Category: Single Minded2c3169a786

Why Can't TikTok Block the Blackout Challenge?

1/1/2022

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

Many people’s New Year’s resolutions are to eat less and exercise more. Fortunately, few people need to promise to kill less. That goal, though, may be a good one for the world’s-fastest growing social media platform in order to better protect the lives of young users who are oblivious to the dangerous game they’re playing.

Nyla Anderson was a “happy child” and “smart as a whip”—she even spoke three languages. Tragically, the 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl’s life was cut short on December 12, when she died while attempting a perilous social media trend called the Blackout Challenge.

The Blackout Challenge “requires the participant to choke themselves until they pass out and wake up moments later.” Sadly, some who participate, like Nyla, never wake up, and if they don’t die, they may suffer seizures and/or brain damage.

It’s tragic, but young people likely have engaged in foolhardy, life-threatening behavior since the beginning of humankind. Within a few years of my high school graduation, two of my classmates lost their lives in separate car crashes caused by high-speed, reckless driving. Most people probably can share similar stories of people they knew who needlessly died too young.

In some ways it’s inevitable that young people’s propensity for risk-taking paired with a limited sense of their own mortality will lead them to endanger themselves and encourage others to do the same. What’s inexplicable is how older and presumably more rational adults can encourage and even monetize such behavior, which is what some suggest TikTok has done.

Unfortunately, Nyla is not the only young person to pass away while attempting the Blackout Challenge. Other lives the ill-advised trend has taken include 12-year-old Joshua Haileyesus of Colorado and 10-year-old Antonella Sicomero of Palermo, Italy. TikTok provided the impetus for each of these children to attempt the challenge.

Most of us know from experience that peer influence can cause people to do unexpected and sometimes irrational things. In centuries gone by, that influence was limited to direct interpersonal contact and then to traditional mass media like television. Now, thanks to apps like TikTok, anyone with a smartphone holds potential peer pressure from people around the world in the palm of their hand.

In TikTok’s defense, the Blackout Challenge predates the social media platform. ByteDance released TikTok, or Douyin as it’s known in China, in September of 2016. Children had been attempting essentially the same asphyxiation games, like the Choking Challenge and the Pass-out Challenge, many years prior. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 82 children, aged 6 to 19, likely died from such games between 1995 and 2007.

It’s also worth noting that individuals and other organizations create the seemingly infinite array of videos that appear on the platform. ByteDance doesn’t make them, it just curates the clips according to each viewer’s tastes using one of the world’s most sophisticated and closely guarded algorithms.

So, if TikTok didn’t begin the Blackout Challenge and it hasn’t created any of the videos that encourage it, why should the app bear responsibility for the deaths of Nyla, Joshua, Antonella, or any other young person who has attempted the dangerous social media trend?

It’s reasonable to suggest that TikTok is culpable for the self-destructive behavior that happens on its premises. A metaphor might be a property owner who makes his house available as a hangout for underage drinking. The homeowner certainly didn’t invent alcohol, and he may not be the one providing it, but if he knowingly enables the consumption, he could be legally responsible for “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.”

By hosting Blackout Challenge posts, TikTok could be contributing to the delinquency of minors.

I have to pause here to note an uncomfortable irony. Less than four months ago, just after Francis Haugen blew the whistle on her former employer Facebook, I wrote a piece titled “Two Lessons TikTok can Teach Facebook.” In the article, I described specific measures TikTok had taken to, of all things: 1) discourage bad behavior, and 2) support users’ mental health.

How could I have been so wrong? Although I certainly may have been misguided—it wouldn’t be the first time—TikTok’s actions that I cited truly were good things. So, maybe the social media giant deserves to defend itself against the new allegations.

TikTok declined CBS News’ request for an interview, but it did claim to block content connected to the Blackout Challenge, including hashtags and phrases. It also offered this statement, “TikTok has taken industry-first steps to protect teens and promote age-appropriate experiences, including strong default privacy settings for minors."

The notion of protecting teens is certainly good; however, it’s hard to know what “industry-first steps” are. Furthermore, prioritizing age-appropriateness and privacy are important, but neither objective aligns particularly well with the need to avoid physical harm—the main problem of the Blackout Challenge.

In that spirt and in response to accusations surrounding Nyla’s death, TikTok offered to Newsweek a second set of statements:

“We do not allow content that encourages, promotes, or glorifies dangerous behavior that might lead to injury, and our teams work diligently to identify and remove content that violates our policies.”

"While we have not currently found evidence of content on our platform that might have encouraged such an incident off-platform, we will continue to monitor closely as part of our continuous commitment to keep our community safe. We will also assist the relevant authorities with their investigation as appropriate."

These corporate responses do align better with the risks the Blackout Challenge represents. However, there’s still a disconnect: TikTok claims it’s done nothing to facilitate the Blackout Challenge, but family members of those lost say the social media platform is exactly where their children encountered the fatal trend.

The three families’ tragedies are somewhat unique, but they’re far from the only cases of people seeing the Blackout Challenge on TikTok and posting their own attempts on the app. TikTok has taken measures that have likely helped ‘lessen the destruction,’ but it’s unreasonable for it to claim exoneration.

The company’s app must be culpable to some degree, but what exactly could it have done to avoid death and injury? That question is very difficult for anyone outside TikTok or without significant industry expertise to answer; however, let me ask one semi-educated question—Couldn't TikTok use an algorithm?

