragedies. More realistically, regulatory agencies need to intervene and exert their influence on this very serious “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Carl's Jr. Says Goodbye to Sex

5/19/2017

1 Comment

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

Some things in life are certain: death, taxes, and super-sexualized ads from Carl’s Jr. Surprisingly, one of the three is changing, and it’s not death or taxes. Yes, Carl’s Jr. has finally decided to put an end to erotica and curtail its notoriously risqué commercials.

If you haven’t experienced firsthand the chain that claims to be “the Pioneer of the Great American Burger,” you might be familiar with its sister brand, Hardee's, or you may have seen one of the many Carl’s Jr. ads that have aired nationally. More than burgers, Carl’s Jr. has become known for very sexually provocative TV commercials that show significant skin of young, attractive women, and little food.

Although it seems like the ads have been airing forever, Carl’s Jr.’s foray into promotional profanity began in 2005 with a 60-second spot that featured Paris Hilton in an extremely revealing bathing suit, washing a Bentley, while taking a brief bite out of a spicy barbecue burger. Over the next twelve years, dozens of other women reprised the same stereotypical role of sex object in a variety of settings, such as a volleyball court on the U.S.–Mexico border, a farm, and a football stadium. While some of the women were celebrities (e.g., Kate Upton, Heidi Klum, and Kim Kardashian), others were less famous women put in the same sorts of compromising positions.

As recently as this past fall, Carl’s Jr. was still airing sexually explicit ads. One of the last spots was for its Bacon 3-Way Burger, which featured three, similar-looking, bikini-clad, blond models, seductively cooking and feeding each other bacon. Meanwhile, background music set a very lascivious tone, including super-suggestive lyrics: ‘’Hey, girls whatcha doin’ this weekend? We should stay in and have us a threesome.”

Then, out of the blue, Carl’s Jr. did an about-face: no more sex in ads. When a friend of mine first told me of the change, I couldn’t believe it. I clicked on the link he sent me to a new 3-minute Carl’s Jr. commercial that presents a fictionalized reason for the reversal. To summarize the supposed story, Carl Hardee Sr. returns to the business, cleans up Carl Jr.’s philandering, and resumes control of the business with a back-to-basics focus.

Even after watching this spot, I was still incredulous, thinking that the new Carl’s Jr. promotion was probably just a ploy. However, I’ve since done more digging and found it’s true: The company has decided to stop using sexually explicit ads and to start emphasizing its products. The change is certainly a welcome one, but it also left me wondering ‘why'? More specifically, what caused Carl’s Jr. to make such a drastic course-correction?

I hoped to hear that the restaurant chain had realized the error of its ways—that it now understood the need to respect women rather than objectify them and that it no longer wanted to lead its largely young male target market into self-destructive and relationship-wrecking lust. Unfortunately, however, the motives for the change appear to be more self-seeking than other-oriented.

A recent Washington Post article shared excerpts of an interview with Jason Norcross, executive creative director and partner in 72andSunny, the agency responsible for Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s advertising over the past eight years. In the interview, Norcross explained, “It was time to change. Those [sexually-charged] ads just weren’t driving business as they once did.” Norcross added that the chain, which had become better known for its advertising than for its food, needed to compete more effectively against companies like Shake Shack and Habit Burger Grill.

Carl’s Jr. and its ad agency can be commended for making a data-driven, results-minded business decision. Organizations need to consider relevant consumer behavior and competitive forces, then act strategically in order to stay afloat; otherwise, there are no products for customers or jobs for employees.

What’s disheartening, however, is that the company hasn’t shown any regret for its past, longstanding and destructive indiscretions. Yes, the fictionalized return of Carl Hardee Sr. is somewhat redemptive, but the ad’s humor (e.g., “then that lady got in there and her clothes flew off”) makes light of a truly reprehensible, twelve-year run of dehumanizing women and misguiding men.

What’s worse, there’s no indication, from Norcross’s comments or from the new commercial, that Carl’s Jr. would refuse to return to its prior salacious promotion if it appeared at some point that sex could again be used to sell hamburgers. If/when racy ads once more become effective in “driving business,” it looks like Carl’s Jr. would be back on board with super-sexed ads.

It’s good that the airwaves and other advertising spaces will be free of smutty spots from Carl’s Jr. for the foreseeable future and that there will be a proper focus on product, which may help the chain regain market share. It would be even better if the company had articulated genuine and serious support for societal values like decency and respect. It’s a tough call, but in lieu of such a commitment, Carl’s Jr. current strategy stays in the category 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!

1 Comment

The Wrong Place to Race

4/28/2017

2 Comments

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

When you’re in the market for a new car, what do you want: good gas mileage, safety, reliability, style? How about acceleration from 0 to 60 in 2.3 seconds and speed of 140 mph? You may be thinking, “I want to get to work fast, but not that fast.” Well, you could carve minutes off your commute with the new Dodge Demon.

