Category: Promotion37eb4ea826

What Does "Meat" Mean?

6/1/2019

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

Girl Scout: “Is this [lemonade] made from real lemons?”

Wednesday and Pugsley, seated at their lemonade stand: “Yes.”

Girl Scout: “I’ll buy a cup, if you buy a box of my delicious Girl Scout cookies.”

Wednesday: “Are they made from real Girl Scouts?”

This dark humor from the 1991 comedy movie The Addams Family may scare up a few laughs, but it’s actually a good example of the product name debate that has many people asking, “Does a burger have to be meat?” and “What makes milk, milk?”

Hamburgers are to blame for the most recent round of debate. A few weeks ago, Burger King started testing a “meatless Whopper,” a vegetable-based patty that contains heme, “a protein cultivated from soybean roots that mimics the texture of meat.”

Veggie burgers have been around for a long time, but thanks to business partner Impossible Foods, founded in 2011 by Stanford biochemistry professor Patrick Brown, the newest generation of vegetable patties not only taste much more like meat, they even bleed like beef.

Burger King isn’t the only fast food chain seeing potential in a plant-based future. McDonald’s has started selling a McVegan burger and vegan McNuggets in Europe, Del Taco will begin to offer meatless tacos, and White Castle and Red Robin are already serving meatless burgers.

For years, nutritionists have been telling us to eat less meat and more vegetables, so what’s not to like about the growing selection of ‘plant food’? The concern is that the new nomenclature, like the word meatless, confuses consumers.

For instance, Nebraska’s farm groups have lobbied for a more restrictive use of the word meat: “any edible portion of any livestock or poultry, carcass, or part thereof.” As one of the nation’s leaders in commercial red meat production, the state has a real “steak” in ensuring that consumers do not migrate away from ‘real’ meat.

Last October, Missouri became the first state to legislate that anything that doesn’t come from “harvested production livestock or poultry” cannot be called meat. That goes for lab-grown meat, like Finless Foods is creating by taking cells of dead fish, putting them in pretri dishes, and cultivating their division into edible protein.

The dairy industry has faced similar and even more far-reaching name-related challenges. For about the last two decades, producers of traditional cow’s milk have witnessed a surge in competition from the likes of almond, cashew, hemp, oat, rice, and soy “milk.” According to Mintel, dairy milk sales declined by 15% from 2012 to 2017, all while non-dairy milk sales increased by more than 60%, with almond milk grabbing a 64% share of the market.

It was in this context that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb remarked that almond milk shouldn’t be called milk since “an almond does not lactate.” Shortly thereafter, the FDA opened a public comment period, inviting consumers and industry members to share their opinions on the milk-naming debate.

The FDA is justified in asking whether there’s been slippage in the “standards of identity” that ensure consumers understand exactly what they’re purchasing. That’s its job. However, the agency would do well to look back much further than the last 20 years, for instance, to 1626 when Francis Bacon observed that certain plants “have milk in them when they are cut.” Likewise, in the late 1700s, the Encyclopedia Britannica published that “the emulsive liquors of vegetables may be called vegetable milks.”

The fact is, people have been using the word milk to refer to similar-looking white liquids for centuries, if not much longer, from a wide variety of sources. Consider, for instance, milk from coconuts, as well as milk from other animals like goats and camels. Indeed, “nondairy milks [have] abounded in many other cultures across the globe.”

Furthermore, meat and milk are far from the only names that have been extended to describe a broader range of products. Take another common dairy product—butter. Peanut butter is entirely plant-based (no dairy), yet the FDA carved out an exception because the product's creamy texture resembles butter and because few people would be eager to purchase “peanut paste.”

It’s not to say that anything goes, i.e., that industries and companies can feel free to call their products whatever they’d like. However, names needn’t be limited to one narrow product category, provided that they serve at least one of the following legitimate functions:

Identify who makes or sells the product, e.g., Avocados from Mexico, Starbuck’s
State for whom the product is intended, e.g., Children’s Tylenol, Dove for Men
Describe what’s in the product, e.g., wheat bread, whole grain pasta
Identify key product features and/or benefits, e.g., fat-free yogurt, Sketcher’s Relaxed Fit
Describe the product’s consistency, e.g., chunky peanut butter; Silk Soy Milk
State the product’s intended use, e.g., Hamburger Helper; Liquid Plumber

Most importantly, neither the product category name nor the brand name should mislead a reasonable consumer. The labels listed above probably aren’t confusing to you or the vast majority of people who read them because marketers and our culture in general have done good jobs educating us about the words’ meanings

So, most Americans know “meatless” means a product does not contain meat. Likewise, as attorney Justin Person has said, “If a consumer is confused about the source of a product labeled ‘almond milk,’ then he has bigger problems than being confused about which milk to buy.” Reasonable people also know that Girl Scout cookies don’t contain Girl Scouts.