As I’ve described in an earlier blog post, “Too Attached to an App,” ByteDance has created one of the world’s most advanced artificial intelligence tools—one that with extreme acuity serves app users a highly-customized selection of videos that can keep viewers engaged indefinitely.

Why can’t TikTok employ the same algorithm, or a variation of it, to keep the Blackout Challenge and other destructive videos from ever seeing the light of day?

TikTok is adept at showing users exactly what they want to see, so why can’t it use the same advanced analytics with equal effectiveness to ‘black out’ content that no one should consume?

The truism ‘nobody’s perfect’ aptly suggests that every person is, in a manner of speaking, part sinner and part saint. TikTok and other organizations, which are collections of individuals, are no different, doing some things wrong and other things right but hopefully always striving for less of the former and more of the latter.

Based on its statements, TikTok likely has done some ‘right things’ that have helped buffer the Blackout Challenge. However, given the cutting-edge technology the company has at its disposal, it could be doing more to mitigate the devastating impact. For that reason, TikTok remains responsible for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

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

12/4/2021

22 Comments

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

With the holiday shopping season in full swing, many consumers are unaware of two titan retailers’ battle over a billboard, the results of which could impact how and where shoppers buy gifts for years to come. The clash also could impact what businesses come to accept as moral behavior.

The site of the showdown is the corner of 34th Street and Broadway, New York City, at the center of U.S. commerce. It’s there that Macy’s, which once boasted “the worlds’ largest retail store,” is taking what could be a final stand against the encroachment of Earth’s fastest-growing retailer, and one of nature’s most irrepressible forces: Amazon.

Macy’s has filed a lawsuit against Amazon, hoping to keep its close competitor from commandeering a 2,200 square foot billboard that adjoins Macy’s flagship Herald Square store. It’s a signage space Macy’s has leased for nearly 60 years.

The huge billboard, which features Macy’s iconic star and logo typeface set against the familiar bright red background, serves as a beacon for millions of pedestrians and potential shoppers as they walk north on Broadway and west on 34th Street. Millions more see the sign every November in countless camera shots during the retailer’s world-renowned Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Amazon, an organization that can send astronauts into orbit, is capable of just about anything, but how could even it endeavor to place its name on a billboard on the side of such a storied competitor’s flagship store?

Key to the controversy is the fact that Macy’s doesn’t own the building on which the billboard rests; the sign is actually attached to a small separate edifice situated just between the retailer’s massive 2.2 million sq. ft. store and the intersection. The owner of the tiny architectural interloper and its very valuable billboard is Kaufman Realty Corp.

With the contract it signed in 1963 expiring, Macy’s asked Kaufman to renew its billboard ad, but the company told its long-standing tenant that it intended to rent the space to a “prominent online retailer”—one who apparently has deep pockets and who most believe is Amazon.

Of course, both Macy’s and Amazon have physical stores and virtual ones; yet, Macy’s is in many ways the quintessential brick-and-mortar retailer while Amazon practically owns online shopping.

In a very real way, therefore, the billboard battle represents a titanic clash of competing marketing channels and business models, the results of which could impact consumer shopping behavior for years to come, as well as set important moral precedent.

Macy’s firmly believes that its loss of the advertising space, next to its flagship store, would be disastrous, as the suit it filed states, “The damages to Macy's customer goodwill, image, reputation and brand, should a 'prominent online retailer' (especially Amazon) advertise on the billboard are impossible to calculate.”

With net income that’s exceeded $1 billion for eight of the last ten years, Macy’s is doing well compared to many retailers, especially those that filed for bankruptcy over the last 18 months, e.g., Lord & Taylor, J.C. Penney, J Crew, Neiman Marcus, and Pier 1.

However, Macy’s profit margin for 2020 was a modest 2.9%. Amazon, in contrast, had net income of $21.3 billion on revenue of $386 billion, giving it not only much greater earnings but also a significantly higher rate of return—5.5%.

So, although Macy’s is not quite on the cusp, it’s certainly not operating from a position of power versus Amazon, and it truly can’t afford to see its flagship store, which it’s described as its “most valuable asset,” take a serious financial hit.

However, a hit on Macy’s Herald Square store and its effect on the future of retail is only one concern of the billboard battle: Amazon’s aggressive competitive tactic is also a breach of business’s moral bulwark.

Of course, Amazon has a right to buy any billboard it wants, but a key question is why the firm needs to buy that one.

According to Statista, there are over 340,000 billboards, or “big format outdoor displays,” in the United States. Just a ten-minute walk north of Herald Square lies Time Square, which has probably the greatest display of outdoor advertising in the world.

Granted, a sign in this spectacle of commercialism comes at a very high cost: between $5,000 and $50,000 a day, which could mean as much as $18.25 million a year. Still, that amount of money is almost immaterial to the one of the world’s richest companies.

As of December 31, 2020, Amazon’s balance sheet showed cash and cash equivalents of $41.2 billion. Even a $50,000-a-day billboard would represent less than half of one percent of those liquid assets (just 0.0445%).

So, if hundreds of thousands of large outdoor signs are available and Amazon can afford to rent any billboard it wants, why does it have to have the one in Herald Square that’s adjacent to one of its biggest competitor’s flagship stores?

