Category: Respect170bbeec51

Tinder-garten

9/9/2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Do Whatever Makes You Comfortable”

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Comments

Should Donations Be Discreet?

9/2/2017

11 Comments

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

We’ve seen the havoc that Hurricane Harvey has wreaked around the Gulf. We’ve also witnessed an outpouring of physical and financial support for those in need. Such altruism makes me ask: Is it right to recognize those who give, or should such benevolence be anonymous?

Although I’ve considered this question before, the issue struck me more squarely than ever when I received an email a few days ago from the American Marketing Association (AMA). Like several other organizations, the AMA sent a message to its constituents, encouraging them to contribute to the relief effort, in other words, marketing giving.

The email contained a link to an American Red Cross/AMA fundraiser page, powered by Crowdrise. On the right side of the page was a box, listing the amount of money raised--$5,095 at last check. Also in the box was a scrolling list of names and dollar amounts, showing who’s given and how much, for instance:
     Andrew Smith         $50
     Erika Alexander      $10
     Anonymous             $50
     Yanliu Huang         $100
     Gunisha Samir       $50

I never saw anything quite like this revolving list of donors, which made me think: Should I be recognized for my giving?

Of course, Crowdrise didn’t invent the idea of donor recognition. There are plenty of other examples, ranging from acknowledgment pages in high school yearbooks to the names of buildings on college campuses. What’s different with Crowdrise, however, is the unique and unconventional appeal, bluntly stated below the company’s logo: “If You Don’t Give Back No One Will Like You.”

Now, I’m really questioning my motives: Do I give to others because I want to help them, or because I’d like other people to acknowledge and appreciate me. This reflection is personal, but companies wrestle with similar questions, which affects how they handle their giving.

For instance, Houston Texan defensive end J.J. Watt has effectively used his celebrity to raise over $15 million for victims of Hurricane Harvey. Given that more than 152,000 people have contributed to Watt’s fund on YouCaring.com, gifts must be coming in all sizes. Probably the largest contribution has come from retail giant Walmart, which cut a check for $1 million. However, Walmart didn’t make its donation discreetly through Watt’s website. Instead, the company handed a massive 3 ft. x 7 ft. presentation check to Ellen DeGeneres while she spoke with Watt during a taping of her talk show.

Was Walmart wrong to promote its philanthropy on national TV? Probably not. For one thing, the visibility of this very significant gift will likely raise awareness of the need for hurricane relief and encourage others, especially large corporations, to contribute. In addition, given that Walmart is a publicly-traded company, its management is accountable to shareholders, which means announcing material transactions and building goodwill for the firm, which publicizing charitable giving tends to do.

So, should you and I hand an oversized presentation check for our next $100 donation? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to be recognized. At least one of the reasons mentioned above for Walmart can apply to individuals: When others see that we give, they may be inspired to do the same.

There are, however, a few important things to consider, whether it’s an individual or a corporation building its brand. As suggested above, any publicity should be in keeping with the size of the gift. Also, motivation matters. No person or company should give simply because they want recognition. That doesn’t mean forgoing any acknowledgment, but it does mean that recognition should not be the driving force, or the primary motive.

It’s fine to have multiple reasons for doing things. Life is complicated, and our motivations must reflect that complexity. However, as a society we’ve gone askew if we allow promotion to overtake compassion. We need organizations and individuals who genuinely care about others and who are willing to help even if no one else knows they did.

So, while Crowdrise’s tagline, “If You Don’t Give Back No One Will Like You,” is unseemly, there’s not necessarily anything wrong with receiving recognition for giving. In fact, appropriate recognition can be helpful for all involved. Giving for the right reasons, anonymously or with one’s name attached, is always “Mindful Marketing.”

P.S. Helping those impacted by Hurricane Harvey is much more important than a blog about marketing ethics. If you’re thinking of giving, here’s a great list of organizations that can put your donation to good use.

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

11 Comments

Dressing for Social Media

8/18/2017

7 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 Comments

Anything for Income?

8/4/2017

1 Comment

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

One of the traits of successful entrepreneurs is their ability to sell themselves: They need to persuade potential stakeholders not only to embrace their product but also to believe that they personally have the skill and passion to make it succeed. Summers VonHesse is one such successful entrepreneur, who has given “selling yourself” a whole new meaning.