It’s not surprising that the beef and dairy industries want to preserve exclusivity for their product category names. However, given that consumers aren’t confused by broader-based naming and may even be helped by it, it looks like the two industries are doing little more than protecting their own livelihoods, which makes their name-related lobbying “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

Preying on Older People

4/5/2019

0 Comments

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

As I chatted with prospective students and their parents at a luncheon in our college’s cafeteria, I suspected that something wasn’t going well for one of the families. While others talked and laughed around the table, one mom seemed distracted, checking her phone and whispering with her daughter. Then suddenly she stood up, apologized for needing to make a call, and walked quickly from the room, leaving us to wonder what was wrong.

Sometime later, she returned to the table with a look of relief. After others left, she told me what had happened. Her own mother, a senior citizen, had received a ‘distressed’ phone call from someone claiming to be her grandson, who said he was sick and needed money. Confused but ready to act, the grandmother called and left messages for her son and for her daughter, the mom at our table, who fortunately was able to explain to her mother that someone was trying to trick her.

I told the mom I was very sorry to hear what had happened and was glad she was able to intervene. I also said I could empathize because the same thing had happened to my mother just a couple of years before! Then the real irony of the situation hit me. Here was a family, attending a luncheon to talk with a professor about marketing, all while they became the victims of a ‘telemarketing scam.’ How could their college visit and any interest in marketing be redeemed?

People do some terrible things under the auspices of “marketing.” Granted, most people are probably quick to differentiate this type of telephone scam from any legitimate business; still, these calls and others involving more or less manipulation form a continuum that many likely lump together as telemarketing. Allow me to paint a picture of that spectrum as I see it, then I’ll return to the targeting the older consumers.

On one end of the scale, call it the left, are calls like the one described above, or worse. Some extremely ruthless individuals conduct “virtual kidnappings” in which they contact victims by phone or social media messaging and pretend they have abducted one of their loved ones in order to collect a ransom. Kidnapping is illegal and considered immoral by most rational people, so it’s nonsensical to support it as legitimate business or valid telemarketing. The practice also involves blatant deception and coercion in that the perpetrators lie to their victims and exert pressure to try to force them to act.

On the opposite, or right, end of the continuum are examples like this one: Your bank calls to ask if you’d be interested in a home equity loan or a great rate on a certificate of deposit, etc. You may or may not appreciate such calls, but you do know your bank is a legitimate business that can follow through fairly on its offerings. Furthermore, if product descriptions are accurate and you don’t feel forced to accept them, there is no deception or coercion.

Occupying the middle of the spectrum are a variety of other phone calls with different degrees of deception or coercion. For instance, at our home we regularly receive calls “about our electric bill.” The voicemail messages are vague enough to make me wonder if they’re from our current utility provider, wanting to correct some kind of billing mistake. However, I realize it’s actually some other company, hoping to gain our business.

Those types of calls are probably not coercive, i.e., if I ever spoke with one of their representatives, I could freely choose whether or not to make a switch. The initial calls, however, are deceptive and, therefore, unethical, which is not a good way to begin a business relationship or any other relationship.

Also in the middle of the scale are calls that say your computer’s software is out of date or it memory is running low, etc. Most of us recognize that those claims are untrue and there’s no way such outsiders could know if they were. So, most people see through the deception, ignore the coercion, and dismiss the calls as scams. However, not everyone does.

Not as technologically savvy as those in the younger generations, many older folks are unsure if the supposed computer issues are real or how serious they may be. So, their relative lack of knowledge makes them more easily deceived. Furthermore, concern that something bad may happen to their computer can coerce them to take unneeded action. Fortunately, however, many senior citizens will first call one of their children, grandchildren, or other trusted individual and ask their advice.

