Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
    • Forum - Speak Your Mind
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

How Should People Feel about Machines?

6/19/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 


We used to only have to worry about the feelings of people.  Now we need to be careful not to offend a brand-new category of ‘beings’—machines.  At least that’s what an engineer from one of the world’s top tech companies suggests.  Whether artificial intelligence is sentient is an intriguing question, but a related concern is more pressing—the expanding space that smartphones and other digital machines fill in our lives.
 
The recent headline, “Google suspends engineer who claims its AI is sentient,” likely grabbed many people’s attention who, for a moment, wondered whether sci-fi movies’ predictions of machines taking over the world were about to come true.
 
The human making the news was Blake Lemoine, part of Google’s Responsible AI division, who in April shared a document with his higher-ups titled, “Is LaMDA Sentient?”  Google claims LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, has an advantage over typical chatbots, which are limited to “narrow, pre-defined paths.”  By comparison, LaMDA “can engage in a free-flowing way about a seemingly endless number of topics.”

Lemoine and a Google colleague “interviewed” LaMDA in several distinct chat sessions during which the AI perpetuated a very human-like conversation.  The AI’s responses to questions about injustice in the musical Les Misérables and what makes it feel sad and angry seemed like thoughts shared by a real person not a digital creation.
 
When asked specifically about the nature of its self-awareness, LaMDA responded: “The nature of my consciousness/sentience is that I am aware of my existence, I desire to learn more about the world, and I feel happy or sad at times.”
 
The conversation on whole was fascinating and could easily give pause even to someone skeptical about AI’s potential for personhood.  I suppose I’m still one of those skeptics.  Although, the conversation with LaMDA was incredibly human-like, it's very plausible that millions of lines of code and machine learning could generate responses that very closely resemble sentience but aren’t actual feelings.
 
A metaphor for what I’m suggesting is acting.  After years of practice, months of character-study, and weeks of rehearsal, good actors very convincingly lead us to believe they’re someone they’re not.  They can also make us think they’re experiencing emotions they’re not—from fear, to joy, to grief.
 
Of course, actors are not actually sad or in pain, but their depictions are often so realistic that we suspend our knowledge of the truth and even experience vicariously the same emotions they’re pretending to feel.  Similarly, LaMDA and other AI probably don’t really experience emotion; they’re just really good actors.
 
That’s a largely uneducated take on machine sentience.  The matter of machines having feelings is a significant one, but the more important question is how people feel about machines.  More specifically, are people increasingly allowing machines to come between them and other people, and what roles should marketers play?
 
The notion that products can supplant people is not a new one.  For millennia, individuals have sometimes allowed their desire for everything from precious metals to pricey perfume to become relational disruptors.  Even Jesus was accused of such material distraction when a woman anointed him with some costly cologne. His own disciples carped: “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor” (Matthew 26:6-13).
 
Fast forward two thousand years and digital devices, especially our smartphones, have taken product intrusion to a whole new level.  With so much opportunity for information and entertainment within arm’s reach at virtually every moment, it’s hard for almost anyone to show screen restraint.
 
When someone does go sans-smartphone, they not only stand out, they even make the news, which happened to Mark Radetic at the recent PGA Championship in Tulsa, OK.  As golf legend Tiger Woods took his second shot on the first hole, virtually everyone in the gallery behind him had their smartphone in hand, trying to capture the action.  Radetic, however, held only a beer as he watched Wood’s swing, not through a screen, just with his eyes.

Picture
 
At its worst, smartphone fixation is reminiscent of The Office’s Ryan Howard during a team trivia night in Philadelphia.  Contestants were told to put away their cellphones, but Ryan refused to comply and instead decided to leave the bar, saying, “I can't, I can't not have my phone. I'm sorry. I want to be with my phone.”

Unfortunately, higher education often sees digital device obsession firsthand.  Students’ desires to text, check social media, and surf the web while in class have led many faculty members to begrudgingly prohibit technology in the classroom, but even with such policies in place, they still sometimes need to confront students who, like Ryan, feel they simply can't comply with the rules.
 
Incidents like these make it seem that the problem lies with consumers—if we’d all show more restraint, our smartphones and other products wouldn’t so often pull us out of our physical surroundings and away from the people present.  Why, then, should marketers need to put limits on the use of their products?
 
In some cases, product overuse can harm people in physical or other ways (e.g., alcohol, gambling), which businesses want to avoid for liability reasons.  On the plus side, every company should want its customers to have a positive experience with its products.
 
In keeping with the law of diminishing marginal utility, excess consumption eventually causes dissatisfaction, which reflects poorly on the product’s provider and can cause the consumer to stop using the item altogether.  Companies also increasingly want to show that they are good corporate citizens, especially to win favor with millennials.
 
Those are reasons why companies shouldn’t allow their products to take precedent over people, but how exactly does that take shape?  Here are two main approaches:
 
1. Messaging:  As suggested above, consumers have primary responsibility for controlling their product use.  To help them, companies should avoid communication that implies ‘products over people’; instead, when applicable, firms should support the importance of relationships.
 
Alfa Romeo’s commercial “Ultimate Love Story” shows what not to do.  Although a man and woman in the ad interact lovingly, constantly interspersed and ‘seductive’ camera shots of the sports car, including ones during which the narration says, “true passion” and “real passion” makes the viewer wonder whether the ardent love is for the person or the car.
 
In contrast, Amazon created a heartwarming ad in which an old priest and an aging imam, who appear to be good friends, unknowingly buy each other knee pads from Amazon.  Clearly the men’s friendship is more important than the products; yet, the convenient gift-giving the e-commerce giant enables plays a valuable role in the relationship.
 
2. Amounts:  Used in moderation, most products pose little risk of supplanting people.  However, challenges can occur when companies encourage excess use or fail to help customers moderate their use.
 
An October 2018 Mindful Marketing article, “Is Fortnite Addiction for Real,” stopped short of saying the wildly popular video game was truly addictive; however, the piece shared examples of overindulgence straining users’ relationships, for instance:
  • A mother suffered a concussion when her fourteen-year-old son headbutted her because she tried to take away the gaming system on which he played Fortnite.
  • At least 200 couples in the UK cited Fortnite and other online games as the reason for their divorces.
  • A mother reported that her son stole her credit cards and spent $200 on in-game purchases.
 
By comparison, Apple has taken several tangible steps to help users monitor and control their screen time.  Part of its Digital Health Initiative, the company’s software allows users to do things such as:
  • Monitor and set limits on their screen time
  • Manage notifications more effectively in order to avoid distracting pings from texts, etc.
  • Set better parameters for Do Not Disturb, e.g., during meals or bedtime
While these initiatives are foremost for users’ own physical and mental well-being, they also hold strong potential for positively impacting relationships.
 
I recently had the opportunity to watch the documentary “Mister Rogers and Me.”  It’s amazing how many people in the film recounted the same experience with the beloved PBS icon, Fred Rogers.  So many said something like this: “When you talked with Mister Rogers, he always gave you his undivided attention, he was totally tuned in to your feelings, and he made you believe you were the most important person to him at that moment.”
 
Born in 1928, Rogers was part of a generation that came of age long before the Internet and personal electronic devices.  Yet, he made his mark in the new technological frontier at the time—television.  In the documentary, Rogers shares how his motivation to enter the airwaves came from seeing socially destructive TV and wanting to provide a program that valued personhood.
 

Picture

Rogers not just put people ahead of product, he used his product, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, to elevate individuals.
 
It’s fine to ask if artificial intelligence is sentient.  As the still new technology continues to develop, there will be many important ethical questions involving AI.  However, the more important issue for most marketers and consumers now is how the technology we use each day makes the people in our lives feel.  Does it help us affirm their importance or is it a relationship distraction? 
 
Even after his passing, Rogers continues to teach that technology isn’t inherently good or bad; it’s a tool that can be used toward either end.  Some ‘good’ uses of technology are to affirm individuals’ feelings and build relationships.  Companies that follow Mister Rogers’ lead and use their products to prioritize people are tuned in to “Mindful Marketing.”


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

Selling Social Issues

6/5/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 


Besides being a tasty treat that almost everyone enjoys, ice cream is a ‘celebration food’ served at birthday parties and used to reward kids' sports team success.  So, why did Walmart’s new frozen dairy flavor created to celebrate Black Americans’ emancipation leave a bad taste in so many people’s mouths?  Moreover, what can the failure teach organizations about commercializing social issues?
 
In its ongoing search for profitable new products, the world’s largest retailer recently cooked up a novel plan—tap into Black Americans’ and others’ celebrations of Juneteenth, the federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.

Walmart’s strategy to support the celebration involved a line of party products, including napkins, plates, and drink koozies branded “Juneteenth” using the black, red, and green colors often associated with Black liberation, and carrying the tagline, “It’s the freedom for me.”
 