A 30-year-old mother of two living in Nevada, VonHesse hasn’t worked outside the home since she and her military-career husband married eight years ago. However, she has been quite active around her house, earning about $5,000 a month, thanks to some creative and compelling photography that she puts online for a price.

The pictures aren’t the things you might expect a mother of a five-year-old daughter and two-year-old son to post on Pinterest or upload to Instagram. They’re photos and videos of VonHesse, posing seductively in all sorts of settings, wearing little or no clothing. VonHesse takes some of the photos herself, while her husband, who supports his wife’s unusual business venture, often helps. Patrons pay $5 to $50 a month to access the pics on a special website.

Besides the extra income she provides for her family, VonHesse says her entrepreneurship helps her feel good about her body, which many describe as full-figured or curvy. Her self-esteem has risen. When asked about her work and the example she’s setting for her children, she says:
“I think that the human body is a beautiful thing, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. I want them to love their bodies, and if they wanna profit from sharing images, then I would be fine with that.”

Seems like a nice marketing success story: An busy mom finds time to do something she enjoys and turn it into a business that provides significant income for her young family. Meanwhile, she and her husband develop important skills for the digital age. What’s not to like?

Well, the problem begins with a fairly obvious fact: This type of photography is pornography. The SUN, a UK News Company, describes the photos and videos as “racy,” while Yahoo Beauty reports that “strangers pay different sums of money to get glimpses of VonHesse in lingerie and sometimes even nude.”

Webster’s Dictionary defines pornography as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement” and as “material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.” Meanwhile, Dictionary.com describes pornography as “sexually explicit videos, photographs, writings, or the like, whose purpose is to elicit sexual arousal.”

The pics and videos VonHesse and her husband post online for free are at least soft porn. One can speculate that the shots people pay $5 to $50 a month to see are even more graphic. It’s also likely that the explicitness has and will increase over time, as happens with most shocking communication: Consumers become desensitized, so to elicit the same reaction, images must become more and more graphic.

“But, wait,” some might argue. “This is about loving your body. In an age of rail-thin supermodels and fat-shaming on social media, VonHesse is setting a good example.” While it’s true that her work might be a positive influence for some, the highly sexualized content undoubtedly carries very negative repercussions for others. The issue isn’t body type.

If VonHesse’s goal were to inspire others with body-positive messages, she could do so while fully clothed, like many other “curvy” bloggers do, most of them tastefully-clothed and showing a fine sense of decorum. Instead, VonHesse’s pornographic images, appeal to one of the lowest common and most dangerous denominators: sexual infatuation.

Here are some of the troubling pornography-related statistics that Webroot.com shares:

40 million American people regularly visit porn sites.
35% of all internet downloads are related to pornography.
Every 39 minutes a new pornography video is being created in the United States.
About 200,000 Americans are “porn addicts.”

On a macro level, pornography is a major economic drain, responsible for $16.9 billion in lost business productivity each year. However, that financial cost pales compared to the devastating impact pornography has on individuals and their relationships.

One study that looked at brain scans of men who self-identified as “porn addicts” found that consumption of pornography can affect dopamine secretion in the brain and “alter the reward centre,” resulting in a variety of undesirable outcomes such as obsessive cravings and less satisfaction with real sexual partners.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that pornography has a very negative impact on marriages. Those who regularly consume pornography find it increasingly difficult to be aroused by their spouses, as their natural desire for sex “has been transferred somewhere else.” Author Sheila Gregoire continues to explain: “When you spend a ton of time teaching your brain to associate arousal and release with pornography, your brain can’t associate arousal and release with a person anymore.”

The Family Research Council presents a variety of other troubling consequences of pornography use, including the following:

Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their conjugal relations and less emotionally attached to their wives.
Pornography use is a pathway to infidelity and divorce.
Pornography viewing leads to a loss of interest in good family relations.
Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity.
Prolonged consumption of pornography by men produces stronger notions of women as commodities or as "sex objects."

Having positive perceptions of one’s body is important. While it’s great that VonHesse has achieved such self-acceptance, it’s unfortunate that she and her husband have decided to forgo privacy for profiting from indecency, putting themselves and others at risk. Being proud of your body doesn’t mean you have to show it all to everyone. Selling oneself in this way is “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Making Pirates Prettier

7/28/2017

4 Comments

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

The words “human trafficking” likely bring to mind some unsettling images. It’s doubtful that one of those associations is Disney; still, the world leader in family-friendly entertainment has felt the need to distance itself from such debased behavior, in a move that seems too politically correct to some.