Any of us can be duped about products/services that we don’t know well. For older individuals, there’s the added challenge of declining mental and physical faculties. Their minds often aren’t as sharp as they once were. They may not process information as quickly or remember as many details, both of which can negatively affect their decision making.

In addition, declining physical skills further complicate decreased cognitive capabilities. As we age, our vision and hearing decline, which can prevent us from doing things like reading small print on product packages or catching every word a phone caller says. For these reasons older people are particularly vulnerable to illegitimate forms of telemarketing.

That last sentence and my earlier bank example point to my opinion that, despite the many bad examples, there are legitimate forms of telemarketing, namely ones that provide a fair value to consumers, that use honest communication, and that allow freedom in response, all while respecting individuals’ home lives. For instance, someone in need of extra money may appreciate a phone call from their bank informing or reminding them that it offers a good rate on home equity loans.

In contrast, telemarketing that’s fraudulent is against the law. Title 18 of U.S. Code § 1343 identifies such illegal activity as wire fraud, which involves any interstate or foreign commerce that uses electronic communication to gain “money or property by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” Using the phone to scam people is a “common example” of wire fraud. Those found guilty of wire fraud are subject to fines as high as $1 million and up to 30 years in prison.

However, fraudulent telemarketing is not just illegal, it’s also unethical. It’s deceptive to mislead others about who’s calling and the nature of the call. Similarly, it’s coercive to play on people’s emotions and/or to apply unnecessary time pressure in order to force quick action. It’s especially abhorrent to do those things to individuals who are more vulnerable to such tactics.

So, how did this professor try to help marketing save face with a family and young person considering a career in the field? I explained that such occurrences of coercion and deceit don't represent marketing's core tenet of mutually beneficial exchange. At the same time, such examples are good reminders that those of us in marketing need to work harder to distance such illegitimate behavior from proper practice of the discipline.

I also mentioned Mindful Marketing and the possibility of writing a piece related to the incident for the blog. We talked about more typical college visit items afterward, but as the family was leaving, the mom’s attention returned to the telemarketing scam, and she suggested it would be good if I’d write about those issues.

When Gallup presents its annual research about the honesty and ethical standards of various professions, telemarketers typically rank near the bottom of the results. There are legitimate forms of telemarketing, but phone scams aimed at our moms, grandmas, and other older people certainly aren’t among them. Given that these practices hurt those targeted and can land the perpetrators in jail, such schemes make it easy to call them “Mindless Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Paying with Your Personal Brand

3/23/2019

1 Comment

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

It was shocking to hear the news: TV’s beloved “Aunt Becky” charged with fraud in “the biggest college admissions scam ever prosecuted in the U.S.” Most people understand that a business model based on bribery is wrong, but there’s another angle to this story that's relevant to each of us, as marketers of ourselves.

To summarize the scandal, Lori Loughlin, who played Rebecca Donaldson-Katsopolis on the classic ABC sitcom Full House and the Netflix sequel Fuller House, and starred in the Hallmark's When the Heart Calls, was one of fifty people implicated in the admissions scandal that also netted actress Felicity Huffman, known for her role in ABC’s Desperate Housewives. The mastermind of the manipulation was Rick Singer, CEO of The Key, which promised to help “the wealthiest families in the US” get their children into some of the country’s most prestigious colleges.

Many tutors, SAT prep courses, and other admissions aids honestly and legally help students improve their chances of acceptance to their preferred colleges. So, how did Singer run afoul of the law? He allegedly helped his clients’ children cheat on ACT and SAT tests, and he bribed college athletic department personnel so they would claim that certain students were recruits for their teams, even when some never played the sport in question.

However, perhaps the most devious thing Singer did was create “The Key Worldwide Foundation,” which was supposedly a charity that funded programs for underprivileged children in the U.S. and abroad. In reality, the Foundation served as a front for money-laundering, or a way for the wealthy to pay Singer who then channeled bribes to accomplices on college campus that included USC, Yale, and New York University, among other prestigious schools.

As someone who works in higher education, has one child who recently graduated from college, and has another who is currently making his college decision, the admissions scandal hit close to home. However, the scandal is even more unsettling to me as a marketer.

No, I’m not just talking about what Singer did. His bad decisions to build a business based on cheating and bribery and to operate a fake foundation were certainly appalling and surprising. What was even more amazing to me was the apparent ease in which he secured willing parties to the schemes, not just from the general population but from those representing high society and higher education—people who stereotypically ‘should know better.’

