Category: Respect170bbeec51

Should the FCC Have Thrown a Flag?

2/7/2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 Comments

Fighting Fire with Desire

1/12/2020

6 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Comments

Peloton's Psychological Problems

12/13/2019

3 Comments

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

“If my husband gave me a Peloton for Christmas, I’d give him divorce papers.” Such raw emotion has typified reactions to the spin cycle maker’s “Gift that Gives Back” commercial. People are permitted their opinions about the ad, and Peloton is entitled to explain its position, but a few principles from psychology might help both sides see how the cycle commercial could have avoided such a controversial turn.

Many reactions to the spot suggest that ‘no husband should surprise his wife with a piece of exercise equipment,’ regardless of her body-type. That’s a valid point; however, before dismissing Peloton’s ad as complete incompetence, Abraham Maslow’s classic hierarchy of needs may remind us that there is often more than one reason for riding a stationary bike:

Physiological Needs: Exercise doesn’t satisfy hunger or thirst; in fact, burning calories increases those needs. Similarly, anyone ‘spinning’ isn’t resting; however, exercise can lead to better sleep. That connection proves true for many, as it did recently for me: After walking around New York City one day with family for hours, I enjoyed one of my best night’s sleep in months.

Safety Needs: Exercise doesn’t immediately make us safe; however, cardiovascular fitness is an investment in long-term health, which connects to the second level of Maslow’s hierarchy. Many viewers of Peloton’s ad have bemoaned that “Grace in Boston,” an already slim woman, even needs to exercise, but they’re missing the point that working out isn’t just about losing weight. Thin people also reap health benefits from aerobic activity.

Social Needs: In one tweet about the ad, a Peloton user mentioned that she appreciates the bonding that comes with working out with others. People don’t need to be physically present to build relationships. Social benefits can also accrue when interacting in the virtual realm, which apparently happens for at least some Peloton users.

Self-Esteem Needs: All of us want to feel good about how we look and the kind of person we are. Sticking to an exercise regimen can bolster both of those self-concepts. Most viewers of Peloton’s ad don’t notice any physical change in Grace, but perhaps she experiences something intangible, like feeling more self-disciplined or self-confident.

Self-Actualization Needs: There aren’t many products that can legitimately claim to help people reach their full potential in some significant area of life, but a piece of exercise equipment used seriously might produce such top-level benefits, partly like the way basic training transforms marines. We don’t know exactly what Grace meant by the statement, “A year ago, I didn’t realize how much this would change me,” but if it wasn’t physical change, maybe a year of Pelton transformed her mentally or emotionally.

The five levels of Maslow’s hierarchy offer consumers useful lenses for processing the controversial commercial. A psychological principle can also teach Peloton an important lesson, summed up in one sentence: “Perception is reality.”

We perceive when a stimulus crosses our senses, we attend to it, and we make an interpretation, for example: “The big dog bounding toward me looks dangerous.” Sometimes our interpretations are correct; other times they’re wrong. However, whether they’re accurate or not, our perceptions determine our reactions.

As thousands of social media posts have suggested, people perceived things to be true of Peloton’s ad that the company apparently didn’t intend, for instance:

that Grace was initially overweight
that she wanted to become even thinner
that her husband pressured her to use the bike

Peloton can argue that these interpretations are incorrect, but ultimately the court of public opinion rules based on objective judgment of cues in the ad, prevailing social norms, and the broader cultural context, because perception is reality.

Some may suggest it was Peloton’s plan to cause a controversy that would capture publicity. If so, the company probably didn’t anticipate a 14% stock price decline in three days. Consumers can use Maslow to better understand what the cycle maker likely intended, but more importantly, companies like Peloton can learn to more effectively pretest their ads so corporate perceptions better align with consumer reality and don’t spin into “Mindless Marketing.”

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

3 Comments

Live Streaming Funerals

10/18/2019

29 Comments

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

What will you watch on TV tonight? Maybe you’ll catch a movie on cable or stream season five of your favorite sitcom. Or, maybe you’ll tune-in to Uncle Walter’s wake. That’s right: Some funeral homes now make it possible for mourners to stay home, thanks to live streaming of memorial services.

Live streaming has been around for more than 20 years, but it’s more recently that funeral homes have entered the virtual realm. Some say the delay is due to the funeral industry being more conservative than most. It also might be because those most in-tune with the newer technology tend to be the Netflix-watching younger generations, who probably aren’t the biggest drivers of demand for funeral services.

Every year in the United States, around 19,000 funeral directors conduct approximately 2.4 million memorial services, yet some estimate as few as 20% of funeral homes offer streaming services. But, why does anyone want to watch the memorialization of someone they knew online?

The main reason is simple logistics. As people find new jobs or move for other reasons, family members and friends are “increasingly scattered around the country—and the world,” making it hard to travel to far-away cities and towns for funerals. Also, some people have health conditions or other constraints that make travel very difficult, if not impossible.

Our family appreciated live streaming firsthand recently, not for a funeral but for our son’s orchestra concert. Given that he’s enrolled in college over 10 hours from home, it’s not possible for us to attend most performances, but we were able to watch the first concert of the fall in real-time, thanks to the school live streaming the event.