Most people are familiar with “Pirates of the Caribbean,” and if you’ve visited the Magic Kingdom or Disneyland, you probably rode the namesake ride. If not, here’s a short summary: A boxy boat, drops down a small waterfall, into the pirates’ world, then meanders through a nighttime setting in which animatronic buccaneers can be seen doing what they do best: fighting, raiding, and plundering, often to a music bed of “A Pirate’s Life for Me.”

While all of the featured pirate behavior is bad, Disney has finally decided to strike an especially offensive part of the attraction: the auction of women. Just past the ride’s midpoint, one prominent pirate, “Red Beard,” stands over a line-up of nicely-dressed women at the Mercado, where a large banner reads “Auction: Take a Wench for a Bride.” He tells one of the women to “shift” her “cargo” so buyers can get a better view of her backside, and he makes a crude comment about purchasing by the pound.

As a flute plays a jolly version of the theme music and nearby chickens cluck, some of the women being bartered don’t seem particularly upset about their dire predicament. In fact, the lady atop the auction block at the time appears kind of excited to be sold. The segment lasts for just 30 seconds, and most onlookers chuckle as the boat cruises under a bridge and into the next part of the attraction.

Disney has done with the Pirates ride what it’s adeptly done for decades: presented a sanitized, family-friendly version of a harsher reality, which is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, recall some classic Disney movies: No parents wanted their five-year-old to watch Nemo’s mother actually get eaten by a barracuda, or to see Simba’s father bruised and bloodied after being stampeded. In fact, when you think of what real pirates actually have done to their victims and their property, the whole Pirates of the Caribbean franchise represents a very sterilized version of reality.

It’s not that surprising, therefore, that Disney decided to do even more clean-up of the ride and remove the women’s auction entirely. When announcing the change in its Parks blog on June 29, the company downplayed the removal and rather focused on what it was adding to the ride: new characters and a fresh scene featuring pirates selling their stolen goods. Despite the positive spin, social media erupted like the Black Pearl in battle, with many readers blasting the change, for instance:

“Please don’t do this. It would break my heart. I was already hurt when you added Disney film characters to It’s a Small World and honestly wasn’t too keen on the first update to Pirates adding Capt. Jack Sparrow (although I love Johnny Depp). Is nothing sacred?”

“So disappointed you will be changing the pirates ride at Disneyland. I’ve always been fond of that ride, it’s a Disneyland Icon & should stay as is.”

“No!!!! Please do not do this!! It’s awesome the way it is and is a classic ride!”

Of course, some people have difficulty dealing with change of any kind, even when it’s for the better, and such transitions are even harder to handle when they upend a long history. The Pirates ride has shuttled Disney visitors through the same basic story for fifty years.

However, many other critics of the change have a broader axe to grind. They’re tired of what they believe has become an ever-increasing onslaught of political correctness, feeling that no matter how accurate something may be, you can’t say or show anything that might cause someone to be offended, for example, other readers responded:

“Please don’t keep changing the theme of the ride to make it more politically correct. Some have said it’s not alright for children to think it’s ok for auctioning the women. These are important conversations to have, being a pirate is not ok! This is a way to have conversation with children.”

“Where does the PC police stop? The ride depicts drunkenness, theft, murder, and arson. That’s what pirates did.”

“Please don’t let a handful of people who can’t separate a ride from reality subtract from this iconic ride, one of the last Walt Disney worked on.”

Does all of this negative feedback mean that Disney’s alteration of the attraction is a big marketing mistake? No. One reason is that it’s hard to imagine that many people, if any, will refuse to go on the ride because it doesn’t have the auction of women scene. In fact, the publicity the change has generated will probably stir additional interest in the ride and attendance at the attraction.

A more important reason that Disney Parks are unlikely to suffer is that the motive behind the change seems pure. Human trafficking is much more than a societal blemish from centuries gone by. It’s a significant modern day problem that’s bigger than most of us would imagine, for instance:

Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion-a-year industry in the U.S., that is on the rise in all fifty states.

As of 2012, there were 20.9 million victims of trafficking world-wide; 1.5 million of those victims were in the U.S.

Human trafficking has surpassed the illegal sales of arms and is expected to surpass illegal drug sales within a few years.

So, even as you read this blog, tens of millions of people around the world are being held against their will, forced to work in sex trade and sweatshops, among other forms of enslavement. Given that global reality, it’s in poor taste to present human trafficking as part of an amusement ride that makes light of its very serious consequences.

There are those who understand the gravity of trafficking, yet they want the Pirates ride to stay the same because they believe the auction can serve as a springboard for discussion, as one of the comments above suggested. Another person shared a similar reaction to Disney’s announcement:

“Yes, selling women into slavery was and is horrible. Let’s not hide it from public view. Let’s depict life as it was so that we can have a discussion about how it should be.”

Again, however, the ride portrays human trafficking in a humorous way, which sends the wrong message and serves as a bad starting point for any serious discussion. Plus, how many families have finished the Pirates ride, when the parents pulled their children aside to say, “Now let’s analyze what we just saw and understand the true evils of human trafficking”? If there are such parents, I’d love to learn from them!

So, to summarize, Disney has made the right decision to remove the auction of women from its Pirates ride. The bigger issue that remains is whether the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise on whole is both effective and ethical, but that question will have to wait for a future blog post. In the meantime, we can credit Disney for making a sensible switch and for executing “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

Fun for All

7/21/2017

1 Comment

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

“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” Most of us ignore this well-known proverb because we can find many ways to have fun. But, what if you didn’t have the physical or cognitive abilities that are prerequisites for the play that most people enjoy. Life could be pretty dull. Fortunately, a Texas amusement park believes that everyone should have access to fun, even when wet.

Gordon and Maggie Hartman built Morgan’s Wonderland in San Antonio in honor of their daughter Morgan, who often inspired others with her smile, despite facing physical and cognitive challenges. The park opened in April of 2010, as the “the world’s first theme park designed with special-needs individuals in mind and built for everyone’s enjoyment.” Morgan’s is “completely wheelchair-accessible” and free of charge to anyone with a special need.

What makes such a park so significant? Individuals with disabilities can easily find themselves on the sidelines because their opportunities for recreation are much more limited than those for most of us. Many of the leisure activities the general populace takes for granted require abilities that some people don’t possess, e.g., complete mobility, fast reflexes, vision, hearing, etc.

Some may be thinking, “But, doesn’t the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demand accessibility for people with disabilities?” Yes, the law passed in 1990 and modified several times since, “prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities” and “requires that all new facilities built by public accommodations, including small businesses, must be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.” As of 2010, the act even pertains to specific recreational categories, including amusement rides, play areas, swimming pools, and wading pools.

However, ADA accommodation doesn’t extend particularly far when it comes to providing equal amusement opportunity. For existing structures, businesses only need to remove architectural barriers when doing so is “readily achievable,” which means "easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense”—a measure that’s relative to the firm’s size and resources.

For newly built or altered facilities, the law is somewhat more stringent, demanding that such new construction is “accessible to individuals with disabilities." Still, there are limits to what businesses need to do. Companies are required to make “reasonable modifications” to serve people with disabilities, but businesses aren’t obligated to adapt in ways that would disrupt their normal customer service or otherwise create an “undue burden.”

Now, back to “play.” How might ADA requirements impact people with disabilities who would like to enjoy the wet and wild time of a waterpark? In most cases, not very well. For instance, the park might build ramps or install lifts to give people with wheel chairs access to play areas, but that entry is irrelevant if waterproof wheelchairs aren’t available or if the placement of water jets isn’t friendly to wheels.

That’s where Morgan’s Wonderland is different. Rather than resting on the laurels of its already significant service to those with special needs, the company has decided to keep innovating and expanding. So, just last month, it opened Morgan’s Inspiration Island, “the world’s first ultra-accessible splash park where guests of all ages and abilities can get wet and have fun together.”

For instance, Inspiration Island features Rainbow Reef, a splash pad with heated water, specially created for people who cannot tolerate regular temperature water. There’s also Shipwreck Island, which boasts an accessible pirate ship. In addition, the park provides “three types of waterproof wheelchairs that fit a variety of heights and sizes.”

What do these unique amenities mean in terms of Morgan’s marketing? While other companies make basic changes to their facilities just to comply with minimal ADA requirements, Morgan’s Wonderland intentionally targets individuals with disabilities and their families, significantly adapting its marketing mix for their benefit. Morgan’s mission is to serve and satisfy these special customers.