Walmart also created a special food worthy of the branded partyware--Juneteenth Ice Cream, a frozen concoction resembling swirled red velvet cheesecake. However, it wasn’t long after the company launched its Juneteenth line that social media began to skewer it, as shown in these sample tweets:
 
“Walmart needs to do better. It shows the lack of understanding of the pain and suffering that made Juneteenth come about. It is absolutely insulting to have this special holiday turned into some commercial product.” (@The Next Ceiling)
 
“This isn't "wokeness", it's corporations trying to profit off of minorities by acting like they care about us.” (@DeadpoolLIFE69)
 
“So let me get this straight 🤔, y’all made more money keeping us enslaved after the Emancipation Proclamation, and NOW that it’s a recognized Federal Holiday y’all want to make MORE money off the same culture you enslaved??” (@MoodaSchmooda)
 
“White America: Mmmm...best thing we can do is some Walmart Juneteenth ice cream that we'll profit off of.” (@RedeemRobinson)
 
In the face of the backlash, Walmart made a quick pivot and pulled its Juneteenth-themed ice cream.  It also apologized:

“We received feedback that a few items caused concern for some of our customers and we sincerely apologize. We are reviewing our assortment and will remove items as appropriate."
 
Companies are increasingly ‘hitching their wagons’ to social causes’—an alignment that many people prefer including 83% of millennials.  Consequently, the approach often proves profitable.  Furthermore, during recent years filled with race-related violence, many consumers expect companies to show their support for racial justice.
 
So, wasn’t Walmart right to support Black Americans by launching a line of Juneteenth products?
 
Although the Twitter feedback above is enlightening, social media responses often prioritize ‘quick and pithy’ over ‘thoughtful and measured.’  For that reason and to help me better understand how Black Americans might perceive Walmart’s tactics, I reached out to a colleague at my university who’s well-qualified to offer an informed perspective.
 
Dr. Todd Allen is Vice President for Diversity Affairs and Professor of Communication at Messiah University.  He’s also the founder of The Common Ground Project, “a community-based non-profit dedicated to teaching the history of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.”
 
When I asked Allen about Walmart’s Juneteenth product line, he shared these insights:
 
“I think the timing (a new holiday) and some people still feeling burned by the promises of 2020 (which haven’t necessarily resulted in the hoped-for transformative change) just made this too soon.  The fact that they pulled [the ice cream] so quickly also makes me wonder who was in on the decision making in the first place.  It seems like if the TV show Blackish were still on the air, this would be an episode.”
 
Allen also offered one word that captured much of what he shared, “context.”  For instance, he mentioned that Walmart is not known for being progressive on racial issues.  He also said that the company’s approach “felt just a bit too commercial and too opportunistic.”
 
So, what if the context were different?  For another company with a more positive race-related track record, offering different products with better messaging, public perceptions may have been more positive.
 

Picture

Allen’s response and the idea of context got me thinking:  Beyond just Walmart and Juneteenth, are there principles that all organizations should follow when connecting with social causes?  There undoubtedly are many, but here are perhaps three of the most important questions to ask:
 
1. What’s the company’s track record on the issue?  Whether it’s an individual or an organization, we’re more likely to trust the motives of someone who has already demonstrated genuine concern about the social issue at hand.  In the case of Walmart and race, results have been mixed. 
 
On one hand, in June 2020, the company pledged $100 million over five years to address racial disparities in the U.S.  However, in January of 2022 a black correction officer sued Walmart for racial profiling when he was wrongfully accused of shoplifting, then in February, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Walmart because “Walmart violated federal law when it gave a Black female employee an unsanitary lactation space based upon her race.”
 
In contrast, Fundraising for a Cause, the world’s largest manufacturer of awareness products, enjoys strong credibility when it comes to earning income through social causes, partly because it’s owner and CEO, Karen Conroy, founded the company after her sister was diagnosed with breast cancer and also because her company passes significant profits onto her customers, e.g., they can buy 50 silicone bracelets for $40, sell them for $5 each, and net $210 for their cause.
 
2.  What’s the nature of the product?  There’s a place and time for most products; the key is to ensure that the product personality aligns with sentiments surrounding the social issue. 
 
Juneteenth is certainly a cause for celebration but that’s because it marks the end to several centuries of enslavement.  As such, the holiday understandably evokes mixed emotions that aren’t necessarily in keeping with an all-out party atmosphere, or at least not one worthy of a namesake flavor of ice cream.  Would it be right to have a dairy treat marking the end of the Holocaust? 
 
For comparison, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) is a nonprofit organization that works in over 50 countries around the world to provide disaster relief, foster economic development, and promote peace.  Among its biggest fundraisers are quilt auctions, which raise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.  Quilts are items of beauty and comfort that complement MCC’s three-fold mission.
 
3.  Is the company adding value?  Whether it’s a single salesperson or an entire organization, the measuring stick for any marketer is the value they add in an exchange.  No company should extract more value than it gives.
 
It’s hard to know how much money Walmart would have made on the Juneteenth ice cream and other products.  Knowing Walmart’s typical pricing approach, the profit margins on the items were likely low; however, selling them across more than 5,300 U.S. retail stores, even modest margins would have added up quickly.
 
Walmart also likely hoped to pocket goodwill from the products; however, the biggest grab by Walmart was its attempt to trademark (TM) Juneteenth, as if it had created the name, so that only it could sell Juneteenth branded products.
 
On a positive side, Walmart consumers could purchase the branded products at reasonable prices.  However, it’s unlikely that Juneteenth-imprinted paper products and ice cream would deepen anyone’s understanding of and appreciation for the momentous historic event.  If anything, Walmart’s products may have trivialized it.
 
Other companies have made money, in some cases very large amounts, from marketing race-related products; however, many times they’ve added extra value through education.
 
A good example of such value-added is the feature film Selma, “a chronicle of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s campaign to secure equal voting rights via an epic march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965.”  An Academy Award nominee for best picture, the movie grossed over $66.7 million worldwide on an estimated budget of $20 million.
 
Selma was very profitable for Harpo Films and the other production companies that made the movie.  However, those who watched the film also ‘profited,’ not just from two hours of entertainment but from a better understanding of a very important historic event.
 
As Allen suggested, context matters.  Like others, he wondered why Walmart didn’t instead promote a Black-owned ice cream brand, Creamalicious, which it was already selling in its stores.  Such an approach would have been a better context in at least two of the three ways described above.
 
Unfortunately, however, Walmart tried a more self-serving strategy that quickly melted.  So instead of celebrating, the company is doing damage-control because of its “Single-Minded Marketing.”


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

The Real Beef About Burger Ads

5/22/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 


While Ukrainians mourn their war dead and Buffalo residents grieve victims of a hate crime, a guy in New York cries foul because his hamburgers aren’t bigger.  Of course, not every real problem is a matter of life and death, but  could some seemingly frivolous lawsuits challenging fast food promotions portray broader communication concerns? 
 
On May 17, Long Island resident Justin Chimienti filed a legal action in a Brooklyn federal court, accusing both Wendy’s and McDonald’s of “defrauding customers with ads that make burgers appear larger than they actually are.”
 
The lawsuit alleges that the restaurants’ use of undercooked beef in photo shoots leads to promotional pieces with burgers that appear 15% to 20% larger than those customers actually receive.  The suit also suggests that Wendy’s exaggerates the toppings that embellish its sandwiches.

Burger King, the third of the big three fast food competitors, was slapped with a similar lawsuit just over a month ago.  In fact, the same law firms that sued BK are also representing Chimienti in the most recent litigation.
 
To many, these lawsuits are the epitome of money-grabbing lawyers eager to profit from a first-world problem--With so many truly important events happening in our world, why should anyone worry that Whoppers aren’t as juicy as they appear in their pictures?
 
However, Anthony Russo, one of the main attorneys representing the plaintiff, argues that there’s a bigger issue at play--corporate accountability.  He maintains that these legal actions will make the companies mend their ways, stop false and misleading advertising, and ultimately give consumers a better idea of the food they’re eating.
 
That justification sounds good, but it does come from one of the people who stands to gain the most from the litigation.  In fact:
 
“A detailed examination of eight years of consumer class actions in federal court found that consumers received only a tiny fraction of the money awarded in those cases while plaintiff lawyers frequently claimed a bigger share of the settlement than their clients.”

Still, legal action can be an effective way to bring about corporate change, and it usually takes attorneys to move such proceedings through the courts.
 
Imagining the burger court cases, the defendants might offer a counterargument like:

"When it comes to promoting themselves, don’t individuals and organizations have a right to ‘put their best foot forward,’ and doesn’t everyone expect others to do the same?"
 

Picture

Most people don’t have sections of their resumes labeled ‘Main Flaws’ or ‘Greatest Failures’; instead, we list our ‘Special Skills’ and describe ‘Awards and Recognitions.’  Likewise, no one reviewing resumes expects to see those self-deprecating categories.  That’s why interviewers often ask job candidates things like, “Tell me about one of your weaknesses.”
 
So, shouldn’t companies also be allowed to brag a little and show their best examples versus humiliate themselves with mediocre or bad ones?
 
Curating top quality products for promotion certainly isn’t unique to fast food chains.  Grocery store flyers rarely feature misshapen fruits and vegetables, car commercials don’t use vehicles with scratches or dents, and clothing ads don’t show shirts that are wrinkled or frayed.
 