In addition to accomplished actresses Loughlin and Huffman, alleged scandal participants include an array of elite professionals from business, academia, and other fields. Some of the specific individuals implicated, along with their current or former positions, are:

Rudolph Meredith, head women’s soccer coach at Yale University
John Vandemoer, sailing coach at Stanford University
Igor Dvorskiy, director of West Hollywood College Preparatory School
Gordon Ernst, head tennis coach at Georgetown
Donna Heinel, a senior associate athletic director at USC
Jorge Salcedo, the head coach of UCLA men’s soccer
Gordon Caplan, New York attorney and co-chairman of the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Gregory Colburn, a radiation oncologist in Palo Alto
Robert Flaxman, chief executive and co-founder of Crown Realty & Development, and a Beverly Hills resident
Homayoun Zadeh, associate professor at USC’s Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry and director of the school’s Advanced Program in Periodontology

Why would so many smart and talented people risk their reputations and/or careers to associate with Singer. The motives were likely mixed. Of course, many of the participants were parents who may have been willing to do anything to see their children succeed. Those who accepted bribes, probably wanted the money. Some may have felt pressure to assist for the good of their institution. Maybe some saw or heard of others doing similar things and rationalized ‘there’s safety in numbers.’

Whatever the motive, I doubt that many of the participants, if any, seriously thought that they would get caught. If they did, they probably wouldn’t have participated. Instead, they operated under the delusion that what could be hidden from public view didn’t matter.

That misconception is one of the biggest fallacies of marketing, in general, and personal branding, specifically. In an article I wrote a couple of years ago, I aimed to debunk that myth by suggesting that a personal brand consists of three elements: character, competencies, and communication. I likened the first two components to the layers of a cake and the last one to its icing.

Some individuals erroneously act as if they can overcome flawed character and inferior skills by spreading on a thick layer of overly flattering or even disingenuous communication. Besides being dishonest, this approach only works for so long. Eventually cracks in ‘the cake’ show through the communication. Unfortunately for them and others impacted by their indiscretions, those involved in the college admissions scandal seemed to subscribe to this hollow approach to personal branding.

As I was writing this blog post, my wife shared with me some very sad news. A good friend of ours from early in our marriage had passed away suddenly at home, at the age of 58. Mark Sneff was someone who built his personal brand the right way. Even as he developed his competencies to rise to the top of the HR profession, his character exuded integrity. Mark also was uniquely gifted at communicating “the truth in love”: He could offer an honest critique that felt like a high compliment.

As the outpouring of fond remembrances on his LinkedIn page suggests, Mark was a widely loved individual who many held in high regard. I’m not sure he thought much about personal branding. I am very confident, though, that he never would have resorted to a ruse to advance the educations or careers of his two children, who he loved greatly. Interestingly, Mark was the first person I ever invited to speak to my college classes.

It’s so nice to know people who ‘market themselves’ the right way. The recent college admissions scandal should be a reminder that it only take a moment to destroy a personal brand that took decades to build. Unfortunately, that fact means that Loughlin and all who participated in Singer’s schemes, not only injured themselves and others, they’re also guilty of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Just Blew It

2/23/2019

43 Comments

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

The stage for a college basketball game couldn’t get much bigger: two top-ten teams in a packed arena, one of the best rivalries in all of sports, several projected NBA draft picks in the lineup, two hall of fame coaches on the sidelines, the likely NCAA player of the year on the court, and the 44th president of the United States in the stands. Then a piece of footwear malfunctioned, and the stock price of the world’s most iconic sports brand took a dive.

This past Wednesday, #1 Duke hosted #8 North Carolina for one of the most highly-anticipated men’s college basketball games in recent memory. Tickets were selling at Super Bowl-like prices, not just to see the two storied programs clash, but also to witness what was sure to be a marquee performance by one of the most talented and exciting college athletes ever—Duke’s Zion Williamson.

Just an 18 year old, standing 6’ 7” and weighing 285 lbs., Williamson’s unique combination of extraordinary basketball skill and incredible athleticism had captured the attention of all college basketball fans, international news media, and every NBA team, making him the odds-on favorite to be the first choice in the league’s next draft. Then the unimaginable happened.