Still, a funeral is very different than a concert, a sports contest, or other audience-driven entertainment. Should such a somber event be so widely shared? Is it disrespectful to ‘digitize the deceased?’

Whether it’s a wedding or a wake, almost anything can be filmed tastelessly or tactfully. Small ceiling-mounted cameras and wireless technology are some of the ways that videoing can happen unobtrusively. Plus, in the age of social media and selfies, most people are pretty used to cameras and picture-taking.

Of course, a primary consideration in deciding whether to live stream a funeral should be the final wishes of the departed—Did they want/not want their last remembrances broadcast? Short of any such directive, the decision lies with loved ones, who, in reality, are the ones the memorial service is truly for.

For family members and/or close friends of the deceased, a funeral service is a very important part of the grieving process. They’re the ones dealing most with shock, grief, and worry. They also probably want to honor the memory of someone about whom they cared deeply. Key questions, then, are: What brings loved ones comfort and what helps them commemorate?

The most likely answer is other people. When tragedy strikes or there’s an occasion to celebrate, we usually want to be with others. It’s at those times that we really appreciate the presence of people.

That need for social support reminds me of a funeral I attended last March. A dear friend of mine, with whom I had served on a church leadership team, played basketball and softball, and socialized with our spouses, passed away suddenly at age 58. I was shocked to hear the news and imagined that his wife and two children in their twenties were devastated.

Our careers had taken us to different parts of the state, but I wanted to attend his memorial service, even though it was on a weekday and about two hours away. I drove to the church and reflected on my friends’ impactful life during what was a very moving service. I also spoke briefly with his children and wife, giving her a hug and telling her how much I had appreciated her husband.

A couple of months later, I received a handwritten note from her in which she said how happy she was that I was able to come to the service and how much it meant to see an old friend from a special time in their lives. I had barely spoken with her at the funeral, so it seemed that just my being there made a big difference for her.

That experience makes me wonder whether live streaming funerals keeps people from being present at times when their presence is needed most? I doubt there’s data to shed light on that question, so I’ll try to answer it based on the reading I’ve done in preparation for this piece.

Journalists who have spoken with funeral directors suggest that live streams are most important to those who are unable to attend funerals because of factors like distance, cost, and health issues. No one mentions people who could attend services in person, choosing to watch live streams instead.

Such decision-making also resonates with my own experience. When my friend passed away suddenly, I really wanted to be there, and thankfully I was able to. I’m not sure if his memorial service was live streamed, but even if it was, my choice would not have changed. I suspect most people feel similarly—For someone important to them, they would like to be there in person, if at all possible.

Live streaming funerals is almost certainly a win-win: The opportunity to watch from afar doesn’t dissuade people from attending but gives those who can’t travel the ability to also experience a very meaningful moment. Even when it involves death, digital technology can deliver “Mindful Marketing.”

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

29 Comments

Companies that Want to Make Us Mad

9/21/2019

30 Comments

by Keith Quesenberry, Associate Professor of Marketing, Messiah College

Some people have a real knack for ‘pushing our buttons.’ They’re good at taking us to the point of frustration, then backing off just before we unravel. Now some companies are perfecting this tactic with the help of data analytics.

A friend recently shared with me his exasperation in dealing with one of the big Internet-TV-phone providers. For many months, his home Wi-Fi was having significant problems, which the provider finally sent a technician to fix, but only after many futile and often infuriating phone calls.

When the contract ended, my friend considered all his options, including giving the current provider a chance to keep his business. After several more frustrating phone calls, however, the best the provider would offer was a price about $20/month higher than he had been paying and than “new customers” could get.

So, he cancelled his account and switched to another company. Only then did the original provider call him with a competitive price and a plea, “Please come back to us,” but it was too late.

Unfortunately for it, the company passed the point of no return. Some other firms, however, have found how to step right up to that loss line without crossing it. Their secret is ‘big data.’

According to a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, certain companies now use data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) to determine “how far a customer can be pushed until their heads explode.” The practice gauges how angry a customer can get right before they leave a business, then uses that knowledge to guide customer service and other marketing practices.

At first glance, such tactics may seem questionable, but could it be that these companies are on to something and consumers just need to consider ‘the bigger picture,’ beyond their immediate ire? Although these organizations might minimize customer support, maybe the cost savings and efficiencies they find will lead to lower prices or benefit customers in other ways.

Some question the ethics of AI, particularly whether it will take people’s jobs, but AI used properly can improve marketers’ performance and better serve customers. “How AI Can Improve Your Job Not Steal It” highlights these benefits, including the automation of time-consuming manual processes. Marketers also can use AI for data analysis, personalization, optimization, testing, digital asset management, automated campaigns and offers, content creation, and programmatic ad buying.

“How AT&T Uses Machine Learning to Better Serve Customers” describes how the communication giant uses AI in customer service to make predictions and provide intelligence to managers in near real-time that helps them answer questions like: “Were my customers happy or not?” “If I put them on hold did that make them unhappy?” and “Did my agent solve their problem the first time?”