Dodge, a division of Fiat Chrysler, recently announced the Demon, an 840-horsepower ultimate muscle car it calls “A Beast Unlike Any Known to Man.” That extreme title is more than puffery. The bold claim is backed by an array of outrageous automotive features that together produce such superlatives as:

Highest horsepower of any production car
Fastest 0-60 time of any production car: 2.3 seconds
Fastest 0-100 time of any production car: 5.1 seconds
First wheelie by a production car

What’s a production car? They are “mass-produced identical models, offered for sale to the public, and able to be legally driven on public roads (street legal).” In other words, they’re the vehicles in front of and behind us on highways. They’re the ones pulling up next to us at stop lights. They’re the cars that any of us can buy and drive around town.

So, why does someone need a ‘monster’ like the Dodge Demon to drive back-and-forth to school or work? It seems like using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. Of course, a similar question can be asked about other cars, e.g., Does anyone really need a Lamborghini, a Lincoln Navigator, or a Lexus to get from point A to point B?

There is a key difference, however: Dodge has designed the Demon for one specific purpose—drag racing. That’s the reason for the “superlatives” listed above and the reason the company’s own website says:

“Race-Ready”
“Every feature was chosen to optimize drag strip performance. That’s why the Dodge Challenger SRT® Demon is equipped with 315/40R18 Nitto NT05R™ drag radial tires.”
“Built for the drag strip”
“Designed with drag races in mind”
“The Dodge Challenger SRT® Demon is designed for one thing: dominating the quarter mile. These essentials will help ensure you get to the stripe first, win some trophies and put the other guy on the trailer.”

Of course, other companies also make dragsters, and some of those cars are much faster than the Demon: “Top Fuel dragsters are the quickest accelerating racing vehicles in the world and the fastest sanctioned category of drag racers, with the fastest competitors reaching speeds of 335 miles per hour (539 km/h) and finishing the 1,000 foot (305 m) runs in 3.7 seconds.”

Again, however, there’s an important difference: You can’t take these Top Fuel cars or most other dragsters onto the street, but you can easily do so with the Demon. This Dodge car can run legally on regular roads. Therein lies the problem. Public streets in cities, towns, and even rural areas, aren’t meant for solo vehicles traveling over a hundred miles per hour, let alone a couple of cars racing each other. What’s more, other vehicles and pedestrians inevitably cross paths with street racers, resulting in disastrous outcomes.

A quick web search of “street racing accidents” produces images of some of the most mangled automobiles you’ve ever seen, as well as continuous stories of people tragically impacted by races gone wrong. Here are some of those headlines:

“Arrest made in street racing accident that killed 3.”
“Father, daughter killed in street racing accident.”
“More than 60 people witnessed fatal L.A. street race.”
“2 Killed, 1 Injured in Fiery Street-Racing Crash.”

But, does Dodge or any automaker deserve blame for these foolish accidents? After all, individuals with more bravado than brains use all sorts of tricked out cars for street racing, especially Honda Civics and Toyota Camrys, which happen to be the top selling sedans in America. These car companies don’t make or promote their vehicles for street racing, yet some consumers go to great lengths to use them that way.

Dodge, however, is no innocent bystander to street racing. As described above, the company purposely manufactures and promotes the Demon for drag racing, which could just mean the relative safety of closed-course stadiums, but it doesn’t. Consider some of Dodge’s other messaging that is specific to street racing on the site www.dodge.com/en/ifyouknowyouknow/:

An initial video clip briefly shows a young man waving what appears to be a starting flag on what looks like a nighttime street.
Even less subtle, Tim Kuniskis, Head of Passenger Car Brands for Dodge, introduces the Demon by saying: “We have a duty . . . to literally leave our mark on the strips and streets of America,” and “This is the most technologically-advanced, street-legal, production drag car ever.”

One can argue that those words and images are fanciful, not intended to be taken literally, or that they’re inconsistent with the corporation’s culture, but even the mission and values of Fiat Chrysler advocate “competition” and taking “risks.” These principles take on an eerily ‘demonic’ meaning when considered in the context of street racing.

Finally, there’s the car’s name and related branding. Most car names have a positive or neutral connotation, e.g., Accord, Daytona, Envoy, Expedition, Explorer, Focus, Malibu, Odyssey, Park Avenue, Pathfinder, Sedona, Tacoma, etc. “Demon,” however, carries a decidedly negative and even evil association, which Dodge reinforces with the car’s logo and other visual identifiers.

On one hand, a name is only what you make of it. On the other hand, if you call your son Spike, you’re charting his path for him. Similarly, naming a car “Demon,” suggests some disregard for law and morals.

I must admit: I’m not a car guy; my knowledge of things automotive is limited. However, a more expert source has offered a similar opinion. In a recent editorial, Automotive News has called for a ban on the Demon saying that “Dodge is wrong to offer a purpose-built drag racer as a road-legal automobile.” The piece goes on to suggest that the company “places bragging rights ahead of public safety.”