It’s reasonable to infer an intent to attack the heart of Macy’s operations, to steal shoppers from in front of its landmark store, and perhaps even to embarrass the firm before its own customers.

Some might respond to such assertions of over-the-top aggression with, “That’s business,” or “Amazon is just being competitive,” or “The company is playing to win.” There’s a difference, though, between working hard to win and trying menacingly to make others lose. Unfortunately, Amazon’s billboard-buy seems like the latter.

Growing up, I loved to play sports and considered myself a pretty competitive person—I wanted to win and tried my hardest to do so. Although I didn’t like losing, I could tolerate it—it wasn’t the end of the world—especially if I played my best and the other person/team simply outperformed me.

By the same token, I never liked the idea of trying to sabotage or subvert opposing players’ performance. Instead, I thought, “Let them do their best, and I’ll do my best, and whosever best is better deserves to win.” I didn’t have to come out on top every time; I could ‘share the podium.’ Part of competing was knowing how to win and lose graciously.

In contrast, some individuals and organizations compete as if it’s all or nothing, and they have to have it all, all the time. They’ve no sense that ‘the market's big, so there’s plenty of business for everyone.’

Maybe it’s because of the holidays that this self-obsessed way of thinking reminds me of the Christmas classic It’s a Wonderful Life--specifically the film’s antagonist, the greedy and scheming Mr. Potter. Although he and his bank already own half of Bedford Falls, he won’t rest until it’s all under his control, not tolerating even a minor amount of competition from George Bailey’s small Building & Loan. No one else can win; he has to have it all.

My guess is that Mr. Potter would be proud of Amazon’s attempt to pry the Herald Square billboard lease away from Macy’s.

Macy’s is no real threat to Amazon, which can afford any outdoor advertising it wants and doesn’t need to have that specific sign. So, why go after it? It seems like Amazon doesn’t want anyone else to win; it has to have it all.

Macy’s lawsuit claims that all past and present agreements have prohibited the billboard’s owner from ever leasing the space to any other “establishment selling at retail or directly to any consumer.” If that claim is true and Macy’s is offering Kaufman Realty fair compensation for the lease, Macy’s has even more reason to believe its treatment is unreasonable.

Competition is not only necessary, it’s desirable, as it both benefits consumers and sharpens industry rivals. However, when organizations like Amazon enlist predatory business practices, their strategies are a sign of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

22 Comments

Has OnlyFans Sold Its Soul?

8/29/2021

15 Comments

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

When you were a kid, people probably asked you, “What do you want to do when you grow up?” It’s unlikely that anyone ever asked what you wouldn’t be willing to do for a living. However, that uncommon question may actually be the more important one; at least that’s what OnlyFans’ off-again-on-again sex saga suggests.

Those familiar with OnlyFans were surprised to learn that the London-based online subscription service known for risqué content had suddenly decided to ban sexually-explicit videos. The move, which seemed analogous to Budweiser abandoning alcohol, made me wonder whether the purveyor of virtual vice suddenly had a moral epiphany that left it feeling convicted and compelled to reform its ways.

However, my online search for an ethical impetus behind the pornography ban came up empty. It appeared that the main motivation came down to processing payments and keeping credit lines open, since some of OnlyFans’ banks had become increasing uncomfortable with transactions tied to the sex industry.

On one level, OnlyFans did act on a moral imperative, but it wasn’t a strategy it selected willingly; rather it was behavior compelled by others and tied squarely to revenue retention.

The idea that there had been no real ethical enlightenment became all-the-more apparent when, within a matter of a few days, the company reversed its stance and lifted the pornography ban.

Any of us can change our minds on ethical issues (I sometimes do), but for an individual or organization to go from “this is so right,” to “this is so wrong,” to “this is so right,” within a matter of days, defies most moral compasses.

So, whether or not we agree with OnlyFans’ recent choices, it’s hard to lend the company moral capital for any of them. Instead, we’re back to the most basic business ethics question: Is OnlyFans’ business model a moral one, i.e., Is it right to sell sex?

Of course, selling sex has been happening for millennia, which is why prostitution is known as “the oldest profession.” Also, throughout that time a very wide variety of sexual expression has been sold, from actual physical intercourse to subtle innuendo in advertising.

Over so much time and across so many different cultures, there’s bound to be differences of opinion about what constitutes appropriate sexual expression and how, if ever, if should be commercialized. My convictions, which stem from a Christian worldview, provide guiding principles that admittedly are filtered through my interpretation. I respect others’ distinct judgments and bases for beliefs because I don’t have it all figured out.

Still, there are four arguments I often hear in favor of commercializing sex that are hard for me to appreciate for reasons I’ll explain:

1) Diversity and Inclusion: In a tweet describing the reversal of its pornography ban, OnlyFans said:

“Thank you to everyone for making their voices heard. We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse community [emphasis added] and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change. OnlyFans stands for inclusion [emphasis added] and we continue to provide a home for all creators.

OnlyFans’ announcement reminds me of Frank Sinatra famously singing, “I did it may way,” as well as of many young people today saying, “You have to do you.” All three sentiments suggest that what’s good is purely a personal decision, or what feels right for that individual.

Individuality is good in many ways, but personal diversity related to what a person does (i.e., their actions, behaviors) is different than who a person is (e.g., their race and gender). Unfortunately, OnlyFans conflates the two. People always deserve respect for who they are, but personal preference for what to do shouldn’t serve as the metric for what’s ethical.