All that may sound good, but is operating an amusement park for underserved consumers just a work of charity? Is there really potential in the amusement industry for this market? Apparently there is, given that Morgan’s has completed such an ambitious expansion just seven years after the main amusement park opened. Morgan’s also has struck a smart strategic alliance with Toyota. The global automotive giant has been “a leader in mobility solutions for drivers with disabilities,” making it a natural fit to become the park’s presenting sponsor.

It’s also worth noting that individuals with disabilities represent more than a niche market: 50 million Americans, or 18% of the population, have disabilities. Most organizations would be thrilled to have that many potential customers.

Meeting the needs of any target market is tough. Satisfying the special needs of those with disabilities requires even greater resolve, but Morgan’s Wonderland has shown itself more than worthy of such challenges, similar to the courageous individuals it serves. For this reason, Morgan’s is an inspiring example of “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

Hotdog Heroes?

7/7/2017

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Mean Tweets Encourage Bad Behavior

6/29/2017

0 Comments

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

It’s painful to repeat these social media putdowns, but there’s a reason: “[Amy Poehler’s face] looks like she survived a nuclear blast.” “Melissa McCarthy is the Madea of white people.”   “Anthony Mackie is probably just angry because he looks like a *#@% Aardvark.” “Gina Davis is a real man’s man.” “If you skinned Larry King & ironed out his leather, you could make enough coats to give 1 to every poor child in America.”

While one might wonder how individuals can be so insensitive as to post these kinds of insults on Twitter, what’s even more incredible is that a national television network curates the cruelty, repackages it, and presents it as comedy. What show does such things? ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live.

For over five years, the show has aired a segment called “Mean Tweets.” Each edition features scathing criticisms that ill-mannered individuals have tweeted about specific celebrities. While simply sharing the verbal abuse would be bad enough, to create more compelling television, producers have each celebrity read his/her own Mean Tweets on camera, heightening the humiliation.

Despite its animosity, the segment has been well-liked, as suggested by both the bit’s longevity and the growing number of special segments, e.g., NFL and NBA players, country music stars, and even a President Obama edition. Several of these spin-offs have garnered tens of millions of views on YouTube. Why have they been so popular? Perhaps for the same reason motorists slow down to checkout a car accident when they know they shouldn’t, yet they can’t keep from looking.

Some may be thinking, "What’s the harm? Many of the tweets are funny because they’re stupid. Plus, celebrities are used to public scrutiny and don’t seem to mind reading the tweets; if they did, they wouldn’t participate. In fact, the celebrities are doing a service by showing how to laugh at criticism rather than let it bother you.”

Those are fair arguments, but those who make them, not to mention the creators of Mean Tweets, are missing the most important point: No one should encourage verbal abuse; yet, that cruelty is the foundation for the Mean Tweets segment.

In most editions of Mean Tweets, the show shares not only heartless posts but the Twitter handles of the mean tweeters, lifting them out of obscurity and giving them an undeserved moment of fame. They are essentially rewarded for comments that most would call “abusive, vulgar or rude.”

In many ways, Mean Tweets is doing exactly the opposite of what most TV networks do when a misguided spectator enters the playing field during a live sporting event: The producers refuse to broadcast the reprobates, denying them any additional recognition of their bad behavior and avoiding encouragement of copycats. Mean Tweets, in contrast, glamorizes the offensive act, suggesting that it’s okay to gain attention by demeaning others.

Granted, most people do not hope for network television coverage of their tweets, but they do want the attention and approval of people in their social networks. Given the wide acceptance of Mean Tweets, many may reason that disparaging others is a path to popularity. That’s exactly the kind of behavior our society can ill afford to encourage.

If one took away the TV cameras and the celebrity cameos and put Mean Tweets in a school setting, it would be called shaming or bullying, which include teasing, name-calling, inappropriate sexual comments, and taunting. According to bullying statistics.org, “Over half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online, and about the same number have engaged in cyber bullying.”

The consequences of bullying are always bad. Children who are bullied are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, health complaints, and decreased academic achievement. And, sometimes the results are fatal, as was the case for 15-year-old Sadie Riggs, a Pennsylvania girl who recently hanged herself. In the obituary, Sadie’s family cited social media bullying for making her feel “worthless” and helping precipitate her suicide.

Should Sadie have read her cyberbullies’ comments in public and learned to laugh at their putdowns? Of course not. The solution to bullying is not to further shame the victim but to stop the bullying. Among other things, that means not making light of abusive language or giving it undeserved exposure.