Unfortunately, even with such significant safety concerns, Dodge will likely find owners for all of the 3,000 Demons it plans to offer for the 2018 model year at a price of nearly $100,000 each. As Forbes suggests, “Speed always sells in the new-car business, and being able to boast having the ‘world’s fastest production car’ guarantees Dodge magazine covers and millions of fanboy followers.”

So, in the end, Fiat Chrysler wins, as do the adrenaline-seeking street racers who buy Demons. Meanwhile, the general public bares the risk of the “Beast,” suffering Dodge’s decision to use “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!

2 Comments

Soda Diplomacy

4/14/2017

0 Comments

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

Gifts are important parts of relationships, whether they’re a diamond solitaire for engagement or a gold watch at retirement. Such presents communicate commitment, kindness, and appreciation. So, why has Kendall Jenner’s gracious gifting during her recent Pepsi ad received such an icy response?

The two-and-a-half-minute video depicts some kind of protest—it’s hard to tell what. A throng of broadly diverse, yet uniformly young and attractive, activists take to the streets carrying signs with such ambiguous messages as “Love” and “Join the Conversation.” They look more amiable than angry.

The growing crowd captures Jenner’s attention even as she’s immersed in a photoshoot. Eventually the populace appeal becomes too great: She pulls off her bleach-blond wig, wipes off a layer of red lipstick and joins the people in protest.

As she strides in solidarity, an idea strikes her. She grabs a can of Pepsi from a conveniently located container and confidently approaches a handsome young policeman, standing guard during the dispute. The officer accepts Jenner’s gesture, cracks open the can, and takes a swig. His smile and “awe shucks” reaction causes the crowd to erupt in elation. Problem solved, the commercial closes with the Pepsi logo and the tagline “Live Bolder. Live Louder. Live for Now.”

Pepsi’s ad appeared well-intended, so why the strong social media backlash and the skewering on Saturday Night Live? By handing the can of Pepsi to the policeman, Jenner seemed to be extending an olive branch. Many people and entire nations have used gifts in similar ways to promote peace, e.g., China’s gift of giant pandas Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing to the U.S. in 1972; the U.S. reciprocated with a set of musk oxen.

Of course, there’s a big difference between a pair of majestic animals and a can of cola, but Jenner’s ad wasn’t the first advertising that presented soda as a means of mending. In the classic 1979 Super Bowl commercial that ranks as one of the best of all time, a young Pittsburgh Steelers fan innocently offered an injured “Mean Joe Greene” his bottle of Coke, lifting the dejected defensive tackle’s mood and leading him to toss his jersey to the elated lad: “Hey, kid; catch.”

That iconic and still very popular ad ended with the tagline “Have a Coke and a Smile,” which is exactly what millions of people did. Coca-Cola saw a 19.2% increase in sales from 1979 to 1980, not all due to the commercial, but the ad undoubtedly played a part.

So why did people spurn Pepsi’s Jenner ad when Coke’s Mean Joe commercial was so successful? There are two related reasons:

1. Believability
The storyline of the Mean Joe ad was plausible and its filming was realistic. Granted it was still somewhat of a fantasy—not every fan who approaches a famous athlete receives such a generous response; yet, even today, we hear of instances in which kind-hearted sports stars very pleasantly surprise their followers. For instance, at the recent Masters tournament, Matt Kuchar hit a hole-in-one from the 16th tee, signed the ball, and gave it to an ecstatic young fan.

In contrast, so much about the Jenner ad seemed implausible or looked unreal: What are the chances that Jenner would be doing a street-level photoshoot exactly where a protest pops up? How likely is it that someone of Kardashian fame would spontaneously join the march because a passerby caught her attention and motioned her in? What’s the probability that a police officer in such a tense situation would accept a soda from a stranger, drink it, and flash that kind of silly smile? Plus, there’s the inauthentic appearance of the protesters and their peculiar signs.

2. Reasonable Purpose
Certainly, both Coke and Pepsi wanted their commercials to sell soda. Whether or not it was intended, the Mean Joe ad also served to promote empathy and kindness, even between individuals of different ages and races. Initiated by an innocent child, that purpose was plausible. Even now, if any of us would politely offer a cold drink to a thirsty stranger, we’d probably receive a similar warm response.

Jenner kindly offered a cold Pepsi, but the viewing audience overwhelming rejected her efforts—why? Part of the reaction stems from the spot’s farfetched features, described above. Moreover, the ad tried to do too much. Soda can legitimately support positive interpersonal interaction, as it did for Coke. Pepsi, however, seriously over-projected its influence, thinking that a cola could curb civil unrest or enact social justice. Such issues are too big and complex, even for Mean Joe to tackle in an ad.

Those who see Pepsi’s failed ad as an ill-advised attempt to profit from the struggles of real protestors can rightly call the company’s advertising “Mindless.” However, if we give the cola maker the benefit of the doubt and believe that it really wanted to support positive change, we might view the ad as an ineffective yet well-intended example of “Simple-Minded Marketing.”