Just 33 seconds into the game, Williamson received the ball, took a few dripples, planted his foot near the foul line, and fell awkwardly to the floor, while a look of pain raced across his face. As those watching gasped, the cause of the slip quickly became apparent: Williamson’s foot had burst through his Nike sneaker. Camera footage even caught former President Obama, pointing to the court and saying “His shoe broke.”

The story spread like wildfire over traditional and social media, as sports analysts, basketball fans, and others reacted. Many expressed amazement at the occurrence. Rival sneaker maker Puma tweeted snarkily “wouldn’t have happened in the pumas.”

Nike execs were undoubtedly reeling from what must have felt like their worst nightmare: The best known player in college basketball and a likely NBA superstar had just suffered an injury because of their shoe. Not only did the chances of signing Williamson to a future multi-million-dollar endorsement deal drop precipitously, the endless images of the prodigy wreathing in pain with foot popped through the side of his Nikes, was a picture that athletes and other sneaker buyers would not soon forget.

Nike did wish Williamson well: “We are obviously concerned and want to wish Zion a speedy recovery.” The same company spokesman added, “The quality and performance of our products are of utmost importance. While this is an isolated occurrence, we are working to identify the issue.” Still, the day after the blowout, Nike’s stock fell by 1.05%.

Was Nike simply the sufferer of a very unfortunate accident at one of the worst possible moments? Probably not. It seems that Williamson’s shoe blowout could have been predicted and prevented in light of previous player experiences, as well as others’ product reviews.

In 2016, the foot of Orlando Magic’s Aaron Gordon blew through the side of some Nikes when he landed after a dunk. Two years earlier, in the same NBA season, Golden State’s Andrew Bogut, the Spur’s Manu Ginobili, and the Sixer’s Tony Wroten, all experienced major Nike malfunctions.

Of course, one can argue that Williamson and these professional athletes put more strain on a pair of basketball shoes than the average sneaker wearer does, which is probably true. Many average wearers, however, also have experienced quality issues with their Nikes. Some have been frustrated enough to upload their sneaker stories to YouTube, for instance:

One consumer shows how the soles separated from the rest of his $200 Nikes after limited wear.

Another tells how several different pairs of his Air Jordans have fallen apart after moderate use.

A golfer shows how the soles came off his new-looking Nike golf shoes while playing.

Another user shows how his Nike Shox are falling apart after about six months. He laments, “I spend so much money on a shoe, and this is what it comes down to. I thought better of Nike, but this is what it is, y’all.”

Besides these sad stories, others have posted about similar durability issues with their Nike Air LTD’s, their Nike TN’s, and their Nike SB Diamond Dunks.

Four years ago Nike pulled the Lebron 12 from the market on the day of its scheduled release due to quality concerns. About three years ago KicksOneTwo noted ongoing quality control issues with Nike sneakers.

But, Nike’s annual footwear revenue is over $21 billion, which means it sells hundreds of millions of shoes a year, so aren’t there bound to be some production problems? Yes; however, it’s curious that in so many of the defect videos, the problem is the same even for different kinds of Nikes—the shoes just come apart, similar to the way they did for Williamson and for the NBA players mentioned above.

I’ve also had a similar experience with the brand. It had been several years since I’d gone running, when I decided to put on an old pair of Nike running shoes I owned and take a jog around the neighborhood. It wasn’t long into the run when I started to hear an unusual noise and feel a flapping under my feet. I soon realized the soles were falling off my running shoes. Granted, it was an old pair of sneakers. Still, I’ve owned many different styles and brands of athletic shoes over the years, including ones that I’ve worn much harder, but that’s been the only time anything like that has happened to me.

So, maybe Nike does have quality issues that need to be addressed, but some may be wondering what they have to do with the company’s marketing? Well, effective marketing involves much more than what a company says, or communicates.

Every marketing students learns the four P’s of the traditional marketing mix: product, place, promotion, and price. A primary objective of an entire organization, not just its marketing department, should be to ensure that each “P” meets the target market’s needs, as well as the organization’s goals, ultimately creating a mutually beneficial exchange.

However, if a company’s product is deficient in some way, it may overcompensate with another P, often promotion, which reminds me of a metaphor I've used before—baking a cake. Sometimes a cake comes out of the oven with cracks, which can be hidden with a layer of icing. The deeper the cracks, the thicker the icing needed to cover them.