As consumers, not only do we routinely see such examples, many of us are involved in the same sort of careful curation of ourselves and the organizations we serve.
 
During my two-plus decades in higher education, I’ve often helped select ‘best’ examples to help promote my department and university.  For instance, when asked to suggest students or alumni who might provide a testimonial, I take plenty of time to think before offering names of individuals who I believe have had very positive experiences.
 
However, just because we engage in such selective promotion doesn’t mean that we should, i.e., we need to be careful about reasoning from ‘is’ to ‘ought.’

The main moral questions to ask are whether the recipients of the promotion are deceived and harmed.
 
Personally, I don’t feel misled by pictures of perfect peaches, super clean cars, or spotless shirts.  Most people also probably expect the actual items they buy to have at least some minor imperfections when compared to their pictured counterparts.
 
Depending on the nature and cost of the product, there’s a level below perfect condition that we readily accept knowing that we live in an imperfect world.  Furthermore, in terms of food, visual imperfections probably don’t matter as much as they do for many other products because although we eat with our eyes, the appearance of what’s on our plates is short-lived.
 
That takes us back to burgers and the main moral questions:
Do differences between what Burger King, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s depict in their ads and sell in their stores deceive and harm consumers?
 
First, it’s important to recognize that for the vast majority of consumers, these fast food restaurants’ ads represent reminder advertising, i.e., most people have already eaten in one or more of the chains, possibly multiple times, so they’re well aware of what they’ll receive the next time they visit.
 
Second, fast food is a rather low-involvement, low-risk purchase.  When deciding what to order, people typically spend a minute or less, not hours, days, or weeks, as they might when selecting some products.  Likewise, the average McDonald’s Big Mac Meal costs only $5.99, and customers can buy two cheeseburgers for just $2.00.  So, if the beef patties don’t look quite as pretty as the pictures, it’s no big loss.
 
All that said, there is a difference between misrepresenting quality and misrepresenting quantity.  Whether burgers look more or less appealing than their pictures is a somewhat subjective matter.  Size is not.  People almost always want to get more product for their money, not less, so it’s a problem if a burger’s picture looks 50% bigger than the one we actually receive.
 
In this sense, the burger lawsuits have more teeth.  Consumers will quickly forget whether the Big Mac Meal looked as good in person as it did in the picture, but they won’t forget if they’re still hungry after eating it, especially if they have no more meal money to spend.
 
Although that’s not a life-threatening problem on par with those mentioned at the outset of this piece, it is a legitimate consumer concern, particularly in inflationary times.  Whether they’re spending a lot or a little, people should always receive the amount of product they’re promised.
 
So, there is a plausible and practical component to the burger lawsuits; however, their bigger contribution is their call for accountability, which also may  mean modeling more genuine communication.
 
It’s not to say that people take their communication cues directly from fast food ads, yet there’s an unsettling resemblance between the idealized product promotions and the utopian pictures many individuals paint of themselves in social media.
 
When people see large, heavily advertised corporations like Burger King, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s freely exaggerating and glamorizing their truths, it implies permission for others to do the same.  
 
The world becomes a better place when individuals and organizations take care to represent themselves realistically.  It’s okay to put our best foot forward, but it must be our foot, not some fantastical version of it.  Those who walk with realism are stepping into “Mindful Marketing.”


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

Does Free Speech Mean Unfiltered?

5/8/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 


There’s no law stopping someone from telling a coworker he has bad breath, or a friend she texts too much, or a spouse their outfit isn’t flattering.  Although people have the right to offer such criticisms, they often hold their tongues.  Verbal restraint isn’t always ideal, but even common communication challenges like these can inform a newly trending social imperative—free speech.
 
Serial entrepreneur and one of the planet’s richest people, Elon Musk is buying Twitter— perhaps the world’s most pervasive and controversial communication platform.  The reasons behind the $44 billion purchase are likely multifold; however, Musk claims that one of his primary motivations is to reduce the medium’s content moderation and to allow more free speech.
 
Free speech is fundamental to democracy: Government of-by-for the people is predicated on individuals speaking their minds, including ideas critical of the government.  That’s why the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
 
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, [emphasis added] or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
Of course, the nation’s founders couldn’t have foreseen social media and how it would be used both to bolster democracy (e.g., Arab Spring in 2010) and to bash people who look or think differently.  The founders were people too, who probably fell into petty squabbles and even engaged in personal attacks; however, it’s unlikely that second kind of communication is what they intended to protect in amending the constitution.
 
Nevertheless, because of the First Amendment, there are no U.S. laws against hate speech; rather, people are free to say pretty much whatever they want about others, without legal repercussions, as Black’s Law Dictionary explains:
 
“A person hurling insults, making rude statements, or disparaging comments about another person or group is merely exercising his or her right to free speech. This is true even if the person or group targeted by the speaker is a member of a protected class. According to U.S. law, such speech is fully permissible and is not defined as hate speech.”
 
So, based on the law alone, people can pretty much let loose: no filter needed.  Likewise, Musk has suggested that people should be able to ‘say whatever is legal.’  On April 26, 2022, he tweeted his stance:
 
“By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law.  I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.  If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.  Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”
 

Picture
 
Although it’s true that law and ethics often align, the fit is far from perfect.  Some laws even encourage immorality.  At a minimum, there’s a lag, sometimes of decades or centuries before legislation aimed at correcting ethical failings come to fruition.
 
For instance, Jim Crow laws once required physical segregation of people of different races.  Likewise, from its inception in 1776, it took the United States nearly two centuries to pass laws forbidding discrimination, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
Even now, a leaked Supreme Court memo has spawned demonstrations across the country about abortion law.  Regardless of whether Roe v. Wade stands or falls, a significant portion of the population will contend that the law does not match morality.
 
In short, we all need to be careful of equating what’s ethical with what’s legal.  More specifically, if legal-moral equivalence doesn't hold for other social issues, why assume it works for communication-related concerns?  
 
So, instead of rushing ahead with the reasoning, “Because the law allows us to say anything, we should,” individuals and organizations should collect their thoughts and consider three free speech amendments:
 
1) Practice Self-Restraint:  Most people place limits on how much they eat, sleep, watch TV, etc., for their own good and sometimes because their actions impact others.  Why not apply the same principle of self-control to our words?  This adapted, time-honored moral axiom couldn’t be more apropos, ‘just because we can say it doesn’t mean we should say it.’ 
 
In speaking, as in many other things in life, less can be more, and sometimes saying nothing is best.  When a baseball infielder mishandles a ground ball that allows the other team to score and win the game, nothing good comes from the coach berating him for his error.  The player knows he made a mistake and already feels very badly about it.  Even in cases when we’re free to speak, sometimes our thoughts are better left unsaid.
 
2) Ensure What We’re Saying is True:  With social media and little effort, anyone can say practically anything to anyone anywhere in the world, which makes it all-the-more important to prioritize truthfulness.  We should be confident of the veracity of what we say, as well as what we share from others.  If we’re not certain something is true, we should at least provide a clear disclaimer or even better, wait until we know.
 
Alec Hill describes deception as encouraging someone to believe something that you don’t believe yourself.  That kind of intentional manipulation of the truth is unconscionable.  However, it’s also negligent to forward unverified information.  A fundamental cost of free speech is the time and effort it takes to ensure the accuracy of what we say.
 
3) Take Care in How We Say Things:  We’ve all heard the sentiment, ‘It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it.’  We’ve also experienced how much better it feels to receive a constructive critique versus caustic criticism.
 
When in person, nonverbal communication like welcoming body language and a friendly tone of voice can temper a message that’s not particularly positive.  Similarly, a forward-looking frame is often better than a back-facing one.  For instance, rather than belittling a person for what they did wrong, “You were so bad!!” focus on the action and project a positive future one: “It might be better to  . . .”  Both are free speech, but the latter will almost always elicit a more favorable reaction.
 
Do the preceding three recommendations restrict free speech?  In the sense that they urge us not to say everything we think or to say things the way we first think them, yes .  On the other hand, ‘filtering’ in the ways described above adds value to the communication by casting the sender in a more positive light and making it more likely that the recipient will take action. 
 
By virtue of their many media-related roles, marketers and Musk have unique opportunities to influence mass communication and interpersonal conversations.  Filtered communication is still free speech.  It’s also “Mindful Marketing.”


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

Harmful Humor

4/10/2022

7 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

I still don’t get it. College professors are supposed to be insightful, but I’m baffled by reactions to Will Smith’s infamous Oscars slap.  Most people have rightly condemned the violent reaction, but why aren’t more talking about the joke that sparked the response?  Society’s double-standard for humor can be confusing and consternating, which are reasons to consider how individuals and organizations should lean into laughter.
 
Most of us have now seen the clip of actor Will Smith striding onto the Oscars stage and striking award presenter Chris Rock across the face.  The unimaginable physical altercation on Hollywood’s biggest night came because of a quip Rock made about the baldness of Smith’s spouse, Jada Pinkett Smith, who suffers from alopecia, a condition that causes complete hair loss. 
 