2) Free speech: Reading and listening to interviews about the OnlyFans news, I heard several sex workers appeal to free speech, suggesting that what they sell is protected by freedom of expression. In terms of U.S. constitutional law, it is true that not only words but actions, specifically symbolic ones, fall under the umbrella of free speech.

However, free speech doesn’t give the right “To make or distribute obscene materials” (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476; 1957). Granted, this prohibition is a legal one, not necessarily a moral one; still, it’s informative that those interpreting such important constitutional matters felt that free speech does not mean the right to say or do absolutely anything and that illicit expression is particularly deserving of censure.

3) Free Market System: The interplay of supply and demand is effective for bringing about marketing efficiencies, but some seem to believe that if there are two consenting parties—a willing buyer and a willing seller—any exchange between them is inherently ethical. Countering that notion is the moral axiom, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

In the vast majority of cases, sellers and buyer do self-regulate ethically; yet, there are plenty of instances in which parties to an exchange rationalize activities that most others say is wrong, e.g., murder for hire, distribution of illegal drugs, human trafficking, etc. So, claiming that selling sex is okay because two collaborators want it does not hold much ethical weight.

4) Jobs: One of the greatest privileges a person can have is to do meaningful work. Good jobs are important for individuals’ economic and emotional well-being, as well as for society as a whole. However, in keeping with the previous point, not every job is a good job.

Some people make significant money and may even enjoy being arms dealers or animal poachers, but employment is not an absolute good. What people do for pay matters. A job that’s harmful to them or to others is not a worthwhile job.

It’s nice that sex workers can pay their bills, but there’s little or no redeeming value that sex workers can claim , i.e., “Here’s how we’re helping others and making this world a better place.” If anything, sex work precipitates very adverse impacts, e.g., addiction, objectification, psychological scaring, and broken relationships.

Job security is one of life’s most motivating forces. Many people will do almost anything to rationalize and retain their income stream, which evokes this article’s original question: Is there anything you wouldn’t do for money?

Growing up and working in our family’s promotional products company, I clearly remember my father pulling aside calendar manufacturers’ catalogs that contained sexually explicit pictures and completely covering those pages with large decals so what was under them couldn’t be seen by our salespeople, our customers, or anyone else.

We could have done well financially marketing those lewd calendars to companies that wanted to buy them; however, my dad decided that offering them was not the right thing to do. Selling sex was something he wouldn’t do for money.

Although it may be economically advantageous, it’s morally unfortunate that people today can easily make money selling sex. Hopefully, OnlyFans will at some point reconsider its largely illicit business model. In the meantime, the company continues to be a purveyor of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

15 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

When TV Commercials Wink

2/14/2021

14 Comments

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

As a Seinfeld fan, one of my favorite episodes is when George’s eye catches a piece of flying grapefruit, causing him to confuse everyone with his involuntary winking. Such hijinks are funny for a television sitcom, but what happens when commercials use conflicting verbal and visual cues, particularly on TV’s biggest stage?

Before the recent big game, a friend graciously invited my analysis of the ads—You don’t have to ask twice for my opinion on advertising, especially Super Bowl commercials, so I shared thoughts about one particular ad that seemed strange.

Toyota’s “Upstream” commercial featured the adoption story of Jessica Long, a 13-time gold-medal-winning Paralympic swimmer. Long’s rise to success despite severe adversity was inspiring; however, there was also something unsettling about the ad.

Pushing against the positive verbal messages of parental love and athletic achievement was a literal stream of cold, dark water that ran through every scene, including the family’s home and other indoor places. That’s a disconcerting sight that can cause anguish for anyone, especially those who have experienced floods in their home, school, or work.

The negative visual of flood water worked against the ad’s affirmative verbal messages, significantly diluting the positive affect Toyota likely wanted for its ad, and making it “Simple-Minded Marketing.” The automaker certainly had good intentions, but I doubt the inadvertently somber spot did much to boost the company’s brand.

I remembered this ad partly because of its unpleasant aftertaste but also because I’ve studied such verbal-visual disconnects before. Several years ago, I did research on the same phenomenon found in pharmaceutical ads, which are probably the worst offenders when it comes to sending mixed commercial messages.

When we watch a prescription drug ad, we usually hear a list of the medication’s side effects, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates. However, as a narrator recites those potential negative outcomes, the commercial often shows very pleasant visuals, like the ones seen in this ad for Lipitor. At about 33 seconds into the spot, a narrator starts to quickly read several serious warnings:

“Lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing or pregnant or may become pregnant. You need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. Tell your doctor if you are taking other medications or if you have muscle pain or weakness. This may be the sign of a rare or serious side effect.”

Ironically, the visual backdrop for these weighty words is a guy and his dog taking a pleasant walk through the woods and later jumping into a lake for some swimming fun. Yes, we hear the side effects in such ads, but are we really listening to and understanding their gravity, given that very positive visual scenes distract us from those negative verbal messages?

That’s the question I set out to answer through research that began with a group of students in an Advertising Ethics class I was teaching. In a controlled empirical study that involved commercials for fictitious pharmaceuticals, we found that people do indeed discount drugs’ negative side effects when shown positive “dissonant” visuals at the same time.

I presented those findings at the American Marketing Association’s Marketing & Public Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., where a member of the FDA commended the research and asked for a copy of the presentation. Health Marketing Quarterly later published the study.