In a recent post on AT&T’s technology blog, the firm explains how it’s using AI to improve experiences for customers, such as by building 5G, optimizing network traffic and speed, fighting robocalls, and making sure technicians arrive on time. AT&T adds that it uses AI to personalize customer interactions and “to enable friction-free, always available, customer powered problem-solving solutions.”

But, do systems that push consumers to the brink of breakdown solve problems or create them? In those tenuous cases, AT&T’s customers probably aren’t experiencing the standards set out in the firm’s AI Guiding Principles, which suggest that the technology should be: 1) By people, for people, 2) Accessible and shared, and 3) Secure and ethical.

These new analytics systems track things such as how long a customer will wait for a human to answer the phone and how many ads they will listen to before hanging up. AI can analyze behavior, personalities and tone of voice to determine what each person will tolerate. One expert, Mark Shaefer, author of Marketing Rebellion: The Most Human Company Wins, calls this use of AI “the worst marketing tactic ever.”

The WSJ shares a story similar to the unfortunate personal experience mentioned above. An AT&T customer had to make six calls and spend four hours on the phone to get the company to change her plan. Only when she asked to have her number transferred to Verizon did AT&T honor her original request.

So, what’s the bottom-line? Data analytics and AI certainly can make customer service more efficient and effective, which should mean better company performance and increased income that can benefit both shareholders and employees.

However, even if a company can ‘get away with it,’ using these tools to push people to anger isn’t strong support for societal values like fairness and respect. There’s enough anger in the world and angst in people’s lives. We don’t need companies intentionally adding more.

It’s great that more organizations are leveraging the latest technological trends to help power customer service, but using those tools to manage human emotions and manipulate people to madness should be seen as “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

30 Comments

Do You Believe in Better Business?

8/23/2019

4 Comments

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

Does the word business carry positive or negative connotations for you? My associations are affirmative ones, but for many people business carries significant baggage, perhaps from personal experience or from things they’ve read or heard. Those impressions may be changing, though, thanks to a bold pronouncement by leaders of some of the world’s largest companies.

On August 19, 2019, 181 CEOs of the Business Roundtable, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit comprised of “chief executive officers of America’s leading companies,” issued a Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation.

That news may not sound startling, but what is surprising is the new Statement’s focus on serving “all Americans”—an abrupt departure from what most people associate with business: making money for shareholders. The new Roundtable Statement, in contrast, details the executives’ commitment to serving the needs of all corporate stakeholders by doing things like:

Delivering value to customers
Investing in employees
Dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers
Supporting communities

The men and women who endorsed the new Statement aren’t just any execs. They’re the heads of many of the world’s largest and most successful corporations, for instance:

Jeff Bezos, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Amazon
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple
Brian Moynihan, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Bank of America
James Hackett, President and CEO of Ford Motor Company
David Solomon, Chairman and CEO of The Goldman Sachs Group
Marilyn Hewson, Chair, President, and CEO of Lockheed Martin
Lisa Davis, CEO of Siemens Corporation USA
Doug McMillon, President and CEO of Walmart, Inc.

Several signatories supplemented the statement with their personal thoughts, for instance, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Chair of the Business Roundtable said:
“Major employers are investing in their workers and communities because they know it is the only way to be successful over the long term. These modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.”

Similarly, Alex Gorsky, CEO and Chair of Johnson & Johnson added:
“This new statement better reflects the way corporations can and should operate today.” “It affirms the essential role corporations can play in improving our society when CEOs are truly committed to meeting the needs of all stakeholders.”

Those are nice sentiments. Unfortunately, though, they fly in the face of what many have accused business of doing for decades if not millennia—profiting at any cost. Moreover, some champions of capitalism have openly embraced that calloused approach to commerce, perhaps none more famously than economist Milton Friedman. In a September 13, 1970 New York Times article, among other places, Friedman argued that business’s only social responsibility was to increase profit, i.e., to maximize shareholders’ return on investment.

Beyond Friedman’s free markets manifesto, public cynicism about business has gained momentum thanks to a seemingly never-ending series of moral lapses and money grabs by certain businesspeople and companies such as Bernie Madoff, Enron, Arthur Andersen, Bear Stearns, Martha Stewart, Barclays, WorldCom, and Volkswagen.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that some are very critical of the new Business Roundtable Statement. One such cynic is business columnist David Lazarus, who in a recent Los Angeles Times article maintained that the edict is nothing more than “corporate propaganda” put forth by conscience-stricken executives trying to save face amid growing business backlash. Furthermore, Lazarus argues that the statement is conspicuously light on specifics, such as how exactly the companies purport to make all stakeholders their priority or what they might do to address the gross asymmetry in executive pay.

Lazarus is not the only one skeptical of the Roundtable Statement. For his article, he interviewed several others who share his beliefs, including Kenneth Osgood, a history professor at Colorado School of Mines, who said “It seems pretty obvious that CEOs are trying to head off growing public pressure on a number of fronts, including how much they’re paid and taxing the rich.”

Echoing those sentiment was professor of public diplomacy at USC, Nicholas Cull, who said “There seems to be a concern among the CEOs that they’re becoming the bad guys.” “This suggests that the business community is expecting blowback from their policies, and they’re trying to get ahead of it.” Similarly, University of Alabama history professor Margaret Peacock simply called the Roundtable Statement “a clear and pretty heavy-handed attempt to obscure reality.”