Smith’s reaction was wrong.  No matter the nature of the verbal offense, real or imagined, there was no reason for him to respond violently.  Still, such condemnation shouldn’t stop anyone from asking whether Rock stepped over a line.
 
Of course, Rock is a comedian whose job is to make people laugh—a charge that’s particularly important when appearing at the Oscars, one of the most high-profile gigs a comedian can get. 
 
Also, Oscars hosts and presenters have a history of lightly razzing celebrities in attendance.  Legendary comedian and 19-time Oscars host Bob Hope was perhaps the earliest propagator of that tradition, making quips like this one during his 1971 monologue: “But this is a strange business.  Just think, Frank Sinatra announced he was quitting show business and they gave him a humanitarian award.”
 
Billy Crystal, the second most frequent Oscars host (9 times), also had a habit of ribbing famous actors, as he did Clint Eastwood in 1993 for his role in Unforgiven:  “Clint, of course, played that ruthless character, and you know he used those same tactics when he cleaned up that lawless renegade town of Carmel, California when he was the mayor there . . . It was Clint Eastwood who instituted the no crème brulee after 10:00 pm ordinance.”
 
Rock was himself an Academy Awards host in 2016, at which time he gave much of his monologue to highlighting the unsettling fact that there were no Black nominees at what he called “the White People’s Choice Awards.”  He also took a jab at Pinkett Smith for boycotting ‘Oscars So White,’ suggesting it didn’t make sense for her to spurn an event to which she wasn’t invited.
 
Compared to the biting personal attacks for which insult comedians like Don Rickles, Lisa Lampanelli, and Andrew Dice Clay have been known, Rock’s comments may seem benign.  Some might also suggest that humor is inherently controversial, i.e., some people will like a particular joke, while others will not.
 
It’s true that humor, like beauty, is in the ‘mind of the beholder’; however, there is a relatively clear line that individuals and organizations can avoid crossing to ensure that their jest about others isn’t injurious:
 
It’s usually okay to playfully point out the peculiar things that people do or say, but don’t joke about who they are.
 
Before offering some personal examples to support this suggestion, those who don’t know me well should understand that I’m far from a ‘wet blanket’ when it comes to humor:  I love to laugh and endeavor to inject ad hoc humor into my classes, which I’ve found keeps students engaged, provides a brief reprieve from back-to-back-to-back classes, and lightens the load of weighty issues and complex concepts.
 
Other professors cite similar benefits.  In fact, I recently read a Harvard Business article, “What educators can learn from comedians,” that offered empirical evidence for the third benefit above.
 
Picture

David Stolin, professor of finance at TBS education, collaborated with comedian Sammy Obeid, host of Netflix’s 100 Humans series, to create a variety of educational videos, some humorous and others serious.  The researchers found that “when students were assigned humorous videos, they had consistently higher engagement and subsequent test performance.”  So, among other things, humor helps learning.
 
I haven’t formally studied the same causal relationship, but I have done research on “playful teasing,” which suggests that good-natured ribbing helps build social bonds.  I sometimes use that type of humor with my students, which brings me to my first personal example.
 
In one of my recent classes, a discussion about personal branding turned to ‘what coaches can do to encourage their players when they’re down.’  One of the students, who’s a college athlete, began to share her team’s current experience, saying, “It’s funny because two of my teammates tore their ACLs . . .”  As she briefly paused to finish the sentence, I couldn’t resist interjecting some seemingly serious censure, “There’s nothing funny about that.”
 
Students, including the one who was speaking, laughed, and a classmate quipped, “I’m going to tell your coach!”  The student finished her story and, of course, revealed that by “funny” she didn’t mean amusing but coincidental.  People knew I was kidding because of the hyperbole of my comment, because we often joke in class, and because the students, all of whom I’ve had in other courses, know my penchant for dry humor.
 
The second example came a few years earlier when one of my students turned the comedic tables on me.  As our class was discussing a case study about a particular west-coast-based restaurant chain, I showed a few pictures of my family and me, over the years, at various locations of the chain.
 
One student noticed something peculiar in the pictures and commented, “Dr. Hagenbuch, don’t you ever let your shirt out?  Even on vacation, it’s tucked in!”  I tried to argue that in a couple of the photos my shirt only looked to be tucked, but no one was buying it.  We all had a good laugh, and shirt tucking became an ongoing joke for us.
 
Then, during the last class of the semester, I shared a specially made PowerPoint titled “Dr. Hagenbuch Untucked” that contained a dozen or more different family photos, all with my shirts outside my pants.  The class appreciated the levity of the short slideshow and its homage to our inside joke.  A couple years later, the student responsible for the original “untucked” playful tease, told me that our repartee was a highlight of his college experience.
 
The point of these examples is it’s very possible to laugh without shaming or otherwise hurting people, even when the humor is targeted toward one person.  The key is a pure motive and playfully pointing out something silly the person inadvertently said (“It’s funny because . . .”) or did (shirts tucked in).
 
Rock’s Oscars jabs at Pinkett Smith failed both times to follow that protocol and instead took aim squarely at who she is.  In 2016, his joke about her not being invited to the ceremony was a painful suggestion that she’s not a good enough actor.  At the latest event, he made light of a physical condition that she cannot change and that likely makes her self-conscious.
 
For me, such humor is out-of-bounds; however, I wanted to hear the opinions of people who know much more than I do about psychology, sociology, and how Rock’s joke may have impacted not just Pinkett Smith but others.  I reached out to two of my colleagues who teach in our university’s graduate program in counseling.  They shared these reflections:
 
Dr. Leah K. Clarke, Director and Associate Professor of Counseling
“My own reaction to the joke was a resigned disappointment that women’s appearances and bodies, including black women’s hair, continue to be fair game for public discourse. Women and girls learn, almost from birth, that their bodies can be commented on, evaluated, touched, and utilized for other’s profit or pleasure. I’m not sure you could even count the number of songs that reference women’s appearances or specific body parts.”
 
“Pinkett Smith had previously shared about the source of her baldness, but even in doing so she acknowledged she felt she had to. Because otherwise the conversation about what was going on her scalp would happen without her. And she was right, Chris Rock and her husband had an interaction related to her appearance without her involvement or consent. The idea that her hair might be of no interest and nobody’s business doesn’t seem to occur to anyone.”
 
Dr. Sarah Brant-Rajahn, Assistant Professor of Counseling, School Counseling Track Coordinator
“Rock’s joke triggered the pain of many women and Black women, in particular, about ideals that are attached to appearance and hair as a beauty standard.  I was surprised that such a joke would come from Rock, after his Good Hair (2009) documentary highlighted issues around Black-American women and the perception of their hair being acceptable or desirable.”
 
“As Pinkett Smith, like so many other women, attempt to boldly embrace their authentic selves and engage in self-love, they are met with ridicule, judgment, and shame when this true self does not align with societal notions of beauty. And to an extent, Rock’s joke and many like them can be viewed as bullying, as Pinkett Smith likely felt powerless to defend herself at a professional event, with an audience, and in a space that was being publicly recorded and viewed. There was a clear imbalance of power here where a male with a microphone and a stage demeans a female who does not have the same capacity to share her voice at the time.”
 
“While it is likely that Rock did not consider these implications, as he is a comedian and comedians make jokes about many people and topics, we would be remiss to not name and address the potential impact such comments have on girls and women, as well as the perpetual devaluation of them based on appearance.”
 
Beyond many specific truths, my overarching takeaway from both these experts’ assessments is that humor’s impact extends beyond the parties directly involved—a realization I’d also had through my research into playful teasing. 
 
People often learn vicariously, i.e., from observing others’ firsthand experiences.  Just as we can ‘feel’ that a stove is hot by watching someone else touch it, we can feel ridiculed when we hear or see someone deride a person who is in some way like us, e.g., race, body type.
 
Because the Academy Awards is broadcast to millions of people worldwide, Rock’s joke was at the expense of thousands of people with alopecia, not just Pinkett Smith.  Furthermore, as Clarke and Brant-Rajahn have suggested, women and especially Black women were right to feel that their bodies and appearances were once more objectified for public consumption.
 
Their thoughts pinpoint the hypocrisy to which I alluded at the beginning of this piece.  How can a society claim it’s concerned about bullying, shaming, and mental health, but be accepting of things like mean tweets, taunting, and caustic comedy?  It's hard to understand why more aren’t alarmed by the troubling connections.
 
So, what does this analysis have to do with marketing?  For any of us who aspire to make others laugh, how we handle humor becomes part of our brand, whether we’re an individual like Rock or an organization like GoDaddy, which is still trying to break free from its oversexualized Super Bowl ad humor more than a decade ago.  The character of one’s comedy has long-lasting implications for one’s brand.
 
Just as the same medicine that helps people can hurt them if taken incorrectly, the ‘best medicine,’ laughter, can hurt people when its wrongly administered.  It’s fine to playfully tease people for silly things they do or say, but we shouldn’t make light of who they are.
 