So, one “Simple-Minded” Super Bowl ad failed to make effective use of reinforcing, or “redundant,” visuals—no big deal. Actually, several other $5.5 million+ spots made the same mistake in similar ways and in doing so conveniently completed the other three quadrants of the Mindful Matrix:

“Alexa’s Body” - Amazon claimed the steamiest spot in this year’s Super Bowl. For nearly sixty seconds, a female Amazon employee fantasized about handsome Black Panther star Michael B. Jordan, who replaced the smart speaker in her lustful daydreams, which included Jordan removing his shirt and joining her in a bubble bath for two.

The commercial was uncomfortable to watch in mixed company and may have posed problems for parents, but the real issue was the spot’s repeated sexual objectification of Jordan. Role-reversal (a woman mentally undressing a man) may have seemed funny, but no one should be reduced to their body parts or have their personhood downgraded to a “vessel.” Similarly, it’s dangerous to objectify men as doing so suggests that it’s also okay to objectify women.

The ad involved dissonant visuals in that images of a sexy superstar have nothing to do with voice commands about ‘the number of tablespoons in a cup’ or ‘turning on the sprinklers.’ The pairing of an A-list celebrity with Alexa probably has helped keep Amazon’s smart speaker top-of-mind, but all the gratuitous sexual innuendo made the ad “Single-Minded Marketing.”

“Happy” - In its “Ultra” light beer ad, Michelob employed an entire lineup of past and present all-star athletes. For instance, there were still shots and/or video clips of Serena Williams, Mia Hamm, Anthony Davis, Usain Bolt, Billy Jean King, Arnold Palmer, Wilt Chamberlain, Jimmy Butler, Peyton Manning, and more.

I wonder whether Michelob got permission from all these athletes, or their estates, to associate their images with its brand, but assuming it did, there’s still another problem that directly involves dissonant visuals: People don’t ascend to those kinds of athletic heights by downing much beer. There’s little to suggest that alcohol enhances athletic performance; in fact, alcohol has exactly the opposite effect: It reduces aerobic efficiency, impairs motor skills, decreases strength, disrupts sleep, and slows recovery.

Michelob’s suggestion that happiness helps athletes win may have some truth to it, but there’s clearly much more to athletic achievement, namely physical and mental discipline both of which alcohol easily impairs. For that reason, it was irresponsible of Michelob to show images of athletes in uniform, on their courts, fields, etc., along with alcohol-friendly soundbites such as, “fueling the run toward greatness” and “something more vital.”

How ironic and tragic it was that Kansas City Chief’s outside linebacker coach Brit Reid, son of head coach Andy Reid, caused a multi-vehicle accident days before Super Bowl, apparently due to alcohol impairment. The accident caused him to miss the game and left a young girl fighting for her life. Alcohol and athletics definitely don’t mix, and it’s doubtful that such precarious positioning will give Michelob’s brand much boost, which makes the beermaker’s ad “Mindless Marketing.”

“Get Back to Nature” - After the three commercials just described, it’s easy to be suspicious of all Super Bowl spots, believing that most played with consumers’ minds and sacrificed social mores. Thankfully however, the preceding ads were exceptions. Most of the commercials employed redundant, not dissonant, visuals that appropriately reinforced their verbal messages.

One of the best examples of such visual-verbal consistency was Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s 60-second spot that featured clips of ordinary people planning for and enjoying beautiful places in the great outdoors while hiking, fishing, camping, and more.

Sprinkled into some scenes was gear that one could probably purchase from the outfitter, but none of the product placement was overdone; rather, all subtly and artfully supported the simple call to experience nature. Consequently, viewers were likely both to remember the firm’s ‘enjoy the outdoors’ value proposition and to believe its closing promise, “We’re there for you.”

Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s commercial wasn’t the only advertiser to hit a home run in terms of verbal-visual consistency that was both effective and ethical. A couple of other best-practices ads belonged to Huggies for “Welcome to the World, Baby” and to Indeed for “The Rising.”

A wink is the epitome of a dissonant visual—it slyly states, “Don’t believe what I’m saying.” Advertisers shouldn’t ‘wink’ with their ads, i.e., use dissonant visuals that contradict their spots’ verbal messages. Instead, commercials should enlist strategically-chosen redundant visuals that reinforce the right verbal messages. In Super Bowl ads and in other communication, that consistency makes for “Mindful Marketing.”

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

14 Comments

Do We Really Want State Farm’s Rodgers Rate?

12/12/2020

0 Comments

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

“How much does it cost?”—That’s often the first question consumers ask and one that companies like to avoid until after they’ve described their products’ features and benefits. A leading insurance company, however, has decided not only to buck that communication wisdom but to promote another precarious pricing strategy.

Market research apparently pegs football fans as key consumers of insurance, which would explain why televised games contain so many commercials for the likes of Liberty Mutual, Geico, and Progressive. One of the biggest buyers of advertising inventory has been State Farm, whose ubiquitous ads feature a couple of top National Football League (NFL) quarterbacks expressing gratitude for scoring special insurance deals.

In the ad campaign, Super Bowl champions Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes take turns conversing with casually-cool insurance agent, “Jake from State Farm,” who sports some stylish stubble, a snug-fit State Farm t-shirt, and the obligatory khaki pants.