Time will tell whether such strong criticism is deserved or if, instead, the signatories’ companies will live up to the commitments. In the meantime, Lazarus and others critical of the Roundtable Statement should consider two key points about business:

1) Business benefits society. Yes, certain businesspeople and companies have made mistakes, but that harm is far outweighed by the positive economic and social impact business has had and continues to have on local communities, nations, and the world.

So many people, including Lazarus, owe their livelihoods to businesses, so many consumers enjoy the products/services firms offer, and so many governments benefit from the tax revenue companies provide.

2) Responsible business strategies and tactics stem from a proper philosophy of business. Just like we wouldn’t expect someone who has a distorted view of relationships to treat others decently, we shouldn't expect businesses to consistently treat stakeholders with respect unless they first make it their mission to do so.

The Business Roundtable Statement isn’t intended to be an A to Z blueprint for how exactly to increase employee compensation or build communities, but what it does propose is a very important prerequisite: an overarching goal that can serve as a guide for all other business activities, including marketing.

No businessperson is perfect, but when they hold each other accountable for positive impact, they’re often able to bring about good that they couldn’t achieve individually. That’s the promise and potential of the Business Roundtable’s new ‘purpose statement,’ which also makes the edict “Mindful Marketing.”

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

4 Comments

Is it Too Risky for Kids to Rideshare Alone?

7/12/2019

1 Comment

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

Among a parent’s worst nightmares is this: Your child climbs into a car alone with a stranger. Just the thought of that scenario strikes fear into the heart of any mother or father. So, why would a company create a business model based on that situation?

A few months ago, ride-sharing icons Uber and Lyft grabbed headlines and goodwill by saying that they do not allow those under age 18 to use their services. Like others who heard the news, I applauded it: “That’s great—two for-profit firms forgoing income in order to protect young people.”

At the same time, the news made me wonder if there are other ride-sharing companies that don’t hold the same convictions and, instead, are willing to put kids into cars with whomever might be driving them. That’s when I came across a company that doesn’t just transport minors occasionally, it specializes in chauffeuring them.

In 2014, three southern California moms who were struggling “to get their busy kids to and from school and all their activities,” founded HopSkipDrive, a transportation service specifically designed for those age six and up. Just five years later, the firm has a staff of 50+ people, a presence in large metropolitan markets like Los Angeles and Washington D.C., and contracts with over 150 school districts.

How did a small, unconventional startup not only grow so quickly but even more importantly, persuade so many parents and others to trust the company with their most “precious cargo”? HopSkipDrive has achieved this rapid success through a combination of clear mission-focus and strict attention to detail.

Yes, busy parents who need to get their children to afterschool practices, lessons, etc., want to be sure that their kids arrive on-time, but their main concern, as mentioned above, is safety. If someone else is driving, who is the person who will be alone with their child in a car? Of course, the individual should be a skilled driver, but more importantly, can he/she be trusted?

Unfortunately, even with ridesharing companies that vet their drivers, you can’t always be sure ‘who you’re getting.’ Many of us have heard of rare but horrific incidents in which unstable drivers have harassed, raped, and even killed their passengers.

Nothing bad has happened to me while ridesharing, but my own recent experience caused me to question driver-screening. Our family had been staying at a resort for a few days and needed to get to a certain rental car center in order to continue our vacation. Using the Uber app, I requested a ride and watched on my phone for several minutes as the driver made his way toward the resort. Then, when he was only a minute away, he dropped the ride!

I can’t be sure what happened, but here’s my guess: A minute from where I was waiting, the resort had a gate where those entering the grounds via private vehicle needed to stop and show identification, i.e., a driver’s license. It may not be the reason he bailed at the last moment, but it’s sobering to think that the person who was going to give me a ride either didn’t have a valid driver’s license or wasn’t responsible enough to bring it with him.

It’s one thing to imagine a questionable driver chauffeuring an adult, it’s another thing to think of a young child confined in that vehicle. How could any company eliminate the risk inherent in such a situation?

When I first heard of HopSkipDrive, I was skeptical, not about demand for the service, but about the firm’s ability to ensure children’s safety in such an offering. As a working dad who helped drive his busy kids for years to/from school and practices and who commiserated with parents in similar predicaments, I knew there was a need. I wasn’t sure, though, how a company might manage the business model in a way that would give parents the confidence to say, “I’ll let my daughter or son ride with you.”

In light of such significant reservations, the main way HopSkipDrive maintains the trust of thousands of parents and schools each day is by painstakingly picking its drivers. In fact, the company uses an exhaustive 15-point certification process that requires the following of each applicant:

Worked with children and has at least 5 years of caregiving experience
No criminal record
Fingerprinted
No sex offender record
Valid driver’s license
Good driving record
Age 23 or older
Owns or leases a vehicle not more than 10 years old seating 4-7 passengers
Passes a 19-point vehicle inspection by a certified mechanic
In-person meeting
Completes in-person driver orientation
Has personal auto insurance coverage
Adopts the HopSkipRules
Adopts our zero tolerance policy for smoking, drugs, and alcohol while driving
Adopts the zero tolerance policy for illegal mobile device usage while a rider is in the car

Because of the meticulous selection process and the exceptionally kind and positive rapport those hired are expected to have with their passengers, HopSkipDrive doesn’t just call its personnel “drivers” but “CareDrivers.”