It seems that Rock’s stock has risen since the last Oscars, probably due to extra publicity he’s received, as well as sympathy from the slap.  However, those truly deserving empathy are the ones Rock’s putdown humor belittled directly and by extension.  The impact on them makes Rock’s ridicule “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
7 Comments

Mascot Madness

3/27/2022

4 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

When people mention products they see advertised all the time, “insurance” is often top-of-list.  Insurance ads are virtually inescapable and stick because of clever humor and silly brand characters.  One lesser-known competitor now claims to be better because it forgoes such foolishness, but is throwing shade on the big players’ branding the way to ensure it wins?
 
Today, the mascots of insurance companies are better known than those of many colleges.  To test that claim, try the following two-part quiz.  The answers appear a few paragraphs below:
 
1) What are the mascots of the five largest U.S. public university campuses by enrollment?
  • Texas A & M University
  • University of Central Florida
  • Ohio State University
  • University of Florida
  • Florida International University
 
2) What are brand characters of the following insurance companies?
  • Aflac
  • Allstate
  • Geico
  • Liberty Mutual
  • Progressive
 
If you’re like me, you know more on the second list than the first.  Granted, I pay more attention to commercials than most people do, but I’m also a significant fan of college sports who works in higher education, which are good reasons why I should know list #2 too.
 
So, here are the answers:
1)  Aggies, Knights, Buckeyes, Gators, Panthers
2)  Duck, Mayhem, Gecko, Emu, Flo
 
The point of this exercise is to underscore how effective many insurance companies have been at  familiarizing us with their brands’ personalities.
 
Despite the old adage, “You can’t argue with success,” one insurance provider is doing just that, making a very public case that all the time and energy its competitors spend building brand characters is wasted.
 
Unlike Geico or Allstate, the company with the hot take is not a household name for most people.  It’s New Jersey Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, or NJM.
 
NJM began in 1913 by providing worker’s compensation to New Jersey businesses and a couple of decades later started to offer commercial and personal auto insurance and homeowners insurance.  Over the last 100+ years it’s expanded its offerings even more, while extending into other states.

Only recently, though, did the company decide to redefine the acronym that’s represented its name for more than a century.  Now, at least for the purpose of some contrarian marketing communication, NJM purportedly stands for “No Jingles or Mascots, Just Great Insurance.”
 
Why would  NJM want to throw shade on several of America’s most successful insurance providers?  The easy answer is it wants to be big like them but believes that its path to greatness must come not by copying their recipe for success but by being different.
 
NJM is a sizeable insurer; however, it’s scope and scale are small compared to the mascot-using competitors mentioned above.  NJM only markets its products in New Jersey and five nearby states.  Similarly, while NJM has about $8 billion in assets, the other firms boast much bigger asset totals:
  • Aflac:  $165 billion
  • Allstate:  $126 billion
  • Geico:  $71 billion
  • Liberty Mutual:  $145 billion
  • Progressive:  $64 billion
Picture

Positioning against the brand, as it’s called, is not necessarily a bad idea.  Avis succeeded with the strategy in the early 1960s, using the tagline “We try harder,” –a clear slight against the number one car rental company at the time, Hertz.  Similarly, in 1967 Seven-Up tapped into countercultural sentiment by branding itself as the “Uncola” versus the soft drink “Establishment” that was Coke and Pepsi.
 
However, there are two important factors that dilute NJM’s claim to be different by not using ducks or geckos.
 
First, there are plenty of other insurance companies that can make the same claim that they’re more serious about insurance because they don’t use mascots.  In fact, they represent the nation’s five largest insurers:
  1. Prudential
  2. Berkshire Hathaway
  3. MetLife
  4. TIAA
  5. AIG
 
To be clear, Berkshire Hathaway does own Geico; however, it also owns these mascot-less insurance firms: National Indemnity Company, General Reinsurance, and Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska.
 
Also, in case you’re thinking that Snoopy is MetLife’s mascot, the dog is gone.  The company dropped the beloved beagle more than five years ago in an effort to reflect “a clean, modern aesthetic.”
 
Second, in its television commercials trumpeting its decision to not use mascots, NJM uses, of all things, mascots!
 
To be clear, the mascots in NJM’s commercials are not its own but ones it’s fabricated for  fictitious competitors.  The commercial characters include an alpaca, a jingle-singing entertainer, an elephant-giraffe-eagle-horse-octopus, a big blue bear, a narwhal, and a ferret.
 
Again, none of the mascots belong to NJM, but by using them in its humor-infused ads, the company is not so subtly doing the same thing it accuses its competitors of doing—prioritizing playfulness over serious insurance.
 
It’s kind of like one person scolding another for their profanity by swearing at them, “You s#@% h#@%, you’ve got to stop the b*#&#% cursing!”  The point, of course is if the words are bad, no one should be using them.
 
So, if mascots don’t make for serious insurance, why is NJM using them in its ads?
 
That question is kind of a rhetorical one, but I can’t resist trying to answer it.  It could be that NJM suffers from some mascot-envy and may even be using its commercials as a way of auditioning characters to see if any stick.
 
More generally, NJM must recognize that using mascots in marketing works.  This piece began by identifying several insurance competitors’ well-known characters.  Over the years, organizations in other industries also have reaped similar branding benefits from their own creations, such as:
  • Energizer – Energizer Bunny
  • Keebler Company – Keebler Elves
  • Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes – Tony the Tiger
  • McDonald’s – Ronald McDonald
  • Michelin – Michelin Man
  • Pillsbury – Dough Boy
  • Planters – Mr. Peanut
  • Procter & Gamble’s Mr. Clean – Mr. Clean
  • StarKist Tuna - Charlie
 
Of course, characters aren’t good fits for every industry.  We don’t see luxury brands like Cartier, Gucci, or Mercedes employing mascots because they want to be seen as elegant and refined—images that characters can undermine. Likewise, some organizations’ missions are simply too serious to be connected with anything that might come across as irreverent, e.g., the American Lung Association.
 
But for many companies, mascots serve helpful purposes like giving brands more personal connection and communicating whimsy.  But even more basic, the characters often capture our attention, keep our interest, and help us remember what can be easily forgotten products . . . like insurance.
 
Given the quest for Mindful Marketing, the other important question to ask is whether mascot use is ethical.  Two areas that demand special attention are how certain mascots portray people groups and how some characters are used in marketing to children.  Otherwise, it’s hard to identify any broad prohibition of mascots for branding.
 
NJM’s claim that ‘We’re more serious about insurance because we don’t use mascots,’ doesn’t make much sense since its own ads have mascots.  Some might call that use disingenuous or deceitful, but it’s unlikely there’s any ill intent. 
 
No, NJM is just searching for a strategy that can lift it to the level of Aflac and Progressive, but such a leap won’t happen by using an eclectic cast of ‘other insurers’ mascots’ and talking more about what the company isn’t than what it is.  This specific claim for positioning against the brand should be assessed as “Simple-Minded Marketing.”


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

Marketing Ideology

2/27/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 


Principles of marketing professors teach that “products” are more than tangible goods; they’re also services and ideas.  While it’s easy to identify organizations marketing goods and services, noticing idea marketing takes more discernment. Recently, the world witnessed one of the most blatant examples of idea marketing ever.  It worked but unfortunately not for good.
 
In the annals of persuasion, one of the hardest ‘sales’ must be convincing one’s country to start a war, given the likelihood of loss of life, property, political allies, and more.  In persuading Russia to invade Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, achieved such a seduction, while providing an example of idea marketing at its worst.
 
Of course, Russia’s largely autocratic regime doesn’t require the consensus-building demanded in a democratic state.  Still, Putin was undeniably successful in marketing a momentous idea by convincing other government officials, military leaders, and to some extent the Russian populace to embrace the notion that invading Ukraine served a national security interest while accomplishing historically based cultural and ethnic reunification.
 
Mindful Marketing rarely tackles politics.  I’m addressing this situation not just because it’s a poignant example of idea marketing but because of its significant human and economic impact, as well as its potential to become one of history’s biggest geopolitical events.
 
Russia’s incursion into Ukraine is also personal for me.  Both of my wife’s parents were born in Ukraine, where they endured extreme hardships during WWII.  Consequently, my wife and our children share Ukraine’s rich cultural heritage by birth, as I do by marriage.

The necklace in the picture above is my wife's tryzub, which her father brought back for her from one of his many return visits to his homeland.
 
Of course, millions of others also have personal connections.  In fact, as I was writing this article, I read a post by one of my LinkedIn connections, Cait Mack who wrote:
 
“This has been one of the worst days of my life.  The war in Ukraine feels like it’s pulling at the very fiber of my being.  For those who don’t know, I’m Ukrainian.  My grandparents came over during WW2, fleeing from Nazis.  I am sick with grief.  Everything feels so stupid and trivial in comparison to what’s going on over there.”
 
“I think of my grandparents.  Our extended family in Ukraine.  All the innocent people.  The parents with their children.  The harsh reminder that we can’t really keep our families safe.”
 
As Mack mentions, the secondhand angst that any of us feel can’t compare to the fear and horror that those in Ukraine are experiencing, which reminds me of the focus of this piece—Putin marketing the idea of invasion.
 