The sports stars convey gratefulness to Jake for landing them 'exclusive' insurance deals. In one ad, Rodgers plays fetch with his dog while thanking the representative for giving him “the Rodgers rate” on his insurance, which Jake firmly denies:

“Here’s the deal. There’s no Rodgers rate. State Farm just has surprisingly great rates.” “We do offer it to anyone, literally anyone.”

Jake has practically the same conversation with Mahomes in a similar spot, as the two play corn hole. Like Rodgers, Mahomes thanks Jake for the “Patrick Price” on his insurance, but again, the agent resists:

“Here’s the deal, Patrick. State Farm offers everyone surprisingly great rates.”

At first glance, it seems like State Farm’s pricing play could work. In a celebrity-centered, influencer-driven world, people love to eat, drive, and wear what famous people do. So, why not add insurance to the list of endorser-inspired products?

The company’s ‘one-rate-for-all’ ads also could appeal to a value for of equality by suggesting that everyone should be able pay the same prices for the same products. Of course, charging people different prices would be unfair . . . or would it?

Legally, organizations can’t charge certain consumers more because of personal traits like gender and race. In terms of moral principles, it would be unfair to give more favorable treatment to some people and not others because of such characteristics. However, there are some legitimate reasons for price discrimination, for instance:

Quantity Discount: People who purchase more deserve to pay lower unit prices, e.g., buying a six pack of soda versus a single can.
Lower Risk: Individuals who objectively are less likely to default on credit terms should receive more favorable rates, e.g., a person with a very good credit score who puts a 50% down payment on a home versus another with a low credit score and 20% down.
Buy Now: Because of the time value of money, as well as companies’ needs to maintain cash flow and reduce inventory, consumers often receive incentives for purchasing sooner rather than later.
Peak Demand: Many people want to do the same activities at the same times, like going to the beach in the summer and to the movies in the evening, which is why hotels offer off-season rates and theaters have matinees.

There’s one other reason for price discrimination that’s not as clear cut—ability to pay. On one hand, companies shouldn’t be like the mechanic in National Lampoon’s Vacation: When Clark Griswold innocently asks him how much his car repair costs, the unscrupulous repairman boldly asks, “How much you got?” then demands “all of it, boy.”

On the other hand, it seems compassionate to charge specific consumer groups less because of their typically lower incomes, e.g., senior citizens.

In the industry in which I work, higher education, price discrimination is routine practice. Government and a variety of organizations collaborate with colleges and universities to offer tuition-lowering aid financial aid and scholarships, particularly to families with the greatest need.

That brings us back to Rodgers and Mahomes. Perhaps as spokesmen they receive State Farm insurance for free, but if they are paying something for it as the commercials suggest, these two multimillionaires certainly wouldn’t be getting a break on their rates because of inability to pay.

According to NFL.com, Mahomes’ $45 million a year salary is the league’s highest, and Rodger’s $33.5 million annual take is not far behind. Companies of all kinds strive to win the business of such high equity individuals, largely because they can afford full fare, i.e., they don’t require discounts.

Although you and I are less affluent, we understand that dynamic and wouldn’t want to pay the prices that Patrick and Aaron pay for anything. Hook us up, instead, with the rates their chauffeurs and gardeners are getting.

Of course, the commercials are meant to be funny, and we shouldn’t pretend we have the same buying power as NFL quarterbacks. Still, State Farm appears serious about uniform pricing by repeatedly suggesting that it offers “surprisingly great rates” to everyone without exceptions. That fixed pricing is the main flaw of the firm’s strategy; in fact, it’s a mistake from which one well-known retail chain is still struggling to recover, years later.

In November of 2011, JCPenney made a bold move in hiring as its new CEO former Apple retail executive Ron Johnson. In his effort to make JCPenney more Apple-esque, Johnson upgraded the stores' interiors and, more significantly, implemented Apple’s everyday ‘value’ pricing. If the no-sales strategy worked for the world’s most sought-after electronics brand, it should work for a clothing and housewares retailer, right?

Unfortunately for Johnson and JCPenney the strategy failed miserably. The firm’s revenue fell by almost $5 billion in one year and its operating loss grew to nearly $1 billion. Johnson was ousted from his job in March of 2013, just 14 months after he started.

The main failure in what some have called “the biggest retail disaster in history” was forgetting that people love sales. Many of us are captivated by the ‘thrill of the hunt,’ and we relish knowing that we got a great deal, whether it be versus regular prices or in comparison to what others have paid. I’m one of those people who is not above bragging about his consumer conquests.

A few years ago when gas prices were on the rise, I shared a fill-up receipt with my wife so she could see how I paid a paltry $1.78 per gallon thanks to an abundance of grocery store reward points. Then, just this past week, I saved 43% on purchases at a drugstore chain thanks to various special discounts stacked atop a 30% off everything coupon. I hadn’t told anyone about that shopping feat, but I’m bragging about it now!

It’s not just me. Over the years, I’ve heard many others describe their exceptional purchases, a behavior I believe equity theory helps explain. As humans, we continually measure our inputs against their outcomes, including what we spend versus what we get for our money. We’re also constantly comparing our input/outcome ratios to those of others in order to gauge how well we’re doing at shopping or anything else.

Although usually effective, offering sales or running specials doesn’t work in every situation. For prestige products that command premium prices, like those of Apple, it can be counterproductive to offer frequent discounts, as doing so can diminish the brand’s perceived quality and cachet. However, in cases involving little or no product differentiation, businesses that ignore discounting often do so to their detriment.