It seems that Nike shoes on whole have some “cracks,” which the company has adeptly covered over the years through enticing layers of communication, ranging from highly-produced TV commercials, to prominent team sponsorships, to superstar endorsers.

That’s not to say that Nike’s value proposition is just a façade—not by a long shot. The company generally makes good quality products that serve people well, otherwise it wouldn’t be the world’s most valuable sports brand. Still, a significant number of people probably do buy into Nike more because of the icon’s icing than the consistency of its cake.

I still haven’t seen from Nike a true apology to Williamson for the shoe blowout. Saying that it wishes him well and promising to investigate the issue do not constitute a confession. Perhaps for legal reasons, Nike really hasn’t taken ownership of the incident.

No company or product is perfect; accidents happen. However, even for a company as big as Nike, the reoccurrence of such high-profile product malfunctions should give everyone pause, from the guy wanting to jog around his neighborhood to the next NBA superstar looking to ink a multi-million-dollar shoe deal. Nike will recover from the latest incident, but the injury to Williamson and the damage to the company's brand make what led up to the shoe blowout “Mindless Marketing.”

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

43 Comments

Whole Grain Isn't the Whole Story

2/8/2019

30 Comments

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!

30 Comments

The Best an Ad Can Get?

1/26/2019

31 Comments

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

When I was growing up, our family had a small, easily-provoked dog. He was responsible for holes in many pairs of my socks from times I tried to slip past him while he was in an especially protective mood. The person he guarded was my mother because she made sure he had food. Our dog knew better than to ‘bite the hand that fed him.’ I wonder, was our pet smarter than one of the world’s leading consumer products companies?

If you haven’t seen it, Gillette, the global purveyor of men’s personal care products, recently released a video ad titled “We Believe: The Best a Man Can Be.” The 1:49 minute commercial doesn’t push razors, rather it’s an image-building ad that renounces two contemptable behaviors that some men commit: sexual harassment and bullying.

The ad showcases an array of mainly scripted clips in which males, some old, some young, enact a variety of despicable acts like groping women and punching their peers. Meanwhile, a chorus of other men chants a unison refrain of rationalization, “Boys will be boys.”

The ad’s narration and text overlays provide corrective commentary:
“We believe in the best in men.”
“It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more that we can get closer to our best.”
“We are taking action at thebestmencanbe.org”

In many ways, Gillette’s messaging makes sense. The company has taken a stand against two terribly wrong and destructive behaviors and called out the men who commit them. Using a powerful quote from actor-turned-sexual-harassment-activist Terry Crews, the ad also encourages every man not to stand idly by when they see such reprehensible actions but to intervene: “Men need to hold other men accountable.”

Despite all the apparent good, the commercial has quickly become a lightning rod for controversy. Dozens of media, from Advertising Age, to Glamour, to USA Today, have run articles about the ad. As one might imagine, some commentary from the authors as well as from the general public has been positive, while other responses have been quite negative.

For instance, @pstdavid_ tweeted, “Finally got a chance to see this #GilletteAd. Quite honestly, I don’t get what all the fuss is about. In my opinion, they’re not “taking a stand on toxic masculinity” or ‘stealing your manhood.’ All they’re suggesting is that you be a decent human being. It’s not that difficult.”

Another Gillette consumer, however, tweeted a picture of his hand poised above a trash can, about to discard the Gillette razor he received on his 18th birthday and used for the past 15 years, including through basic training and four deployments. (1) The soon-to-be-former customer lamented, “since @Gillette thinks I’m a bad person, I’m throwing it away.”

Another user, @davidliedtka, took an even more extreme approach, placing his Gillette shaving creme and razor in an oven and setting the temperature to 505 degrees.

Wow. Those are strong reactions. Does Gillette or any organization that’s trying to right serious social wrongs deserve such reprisals?

The first time I saw the commercial, my reaction was generally positive: A strong brand that has built a solid reputation among millions of men was using that influence to ask them to be better. Such a plea from a huge corporate player might stand a chance of making a difference in our world. Still, there were things about the spot that didn’t seem right.

A second time through the ad, I noticed more of the agency’s specific creative decisions. For instance, while the spot’s small amount of real video footage worked, the many acted segments looked overly artificial and contrived, even though they depicted terrible events that unfortunately occur. The use of both real and scripted video seemed like a mismatch.