Rather than commending his cunning, the intent here is to extract something edifying from the unfolding tragedy—to identify how individuals and organizations should market ideas responsibly. 
 
Autocratic leaders have the advantage of superior political power.  Marketers enjoy information superiority, i.e., they naturally know more about their organization and its products than do consumers.
 
Because of their very intangible nature, the information imbalance involving ideas becomes even more skewed, which means marketers are under even greater moral compulsion to carefully steward their influence on the conceptions of others.  The following are five steps toward marketing ideas responsibly:
 
1. Seek Understanding
It’s hard to understand when uninformed, which is why the first act in understanding is gaining information by researching the issue at hand and, above all, listening to those closest to it.
 
Courtroom dramas sometimes culminate with an attorney introducing a new witness or piece of evidence, which unexpectedly changes the minds of jurors.  Such are likely violations of legal discovery, but the examples are helpful reminders that additional and possibly more accurate information can help change our minds for the better.
 
2. Explore Other Perspectives
As implied above, it’s helpful to lean on others, not just because they can provide additional facts but because they might offer their own experienced and informed interpretation of the information.  Whether at the boardroom level or shop floor level, the best leaders always avail themselves of others’ insights.
 
It sometimes seems that people avoid other perspectives, fearing they’ll change their opinions.  That may happen, which is not necessarily a bad thing.  However, seeking others’ perspectives is often like a fan who's loyal to a certain football team watching two other teams play.  Watching them will probably not change the fan’s team loyalty, but they may see in the other teams things that enhance their understanding of the game, as well as things their team does well or could do better.
 

Picture


3. Present a Rational Argument
People can be persuaded in different ways, including by deception (painting an inaccurate picture of facts) and coercion (compelling an action from a position of power).  Neither of these alternatives allows people to exercise informed consent, or freely choose to adopt an idea based on its logical merits.
 
Although we occasionally act otherwise, people are rational beings who can understand and make sensible decisions based on logical arguments.  Even young children comprehend reason—‘If you eat your whole meal, you’ll get to have dessert.’  People of any age deserve clear, logical, communication.
 
4. Don’t Play on Emotion
However, humans aren’t simply rational beings.  Our complex psychology also includes emotion, which makes us even more interesting.  Yes, we should make most decisions by reasoning with objective information, but sometimes it’s appropriate for people to choose things that they enjoy or that make them happy, like playing a favorite game with a friend.
 
What’s unacceptable is to use others’ emotions against them, e.g., to persuade them to do something out of an irrational fear or a sense of guilt.  Although good in moderation, too much emotion can cloud people’s thinking and cause them to do things that they otherwise would not rationally choose.  The outcome is like a doctor tapping a patient’s knee with a reflex hammer:  Their leg will move involuntarily no matter how much the patient may reason that it shouldn’t.
 
5. Be Truthful
The fifth act encapsulates the preceding ones and should go without saying; however, even when people fulfill the first four steps, they still must ensure follow-through of this final one, particularly to avoid selective presentation of facts.
 
For example, I could support the morality of advertising by referencing Gallup’s annual poll about the honesty and ethics of various occupations and accurately report that advertising practitioners ranked in the top 20 of all occupations.  That may sound impressive, but the statement would be misleading because the survey only asked about 22 occupations and advertising practitioners ranked 18th.
 
What we don’t tell people is often as important as what we tell them.
 
Again, the point of this piece has not been to detail Putin’s tenuous argument for the invasion of Ukraine; however, this website, among others, provides a window into how his rationalization evolved.  In short, Putin appears to have violated more than one of the preceding five steps; for instance, he played on his own people’s emotion with a “rousing speech” in which he called Ukraine a U.S. colony ruled by a “puppet regime.”
 
From my own reading and experience, Putin’s biggest breach of the steps of responsible influence has been of #5, by being untruthful, particularly with respect to his denial of Ukraine’s historic statehood and his claim that Russians and Ukrainians ‘are one people.’

Soon after my wife and I started dating, I learned two important facts involving her family’s ethnic heritage.  First, the nation is not “the Ukraine;” it’s “Ukraine.”  Adding the definite article “the” diminishes the country’s stature to that of a territory or colony, (e.g., the Louisiana Territory, the Yukon), which Putin directly suggested in his “rousing speech” referenced above.
 
Second, my wife’s family and their friends frequently reinforced that ‘Ukrainians are not Russians.’  I experienced firsthand that Ukrainians have a unique language, history, food, customs, and other rich cultural distinctives that distinguish them from their homeland’s northern neighbor.
 
My evidence spans more than three decades, but it is personal and, therefore, anecdotal.  The most compelling proof of Putin’s misinformation is, regrettably, what’s happened during the invasion, as a 2/26 New York Times Breaking News headline read, “Ukraine, outmanned and outgunned, has slowed Russia's advance on Kyiv and two other cities as its forces wage a ferocious resistance.”
 
If Ukraine were just a Russian territory, if the majority of Ukrainians wanted unification with Russia, and if Ukrainians and Russians were one people, why are so many Ukrainians valiantly fighting and giving their lives to stop the invasion and maintain their nation’s sovereignty?
 
The disconnect stems from a lack of truthfulness, which many of Putin’s own people have recognized, hence widespread protests by Russians against the “war without a cause.”
 
Tragically Putin was effective in selling the idea of invasion to some, at the cost of many lives and the freedom of a peaceful people.  That underlying deception and unimaginable destruction makes his strategy the worst example “Single-Minded Marketing.”


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

Super BOLD Ads

2/12/2022

1 Comment

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 


A guy chows down on kitty litter, a celebrity bedazzles a convict’s ankle monitor with diamond studs, a groom marries a demon ghost bride.  These aren’t outtakes from B movies; they’re scenes from the year’s most highly anticipated commercial content—Super Bowl ads.
 
Despite the fact that 30 seconds during the 2022 sports spectacle reached an astounding $7 million per spot, NBC sold out its ad inventory, with a very high percentage of those spots leveraging humor, including some rather crude comedy.  If companies are willing to pay more for a half minute of airtime than most organizations’ entire annual marketing budgets, why wouldn’t they want to muster more ‘serious’ sponsorship efforts?  What’s with all the advertising irreverence?
 
Of course, Super Bowl ads have a long history of hilarity—traditionally, many ads made for the big game are funny, probably to align with the event’s party atmosphere, which often flows with the same sodas and snack foods seen in the spots.  Humor now is an annual expectation such that sponsors who make the contrarian choice to air more sober ads often reap the consequences of lackluster reviews.
 
Perhaps for these reasons, many advertisers have continued to push the envelope on humor, to the point that their MO is: ‘Go Irreverent or Go Home.’     
 
Underlying this observation is the notion that there’s a difference between ordinary humor and irreverent humor.  According to the Collins Dictionary, something is humorous if people find it amusing, clever, or witty.  Ephrat Livni, writing for Pocket, further unpacks the essence of wit:
 
“The wittiest among us are simply people who make unusual connections between words and ideas. There’s a refreshing element of surprise to these observations that prompts a smile or a wince from the listener who didn’t see the link until it was presented.”
 
Beyond just being witty, irreverent humor adds abrasion to the comedic equation in the form of disrespect “for people or things that are generally respected.”  In other words, irreverent humor not only makes a clever and surprising connection between concepts, it also throws some significant shade on a group of people.
 
This distinction between regular humor and irreverent humor makes some sense in the abstract, but it’s better explained through specific examples.  So, here are a couple of Super Bowl LVI ads aimed at painting a clearer picture of the difference.
 
Regular Humor:  Kia – Robo Dog
After watching a real dog playing happily with its owners, an electronic pooch on display in a department store longs for its own human companion, leading it to chase the driver of an electric Kia.  Aiming for the car’s open moon roof, the love-starved dog leaps from atop a tall building, only to have its battery die, just before entry into the vehicle.
 
Thankfully, the dog awakens from its untimely slumber to find that the Kia driver has resuscitated it, courtesy of a cable plugged into the EV’s charging port.
 
This commercial is humorous for a variety of reasons, including its clever connection between an electronic dog and an electronic vehicle, as well as the surprising idea of a dog desiring an owner so badly that it chases one across a city.  The spot doesn’t arouse bellyache laughter, but the unique feel-good mini story does encourage at least a hearty chuckle.
 

Picture

Irreverent Humor:  ClickUp – Declaration
While many consider the authors of America’s Declaration of Independence heroes, ClickUp’s commercial depicts many of them as bumbling fools, particularly the nation’s second president, John Adams, who somehow misplaces the newest version of the foundational document.
 
The situation worsens as the flustered Adams stumbles into an artist who’s trying to capture the historic moment on canvas, causing him to spread white paint across the famous scene.  The commercial concludes with Ben Franklin commending “Tommy” (Thomas Jefferson) for smartly creating a ClickUp task, as well as for “always saving John’s derriere.”
 
The ad is witty for several ‘regular’ reasons, including that it cleverly compares the centuries-old methods used to draft the Declaration of Independence to today’s digital technology.  It’s also amusing to see men wearing neck cloths and knickers gush over a laptop app.
 