Special care and concern for safety begins as soon as CareDrivers arrive for a pickup. They wear bright orange HopSkipDrive t-shirts and verify their identity by confirming their passenger’s code word and birthday. Customers also can review CareDrivers’ profiles before pickup in order to know “who they are, what they look like, and the kind of car they drive.”

Throughout the ride, the company continues to leverage technology in order to ensure security. Dedicated HopSkipDrive staff members monitor each ride remotely through its duration, and parents can do the same. They also can receive alerts when their child has been picked up and dropped off.

As good as all of these systems are for onboarding employees and overseeing operations, they probably wouldn’t be effective if the company didn’t do something else very well: Embrace a compelling mission.

HopSkipDrive doesn’t just see itself as a provider of transportation service, i.e., getting kids from point A to point B, or even as an alleviator of parental stress, which it certainly does. Instead, this front-and-center statement on the company’s homepage communicates its mission: “Success starts by showing up. We help get them there.”

HopSkipDrive takes kids to school, piano lessons, basketball practice, and countless other developmental activities that are vital for children’s intellectual, social, and emotional growth. Those formative in-person experiences help them thrive now and contribute to their success in life for years to come. However, children can’t enjoy those activities unless someone ‘gets them there.’

In an interview with Yahoo Finance, HopSkipDrive’s CEO Joanna McFarland affirms that mission, saying “Oftentimes mobility is a huge barrier simply to access to education, and that’s something we’re helping to solve.”

It’s also confirming that employees appear to embrace the same purpose, such as one CareDriver who says “I feel really empowered being part of the greater good, getting kids safely where they need to go.”

As you might expect from the exacting service standards described above, “the greater good” does come at a higher cost. McFarland acknowledges that HopSkipDrive is a “premium service” that has “much different economics” than those of Uber and Lyft. Rides reportedly start at about $20.

However, the rates are comparable to what one would pay a caregiver. McFarland suggests the same in saying, “We think about [HopSkipDrive] much more as a substitute to a babysitter that drives than a comparison to an Uber and Lyft.”

The bottom-line is whether a substantial number of consumers (families and schools) find value in HopSkipDrive’s services. Apparently they do, as evidenced by the facts that the company is in seven markets and growing rapidly, has served over 6,000 schools, and has transported more than 650,000 children.

The most important validation, however, comes directly from those children—the actual riders—such as one young passenger who says, “They know my passcode, they talk to me, they make me feel very welcome. I’m never like, nervous to get in. In fact, I usually look forward to it because it’s a lot of fun.” Her experience is the best evidence that HopSkipDrive’s ridesharing for kids is “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Making Kids Too Competitive?

5/15/2019

7 Comments

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

Cutthroat Kitchen, The Amazing Race, The Voice—television viewership is one sign that our culture loves competition. However, adult obsessions often trickle down to the littlest in society: Now children are the main participants in contest programs like American Ninja Warrior Junior, which prompts the question: Is marketing making kids too competitive?

It’s been 19 years since CBS’s Survivor kicked off the ‘recent’ reality TV craze, which American Idol and other competition-based programs helped explode. If one considers gameshows, then people first watched competition television in 1938 with Spelling Bee and in 1941 with Truth or Consequences.

It could help at the onset to clarify concepts. Not all “reality TV” involves competition per se, e.g., Keeping up with the Kardashians. Likewise, there’s a broad range of competition TV, some of which is more real/organic, like Deadliest Catch, while other shows are more scripted, e.g., Family Feud.

For many years, adults have been the primary participants in these programs, but more recently that focus has shifted to series showcasing much younger competitors, for instance:

American Ninja Warrior Junior: Athletes in three age groups (9-10, 11-12, 13-14) race through extreme obstacles for a top prize of $15,000.

Chopped Junior: Young ‘chefs’ frantically prepare three courses for a panel of judges, with the chance to win $10,000.

Design Squad: “Contestants design whimsical machines in order to win an Intel college scholarship worth $10,000.”

Food Network Stars Kid: Children cook against each other with the hope of hosting their own cooking show.

Project Runway Junior: Clothing designers age 13 - 17 compete for a “full scholarship to the prestigious FIDM in California; a complete home sewing and crafting studio, plus, the dream machine, all courtesy of Brother; a feature in Seventeen Magazine; and a $25,000 cash prize, to help launch their line.”

So You Think You Can Dance–The Next Generation: Dancers from 8 to 13 years old leap, twirl, and wiggle to win a top prize of $250,000.

The Voice Kids: Young singers compete for prize money worth over $30,000, as well as a trip to Disneyland Paris.

This list is by no means comprehensive; there are many other kid-focused, competition-based television series, not to mention dozens featuring adult competitors, which begs the question: Are these shows telling children that life is all about winning?

Take even a brief look at plants and animals of the natural world and it’s easy to understand the old adages eat or be eaten and only the strongest survive. Life is competitive. However, we’re human beings. Aren’t we above winning at any cost? Shouldn’t we value cooperation over competition?

In her U.S. News & World Report article “How Toxic Competition Is Ruining Our Kids – and What to Do About It,” Katie Hurley identifies four outcomes of over-the-top competitiveness for children: fractured friendships, stress, burnout, and missing out on part of their childhood.

Kids are naturally wired to want to win. Anyone who’s played games with children, whether it’s checkers or chess, knows that you don’t have to tell them to dislike losing. In fact, many kids, even very young ones, loath defeat so much that they have a hard time dealing with not winning: Some throw tantrums or storm out of the room and sulk.

Is kid-focused competition TV fueling that destructive fire? Are these shows encouraging the next generation to exalt winning above all?

First, it’s important to support that competition is fundamentally a good thing. Yes, all life needs to be competitive to survive, but beyond perpetuating existence, competition teaches things like responding to adversity, avoiding complacency, and valuing hard work. And, when participating in a group, competition also can teach teamwork and communication.

It’s natural to think of competition in connection to sports, but the preceding benefits, as well as others, often accrue to individuals who engage in all types of competition, including academic ones.

The last three years, I’ve had the opportunity to involve teams of marketing students in a regional marketing plan competition. First, there’s a wealth of learning that occurs in the preparation process, getting ready to compete. Second, the knowledge that you’re competing against other schools, encourages everyone to ‘up their game.’ Third, you can learn from your competitors: seeing what they do well and emulating those best practices.

Whether it’s academics or sports, competition also is just plain fun, part of which is undoubtedly from the adrenaline rush—you’re on stage, being tested, while others watch. There’s also the pure ‘love of the game.’

Growing up, my favorite sport was basketball. Although, I enjoyed shooting around by myself, there was nothing like playing a game against others. In fact, besides playing on our high school team, I often arranged pick-up games with my peers. There were plenty of times I didn’t win, and I certainly didn’t like losing, but having the opportunity to play was always more important than the outcome. Win or lose, I could congratulate my opponents, telling them “good game” and suggesting “let’s play again sometime.”

Continuing with sports examples, it’s unlikely that just watching competition, live or on TV, does much to make a person more competitive. For instance, there are plenty of older sports spectators sitting on couches who may be passionate about their favorite teams, but they don’t exhibit any signs of becoming more competitive.

On the other hand, younger people are probably more prone to watch competitions they enjoy and want to participate in them, provided they have the requisite skills. It’s really what happens after joining ‘the game’ that makes a person more or less competitive.

In the same “Toxic Competition” article referenced above, Hurley describes how most often super-competitive kids are products of overzealous parents, pushing their offspring too hard to achieve. Most of us who have been around kids’ sports or similar competitive endeavors can relate: It’s really not the kids who are too competitive; it’s their parents.

I haven’t seen all of the kid-focused competition TV programs listed above, but I have watched some of them. From what I’ve witnessed, the shows model healthy competition, e.g., the children are not placed under inordinate amounts of stress, they are frequently praised for their efforts, and any criticism they receive is constructive. The shows also present positive reactions to the outcomes, highlighting both humble winners and gracious losers.

Like most human behaviors, there are probably many factors that contribute to kids’ competitiveness. It’s unlikely, though, that competition TV causes children to espouse winning at any cost. Rather, most of these programs model healthy competition for kids. As such, the shows also represent “Mindful Marketing.”

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

7 Comments

Walmart Says Goodbye to Greeters

5/3/2019

1 Comment

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

When you walk into a Walmart this month, you won’t see someone who’s been a fixture at the front of its stores for decades—the greeter. The world’s largest retailer’s decision to eliminate the iconic position quickly drew harsh criticism, which seemed to take the company by surprise and has made many wonder: Was Walmart right to send loyal employees into unemployment?

In mid-February this year, the big box retailer informed employees that effective April 26, the greeter role would be replaced by an expanded “customer host” position, requiring a greater range of job skills and physical demands like being able “to lift 25-pound (11-kilogram) packages, climb ladders and stand for long periods.”

Those who have worked in organizations for any significant time know it’s not unusual for positions to be added, deleted, and changed. What’s different about Walmart’s move is that its 1.5 million U.S. associates make it the nation’s largest private employer, and many of those who have filled the greeter role have been people with disabilities.

Given that unique employment impact, it’s understandable that many have not liked the change. Fred Wirth, whose son Joe uses a wheelchair and who worked as a Walmart greeter before losing his job, claimed the company’s plan was “just a systematic way of getting rid of all the disabled people.”

Could Wirth’s claim be true? Is the world’s largest retailer intentionally trying to displace workers with disabilities?

To answer that question, it’s helpful to understand the legal context for any such agenda. Title I of the American’s with Disabilities Act “prohibits covered employers from discriminating against people with disabilities in all employment-related activities, including hiring, pay, benefits, firing and promotions.”

Organizations aren’t expected to employ people who cannot perform the functions of a job. However, firms are required to provide “reasonable accommodation” for individuals with disabilities. For instance, a company could modify the height of a service desk in order to allow an individual in a wheelchair to more comfortably interact with customers.

To its credit, Walmart has tried to transition disabled greeters into different positions and otherwise accommodate them. It began to do so in 2015, when it started a pilot program that introduced the customer host position, who not only greets customers but also keeps the entrances safe and clean, assists with returns, and checks receipts as needed. During this program, the company claims it was able to help 80% of affected associates find new positions, many involving promotions.

Greg Foran, president and CEO of Walmart's U.S. stores, says that it’s the company’s goal to offer “appropriate accommodations that will enable these associates to continue in other roles with their store.” For instance, the company was able to offer jobs in self-checkout to three longtime greeters, all of whom have cerebral palsy.

Unfortunately, not every former greeter could be reasonably accommodated or had skills that would readily translate to other work. For these reasons, Walmart has extended the 60 day transition period in order to allow extra time for greeters with disabilities to find other jobs within the company.

Besides what seems to be a good faith effort to continue to employ individuals with disabilities, it’s worth noting that Walmart historically has been one of few employers to actively hire people with disabilities. It’s easy to criticize Walmart for its recent move away from greeters, but how many associates with disabilities do we see working in Target or most other retailers?

It’s also important to recognize retail’s great state of flux. The sector has become extremely competitive, largely due to e-commerce and online giant Amazon, which has helped precipitate store closings for some of the greatest retailers ever, e.g., Sears, Kmart, and Toys R Us.

Furthermore, when consumers do shop in-store, they are increasingly greeted by touchscreen kiosks and self-checkouts, not people. The grocery store where our family shops has a robot, rather than a person, roaming the floors to look for spills and dropped products.

Most of these technological advancements are driven by firms’ desires for greater efficiency and effectiveness. There also are times for most of us when it’s just easier to deal with a machine than a person. Nothing against bank tellers, but most people probably prefer to get cash from an ATM and to have funds deposited electronically into their accounts.

In the digital age, most people also probably don’t care about being greeted as soon as they enter a big box retailer. For some, it may even be a turn-off.

One of the greatest gifts any of us can be given is a job, but employment should be more than biding time to get a paycheck. Work should be meaningful to the person doing it, as well as to the company paying for it and to others ‘consuming’ it. The position of Walmart store greeter once served a more useful purpose, but it has outlived its useful life.

You probably wouldn’t want to sit or stand in the same place, day after day, repeating over and over, “Welcome to Walmart” to largely apathetic passersby. I wouldn’t. Most people, including individuals with disabilities, are capable of much more.

Even certain advocates for the disabled have applauded Walmart’s efforts to transition greeters to other positions. For instance, senior disability specialist at National Disability Rights Network Cheryl-Bates-Harris says, “Walmart is now opening the door to actually help individuals realize their full employment potential.”

So, it’s very unlikely that Walmart is intentionally trying to displace disabled workers. More likely, it wants to remain viable in a fiercely competitive retail arena, which will, in turn, allow it to continue to employ millions of people, including those with disabilities.

Sometimes organizations need to make tough decisions that negatively impact certain people in the short-run. However, offering meaningful work that provides valuable service to others in the long-run equals “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Divine Humor

4/19/2019

0 Comments

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

On March 15, a gunman killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. During two weeks in late March and early April, a suspect set fire to three churches in Louisiana. While most people denounce such religious violence, some seem to suggest, ‘If only people would lighten up and not take faith so seriously, there wouldn’t be such incidents.’ Perhaps that reasoning was behind a television series that gets a laugh over God.

Based on Simon Rich’s book “What in God’s Name,” Miracle Workers tells the story of two low-level angels, Craig and Eliza, who try to save humanity from God, who has grown “frustrated with the current state of Earth.” The seven-episode TBS series, which aired this past February and March and is still available for streaming online, summoned considerable star power, namely Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame, who plays an angel named Craig, and Golden Globe winner Steven Buscemi, who plays God and who has appeared in a wide variety of TV shows and films, including Fargo and Reservoir Dogs.

At first glance, the premise of Miracle Workers seems like it could be biblical. Those familiar with the book of Exodus may recall an exchange between God and Moses after he returned from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments to find the Israelites worshipping a golden calf. Ironically, the first and second commandments on the stone tablets were “You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall make no idols.” God wanted to “destroy” the Israelites and make Moses into a great nation, but Moses seemingly convinced God to relent, and the Israelites were spared.

Compared to the gravity of that scriptural account, Miracle Workers casts God and religion in a much less serious light. Admittedly, I’ve only seen the trailer, watched some online segments of the show, and read reviews, but it quickly becomes apparent that the series presents a less-than-complimentary perspective of the Divine.

For instance, in just the first few minutes of episode #1, the series shows God dressed in sweatpants, an unbuttoned shirt, and sandals with socks, lounging purposelessly on a couch, as he scrolls through TV channels. Suddenly, an assistant appears to call him to a 1:00 meeting, which he hopes is for a “fantasy football draft,” but she reminds him he is to present his “plan to end all pain.” He obviously isn’t ready, by virtue of his response, “That was today?”