I hadn’t thought much more about the ad, until one of my marketing students emailed me a link to another company’s commercial that was purportedly a response to Gillette’s ad. The next day he asked if I had watched the ad. I had been very busy, so I replied I hadn’t but I was looking forward to seeing it soon.

That night I opened his email and clicked the YouTube link, which took me to an ad posted by Egard Watch Company. Viewing the 1:57 minute commercial just once, changed my perspective of Gillette’s ad.

Egard’s commercial opens with several male firefighters battling an inferno, then quickly cuts to one of them carrying a young girl safely away from the flames. Meanwhile, a narrator asks, “What is a man?” The ad continues with a wide variety of real video clips, many showing men doing very difficult or even dangerous physical labor, while the narrator poses additional questions like “Is a man brave?”, “Is a man a protector?”, and “Is a man disposable?”

The spot also shares some very sobering statistics, such as:

Men account for 93% of workplace fatalities.
Men comprise over 97% of war fatalities.
79% of all homicide victims are male.
Men account for 80% of all suicide victims.

The commercial concludes on a positive note, asking “Is a man trying?” and offering the company’s view of masculinity: “We see the good in men.”

As marketer, I realize that the right music with moving images can tug at one’s emotions; however, Egard’s ad resonated with me, and perhaps the 324,000 people who have liked, it for another reason. Egard reminded us of the many men in our lives that we have known and loved.

The ad caused me to remember my grandfathers: one a coalminer, the other a farmer. To support their families, both did very hard, physical work that must have greatly tested both their bodies and their minds. Having experienced the ravages of WW II, my father-in-law, emigrated from Ukraine, to Brazil, to the United States, where he worked for over 30 years in a bearing factory as a tool and die maker—labor that likely explains his great loss of hearing today. My own father was not able to finish high school, yet he started his own business at age 25 and worked tirelessly with my mother to earn enough to put four children through college.

None of these men were/is perfect. Neither is their grandson/son—I’ve made plenty of mistakes; although, I don’t think I’ve done anything that someone could call bullying or sexual harassment. Most men probably can say the same. Most of the mistakes we make are not because we’re men; they’re because we’re human.

The problem with Gillette’s ad is that it stereotypes men. Not all males act like Harvey Weinstein or ‘Scott Farkus,’ the bully from A Christmas Story. In fact, the vast majority do not. Of course, Gillette’s ad doesn’t directly say that all men are sexual predators or bullies, but it does put all men in the same stereotypical boxes through some subtle visual and verbal suggestions.

One such insinuation in Gillette’s spot is the seemingly infinite lineup of men, all standing behind their BBQ grills with arms folded, chanting in unison, “Boys will be boys.” The ad’s narration also makes a stereotypical suggestion by tagging onto Crew’s “Men need to hold other men accountable” quote, adding: “ . . . accountable to act the right way; some already are, in ways big and small. But some is not enough.” I’d like to reiterate the belief that it’s most men who are acting the right way, not some.

Another Twitter user, Melissa Chen (@MsMelChen), who self-identifies as Asian, supports the suggestion that Gillette’s ad stereotypes men. She says:
“I can get behind the message that we all can be better. But the #GilletteAd ended up painting an entire demographic with a negative stereotype perpetuated by a few. Imagine the uproar if it was an ad about a racial group with higher crime rates saying, “‘you can be better.’”

Of course, on top of all this analysis is the fact that men are Gillette’s main target market.* Its iconic tagline is “The Best a Man Can Get.” Given that our family’s dog knew better than to bite the hand that fed him, it’s hard to imagine why one of the world’s biggest brands would want to risk ‘cutting the faces it shaves,’ especially when already on the ropes in a fight against Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club.

One instance of bullying or one case of sexual harassment is one too many. As such, Gillette can be commended for taking a stand against those injustices and for suggesting that others do the same. However, the company should have known much better than to unfairly throw its entire target market under the bus with broadly generalized talk of “toxic masculinity.” It’s wrong to degrade others in any way, including by negatively stereotyping, which makes Gillette guilty of “Mindless Marketing.”

*An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Gillette does not make products for women.

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

31 Comments

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

1/12/2019

18 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!

18 Comments

Targeting Teens for E-Cigarettes

11/30/2018

35 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!

35 Comments

Just Divided over Nike's New Ad

9/9/2018

43 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!

43 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.”