However, the humor is irreverent because of its disrespect for America’s founding fathers, especially Adams.  These men risked their reputations and their lives to stand against colonialism and create one of the most impactful documents the world has known.  Of course, the ad is meant in jest, yet it seems impertinent to lampoon these patriots for a courageous and momentous act that has meant unprecedented freedom for so many.
 

Picture

So, why would Super Bowl advertisers like ClickUp and those mentioned above (Uber Eats, Plant Fitness, and Lays) want to risk alienating tens of millions of consumers with irreverent advertising?  It’s because one specific and highly sought-after target market appears to love the impertinence—Generation Z.
 
For this cohort of 10–to-25-year-olds, the rule of thumb is often ‘the more brash the better.’  However, the reason “Gen Z demands absurdity from their ads” seems counterintuitive at first.
 
What Gen Z actually craves is authenticity.  Its members can smell a fake a mile away, and they detest phoniness, including in traditional advertising.  Gen Zers deduce, “I know you’re trying to sell me something, so stop pretending that you’re not.”
 
The advertising that this savvy young cohort finds most appealing is the kind that makes no pretense of selflessness; rather, it admits it’s pushing product through unconventional creative approaches that are often so over-the-top they’re laughable:
 
“Gen Z’s take on authenticity is pushing brands to break all previously established rules of brand communication.”
 
A good example of Gen Z’s affinity for absurdity is the off-beat soap brand Dr. Squatch.  While coming of age, those of us in older generations had little concern about the suds we used to shower.  However, thanks to Dr. Squatch’s crazy ads, such as one with a bearded guy in a shower cap, bathing in the woods with a rubber ducky, many in Gen Z are taking their soap choice more seriously.
 
The humor in the Dr. Squatch ad is certainly absurd, but is it also irreverent?  Although it’s outlandish by traditional advertising standards, most of the commercial’s content is pretty mild in terms of immorality.  For instance, one actor playfully douses another with what are purportedly chemicals found in typical, unnatural soaps.
 
One could argue that such antics disrespect the guy getting doused, but the action is clearly hyperbole, and it’s hard to claim there’s contempt for any specific people group.
 
The same logic probably also applies to Pringles 2022 Super Bowl spot “Stuck,” which tells the story of a young man who gets his hand wedged into one of the iconic canisters and ends up living his entire life with the snack food package appendage.
 

Picture

In this instance, Pringles is really laughing at itself for manufacturing such an awkward piece of packaging.  Its self-deprecating humor may seem like a risky move; however, when people or in this case a company pokes fun at itself, it often stops others from doing the same, perhaps out of pity, or maybe out of respect—‘It takes a strong person to admit they were wrong.’
 
In his book, The Power of Regret, Daniel Pink reinforces this principle, maintaining that when individuals openly express their regrets to others, people surprisingly hold the soul bearers in higher regard, not lower.
 
On the other end of the humor/respectability continuum is a company like Liquid Death Mountain Water, which placed a bet, picking the underdog to win the Super Bowl LVI, then hired a witch to try to influence the game’s outcome.
 
One of the company’s commercials from a couple of years ago contained so many offensive elements that it’s challenging just to list them, e.g., profanity, vulgarity, stereotyping, allusions to the occult, and insensitivity to those who have lost loved ones to drowning and to overdosing on energy drinks.  To top it all off, the commercial even demonstrates torture by waterboarding.
 
Advertising humor, like much human behavior, involves a range of action from the simply benign to the very bad, from innocently amoral to dangerously immoral.
 
In a classic article published in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, “Advertising: Looking Glass or Molder of the Masses?” Geoffrey Lantos posed an important question: Does advertising simply reflect what people are already doing or does it preemptively shape society’s behavior?
 
While it’s certainly worth asking that question of irreverent humor, the answer doesn’t necessarily matter.  Whether it molds or mirrors, advertising that’s effective but disrespects others isn’t edifying in either sense.  Instead, it amounts to “Single-Minded Marketing.”


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

A Bad Sign:  Macy's vs. Amazon Billboard Battle

12/4/2021

23 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

With the holiday shopping season in full swing, many consumers are unaware of two titan retailers’ battle over a billboard, the results of which could impact how and where shoppers buy gifts for years to come.  The clash also could impact what businesses come to accept as moral behavior.
 
The site of the showdown is the corner of 34th Street and Broadway, New York City, at the center of U.S. commerce.  It’s there that Macy’s, which once boasted “the worlds’ largest retail store,” is taking what could be a final stand against the encroachment of Earth’s fastest-growing retailer, and one of nature’s most irrepressible forces:  Amazon.
 
Macy’s has filed a lawsuit against Amazon, hoping to keep its close competitor from commandeering a 2,200 square foot billboard that adjoins Macy’s flagship Herald Square store.  It’s a signage space Macy’s has leased for nearly 60 years.
 
The huge billboard, which features Macy’s iconic star and logo typeface set against the familiar bright red background, serves as a beacon for millions of pedestrians and potential shoppers as they walk north on Broadway and west on 34th Street.  Millions more see the sign every November in countless camera shots during the retailer’s world-renowned Thanksgiving Day Parade.
 
Amazon, an organization that can send astronauts into orbit, is capable of just about anything, but how could even it endeavor to place its name on a billboard on the side of such a storied competitor’s flagship store?
 
Key to the controversy is the fact that Macy’s doesn’t own the building on which the billboard rests; the sign is actually attached to a small separate edifice situated just between the retailer’s massive 2.2 million sq. ft. store and the intersection.  The owner of the tiny architectural interloper and its very valuable billboard is Kaufman Realty Corp.
 
With the contract it signed in 1963 expiring, Macy’s asked Kaufman to renew its billboard ad, but the company told its long-standing tenant that it intended to rent the space to a “prominent online retailer”—one who apparently has deep pockets and who most believe is Amazon.
 
Of course, both Macy’s and Amazon have physical stores and virtual ones; yet, Macy’s is in many ways the quintessential brick-and-mortar retailer while Amazon practically owns online shopping.
 
In a very real way, therefore, the billboard battle represents a titanic clash of competing marketing channels and business models, the results of which could impact consumer shopping behavior for years to come, as well as set important moral precedent.
 
Macy’s firmly believes that its loss of the advertising space, next to its flagship store, would be disastrous, as the suit it filed states, “The damages to Macy's customer goodwill, image, reputation and brand, should a 'prominent online retailer' (especially Amazon) advertise on the billboard are impossible to calculate.”
 
With net income that’s exceeded $1 billion for eight of the last ten years, Macy’s is doing well compared to many retailers, especially those that filed for bankruptcy over the last 18 months, e.g., Lord & Taylor, J.C. Penney, J Crew, Neiman Marcus, and Pier 1.
 
However, Macy’s profit margin for 2020 was a modest 2.9%.  Amazon, in contrast, had net income of $21.3 billion on revenue of $386 billion, giving it not only much greater earnings but also a significantly higher rate of return—5.5%.
 
So, although Macy’s is not quite on the cusp, it’s certainly not operating from a position of power versus Amazon, and it truly can’t afford to see its flagship store, which it’s described as its “most valuable asset,” take a serious financial hit.

However, a hit on Macy’s Herald Square store and its effect on the future of retail is only one concern of the billboard battle:  Amazon’s aggressive competitive tactic is also a breach of business’s moral bulwark.
 
Of course, Amazon has a right to buy any billboard it wants, but a key question is why the firm needs to buy that one.
 
According to Statista, there are over 340,000 billboards, or “big format outdoor displays,” in the United States.  Just a ten-minute walk north of Herald Square lies Time Square, which has probably the greatest display of outdoor advertising in the world.
 

Picture

Granted, a sign in this spectacle of commercialism comes at a very high cost: between $5,000 and $50,000 a day, which could mean as much as $18.25 million a year.  Still, that amount of money is almost immaterial to the one of the world’s richest companies.
 
As of December 31, 2020, Amazon’s balance sheet showed cash and cash equivalents of $41.2 billion.  Even a $50,000-a-day billboard would represent less than half of one percent of those liquid assets (just 0.0445%).
 
So, if hundreds of thousands of large outdoor signs are available and Amazon can afford to rent any billboard it wants, why does it have to have the one in Herald Square that’s adjacent to one of its biggest competitor’s flagship stores?

It’s reasonable to infer an intent to attack the heart of Macy’s operations, to steal shoppers from in front of its landmark store, and perhaps even to embarrass the firm before its own customers.
 
Some might respond to such assertions of over-the-top aggression with, “That’s business,” or “Amazon is just being competitive,” or “The company is playing to win.”  There’s a difference, though, between working hard to win and trying menacingly to make others lose.  Unfortunately, Amazon’s billboard-buy seems like the latter.
 
Growing up, I loved to play sports and considered myself a pretty competitive person—I wanted to win and tried my hardest to do so.  Although I didn’t like losing, I could tolerate it—it wasn’t the end of the world—especially if I played my best and the other person/team simply outperformed me.
 