Many insurance companies do offer discounts for things such as safe driving and bundling multiple policies (e.g., home and auto). In fact, State Farm is one of those firms; it offers a “Drive Safe and Save” discount of up to 30% on auto insurance. For some reason the company gives that program much less media exposure.

Aside from promoting or not promoting discounts, State Farm doesn’t help its cause by suggesting that all its customers pay the same rates whether they’re a multimillion-dollar quarterback or a more frugal football fan.

Price equality sounds nice, but there are legitimate reasons for charging people different prices, including allowing consumers to self-select and shop for prized discounts. At the end of the game, charging everyone the Rodgers rate really is “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

Can Google Be Trusted?

11/27/2020

5 Comments

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

Ask people their biggest brand loyalties and they’ll mention names like Apple, Coca-Cola, and Nike. Flying under the radar, however, is a firm whose product most people use far more often. It’s second nature to ‘Google’ any online search, but does a company the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses of anticompetitive practices deserve so much of our trust?

The DOJ recently levied an antitrust lawsuit against Google, “alleging that the online giant engaged in anticompetitive conduct to preserve monopolies in search and search advertising.” Although the lawsuit implies a lack of trust, “The trust in antitrust [actually] refers to a group of businesses that team up or form a monopoly in order to dictate pricing in a particular market.”

Given that Google doesn’t charge people to use its search engine—it’s free for all—it doesn’t make much sense to say that the company colludes with competitors to fix prices.

On the other hand, Google’s inordinately large share of the market for online search, does resemble a monopoly. According to 2017 Net Market Share statistics, Google accounted for 79% of the global search engine market versus just 7.3%, 7%, and 4.9%, respectively, for Bing, Baidu, and Yahoo.

Contrary to what one might think, a monopoly is not necessarily illegal. According to the Sherman Act, it’s fine for a company to hold such a position of prominence, provided that the firm’s “vigorous competition and lower prices [took] sales from its less efficient competitors.” It’s kind of like saying, ‘It’s no crime to be rich, if you made your money honestly.’

Google’s rise to the top appeared to be upright. In 1995, with the Internet in its infancy, Larry Page and Sergey Brin conceived the search engine from their Stanford University dorm rooms. Then, as companies and consumers increasingly spent time online, the firm kept improving its product and riding the wave of web success. Google now has annual revenues of $166 billion and a market cap of $1.20 trillion.

So, if Google’s free product precludes price-fixing and its rise was above reproach, how has the search engine giant run afoul of the law? It has to do with what the company has purportedly done to maintain its preeminent position.

According to the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit, Google is guilty of acting anticompetitively in search and search advertising in order to “preserve” its monopolies in those arenas. In other words, it’s not what the company did to get to the top, it’s what the firm does to stay there.

It’s important here to reiterate that so far Google has not been found guilty of wrongdoing, it’s only been charged. That said, why would a company that achieved such success honestly, need to resort to maleficence to maintain its status?

As hard as it is to come by success, staying successful can be even harder, for reasons like these:

Success breeds competitors. When people see someone being successful at something, a natural tendency is to think, “I can do that.”
Everyone guns for the leader. In sports, subpar teams often play great games when they have an opportunity to beat the defending champion.
Bigger businesses have more to manage. Even a small company is not easy to run. As an organization grows, so do the number and size of its challenges
Good ideas are hard to find. It’s difficult to maintain a continual flow of winning ideas.
Success is addicting. Once you get a taste of success, it’s hard to give it up.

Of course, none of these reasons would absolve Google of anticompetitive practices. If it’s doing what the DOJ alleges, Google is not only breaking the law, it also may be hurting consumers like you and me in more than one way:

Costing us money: According to the DOJ, enforcement of antitrust laws like the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act “saves consumers millions and even billions of dollars a year.” It’s basic economics: Greater supply means lower prices.

Reducing quality: The FTC also maintains that monopolies impinge on product quality. When customers have no other options, there are fewer incentives for monopolizing organizations to make sure their offerings are great.

In the abstract, these two reasons definitely resonate. The issue, though, is that my positive experience with Google makes it hard for me to pin either of the problems on the company.

Just in writing this piece, I used Google at least a dozen times to search the Web for articles and statistics that I’ve hyperlinked throughout the article. Those searches are in addition to a dozen more Google searches I do each day for work and personal needs. All these searches cost me nothing and I am almost always very happy with the results. So, why isn’t a bigger, more powerful Google better?

Perhaps the biggest downside of monopolies is that they can impede innovation. Companies with monopoly power can lose incentive to innovate, while standing in the way of other firms that would like to offer us cutting-edge products and breakthrough services.

In a monopoly-managed industry, what’s available may seem good because we’re unaware of what could be, i.e., we don’t know what we’re missing.

What if Microsoft had short-circuited the rise of Apple or if big automakers had put the brakes on Tesla? The world wouldn’t be enjoying the innovative products that these firms and other one-time startups have brought to market. I wouldn’t be typing on my MacBook right now.

Competition is good for consumers. It’s also good for the firms competing, as it encourages them to work more efficiently and effectively, which brings out their best: “Iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Every individual and organization should want to do/be their best and, therefore, should welcome competition.