Ironically, ABC News, which belongs to the same network that airs Mean Tweets, shared a press release about Sadie Rigg’s premature passing. The story recounted her family asking well-wishers to forgo flowers and instead “be kind to one another.” Jimmy Kimmel Live should take that plea to heart and put an end to Mean Tweets and its “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Marketing Violence

6/9/2017

0 Comments

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

Do you have keepsakes that remind you of special life experiences, e.g., the playbill from a Broadway musical, the lunchbox you used in elementary school? How about the shirt you wore when you had a big argument with a coworker? Of course, most people want to forget unpleasant incidents like that, but apparently not Major League Baseball (MLB).

Even if you don’t follow professional baseball, you may have heard of the brawl that broke out between the Washington Nationals and the San Francisco Giants this past Memorial Day. The clash occurred in the eighth inning when Giants relief pitcher Hunter Strickland pegged Bryce Harper in the hip with a fastball, which many believe was planned payback for Harper homering twice off Strickland in the 2014 playoffs.

Harper charged the mound, where the pair exchanged a few blows as the benches cleared and players from both teams enveloped the combatants. The altercation earned Harper and Strickland suspensions of four and six games, respectively, as well as fines of undisclosed amounts. So, MLB took a strong stance against fighting—well, not exactly.

A few days after the incident, the jersey that Strickland wore during the ruckus appeared for sale on the league’s dedicated auction website: http://auctions.mlb.com. The site, which is “The Official Online Auction of Major League Baseball,” offers to the highest bidder all matter of baseball memorabilia, ranging from Albert Pujols’s 585th career home run ball, to seats from Wrigley Field. MLB has a painstaking process for ensuring the authenticity of such collectibles, which includes employing an authenticator at every game who affixes a tamper-resistant, serial-number-linked holographic sticker to each item that may have special future value.

Somehow jersey #60 made its way off Strickland, through the authentication process, and onto the auction block. There the shirt quickly began collecting bids, which rose to $1,500, making it “by far the most coveted game-used Giants jersey” from the Memorial Day game. Those competing for the collectible were well aware of what they were after; in fact, “the item listing noted that ‘Strickland was ejected from the game after fighting with Bryce Harper.’”

Meanwhile a representative of MLB Auctions told the Washington Post that proceeds from the jersey’s sale would go to the Giants. The league also listed for sale Strickland’s Memorial Day cap and the shirt that Giants outfielder Michael Morse wore in the same game. Morse ended up on the seven-day concussion disabled list after the game because he hit heads with one of his own teammates, pitcher Jeff Samardzija, during the scuffle.

Successful businesses and businesspeople need to be opportunistic, right? They see chances to make money and they take advantage of them. So, was MLB just following best practices in realizing revenue from the Memorial Day merchandise? No.

The league’s sale of the memorabilia implied acceptance of the fighting. Principled organizations and individuals only market products that they feel are good and right. A firm that sells smartphones believes that the technology benefits its users. Even owners of preschool lemonade stands believe that their customers benefit from their beverages. In contrast, we question the integrity of individuals who sell products that they would never use themselves, although they could.

Some may argue that Strickland’s Memorial Day jersey is just a shirt, and that there’s nothing inherently violent about a piece of clothing. That’s true, but it’s also obvious that the jersey would never have been worth $1,500 aside from its unseemly association. As the seller, MLB intended to capture significant extra value because of the violence.

Our world is rightly enraged by violence that terrorists, abusive spouses, and school bullies act out on innocents. In comparison, major league players pummeling each other on a pitching mound seems less severe because they are highly paid elite athletes and baseball is entertainment, but the brutality is still very real.

As angry as individuals may be, belting someone with a baseball and throttling them with fists aren’t ways rational people resolve differences, and they certainly are not behaviors we want young people to emulate. Yet, selling shirts and other merchandise connected to such incidents legitimizes those actions and even glamorizes the violence.

Granted, there’s gratuitous violence in other sports that occurs even more frequently, e.g., the fighting that’s tolerated and even glorified in ice hockey, which is also problematic. That discussion, however, will need to wait for another blog post.

Fortunately, MLB realized the error of its way and closed the auction a couple of hours before it was scheduled to end. Still, the message had already been sent, and the perceptual damage had been done. Unfortunately, people will pay to partake in violence in various ways, but the organizations that stoop to satisfy such demand are guilty of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

How Caffeine Can Kill

5/30/2017

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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