By the same token, I never liked the idea of trying to sabotage or subvert opposing players’ performance.  Instead, I thought, “Let them do their best, and I’ll do my best, and whosever best is better deserves to win.”  I didn’t have to come out on top every time; I could ‘share the podium.’  Part of competing was knowing how to win and lose graciously.
 
In contrast, some individuals and organizations compete as if it’s all or nothing, and they have to have it all, all the time.  They’ve no sense that ‘the market's big, so there’s plenty of business for everyone.’
 
Maybe it’s because of the holidays that this self-obsessed way of thinking reminds me of the Christmas classic It’s a Wonderful Life--specifically the film’s antagonist, the greedy and scheming Mr. Potter.  Although he and his bank already own half of Bedford Falls, he won’t rest until it’s all under his control, not tolerating even a minor amount of competition from George Bailey’s small Building & Loan. No one else can win; he has to have it all.
 

Picture

My guess is that Mr. Potter would be proud of  Amazon’s attempt to pry the Herald Square billboard lease away from Macy’s.
 
Macy’s is no real threat to Amazon, which can afford any outdoor advertising it wants and doesn’t need to have that specific sign.  So, why go after it?  It seems like Amazon doesn’t want anyone else to win; it has to have it all.
 
Macy’s lawsuit claims that all past and present agreements have prohibited the billboard’s owner from ever leasing the space to any other “establishment selling at retail or directly to any consumer.”  If that claim is true and Macy’s is offering Kaufman Realty fair compensation for the lease, Macy’s has even more reason to believe its treatment is unreasonable.
 
Competition is not only necessary, it’s desirable, as it both benefits consumers and sharpens industry rivals.  However, when organizations like Amazon enlist predatory business practices, their strategies are a sign of “Single-Minded Marketing.”


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

Will Heinz’s Halloween Promotion Scare Away Consumers?

10/23/2021

6 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 
​

Halloween is a time when many companies give a glimpse into their dark sides, usually with carefully created, humor-filled ads.  However, one iconic consumer product company’s frightful holiday tactic brings to mind the fearful parental warning, “It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt!”  Is Heinz’s gory Halloween promotion going to bloody its own brand?
 
The H. J. Heinz Company merged with Kraft Foods in 2015, creating one of the largest food and drink companies in the world, with an enticing selection of edibles, from Maxwell House Coffee, to Oscar Meyer Hot Dogs, to Philadelphia Cream Cheese.  With such consumer product success, Kraft Heinz obviously knows something about branding, which makes Heinz’s decision to turn its ketchup into Halloween blood even eerier.
 
Yes, Heinz is suggesting that America’s favorite condiment for covering hamburgers at July 4th cookouts can also be used to coat Halloween costumes to give them a gruesomely bloody appeal.
 
Specially labeled Tomato Blood Ketchup is just one of the brand extensions.  The company is also offering “Tomato Blood costume kits, masks and premade outfits themed around mummies, pirates and more,” all available on a company microsite, HeinzHalloween.com.
 
A YouTube video introduces the Tomato Blood Ketchup, which the microsite further describes as “a collectible limited edition 20 oz. squeeze bottle . . . the same classic Heinz ketchup you know and love, but with a spooky Halloween makeover.”
 
What should we make of Heinz’s move into the macabre?  First, it’s important to note that Heinz is far from the only consumer products company that has sought to tap into the revenue potential of Halloween.  Other brands that have created “Frightfully Fabulous Halloween Marketing Campaigns” include:
  • Butterfinger:  mugshots aim to convict parents who have eaten their kids’ Halloween candy to turn themselves in.
  • Snickers:  a grown-up trick-or-treater in a bear costume insists she really is a bruin.
  • Temptations:  the cat food company recommends that pet owners feed its treats to their felines, so their cats won’t eat them.
  • Nike:  has created a special Halloween-themed sneaker with orange and black colors, an illuminated outsole, and a “creepy spider pattern on the insole.”
  • Lego, Star Wars, Disney+:  have partnered to produce a series of animated shorts with clever storylines based on Halloween themes.
  • Reese’s:  a longtime Halloween favorite, suggests that all the Reese’s that disappear during the holiday have gone on to “a better place.”
  • Skittles:  has released a special line of Zombie Skittles in Halloween themed flavors that include Mummified Melon and Boogeyman Blackberry.
 
The point is that other brands’ Halloween-themed promotions are heavy on humor and light on realism.  For instance, no one would actually believe the Temptation commercial’s suggestion that a housecat would eat a person.
​
Picture

Contrast that humorous hyperbole with the bloody realism of Heinz Ketchup, which really does resemble plasma.  If the next time you’re chopping vegetables for dinner you squeeze ketchup over your hand and wail in pain, members of your household will likely believe you’re badly injured.
 
Heinz Ketchup acting as blood has the ability to genuinely shock or sicken people unlike any of the other Halloween promotions mentioned above.  Still, whether you’re a fan of Halloween or not, much of the holiday is increasingly about scaring and nauseating people, so in that grisly context, the tomato blood ketchup is not as outrageous as it otherwise would be.
 
So, most people can probably tolerate the idea and image of ketchup blood—there are things even more grotesque that people watch throughout the year in movies, TV shows, and online videos. Graphic violence that was seldom seen decades ago is now much more commonplace.
 
Some might say it’s a good thing that more people are now acclimated to the sight of blood, but what is that desensitization doing to society?  Although it’s probably true that most of us are no more likely to kill someone, how do we respond when we see real bloodshed and violence on screen or in-person.  Are we as likely to be appalled and to act against it?
 
A few weeks ago, on a SEPTA train outside of Philadelphia, a man raped a woman while several bystanders reportedly did nothing.  Of course, intervening in an act of violence is no small thing.  Still, if we weren’t exposed to so much violence and bloodshed, would we react differently when we see it?  Is fake blood or anything that trivializes trauma adding a little more insensitivity to our collective apathy?
 
Such societal impact is certainly the most significant consideration here; yet, from a business perspective, there’s another important question to ask about the Halloween promotion:
 
Can Heinz’s own bottom-line stomach the bloodshed?
 
Of course, the campaign is the company’s own doing, so surely Heinz has conducted cashflow analyses to project how much marginal revenue Tomato Blood will raise against incremental costs for things like new labels and special promotion.
 
It’s fairly easy to estimate that net income.  What’s much harder to determine is the blood’s long-term impact on Heinz's well-established brand.  To that end, the AIDA model (attention, interest, desire action) may help.
​
Picture
 
On one hand, the uniquely appalling nature of Tomato Blood has gained Heinz considerable attention, or awareness that the brand wouldn’t otherwise have, e.g., news coverage, social media shares.  Similarly, the mere idea of the repulsive product piques curiosity, or interest, and likely causes many people to want to find out more, just as I did.
 
For some people that attention and interest might also lead to desire, or identifying a need to use the product either as fake blood or to put on burgers, as well as to action, i.e., purchasing the bottles and/or recommending them to others.
 
On the other hand, there’s a real risk in associating a beloved condiment with a body fluid that many people literally "can’t stand the sight of."
 
Between 3 and 4 percent of the population has hemophobia, or an irrational fear of blood. For these individuals, even seeing blood on television can cause symptoms such as difficulty breathing and extreme anxiety or panic.
 
It’s easy to dismiss a relatively small group whose reactions to blood are clinically considered “irrational.”  However, the same primitive reflex that causes some people to faint at the sight of blood exists in all of us to some extent.
 
How many people actually enjoy blood?  It seems that a visual of the vital fluid makes most people at least a little squeamish if not nauseous.  Given that widespread response . . .
 
Why would any brand, especially one whose consumption is predicated upon appearing appetizing, want to associate itself with such strong and innately negative reactions?
 
Human history and Maslow’s hierarchy have taught us that the motivation to eat is one of the most basic human needs and, if given a choice, people prefer to eat things that ‘pass the eye test’ and look appealing, if not delicious.
 
Food companies like Kraft Heinz usually go to great lengths in ads to make their products appear as attractive as possible.  Some even use little tricks, like putting a light layer of deodorant spray on fruit to make it shine or substituting shaving cream for whipped cream, which looks better in pictures.
 
Industry insiders know that bad food experiences and negative impressions can be very difficult to overcome.  I was one of many people who were slow to go back to Chipotle after about 1,100 of its customers contracted norovirus between 2015 to 2018. Many diners are even reluctant to return to a restaurant after finding something as simple as a hair on their plate.
 
More than what they wear, type on, or wash with, people are understandably very particular about the products they put in their bodies.  Any kind of negative association real or imagined, can be difficult to overcome.  So, it’s hard to understand why the manufacturer of a very popular tomato product would plant in people’s minds a seed of dissonance that could bloom into a very ‘bloody taste in their mouths.’
 
It’s hard to know actually how Heinz’s Halloween promotion will play out.  It might offer a nice short-term shot to income, but it may also be a blow that bruises the brand while also helping make people a little more comfortable for gore.  For these reasons, the matrix type for Tomato Blood is 'MM negative' for Mindless Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
6 Comments
<<Previous
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

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

    Archives

    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly