Category: Respect170bbeec51

Gen Z Students Teach Their Professor About Thrifting

9/10/2021

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

Remember the excitement of your first time wearing a new jacket or pair of shoes? Did you wonder how the original owner felt when they wore them? You probably didn’t unless you’ve been part of one of the hottest consumer trends--thrifting. For a variety of reasons, it’s now fashionable, especially among Generation Z, to shop secondhand, but this Gen X marketing professor wonders if it’s smart for the apparel industry to embrace a fad that may dissuade people from purchasing its new products.

Scanning my marketing news feeds a couple of months ago, a headline caught my eye, “Letter from Gen Z: Why thrifting is the future of fashion.” Thinking it was a bold prediction, I saved the article to discuss with my fall classes. The semester started, I shared the piece, and I’m stunned how passionate so many students are about thrifting!

However, on the first day of Personal Selling class, before I even mentioned the article, I asked each person to ‘sell us on something important to you.’ With great enthusiasm, a student named Brooke shared how much she enjoyed thrifting. Her tremendous passion for the practice was obvious to all, and very surprising to me.

My impression had long been that shopping for secondhand items was something mostly people on very limited budgets did out of necessity, to save money. Similarly, those who did frequent aftermarket sellers certainly wouldn’t brag about what they’d bought. Apparently, that stigma has subsided, and college students, some of whom come from affluent families, are among those most active in propagating thrifting’s new-found popularity.

To get a better picture of thrifting behavior among college students, I created a brief online survey that I shared with my four classes; about 70 students completed it. The results revealed some surprising behavior, for instance:

70.4% of students had purchased used clothing three or more times, and 54.9% had done so seven or more times.
The most likely places to purchase used clothing were traditional thrift stores like Goodwill and Salvation Army (39.4%), followed by retailers and brands that sell both new and used clothes, such as H&M and Levi’s (33.8%), then consignment stores (22.5%), and finally flea-markets (7.1%).
The strongest motivations for buying used clothing were cost (49.3%), followed by fashion (16.9%), then desire for old/vintage (11.27%), then impact of influencers (2.8%), and last environmental concerns (1.4%).

Before the survey, I didn’t think that so many college students were actively thrifting. To my surprise, only 9.9% of those who responded, said they’ve never purchased used clothing. I was also surprised that the places they thrift are rather evenly distributed.

Comparing the two different findings, it’s remarkable that the percentage of those who are very likely to frequent even the least popular thrifting place, flea-markets (7.1%), is not much lower than the portion of people who have never thrifted (9.9%).

On one hand, seeing cost emerge as the top motivator for thrifting was not surprising; however, I had expected its percentage to be even higher, e.g., 90% or more—again, I always thought that saving money was the only reason people purchased used clothing.

As it turns out, the desires to be fashionable and to own old/vintage clothing were also very compelling. Along those lines, I realized that my simple survey failed to ask about what may be one of the most important motivations!

At the end of the survey, an open-ended question invited respondents to share any other thoughts about thrifting. Seventeen students seized the opportunity and offered responses that included the following:

“I love it so much!”
“I love to thrift and over half of my closet is thrifted.”
“Very cheap way of finding trendy clothes”
“It’s how I get 90% of my clothes.”
“I love that I can find articles of clothing that no one else is likely to have. Thrift finds are one of a kind. I also buy clothes from stores like Target, but my purchases [there] are not as unique [emphasis added] because other people have the ability to buy the same thing. Thrifting grants me a more unique [emphasis added] wardrobe!”
At least 50% of my clothes are thrifted, I absolutely love thrifting - both because it limits waste in the fashion industry and because it’s fun! [emphasis added]

The last two comments contained two words that were both eye-opening and full of marketing implications:

1) Unique: I remember, not long ago, when young people wanted to look like everyone else. To be one of the few people who didn’t have the popular brands of sneakers or jeans was often an ostracizing experience.

Now it seems that many Gen Zers want to own clothing that not everyone else is wearing. Moreover, items that are one-of-a-kind, like those that can be found through thrifting, are even better, as they help express individual identity, which mass marketed products can’t easily accomplish.

2) Fun: In my thrifting survey, I kind of included a question about wanting unique clothing (“old/vintage”), but I completely overlooked the idea that members of Gen Z thrift because they enjoy the thrill of the experience.

For many, thrifting is a kind of treasure hunt in which they may or may not know exactly what they’re looking for, and what they find may be a complete surprise. It’s exciting for almost anyone to come across something special that others are unlikely to locate.

Both of these motives, as well as some of the others, are instrumental to the thrifting behavior of Brooke, introduced above, who has been buying secondhand products for 3-4 years and goes thrifting once every two or three weeks. In those outings, Brooke has found used bargains on everything from American Eagle clothing, to Ugg boots, to Vera Bradley bookbags.

Cost is certainly a motivation for Brooke; in fact, she says she loves saving money and showing people the great buys she gets for ¾ of regular retail prices. She also says that she now has “a hard time spending full price on clothing at retail stores.” However, Brooke also enjoys the excitement of thrifting:

“I get a thrill in not knowing what I’m going to find. You don’t know if you’ll walk in and find brand new Nike shoes for $40 or Lululemon leggings for $30, and that’s the fun in thrift shopping, the unknowns.”

There’s little question that many members of Gen Z enjoy thrifting for a variety of reasons, but what can/should marketers do with that consumption behavior? After all, most clothing brands are in the business of selling new clothes, not used ones. Some, however, have found ways to do both, and apparently make money.

One of those brands is the iconic blue jean maker Levi’s, which has made an entire enterprise out of buying back and reselling its used denim. The company runs a well-developed website, Levi’s SecondHand where it resells its classic jeans, jean shorts, denim jackets, and more.

Even though they’re used, the items aren’t cheap. For instance, the site sells preowned men’s original fit 501 jeans for $38. On a recent Labor Day sale, Macy’s offered the same jeans new for $41.70, or less than $4 more. Levi’s used product site also sells Vintage 501 Shorts for a pricey $78 a pair.

However, a webpage that describes Levi’s SecondHand explains why someone would want to pay a premium for preowned: “Denim from past seasons that’s already beat-up and broken in. In other words, perfect.”—That sentiment is very similar to the survey finding mentioned above about generation Z liking clothes that are old, vintage, and unique.

The company also touts several other advantages of SecondHand, especially sustainability:

“If everybody bought one used item this year, instead of buying new, it would save 449 million pounds of waste.”

“Levi’s SecondHand keeps coveted pieces in circulation. It’s all about connecting people to timeless styles they otherwise may not have found, and most importantly, saving clothing from going into a landfill. Old denim has never looked better.”

A big question that remains is if selling secondhand is sustainable for Levi’s. Sure, used denim may be what consumers want and what the environment needs, but can the company make money in the clothing aftermarket? If not, the program has little potential.

Levi’s SecondHand isn’t yet a year old, so longevity is still not the best indicator. However, if the company is successful selling some used products for only a few dollars less than they sell for new, and others for even more, it seems likely that the firm, free from manufacturing costs and with relatively little added overhead, must make a healthy margin on each piece and turn a profit on the program as a whole. Interestingly, over the past year Levi’s stock price has increased significantly, from $12/share on September 21, 2020, to $26.50/share on September 6, 2021.

Can other clothing companies pull off a secondhand program like Levi’s? Few have the history and brand equity that the iconic jean maker enjoys; however, consumers’ appetite for used clothing and the favorable cashflow suggested above serve as an invitation to other suppliers. Furthermore, the fact that those who have entered the aftermarket include clothing retailers J.C. Penney, Macy’s, Madewell, and Nordstrom, as well as the furniture behemoth IKEA, suggests the viability of selling secondhand.

When you think about it, it’s not unusual for manufacturers and new product retailers to sell used products. Auto dealerships have been doing so for a century or more. Part of the reason people are willing to pay so much for new cars is that they know when they’re done driving them, someone else will buy them. Whether it’s Levi’s or Lexus, high resale value is a hallmark of a strong brand.

Still, an important moral issue remains, which a second member of Gen Z brought to my attention. Katie, also a marketing student of mine, helped me see that consumers have a responsibility to ‘thrift ethically.’ Inspired by a variety of posts she’d seen on Instagram and a visit to a thrift store in Colorado, Katie suggested that consumers shouldn’t shop in “low-volume, high-populated areas” and that they should avoid patronizing secondhand places “outside of their fiscal demographic."

The overarching reason for these sensitivities is that some desirable-brand item that we buy in a thrift shop as a ‘little luxury’ might be the same item that a more impoverished person would buy out of necessity. As consumers, we are often accustomed to there being plenty of products for everyone, but Katie reminded me that what we buy secondhand may be taking something away from someone who needs it more.