Fast forward in the show, and an even more unkempt-looking God finishes swigging a beer, wipes his mouth with his hand, and launches the empty bottle through the air toward a small round trashcan. The bottle misses the basket and shatters on the floor, leading him to let loose an expletive. In another episode, assistants find God brushing his teeth with foot cream, apparently because he can’t read the labeling on the tube.

As tensions related to religion rise around the world, maybe Buscemi’s portrayal of God is what’s needed: a deity who’s more approachable—one we can relate to and laugh about. After all, “laughter is the best medicine.”

Interestingly, I’m currently working with two colleagues on a research project that’s investigating how advertising humor might support reconciliation. I’m a big believer that laughter goes a long way in breaking down social barriers and developing interpersonal rapport. I’m also a big proponent of humor in the classroom, which students seem to appreciate.

Of course, there’s a difference between laughing with people and laughing at them. There’s also a difference between good-natured, two-way teasing in which people playfully pick on each other, and one-way, vicious skewering of others.

For instance, if a friend shows up at an event with his hair wildly wind-blown, others might joke, “Joe, did you just wake up?” People actually appreciate that kind of benign ribbing because it shows they’re liked and considered part of the group. On the other hand, few would think it’s funny to say, “Don’t be an idiot, Joe. Wear a hat next time or the wind will blow away the little hair you have left.” The latter “humor” feels much less friendly and more malicious.

As the earlier examples suggest, the humor in Miracle Workers makes God out to be a bumbling buffoon, i.e., an idiot. But, does it matter? God is big; He can take it. That’s true. He certainly doesn’t need human approval to build His self-esteem or validate his existence. The problem, however, is in how people perceive the show’s humor.

So, what do viewers think of Miracle Workers’ unconventional comedy? Some people love the show. For instance, one reviewer said, “This by far, is the funniest comedy I have ever seen. I cannot wait to watch more.” Another offered similar praise, “I think this is a creative and fantastic TV show which will be one of the greatest sitcoms.”

Other opinions are more tempered, for example: “The comedy was pretty decent but nothing I'd consider really, really funny.”

Then, there were those who saw a comedic catastrophe: “I was hoping the show would be better than the promos. It wasn’t. It felt like a high school play. The writing was bad without one good joke. It needs help from God. A miracle.” Another offered a similar critique, “This show is not even remotely funny. It borders on pathetic.”

The preceding perspectives were solely about the show’s humor. How did people perceive the comedic portrayal of God? As might be expected, some took exception to the divine representation saying, for instance, “I don't like that God is portrayed as a maniacal sociopath who manipulates angels into doing horrible things to people on Earth whom he decides he doesn't like,” and “[I] don't like God being portrayed as a slovenly, self-centered maniac,” and “Our God is perfect in All Ways. This show portrays God as being a bumbling idiot unable to make a decision . . . Nothing but blasphemy.”

However, others were quick to discount such ‘biased’ interpretations, many making the same plea to not take the series too seriously because “It’s just a TV show.”

That is a good point. Miracle Workers isn’t part of the K-12 public school curriculum. Still, is it fair to dismiss anything as “just a ____” until we see its impact? When it aired, Alex Haley’s Roots was “just a TV show,” but it had indelible social influence.

Of course, Miracle Workers is a comedy, not a critically-acclaimed drama, so does that mean its cultural impact isn’t serious? Probably not—just look at sitcoms over the years that have helped shape society like All in the Family, The Jeffersons, and The Cosby Show, to name a few.

So, if TV shows, even sitcoms, have social impact, a final question seems to be: Is any topic fair for them to ridicule? People increasingly agree that it’s wrong to tease people about things like their race, their gender, and their body shape/size. Beliefs, however, appear to be held to a different standard, and perhaps they should. We are born as a certain race and gender, whereas our beliefs are things we choose and can more readily change.

However, not all beliefs are equal. For instance, I’m a big Pittsburgh Steelers fan, but I don’t mind getting teased about that team loyalty, or about my beliefs about my field—marketing. I should also be able to take teasing about my Christian faith, as others have endured far worse.

It’s different, though, when the butt of the joke isn’t me, but God. It’s hard to explain why other than, for a person of faith, God is ‘the ultimate’ and therefore deserving of the utmost respect. There’s also probably a connection to the third of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,” which any unflattering or derogatory portrayal of God seems to violate.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, which allows Miracle Workers to lampoon God. However, just because an organization or an individual has a right to do something doesn’t mean that they should.

I once heard a joke about a man who wanted to know if there would be golf in heaven. Sometime later, I remembered the joke and told it to two Christians I was with at the time. The joke didn’t make fun of God, but one of the people kindly expressed that he didn’t think any humor involving God was appropriate. The other individual defended my choice.

Although I still believe the joke is fine, I appreciate that first person’s beliefs and wouldn’t want to cause him angst by using similar humor around him. A little laughter is not that important. Sometimes the best thing to do is to not exercise our rights, out of respect for others.

When it comes to not caring for the humor in Miracle Workers, I know I’m in the minority. More people like the show and don’t take issue with it taunting God. So, the series seems to be a success, and it will likely continue to attract viewers online and perhaps continue into a second season. However, the show’s insensitivity toward one of many people’s most strongly held beliefs makes Miracle Workers “Single-Minded Marketing.”