Of course, not every product lends itself to a profitable aftermarket, but many do. Consequently, for the sake of environmental, financial, and social stewardship, more companies and consumers should consider how they might responsively market and purchase preowned products. Whether new or used, items that offer value to buyers and profit to sellers, can be considered “Mindful Marketing.”

28 Comments

Cutting Out Weight Loss Ads

8/15/2021

11 Comments

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

Have you ever felt self-conscious about your weight? Most people probably have, perhaps because of someone’s casual comment or from comparing their figure to those of their friends. Maybe an ad even contributed to the unease. Marketers increasingly seek to affirm all physiques but is their support of body positivity delivering an unhealthy message?

It’s hard to think of inclusiveness of physical form without remembering Dove. Through its 2004 “Real Beauty” campaign the personal care brand pioneered promotion based on the reality that beautiful people come in all shapes and sizes.

Since then, many other organizations have mirrored Dove’s body-positive approach. Retailers like Kohl’s and Old Navy, routinely include plus-sized models in their ads, while Target and Macy’s employ variously proportioned mannequins to highlight similarly sized clothing.

Last month, the picture-lovers site Pinterest took body positivity a step further by announcing it would ban weight-loss ads. The social media platform explained that its decision was in the interest of individuals “facing challenges related to body image and mental health,” especially those suffering from eating disorders.

The first major social media platform to take such action, Pinterest’s unprecedented decision quickly received wide news coverage ranging from Fortune to NPR.

Most media cast Pinterest’s ban of weight loss ads in a positive light. For instance, an NBC News opinion piece called the choice “a glimmer of good news” amid more typically troubling stories.

It’s very encouraging that people increasingly recognize that everyone is different and that those differences can be celebrated. But are all differences good differences? Aren’t there certain behaviors that are objectively better for people to do, and others to avoid? Furthermore, are some marketers, like Pinterest, encouraging people to celebrate differences that could actually be harmful to them and to society?”

These are difficult questions to answer in any context, and they become especially tenuous when treating a topic like body image, which so directly impacts everyone, both in individual, psychological ways and in social, relational ways.

In my early years, I was a somewhat ‘chunky’ child and experienced, more than once, critical comments about my weight, which were hard to hear. As I grew older, taller and became more active, I lost weight, or maybe more accurately, didn’t gain much more. Ironically, I now sometimes receive unsolicited comments about being thin, which admittedly are easier to accept; although, they still make me feel uncomfortable.

Despite, this personal experience, a middle-aged man like me is probably not an ideal person to offer insights about body image and the social norms that surround it. When I feel ill-equipped to tackle an ethical issue on my own, which occurs often, I reach out to others who have different and frequently more informed perspectives.

In this instance, I needed as much help as ever, so I contacted several people who I knew would expand my perceptions by hearing their thoughts about Pinterest’s ad ban. Here are highlights from three interactions:

1. A veteran registered nurse, and Baby Boomer, who works in adult primary care as a nurse practitioner posed two important questions that also have been on my mind: 1) How effective are weight loss ads, and 2) “Do they promote healthy behaviors or unhealthy ones?” In answering both questions, she pointed me to a study published in npj Digital Medicine, which found that “online advertisements hold promise as a mechanism for changing population health behaviors.”

She also referenced CDC statistics that show that from 1999 to 2018, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 30.5% to 42.4%. In her work, she sees firsthand how the effects of obesity, including diabetes and hypertension, can lead to “even more life changing complications.” She added:

“Weight loss is usually part of the treatment, and avoidance of obesity is usually preventative. So, if clicking on weight loss ads is a behavior that leads to seeking out more information on healthy behavioral change, then by all means, keep the ads.”

2. A member of Generation Y who works in the food marketing industry had a somewhat different take on weight loss ads. She said that her online scroll speed increases significantly in order to avoid the ads, which she says, “feel more personal as they poke at my self-esteem.” However, she qualifies her aversion to the ads, adding:

“I believe that weight loss products/services deserve to be advertised, but maybe in a way that’s sensitive to the cultural climate of body positivity/neutrality. I’m hopeful that these organizations could use that mindset as a framework guiding their ads, in a way that’s still effective at stopping someone’s scroll but acts as an invitation rather than a confrontation.”

3. A college student and member of Generation Z told me about his very significant weight loss: In just five months, this 6’ 3” young man lost 60 lbs., dropping from 260 to 200 lbs. Given that his accomplishment came mainly from “drinking plenty of water and exercising 4-5 times a week,” it’s not surprising that he emphasized the importance of approaching weight loss as a serious undertaking that requires perseverance:

“It is important to draw the connection between weight loss and hard work, the latter which must come first. It's about discipline, research, and taking your own personal initiative to develop an interest in personal fitness. You cannot simply buy a weight loss program and expect fat to magically remove itself from your body.”

Although he had no concern that society would suddenly become heavier if weight loss ads disappeared, he did express concern about any messaging that might normalize obesity:

“We will lose the idea of what is acceptable and what is not if we desensitize ourselves to what is normal. Being overweight is not a ‘normal’ state to be in, according to health professionals regardless of what ‘body-positivity experts’ have to say. It is common, but not healthy . . . It is ironic that the body-positivity movement promotes every body type more frequently than the ones deemed most healthy by scientists and health professionals.”

Of course, the opinions of these three people don’t represent the full spectrum of perspectives on weight loss and body image. They didn’t speak much to issues like anorexia and bulimia; however, I know each of them understands and empathizes with all who suffer from such eating disorders, as well as those who have been shamed because of their physique.

At the same time, these three voices have expressed important points that perhaps seem contrarian, probably because they tend not to receive the attention they deserve. For instance, they emphasized:

The right type of weight-loss advertising, that’s affirming and realistic, can be effective and beneficial.
Weight-loss is more a function of hard work and self-discipline than any quick fix.
No one should be made to feel bad about their body, but normalizing obesity is not helpful.
Although eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia are fairly common (1%-4% of the population suffers from them), obesity is much more prevalent: As mentioned above, in the U.S., 42.4% of adults were obese in 2018. Also, unfortunately, the pandemic has seen an increase in obesity, with an average weight gain of 29 lbs., making people more susceptible to the dangerous effects of the virus, as well as other serious illnesses.

It’s unfortunate that we live in a weight-obsessed society. Some marketers bear responsibility for helping to cultivate that preoccupation, e.g., by promoting unhealthy lifestyles that lead to excessive weight gain. Others are culpable for perpetuating unrealistic physical ideals and impossible ways of achieving them.

Pinterest is right to act against specific advertising abuses that cause others to feel shame and that encourage eating disorders. However, in embracing body positivity, the social media platform and others should be careful not to inadvertently endorse what is objectively one of world’s biggest problems, obesity, as doing so weighs in as “Mindless Marketing.”

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

11 Comments

College Athletes Must Get in Condition for Commercialism

7/5/2021

3 Comments

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

College students enjoy talking about ads, especially ones that feature top athletes like Tom Brady, Serena Williams, and Lebron James. The NCAA’s momentous decision to allow college athletes to become paid spokespeople has leveled the promotional playing field, but are young, soon-to-be endorsers ready for the pressures they’ll face in a different kind of game?

In a landmark decision on June 30, the NCAA lifted its long-standing rules prohibiting organizations from paying student athletes to endorse their products. Now athletes in all three divisions can profit by leasing their names, images, and likenesses (N.I.L.) to the highest, first, or only bidder.

The rationale behind the NCAA’s prior rulings was to preserve amateurism and the purity of competition, uncontaminated by commercialism. The point of this piece is not to debate the pros and cons of paying student athletes, which many others have already done. Instead, it’s past time to ask if these young people are prepared for the new opportunities and challenges that come with being paid endorsers.

Already, many of the same college athletes who had simply enjoyed watching professional spokespeople now find that they are professional spokespeople, but is paid promotion a game they’re ready to play?

The clock had barely turned midnight on June 30, when several college athletes began to monetize their new marketability. The first was apparently Auburn University quarterback Bo Nix who signed a deal with Milo’s sweet tea at 12:02 am, July 1. Two others who quickly followed suit were twin sisters Haley and Hanna Cavinder, basketball players at Fresno State University, who inked an agreement with Boost Mobile.

For the Cavinders, the leap to professional endorsers should be a fairly smooth one. They are business marketing majors, but even more, they are already social media stars with over 3 million followers on TikTok and about 4 million across all platforms.

However, for other newly minted marketers with less knowledge and experience, the transition will likely be more challenging. Here are five things college athletes should understand in order to do well and good in their new commercial competition:

1) Marketing: One wouldn’t jump into a serious game of basketball, football, etc. without knowing the sport. Similarly, one shouldn’t enter paid endorsement without understanding marketing. Beyond an appreciation of the discipline as a whole (e.g., the four Ps), two concepts that every paid endorser should comprehend are target market and branding.

The sponsoring organization and its advertising agent should be aware of the target market they’re trying to reach in terms of its demographics, psychographics, and any other identifying criteria. Endorsers should have the same understanding so they can make their own assessment of personality-audience fit and use that knowledge to tailor their communication.

Closely related, an endorser should have a clear picture of the unique identity, or brand, they’re building for themselves and the branding of the sponsoring company. Although these personal and organizational brands will never be identical, they should be complementary. For instance, individuals trying to build their brands as ‘sophisticated and exclusive,’ probably shouldn’t endorse brands that are seen as ‘low-budget and casual.’

2) Contracts: Sponsorship deals are typically bound by contracts that specify the rights and duties of all parties, including those of the spokespeople. As such, college athletes should understand basic contract terms like offer, acceptance, breach, indemnification, and exclusivity. The last term is especially important in that contract terms might prohibit an athlete from signing sponsorship deals with other organizations, particularly competitors.

Another special provision often found in endorsement contacts is a character or morals clause, which “allows the sponsor either to suspend or terminate a sponsorship agreement in the event that the athlete, celebrity or other endorser violates the clause [because of] behavior that is criminal, that is scandalous, or that might tarnish the advertiser’s brand.” Most people have better sense than Ryan Lochte showed after the 2016 Rio Olympics; still, it behooves every college athlete to understand that by signing an endorsement contract they become more accountable for their actions, including their social media posts, than they ever were before.

3) Personal finance: Although those who feel they don’t have enough money may disagree, research study results support the premise that more money can mean more problems, at least in terms of added stress. A former NCAA athlete who now works in banking, believes that newly earned endorsement income can become a burden for college athletes who lack sufficient financial acumen and discipline.

A little over a year ago, Hunter Brindle was captain of Messiah University’s baseball team while he completed majors in economics and marketing. Now an investment advisor, he expresses concern that college-age spokespeople may not manage their endorsement money wisely, leading to unsustainable spending habits they’ll regret later in life unless they are financially informed:

“When your housing, utilities, and meals are all covered by a scholarship, loan, or your parents in one large payment, you develop the mindset that every dollar that enters your bank account is there for spending. Therefore, I believe it will be very common to see many college athletes spending any endorsement dollars as fast as they are coming in without realizing the potential future benefit those dollars could provide when they are someday trying to figure out how to put a down payment on a house. Because of this, I believe it could be extremely beneficial for athletes to participate in some sort of financial counseling as they enter college where the reality of real-life expenses is laid out before them.”

4) Time-management: College places time pressure on every student, but regular practices, workouts, and games, mean that athletes must work even harder to balance their schedules. Messiah University’s men’s soccer coach Brad McCarty, who has led his teams to five NCAA Division III Championships, believes the addition of endorsements makes athletes’ time management all-the-more critical:

“One of the biggest challenges student-athletes face is the balance of time and resources. Regardless of the level—D1, D2, or D3—NCAA athletes are having to juggle homework, exams, study groups, practice, games, lifting, fitness, nutrition, sleep, relationships with teammates, dating relationships, spiritual development, social media, jobs, etc. College athletes interested in finding ways to be a paid endorser takes time/energy, but they already don’t have a lot of margin in their lives.”

McCarty goes on to say that athletic departments will be important players in helping their athletes navigate the new commercial environment.

5) Respect for others: The first four items college athletes need to understand are squarely in their own self-interest. However, they also should be cognizant of the impact their endorsement decisions may have on others, including some already inferred above:

Teams: Athletes who are good enough to receive sponsorship deals are naturally among the best on their teams, which means their coaches and fellow players must depend on them to avoid distractions and perform at high levels in order to help the team succeed.
Universities: Any organization’s brand is partly a function of the personal brands of its leaders and other members, e.g., Apple and Steve Jobs; Tesla and Elon Musk. College athletes must realize, therefore, that their endorsement decisions reflect on their institutions, which is why Brigham Young University has adopted an N.I.L. policy that prohibits its athletes from endorsing products like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and adult entertainment.
Society: College athletes already serve as role models for many people, especially young fans. As they evolve into multimedia influencers, athletes should be aware that many more people will emulate their words and actions in ways that can produce broad positive or negative impact in areas such as physical health, mental well-being, interpersonal relationships, and environmental sustainability.

The five preceding prescriptions can challenge anyone, including young athletes who lack certain life experience and who need to focus on their sports and their education. As such, these new endorsers will require the guidance of many others, including their coaches, athletic departments, and institutions, as well as other individuals who can offer them informed and unbiased perspectives on personal branding and integrated marketing communication.

College athletes are some of the most gifted individuals in the world. With the support of others and their own self-discipline, they can continue to excel in their sports and in the classroom will also becoming producers of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

3 Comments

Should Social Media Influence Have an Age Limit?

6/19/2021

4 Comments

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

“Act your age”—It’s a demand that flustered parents make of tantrum-throwing teens and that embarrassed teens make of youth-seeking parents. Obeying social norms like ones for age-appropriate behavior can be helpful for everyone, so why are some older people acting like social media influencers?

Influencer marketing has become “the fastest-growing online marketing channel” as countless companies have realized that ordinary people with sizable social media followings can be extremely effective at building their brands.

From 2016 to 2020, revenue from influencer marketing leapt from $1.7 billion to $9.7 billion, and it’s expected to rise even more, to $13.8 billion in 2021. Helping to drive this growth was the 2019 addition of over 240 new influencer marketing platforms and agencies, which enjoyed a whopping $6.50 in sales for every $1 spent.

Who exactly are these influencers? The top three in terms of social media followers are Ariana Grande (429 million), Justin Bieber (455 million), and soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo (517 million), whose recent removal of two bottles of Coca-Cola from a table at a European Championship press conference allegedly caused the beverage brand’s share price to plunge 1.6%.

However, the vast majority of influencers aren’t A-list celebrities whose actions affect stock prices; rather, they’re people who are persuasive in their areas of expertise and are regarded highly by their admirers. A few of these influencers who have the highest numbers of followers are:

Jamie Oliver – Food (6.7 million)
Murad Osmann – Travel (4.1 million)
Chiara Ferragni – Fashion and Style (15.3 million)
Paul Nicklen - Photography (5.6 million followers)
Joanna Stevens Gaines – Lifestyle (11.2 million)
Grace Bonney – Design (932k)
Huda Kattan – Beauty (28.2 million)
Jen Selter – Sport and Fitness (12.8 million)

Highly successful influencers undoubtedly share many traits such as strong communication skills and great credibility. Another is age: Most of the top influencers listed above, as well as others on HubSpot’s list, appear to be Gen Ys or Gen Zs. Very few if any have grey hair or wrinkles.

Supporting this observation, a Google search for “old influencers” produces a telling People also ask question: “Are there any influencers over 40?” The fact that this question is so common suggests that many doubt anyone past age 39 can have meaningful social media impact.

The widespread preference for youthful promoters makes a recent headline in The Drum seem almost ridiculous: “The rise of the 50+ influencer.” Really? Encountering a community of half-century and up social media spokespeople seems about as likely as seeing senior citizen sprinters at the upcoming Olympics.

We all know that as we age, our physical and mental capabilities decline, as does our pop culture relevance. Who wants to hear music suggestions or take fashion tips from a 75-year-old? Apparently, some people do, and increasingly those “some” number in the hundreds of thousands and even millions.

MediaKix has identified the “Top 10 Elderly Influencers Dominating Instagram,” a list that includes these well-seasoned spokespeople :

Baddliewinkle – 3.5 million followers: Helen Winkle’s unique brand attracts sponsors such as Smirnoff, Missguided, and Stash. Her tagline, “Stealing your man since 1928,” suggests she’s in her 90s.
Iris Apfel – 1.6 million followers: At the age of 97, Apfel is leveraging her extensive background as an interior designer to help build brands that include Vogue, Christie’s, and Hunter Douglas.
Accidental Icon – 743,000 followers: Lyn Slater is a veteran professor who started a fashion blog in 2014 and is now collaborating with brands like Maison Margiela, Perricone MD, and Oribe.

How are people who are old enough to be great grandparents becoming social media stars? In The Drum article referenced above, author Adam Whyte suggests that pandemic lockdowns kept many people at home and online more often, giving them extra time to be content creators and consumers.

Whyte is probably right that COVID helped speed the trend of older influencers; however, it’s likely one that was evolving anyway. Although they were not early adopters of social media, it was inevitable that at least some baby boomers and Gen Xers would grow into influencer roles given their sheer numbers (about 70 million and 65 million, respectively), their increasing use of Facebook, Instagram, etc., and their growing comfort with technology.

However, there’s an even more deep-rooted reason why the emergence of older influencers makes sense: Even though American culture doesn’t always show it, people do still appreciate age and experience.

This point hit home for me earlier this spring as I interviewed prospective college students for a special scholarship program. One of the questions we asked applicants was, “Who has been the most influential person in your life?” Virtually every person I interviewed identified someone older than them, e.g., a parent, grandparent, coach, or teacher.

If asked the same question, most of us would likely share similar responses. We’ve all appreciated learning from people who have done or seen things we haven’t, often because they’d lived longer.

So, does valuing age mean that older influencers will eventually take over social media influence? Probably not. Age has a strong positive correlation with meaningful influence, but it’s not the cause. People of all ages have valuable talents and experiences they can share.

So many people have positively influenced me over my life that it’s difficult for me to identify just one; however, among them have been several individuals who were younger than me. Ironically, some were my students—one who comes to mind is a young man who despite having a significant physical disability, always exhibited an extremely positive outlook no matter how challenging the circumstances. The fact that he and others were younger than me didn’t matter. What did matter was that I could learn from them.

A person’s influence isn’t as much a function of their age as it is of the type of person they are, what they’re good at, and how effective they are at sharing with others. A potentially helpful way of thinking about these three things is a paradigm I wrote about in an article a few years ago for the American Marketing Association. I called the model “The three C’s of personal branding,” which are:

Competencies: Everyone has unique talents, but people often need to invest time in developing them so that their knowledge and skills can improve to the point that they become useful to others.
Character: Theodore Roosevelt said, “People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.” This truth aptly supports the notion those who influence us most aren’t just those who are smart or talented; rather, they are people who are kind and genuine.
Communication: Individuals of upstanding character who have valuable competencies won’t be very influential unless they effectively communicate with others. To reach people beyond those with whom they interact each day, influencers need to use some type of mass media, which usually means becoming proficient communicating via today’s most pervasive form of communication—social media.

That fact that the number of older marketing influencers is increasing shouldn’t be surprising. They’ve lived longer, which means many have more to share; however, longevity alone is not what makes someone influential. Individuals of any age who are competent, caring, and good communicators are likely to be successful influencers and practitioners of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

4 Comments

More Diversity Won't Mean More Dollars for Häagen-Dazs

6/5/2021

0 Comments

by Emilie Rush - digital media major and student director of The Pulse media hub at Messiah University

As a student of marketing and a person of color, Häagen-Dazs’ new diversity-driven ad campaign quickly caught my eye. It reminded me of a very different campaign from 2013 that featured actor Bradley Cooper seductively spooning vanilla indulgence from the same premium ice cream company’s pints. Unfortunately Häagen-Dazs’ recent move from ‘entice and excite’ to ‘racially right’ is unlikely to sweeten its bottom-line.

The firm was founded in 1960 by Polish-Jewish immigrants Reuben and Rose Mattus, who prided themselves in not cutting corners but rather using the purest and highest quality ingredients to make their premium ice cream. Häagen-Dazs has a history of authenticity, but the firm’s current ad campaign, which highlights people of color sharing what luxury means to them, comes across as artificial compared to the company’s own past social responsibility and branding, as well as to other organizations’ diversity initiatives.

In 2008, the company launched “Häagen-Dazs loves HB” (honey bees), a campaign focused on fighting Colony Collapse Disorder, a serious problem responsible for the decline in the global bee population. Given that bees directly impact Häagen-Dazs’ ingredients and the brand’s “all natural” value proposition, the campaign connected with consumers in a genuine way, while also being the first to put the ‘bee’ cause on radar screens. The campaign made sense, given the company’s values and goals.

Häagen-Dazs undoubtedly hopes its new #ThatsDazs diversity campaign will produce similar positive social and company impacts: building its brand reputation, reaching a wider audience, and connecting with younger generations. However, as Häagen-Dazs’ own honey bee campaign showed and as other organizations’ diversity initiatives illustrate, such strategies must have meaningful connections to the company’s products and overall value proposition.

As an example, Ben & Jerry's has been very outspoken on Instagram about causes like social justice, the support of black communities against police brutality, the school-prison pipeline, and white supremacy, as well as supporting other marginalized communities like LGBTQ+, indigenous people, and Asian Americans. It even created a social justice-inspired ice cream called Justice ReMix’d. The company also runs traditional product-focused ads, which perform better than its social issue posts. Still, the cause-related conversations stimulate significant audience engagement and overall support for the brand.

Other companies that choose to integrate inclusion and diversity in their advertising are often clothing brands, home decor product lines, and cosmetics. Compared to ice cream, these types of businesses have more obvious lifestyle-related reasons for showing diversity, as doing so lets people know that anyone can use their products and that no matter who you are, the brand has included space for “you” and your lifestyle.

For instance, many cosmetic companies have been publicly shamed for not offering makeup that suits darker and richer skin tones, making everyday products hard to track down for millions of consumers. Fortunately, a few brands like Fenty Beauty are known for their more inclusive product lines, so that when a customer sees Fenty in stores, they can feel confident that they’ll find something to suit them, just as those with lighter skin can.

Researchers and marketing professionals from Learn Hub, Black Girl Group, and Marketing Schools all agree that diversity marketing has more pros than cons, such as increasing brand loyalty and expanding customer bases, but because #ThatsDazs seems disconnected from Häagen-Dazs’ brand and doesn’t directly integrate with its products, it’s unlikely that the ice cream maker will savor any significant sales increase.

Instead of #ThatsDazs, a more authentic marketing campaign could aim to change people’s perceptions of the firm as being Scandinavian owned and operated and help them see Häagen-Dazs as more genuinely diverse, by showing the people of color responsible for creating its ads and making its products. It could also hold a contest for other creators of color, challenging them to create commercials that highlight why they love Häagen-Dazs.

A more deep-reaching diversity campaign can be great, but ultimately Häagen-Dazs must recognize that it’s an ice cream company that has established itself as a luxury brand. That positioning, more than its stance on diversity, may be hindering the company’s sales because people associate premium products with high prices, but many Häagen-Dazs products don’t deliver on that level.

So, is Häagen-Dazs too expensive? The most popular pints of ice cream in Target and Walmart are Ben & Jerry’s and Halo Top. These brands retail for about $4.50, while 14 ounces of Häagen-Dazs sells for $3.79. The other brands offer their ice cream by the pint, but by ounce their prices are virtually the same.

So why aren't people eating as much Häagen-Dazs? As the Bradly Cooper commercial illustrated, over the years the company has placed more emphasis on its plain ice creams, over their specialty creams with chunks and swirls. Vanilla Häagen-Dazs 14 oz. costs $3.79, while a 1.5 quart of Breyers vanilla (a regional brand) only costs $4.49. At less than ten cents an ounce for comparable vanilla cream, Breyers is the better deal.

Simply said, Häagen-Dazs ice cream isn’t the best on the market for the price and flavors it offers. Diverse ads can’t distract from those basic consumer economics.

As mentioned above, there are several strategies Häagen-Dazs could pursue to make its brand more desirable to consumers, especially those who value diversity. Although the company’s current inclusivity campaign is admirable, surface-level attempts at seeming diverse are always “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Is Excedrin Out of Its Mind?

5/8/2021

0 Comments

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

Businesses need to do many things well to be successful, but the most basic is getting people to buy their products. So, why would a company that markets migraine medicine want to help people find other ways to deal with their headaches? What is Excedrin thinking?!

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), maker of Excedrin, one of the world’s best-known pain management products, recently decided to target video gamers, a cohort whose long hours of intent focus on video screens often create the condition the brand is built to cure—headaches.

It’s not surprising that gamers are susceptible to headaches. Research by Limelight Network found that video game players spend an average of six hours and 20 minutes a week participating in their pastime. However, that average is deceptive: Binge-gaming is on the rise, and most gamers report “having played for more than four hours consecutively.”

A ‘half-workday’ or more glued to a video screen could give anyone a migraine. It’s not surprising, therefore, that Excedrin’s website claims that “89% of gamers have experienced gaming related headaches.” It also adds that “80% simply play through the pain.”

Targeting gamers for headache remedies seems like a no-brainer, especially given Excedrin’s well-tailored creative strategy. For instance, in a 15-second spot that looks like a video game, an animated Guardians-of-the Galaxy-like team called “the Healing Academy” rushes to the aid of a young gamer whose headache has him crying out, “I’m fading.” Tablets taken, the gamer quickly recovers and the ad ends, “Excedrin, game over for headaches.”

GSK’s promotional mix includes several similar short spots as well as banner ads and sponsored posts on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The firm is also leveraging increasingly effective influencer marketing in the form of professional gamer Matthew "Nadeshot" Hagg, who has 1.6 million followers on the live game-streaming platform Twitch.

GSK’s strategy for targeting gamers seems very well-played. However, there’s another part of the brand’s approach that could have many marketers hitting pause and that might make investors ill: Excedrin is also trying to help people avoid headaches.

On a company microsite specially created for gamers, the company references an exploratory study that tested “a simple 6-step routine to mindful gaming designed to improve focus and optimize performance in gamers.” The six steps, which are designed to “help manage the risk of headaches,” include the following tips:

Don’t play angry
Look away from the screen for 20 seconds now and then
Listen to some relaxing music after a long stretch
Pause the game and relax your mind by sketching or doodling
Put down the controller and give yourself a hand massage
Close your eyes and do some deep breathing: inhale through your nose, exhale through your mouth

Excedrin has enlisted 12 Twitch influencers as hosts of branded gaming livestreams, the most notably being Nadeshot, who talks about “the six-step mindfulness routine” during his live play on Twitch.

At first glance, Excedrin’s migraine mitigation strategy sounds good—helping people avoid headaches is a noble endeavor—then one realizes that fewer headaches mean fewer pills popped, lower sales, and less income for the company. It seems like Excedrin is creating a headache for itself.

The company’s strategy has made me wonder, what if I wrote an article, “Six reasons you shouldn’t attend college”?—it probably wouldn’t sit well with my university. Likewise, would an attorney author, “How to represent yourself in court,” or a public accountant pen, “Why to do your taxes on your own”? The likely answer to each is ‘no.’

However, there are other examples that affirm Excedrin’s tips for headache-avoidance. An online search quickly led me to an article, “Safe Driving Tips to Help Avoid Collisions” by an unlikely contributor—an autobody repair shop. Similarly, it may be surprising to see that a physical therapy center has published a piece, “Injury Prevention in Young Athletes.” Aren’t these organizations jeopardizing their own bottom-lines?

The two different sets of examples create confusion because they conflate problems with solutions and preventive measures with cures.

Education, legal representation, and tax preparation are preventative solutions to the probable problems of unemployment, a negative legal judgment, and an audit by the IRS. In the same way, safe driving helps to prevent car collisions and stretching helps avoid athletic injuries.

For an attorney, authoring “How to avoid a lawsuit” is different than writing “How to represent yourself in court.” The first piece is an effort to help people prevent a problem, while the second is a possible solution that wouldn’t only divert business from the firm, things probably wouldn’t end well in court for the self-represented defendant.

So, Excedrin’s mindful gaming tips are preventative measures, aimed at avoiding a common problem for gamers. Yes, fewer headaches mean less demand for migraine medication, but several other factors will likely more than offset any such sales decrease for GSK:

More consumers will know about Excedrin: The public relations exposure that Excedrin is enjoying because of its educational efforts likely means that many more Gen Zers and others who had never heard of Excedrin before are becoming familiar with the brand.
The health tips will create goodwill and trust: Consumers appreciate when companies do things for them without asking for anything in return. Such benevolence builds goodwill. It also engenders trust, as people are more likely to put faith in organizations that aren’t simply looking for sales.
The medicine will make its way into more people’s consideration sets: I’ve been familiar with Excedrin for as long as I can remember, but I don’t think I've ever tried it; I’m not sure why. I only ever consider Advil and Tylenol. I’m not a gamer, but now I’m thinking of trying Excedrin sometime.
People will reciprocate: Often when someone gives or does something for us, we wonder, 'What can I do for them?' Besides being more top-of-mind, Excedrin will benefit from people who have appreciated its headache advise buying the product as a way of repaying the company for its kindness.

So, even if Excedrin’s headache prevention tips stop some people from getting migraines, many more people will be familiar with the brand, appreciate its altruism, trust it intentions, add it to their consideration sets, and purchase the product, partly to reciprocate for its good deed.

Another way to view it is Excedrin is greatly increasing the top of its sales funnel, or its brand awareness, which will inevitably mean more consumers taking action. Granted, the headache tips may somewhat reduce the need for migraine medicine, but gamers and others will still get headaches at times, and more of those who get them will now turn to Excedrin.

As significant as these consumer outcomes are, there’s another consequence of the company’s strategy that’s equally important: the impact on employees.

People want to give their time and energy to worthwhile causes. They want to work for organizations that have a meaningful purpose. Probably few people get excited about making ‘pills,’ accounting for ‘pills,’ or marketing ‘pills.’ However, it would be motivating to work for an organization whose mission is to help people feel better so they can do what they want and need to do.

GSK seems to be such an organization. The company’s “About us” webpage beings with:
“We are a science-led global healthcare company with a special purpose: to help people do more, feel better, live longer.”

The choice of words is telling. GSK could easily say something like, ‘We want to be the premier producer of headache medications. That wording, however, would suggest that the firm’s first priority is its bottom-line and that helping cure customers’ headaches is just a means of getting there. Instead, GSK emphasizes that helping people feel better is what matters.

Employees, not to mention customers and investors, can get excited about that kind of a focus on a greater purpose.

Of course, individuals and organizations can put anything on a website. That’s why Excedrin’s headache avoidance tips are so important: They show that the company truly supports what it says: It puts its medication where its mouth is.

When companies put people ahead of profit, something counterintuitive happens—they make money.

There are hundreds of pharmaceutical companies in the world. According to Pharmaceutical Technology, GSK has annual revenues of over $44 billion, which makes it the world’s sixth largest pharmaceutical firm. In 2020, GSK had income of over $7 billion. All that to say, GSK’s focus on helping people feel better appears to be paying off.

One way to know that someone loves you is seeing them sacrifice something to make you happy. Whether people buy its medications or not, GSK seems to want people to be happy.

It may look strange for a company to lead prospects to a solution that avoids its products. However, such a selfless approach does not go unnoticed; in fact, it’s one that most people find endearing. Excedrin’s effort to prevent headaches before they happen isn’t naïve; it’s actually “Mindful Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

A Promotion Unlike Any Other

4/23/2021

8 Comments

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

Fans of The Office know that whenever Michael Scott attended another person’s party, wedding, or baby’s baptism, he would inevitably steal the spotlight, making the event about him. That kind of social sabotage makes for great TV comedy, but does a recent impromptu endorsement on golf’s greatest green signal that real life self-promotion is off the fairway?

The recent Masters Tournament seemed like a success, including that it crowned its first Asian-born champion, Hideki Matsuyama of Japan. However, “a tradition unlike any other” also showcased some cringe-worthy commercialism that led to the son of an all-time golf great losing permanent access to Augusta.

Perpetuating the Tournament's prestige, Masters’ organizers invited three of golf’s living legends to serve as honorary starters: nine-time major champion Gary Player, 18-time major champion Jack Nicklaus, and Lee Elder, the first African American to play in the Masters. It was at that ceremonial tee shot when the uninvited endorsement occurred:

“While Elder was receiving the accolades of Augusta National and surrounding patrons, Wayne Player, serving as his father's caddie, stood behind Elder clearly holding a sleeve of OnCore golf balls in such a way as to give the logo maximum visibility.”

Wayne Player has a relationship with OnCore Golf that includes serving as Tour Commissioner of the Player Amateur Tour, for which the golf ball brand is the title sponsor.

Social media quickly condemned Wayne Player’s “guerilla marketing,” calling the tactic “an embarrassment” and “undignified,” and suggesting he hijacked a special moment to “sneak in a free ad for golf balls.” Masters organizers apparently didn’t like the ambush advertising either: They’ve reportedly banned Wayne Player from the Tournament for life.

Those are harsh criticisms and consequences, especially given that considerable commercialism already surrounds the Professional Golfers’ Association of America (PGA) and the Masters.

The PGA’s Partners’ webpage reads like a Who’s Who List of corporate sponsors. “Official Partners” include the likes of AIG, Charles Schwab, Cadillac, John Deere, KitchenAid, KPMG, and Rolex. Then, there’s a whole other list of “Golf Retirement Plus Partners.” In total, 54 companies can claim they support the PGA.

For its part, the Masters Tournament’s website contains logos and links for its three marquee sponsors, AT&T, IBM, and Mercedes, who reportedly treat invited guests to an incredibly indulgent tournament experience, all charged to their corporate accounts.

What may be even more noteworthy is that the golf balls Wayne Player held were far from the only promotion present at the ceremonial tee shot. Gary Player wore a PXG hat, whose golf clubs he endorses, and a Black Knight shirt—his own signature brand. Similarly, Nicklaus came outfitted in a bright yellow sweater and matching hat, both bearing his Golden Bear brand. Elder also wore branded apparel: a PNG hat and a TravisMathew shirt—the latter is part of a formal partnership with Elder that the company announced just days before the Masters.

Given all of the corporate/self-promotion already present at the starting tee, what was wrong with Player strategically displaying one small sleeve of golf balls?

There are two main reasons Player’s product placement was ill-advised:

It was unnatural: It’s typical for golfers and others to will wear branded apparel on golf courses and elsewhere. It’s strange, however, to see someone hold steadily a sleeve of golf balls precisely so its logo appears prominently in camera shots. That’s why when product placement is done well in movies and TV shows, the products don’t draw attention to themselves; rather, viewers simply see them as part of the scene, if they notice them at all.
It was uninvited: The very unique Masters moment belonged to Gary Player, to Nicklaus, and especially to Elder. No person or thing should have stolen the spotlight from them, at least not without the Masters’ express permission. Ultimately, Wayne Player pulled a Michael Scott, showing little social awareness and, instead, surmising that the situation should be about him, not just the others.

So, the next time you’re a caddie at the Masters . . . of course, that’s a situation most of us will never experience, which makes it even more tempting to point a finger at Wayne Player, shake our heads, and wonder how he could act so insensitively. The problem, though, is that the proliferation of social media has made it exceedingly easy for any individual or organization to do the same sort of thing and steal others’ spotlights.

On a corporate level, such commandeering might take the form of a company donating $10,000 to a worthy social cause, then spending $100K to brag about its kind-hearted contribution in TV commercials, print ads, and other media.

Individuals also are not immune. We should be especially careful not to steal the spotlight with one upmanship. For instance, when a friend or colleague shares a special accomplishment on social media, we shouldn’t ‘congratulate’ them with a reply like, “I’m so happy for you. I remember when I completed my first 5K three years ago. Now I’m getting ready to run my fourth marathon.”

A few years ago, the American Marketing Association published a piece I wrote about the “Three C’s of personal branding.” In the article I argued that communication, which is what many people solely associate with branding, should only be the “icing on the cake.” A strong personal brand, or corporate brand, must first include a foundation of “cake”: character and competencies.

When we steal another’s spotlight and try to make their moment ours, we not only misplace our personal marketing communication, we reveal the serious character flaw of callous self-absorption, which is very destructive to any brand.

No self-promotion should come at others’ expense. In fact, the best self-promotion actually benefits others.

It’s easy to argue that Wayne Player’s golf ball product placement at the Masters was a bad idea. It’s also easy for any of us to succumb to similar temptations in everyday situations and make another’s moment our own. Pulling a Wayne Player, or a Michael Scott, makes any of us guilty of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

8 Comments

Is It Right to Sell Others Short?

4/10/2021

8 Comments

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

You’re a basketball player whose team just won the NCAA Division I national championship! You run courtside to celebrate with family but your mother is visibly upset. “Mom, what’s the matter? “I’m sorry,” she stammers. “It’s just that . . . I bet against you.”

No athlete, or anyone, likes to be picked to lose. However, life is full of potential successes and failures that people need to predict. For some, those predictions offer significant money-making opportunities. But, is it right to earn a living betting against others?

As for many, the practice of short selling stocks burst onto my radar screen when GameStop’s shares took their rollercoaster ride several weeks ago. With more than a casual interest, I followed the ensuing events, including Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev’s testimony before Congress. Along the way, I gained a better grasp of what short selling is, but ever since, I’ve been wondering whether anyone should be doing it.

In case you’ve forgotten how short selling works: Investor A borrows from a broker 100 shares of XYZ at $100 per share and sells the stock to Investor B at the same prevailing market price, or $10,000 total. Over the next week, XYZ’s stock price drops to $75. Investor A then buys 100 shares of XYZ for $7,500 and returns them to the broker, pocketing $2,500 in the process, less any interest and commissions the broker has charged.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has made short selling legal. However, even with this regulatory approval, the practice should raise at least two red flags, or moral concerns, that lead one to ask: Is short selling ethical?

Before addressing the two concerns, I imagine some may be wondering what short selling has to do with marketing—the other half of this blog’s two-pronged focus. Short selling is marketing in that many stockbrokers, including very well-known ones like Interactive Brokers, TD Ameritrade, and Charles Schwab, market short selling among their investment services, or ‘products.’

For instance, Interactive Brokers’ website contains a Shortable Instruments (SLB) Search tool: “a fully electronic, self-service utility that lets clients search for availability of shortable securities from within [the firm’s] Client Portal account management platform.” The relative ease with which an investor can sell short makes its moral implications all-the-more important.

First Red Flag

‘Selling something that one doesn’t own’ was the short selling issue that initially gave me pause. Peddling another’s property certainly appears problematic, until one begins to consider the many ways in which such leveraged transactions regularly occur: from apartment subleases, to bank loans, to consignment clothing. Individuals and organizations often sell others’ property on consignment.

Of course, just because consignment occurs doesn’t mean it should. Still, the fact that all parties involved 1) willingly participate and 2) typically benefit are good signs that most of these activities are above-board.

Second Red Flag

The prior examples differ from short selling, however, in the second of the two ways: While the participants in apartment subleasing, etc., generally rise and fall together financially, a short seller’s success comes courtesy of two others’ failures, namely 1) those of the company whose stock the short seller has borrowed and 2) the person who buys the stock from the short seller. The short seller makes money when the other two parties lose theirs.

In contrast, consider again the clothing consignment example: If I take an unwanted suit to a consignment shop, both the consignor and I will want a high price when the suit is sold. Conceivably, the suit’s maker also would like its aftermarket products purchased for higher prices because such resale value reflects favorably on the brand, not unlike the way higher vehicle resale prices benefit automobile manufacturers’ brands.

On the other hand, the suit’s buyer would like to pay a lower price, but even he really doesn’t want the price to be too low, since perceptions of the brand are tied, at least in part, to the price that he and others are willing to pay for the suit. Most importantly, each time he wears the suit, he extracts value from it.

The suit is this example is analogous to the stock. Whereas everyone ‘invested’ in the suit seems to want it to retain its value, investors who short stocks clearly want the value of those securities to decline. Short sellers are betting against the very companies whose financial instruments they have borrowed and sold, as well as the individuals on the receiving end of those stocks.

The zero-sum game, or winner-loser outcome, that underlies short selling is certainly atypical of most economic exchanges, but it’s not without precedent. Casinos win when their customers lose, as do many “rent-to-owe” retailers like Rent-A-Center and Aaron's. Any kind of predatory lender falls under the same unseemly umbrella, including certain credit card companies that don’t make money unless people fail to pay off their account balances and become locked into an endless cycle of exorbitant monthly interest payments.

However, many argue that short selling does not do anything nearly so destructive. In fact, some contend that the practice produces several important economic benefits, the primary one being liquidity, “the efficiency or ease with which an asset or security can be converted into ready cash . . . . ”

In my research, I found market liquidity to be the factor cited first and most often in the defense of short selling. However, at least one financial markets expert suggests that advantage is exaggerated.

Dwayne Safer is a chartered financial analyst (CFA) whose career has included significant roles in investment banking, corporate finance, and strategy. For the last five years, he’s been a professor of finance and my colleague at Messiah University. When asked about short selling and market liquidity, he offers a contrarian analysis: “the liquidity offered by short selling for most stocks is negligible.”

Safer supports his suggestion by sharing a Bloomberg Terminal screenshot (below) that shows that shares sold short represent only about 3.5% of trading volume on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). He also cites an example from the financial crisis in late 2008, when the SEC temporarily banned the short selling of financial stocks “without any noticeable degradation of liquidity in those stocks.”

Safer recognizes that there may be some “modest liquidity benefit” for certain heavily shorted stocks; for instance, at the time we spoke, 21% of Dick’s Sporting Goods’ shares available for trading were short. Still, he affirms: “If shorting wasn’t permissible, liquidity would be brought into the market by the broker-dealers and market makers who would stand ready to buy and sell shares of a given company to generate trading revenue.”

So, does the elimination of liquidity as a main benefit of short selling leave no morally tenable ground on which short sellers can stand? Not necessarily.

Safer continues by saying that although he doesn’t agree with conventional wisdom that short selling adds significant market liquidity, he does believe short selling offers other meaningful market benefits:

It provides the ability to hedge/protect a portfolio from downward movement in stock prices, mitigating portfolio volatility.
The in-depth research short sellers often conduct can expose fraudulent companies. For example, short selling hedge funds warned about the frauds at Enron, Tyco, Fannie Mae and more recently Luckin Coffee and Nikola.
Shorting helps prevent overinflated securities prices that waste valuable capital and harm investors, as occurred in the dot-com bust in 2001. Former SEC chairman Christopher Cox once stated, "We need the shorts in the market for balance so we don't have bubbles.”

Before beginning to write this piece, I was unaware of these important benefits of short selling. Still, how do we reconcile such consequences with the moral principle of respect, or as my second red flag/concern described: not betting against another person.

That moral principle certainly has merit, but my earlier discussion probably represented too narrow a view of short selling. Safer’s observations have helped me see that there are other factors to consider and parties to take into account, e.g., other investors, firms’ customers and employees, and the economy as a whole.

I’m also helped by remembering a story I heard just a few days ago: A guest speaker in our capstone marketing course mentioned that a former client of his used to tell him, “I pray for my competitors.” This very successful business owner was not being sarcastic—he truly wanted his competitors to succeed both because he genuinely cared about them and because he understood that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”

Returning to the basketball metaphor that began this piece, no serious athlete wants to be on the winning side of a forfeit. Basketball players need competitors, who also happen to have fans rooting for them.

However, choosing loyalties isn’t unique to picking stocks or selecting sports teams. Each day we make dozens of similar decisions when choosing what clothes to buy and where to order takeout. Each selection of a company is essentially a vote against another; however, other people are voting for the competitors. In fact, the next time one of those ‘other’ votes may be ours.

Meanwhile, a ‘no vote’ conveys valuable information to all who are willing to listen and learn from it. When companies assimilate such negative feedback, they make themselves better, their industries stronger, and stock markets more stable.

It’s very unlikely that a mother bets against her own daughter or son for anything, but other ‘no votes’ are not necessarily bad. Short selling a company’s stock can be a good or bad bet for the investor. It also can be “Mindful Marketing.”

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

8 Comments

Recoloring History

3/12/2021

5 Comments

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

February’s Black History Month was an important reminder of the impactful roles people of color have played in our world. History should be about what actually happened; however, some entertainment has actors playing roles that were really performed by people of other races. Now a media icon’s popular streaming series is shining a light on such controversial casting.

In online entertainment, where content is king, Netflix’s original series Bridgerton, about the lives of Regency-era nobles, has risen above the populace to become a royal success. Other period pieces like Game of Thrones and The Crown also have shown viewers’ appetites for aristocracy, but Bridgerton is different in one very visible way.

Playing the roles of English nobles and others, people of color are many of the series’ leading actors, for instance: Regé-Jean Page, Ruby Barker, Jason Barnett, Martins Imhangbe, Sandra Teles, Anand Desai-Barochia, and Golda Rosheuvel. In fact, Rosheuvel plays one of the show’s highest-ranking royals, Queen Charlotte.

Although some believe that the real Queen Charlotte “descended from a Portuguese branch of nobility with African ancestry,” even a casual royal-watcher knows that the bloodlines of English nobles are rather consistently Caucasian. So, to see persons of color playing the parts of dukes and duchesses is at least surprising, and some might say ‘historically inaccurate.’ Either way, Bridgerton begs the question:

Should an actor of one race portray a person of another?

First, it’s important to recognize that Bridgerton is not exactly breaking new ground. A few months before COVID closed the curtain on live performances, my wife and I had the privilege of visiting Philadelphia and seeing one of the best examples of diverse casting: Hamilton. The musical mega-hit features many people of color portraying individuals who in reality were white, e.g., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr.

However, actors were crossing racial lines long before Hamilton hit Broadway in 2015. In fact, it’s easy to find such film examples over the past century, and it’s worth noting that in most cases the roles were reversed, i.e., white actors played either real or fictitious people of color, for example:

Angelina Joline as Mariane Pearl in A Might Heart
Ben Affleck as Antonio J. Mendez in Argo
Joseph Fiennes as Michael Jackson in Elizabeth, Michael, and Marlon
Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s
Laurence Olivier as Othello in Othello
Natalie Wood as Maria in West Side Story
Johnny Depp as Tonto in The Lone Ranger
Katharine Hepburn as Jade in Dragon Seed
Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra in Cleopatra
John Wayne as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror

So, what issues are really at stake when it comes to actors’ racial representations?

The most obvious seems to be historical accuracy. Participants’ personal identities (racial, ethnic, gender, etc.) are important for understanding past events and how they impact us today. For instance, it would be dishonest to depict WW II’s Tuskegee Airmen as Asian, Hispanic, or white, when almost all the squadron’s aviators were Black. Doing so also may steal a sense of pride from African Americans today.

However, does that same need for ‘identity accuracy’ apply to entertainment? Not necessarily. When we watch a television series, a feature film, or a Broadway show, we know that the actors are not the actual people—it’s a morally-acceptable accommodation that Alec Hill calls “mutual deceits.” Play-goers understand that Lin-Manuel Miranda is not actually Alexander Hamilton. They know that he's just pretending to be him for a few hours.

The same logical likely applies to Bridgerton. Even though some of the show’s characters were real people, like Queen Charlotte, it’s okay for people of other races to portray them, because it’s a largely fictional series that viewers know is taking creative liberties and not purporting to be very factual.

However, that artistic license shouldn’t be wielded with impunity. There still need to be standards, particularly related to portraying people in ways that reasonably represent who they are or were.

If an actor ever played me in a movie, which will certainly never happen, I’d be less concerned that the actor looked like me and more concerned that he acted like me. No one alive or deceased deserves to have their character defamed, which is an issue I’ve written about on several other occasions:

Accuracy consistent with the nature of the artistic creation (e.g., comedy vs. drama) is certainly important, but two other race-related factors also deserve consideration:

Opportunities: While it’s convenient to conclude that white actors can portray people of color and vice versa, that generalization fails to account for centuries of discrimination that have often kept from racial minorities opportunities afforded others, including work in acting. To help overcome that historical disparity, a case can be made that persons of color should receive added consideration for acting roles.
Representation: Similarly, it’s encouraging for people of any race, ethnicity, or gender to see themselves represented in desirable occupations. Acting is such a profession for many, but even more, actors paint pictures of career possibilities with each profession they portray, from A–accountants to Z–zookeepers.

Realizing that my own background and identity influence my thoughts on this issue, I asked an astute student of mine, Mikayla Broome, who is a person of color, to share her perspective. Not surprising, she offered insights that hadn’t occurred to me.

Mikayla first disclaimed that while Bridgerton seemed intriguing, her impressions of the show came mainly from seeing its trailer. She hadn’t watched any episodes because of their graphic sexual content—a good call that may be reason for future Mindful Marketing analysis.

In addition, she suggested that although she understood others’ affection for the show’s racial diversity, the setting in Regency-era England made the series seem "unrealistic" to her. In keeping with that sentiment, she would “have no problem with white actors depicting the characters.” She emphasized that was her personal opinion and she respected those whose attitudes differed.

Each of these reflections were instructive to me, but it was something else Mikayla shared that I found especially enlightening:

“I would be much more interested in a show depicting the lives of people of color in their own culture . . . like the royalty in Benin, Nigeria, the Tang dynasty in China, the Gupta dynasty in India, or Arsinoe the princess of Egypt. People of color love to see themselves represented on the big screen with cultural accuracy. We have such rich histories that I see no need to insert us into stories that are not ours.”

Again, Mikayla emphasized that her personal opinion didn’t negate the potential value of diverse casting like that described above. However, she rightly suggested that the bar should be set higher.

In the category of fiction, Disney has taken significant diversity strides with feature films like Mulan, Moana, and Coco. However, there also are so many inspiring stories to tell of real-life heroes from underrepresented people groups, such as those shared in Hidden Figures, The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind, and a Ballerina’s Tale—a documentary about Misty Copeland, the first black female principal dancer of a major international ballet company.

One might think that films featuring real-life diversity are kind-hearted charity works that do good socially but not well financially. According to research by UCLA’s Center for Scholars & Storytellers, that characterization is not the case. In analyzing 100 films released from 2016 to 2019, the study found that “films with diverse characters and authentic stories actually make more money at the box office.”

Interestingly, Mikayla is double-major in Dance and Business Administration. Perhaps her future will in some way involve bringing to light real-life stories of underrepresented people.

Lives are stories that intertwine to create a rich tapestry of tales that marketers and others need to tell well. At the same time, they should seek opportunities to share more real-life stories born from backgrounds of diversity.

In entertainment, it’s sometimes okay to recolor history, but it’s even better to depict individuals and events just as they were. Regardless how one might classify Bridgerton, true stories told accurately are more often “Mindful Marketing.”

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

5 Comments

Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence

2/28/2021

3 Comments

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

A teenage football player’s verbal hits on an MVP NFL quarterback led amateur and professional sports analysts alike to call a personal foul. ‘Who taught the young man to talk that way?’ was the question most asked, including many of the world’s top sports minds. Is it possible the teen learned to heckle from some of the same commentators who have censured him?

Heisman Trophy winner, former Carolina Panthers star, and recent New England Patriots quarterback Cam Newton was leaving the field at a teen football camp in Myrtle Beach, SC, when one of the young campers inexplicably began to berate him: “You a free agent! You a free agent! You're about to be poor!”

Newton smiled as he replied “I’m rich,” which caused the teen to reiterate his attack and led Newton to repeat his retort, all while keeping his cool and eventually asking to talk with the teen’s father.

After the video went viral, several current and former NFL players joined the social media uproar to express support for Newton, who, after all, was there to help the aspiring athletes. Many paid media pundits also offered their opinions, including ESPN’s most passionate personality, Stephen A. Smith.

On First Take, a daily sports talk show he cohosts, Smith came down hard on the contentious teen, delivering an unsympathetic rebuke of the young player’s abrasiveness. Some of Smith’s harsh criticism included:

“That kid should be ashamed of himself. If I was his parent, he would have been grounded, he would have been punished. I might have slapped him upside his head.”

“That was a disgraceful, disgraceful display of behavior by that young kid.”

“The level of disrespect that young kids show to their elders is one of the problems that we have existing in today’s world.”

NFL analyst Louis Riddick emphatically agreed that there’s a troubling rise in insolence among adolescents: “We’re failing in some way shape or form that the youth of our country feels as though they have a right to talk to people that way in any kind of forum, quite honestly.”

Such comments beg the question: ‘When it comes to modeling civil dialogue, who is setting such a bad example for young people?’ In admonishing the teenage heckler, Smith suggested that the breakdown is not happening on the home front: “What would get you to do that to begin with, because those same parents were there, those same coaches were there. They taught you better than that. You knew better than that before you did it.”

Tweeting what appeared to be a heartfelt apology, the beleaguered teen confirmed Smith’s theory that his parental upbringing was not to blame for his actions: “First I would like to start off by saying my parents never taught me to [treat] people disrespectful.”

So, if family is not at fault for this and other youthful irreverence, who is responsible? Could it be that this young man learned insolence, at least in part, from one of the same sports commentators who castigated him?

Anyone who enjoys ESPN knows Smith as someone with a very sharp sports mind who is always insightful, usually entertaining, often cantankerous, and occasionally uncivil. Unfortunately, it’s easy to find instances of the last category simply by searching YouTube for “stephen a smith angry” or some similar terms. Here are a few of the odious outtakes, including their starting times in the clips:

“You know, you [Will Cain, former ESPN analyst] make me sick sometimes; you make me sick sometimes, please, please, just be quiet and listen because let me tell you something: You don’t know what the h*** you talking about . . . Zip it. I’m giving you facts. You don’t get to speak right now . . . People disagree with me all the time and they just end up wrong like you.” [0:14]

“This man [Kwame Brown] was a bona fide scrub; he can’t play. No disrespect whatsoever, but I’m sorry to tell everybody the truth, the man cannot play the game of basketball . . . He has no game whatsoever, plays no defense, doesn’t have the heart, the passion, or anything that comes with it.” [1:25]

“Before I get to the phones, let me say this about Joel Embiid for the Philadelphia 76ers. What the h*** was that! What the h***! You freaking kidding me?” [:01]

How likely is it that young sports fans see Smith’s rants? In September of 2019, ESPN Digital was the number one sports platform “across every key metric and demographic.” What’s more, the platform saw a 64% year-over-year increase in people age 13-24, which contributed to the medium reaching 109.2 million unique visitors—about a third of the U.S. population.

Similarly, in 2018 Statista reported that 35.71% of respondents aged 18-29 watched ESPN during the previous month. All this to say, media metrics suggests that a very high percentage of young sports fans view ESPN, where they are very likely to see Smith, who is probably the network’s most visible personality and is certainly its highest paid, at $8 million a year.

Smith–viewer correlation, however, does not necessarily mean causality. Young athletes also may be mimicking the impertinence of others, namely that of professionals who increasingly do disrespectful things like taunt opponents after touchdowns, brazenly flip bats after home runs, and stare down defenders after dunks. Other ESPN commentators sometimes celebrate such actions on SportsCenter’s Top Ten plays—see #3 at 1:55.

However, an even more direct correlate with adolescent irreverence may be professional athletes’ trash-talking: the in-game verbal sparring that prizes putdowns, is sometimes seasoned with profanity, and can easily lead to physical altercations. ESPN tends to laugh off or even eulogize ‘the most memorable trash-talking moments.’

So, put yourself in the cleats of the teenage football camper. You love sports, you watch media like ESPN, you see top athletes glorified for trash-talking and other irreverent acts, and you listen to sports analysts’ verbal attacks on others. It’s not hard to imagine how anyone, let alone an adolescent who is still learning to distinguish certain socially unacceptable behaviors, could think it’s funny to take some verbal jabs at an NFL star. Of course, it wasn’t okay, but in light of all the mixed messages from role models and sports media, the teen’s actions should not be surprising.

Ironically, ESPN’s YouTube title for the First Take clip referenced above is “Stephen A. reacts to Cam Newton’s incident with a trash-talking camper.” Granted, there’s the issue of youth disrespecting age, but what’s the fundamental logic or fairness in condemning the “trash-talking” of some while celebrating the trash-talking of others?

It’s also ironic that several years ago, Smith made his own caustic verbal attack on an NFL quarterback, JaMarcus Russell of the Oakland Raiders. Here’s what Smith said at 2:18 into the clip:

“I am a person that believes in second chances. I think America is the land of second chances, except for when it comes to this dude, Mr. Jabba the Hutt, you fat slobily, no-good lazy bum of a quarterback.”

“This dude should be arrested for being a thief. He stole money from the Oakland Raiders for years. I’m talking $40 million dollars. The dude had about seven starts, did absolutely positively nothing. He cashed in the money, evidently used it on buying a bunch of donuts.”

Some may say Smith’s QB hit was worse than the teen heckler’s, “You a free agent! You a free agent! You're about to be poor!” Although Smith didn’t say his words to Russell’s face, he probably planned his tirade and knew it would be broadcast on national television, which also was arguably worse.

In his commentary on First Take about the heckling teen, Smith said, “I do think it takes a little bit of looking in the mirror to ask yourself, what would get you to do that?” Of course, the point here is that Smith could benefit from some of the same introspection.

However, he’s not the only one who needs to do self-assess. It’s tempting for any of us to demand, 'Do what I say, not what I do.' It’s also very easy to see the “speck” in someone else’s eye while overlooking the “plank” in our own.

I’ve been guilty of that hypocrisy at times, along with failing to appreciate my action’s influence on others, including young people. There have been occasions when I’ve watched painfully as one of my children did something ‘the wrong way,’ only to realize, ‘they learned it from me.’

Such unwanted imitation reminds me of Ralphie in The Christmas Story. After he accidentally swore in front of his father, his mother asked him, “Where did you hear that word?” Ralphie conveniently told her it was one of his friends, but he knew, “I had heard that word at least 10 times a day from my old man. My father worked in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay. It was his true medium, a master.”

The best way to avoid others imitating our bad art is to not make it. That approach comports with Riddick’s recommendation:

“Instead of being too shocked about [the teen’s heckling] and spending too much time being angry about it, try to do something to change it, try to do something to positively impact the youth of our country so that kind of thing doesn’t happen.”

For ESPN, that positive impact could come by ending its own analysts’ trash-talking and not exalting athletes who let their mouths run afoul. No one’s trash-talking should be tolerated, let alone celebrated, and especially not monetized.

It’s dangerous for any of us to think, “It’s okay for me to do it, but not for you,” particularly when our actions influence young people learning social norms. Smith speculated that the heckling incident could be “a teaching moment, a learning moment.” Let’s hope it is for him, for ESPN, and for all of, so we can put a collective lid on this rancid type of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

3 Comments

<<Previous

Gen Z Students Teach Their Professor About Thrifting

Cutting Out Weight Loss Ads

College Athletes Must Get in Condition for Commercialism

Should Social Media Influence Have an Age Limit?

More Diversity Won't Mean More Dollars for Häagen-Dazs

Is Excedrin Out of Its Mind?

A Promotion Unlike Any Other

Is It Right to Sell Others Short?

Recoloring History

Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence

Editor

Archives

Categories