It will be up to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to determine whether Google has been “unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets.” However, if the Court does uphold the charges, the company also could be cited for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

5 Comments

Why Negative Political Advertising Works & What Can Stop It

10/31/2020

9 Comments

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

In thousands of ads each day, companies consistently focus on themselves, rarely mentioning competitors, let alone firing a direct shot at one. So, why do political ads routinely take aim at their opponents? As a resident of a 2020 election battleground state, I’ve witnessed an unprecedented barrage of such attacks from both sides of the political spectrum:

The PAC America First Action sent a direct mail piece to our home featuring a photo of Joe Biden on an old-west wanted poster with the text, “WANTED for attempting to kill 600,000 Pennsylvania jobs!” The other side of the piece blames Biden for wrecking families’ finances and cozying up to China.
The Lincoln Project PAC has discredited Donald Trump through a one-minute video, “Mourning in America.” Against a backdrop of barren cities and towns, narration explains, “Today, more than 60,000 Americans have died from the deadly virus Donald Trump ignored,” and “Under the leadership of Donald Trump, our country is weaker, and sicker, and poorer.”

Neither of these ads even mention the candidate they endorse; rather, their aim is to undermine the adversary—a strategy that contradicts the research of Sorin Patilinet, global consumer marketing insights director for Mars, Inc. In analyzing over 700 ads, Patilinet’s team found that negative emotions often backfire on the firms that employ them.

Given the tenuous nature of negative ads and their infrequent use by businesses, why do political campaigns regularly resort to antagonism? It must be that negative ads work for politicians; if they didn’t, PACs and others wouldn’t spend millions of dollars making them.

But, what makes negative advertising effective for those seeking a senate seat or the presidency but not for businesses building their brands?

Not every type of advertising fits every industry. For instance, humor is hard for financial planners and funeral homes to pull off since their customers expect seriousness. Politics is a very unusual ‘industry’ for advertising, as the following seven distinctions summarize:

Fear appeal: Playing on people’s fears isn’t a viable way to promote most products, but it does work well for some, like home security systems, and political candidates. In fact, some ads, like the two described above, effectively use fear to position political opponents as threats to citizens’ ‘home’ towns, states, and countries.
Lower consumer expectations: Gallup’s annual survey about the ethics of 20 different occupations supports that people hold politicians, and likely their ads, to a lower standard: Members of Congress consistently bring up the bottom of Gallup’s list, suggesting little esteem for them and other elected officials.
Familiar fighting: If there are too many “serious” Super Bowl commercials, people complain, mainly because they’re used to seeing funny ones. Whether we like them or not, we often expect political ads to be negative.
Rationalized outcomes: Political ads also get a pass because of the importance of governance. As a result, we place political advertising in a different category, accepting its enmity because ‘the ends justify the means.’
The lesser of two evils: Unlike the overwhelming number of good product options consumers usually enjoy, elections often entail a choice between just two candidates who many find equally unappealing. As a result, one ends up on top as the ‘candidate of least compromise.’
Negativity bias: I recently conducted a study of advertising humor that suggested that people remember unpleasant experiences more than pleasant ones. The same phenomenon explains, in part, why negative political ads work—their animosity stands out and sticks with people.
Fight over flight: One reason businesses don’t want to brawl is there’s no telling how long a battle could last. Politicians, however, have finite promotional timelines that end after election, allowing them to engage in all-out warfare without the worry of a never-ending war.

These seven reasons help explain the success of negative political advertising and its heavy spending, but they don’t justify its use. Instead, they lead further into the logic trap that ethics aims to avoid: reasoning from ‘is’ to ‘ought.

Just because advertisers can do something doesn’t mean they should. There are at least three reasons there shouldn’t be caustic political advertising:

Polarization: To say that the U.S. is increasingly a nation divided is a severe understatement. Negative political advertising ads fuel the acrimony. Ultimately, one candidate wins, but because of the extreme public belittling, he/she enters office having already earned the enmity of a large portion of the population. Negative ads help set up elected officials to fail.
Opportunity Cost: There’s limited space in a 30-second radio spot and on a 9” x 12” mail piece. If a PAC makes smearing an opponent its priority, there’s little or no room to address real issues. As a result, voters end up knowing all the reasons they shouldn’t select someone but few of the reasons they should elect another. Insight into truly important concerns is the casualty.
Moral Compromise: Public service is an important calling and citizens should understand significant weaknesses of candidates, but it’s not right to recklessly vilify a person. Most negative political ads sacrifice objectivity and civility. Endorsing disrespect and exemplifying disparagement unmoors society’s moral anchor.

Amid unprecedented campaign-spending and unrestrained animosity, is there a way forward?

Exiting the downward spiral seems like trying to end a nuclear arms race: The urge is to add armaments, not abandon them. No nation or politician wants to risk their existence by being the first to disarm.

It’s unlikely, therefore, that political candidates or PACs will self-censor and curb their own negative advertising. Instead, resolution seems to rest on one of three approaches:

Advertiser Pressure: Media that run negative political ads can conceivably refuse them, which could cause introspection and perhaps ad alterations. It’s unlikely, though, that many media will take a moral stand; rather, they’ll find the revenue too hard to resist and rationalize that campaigns will just “place their ads elsewhere, if not with us.”
Government Regulation: Law is an effective form of advertising behavior modification. If the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) decides a Super Bowl commercial is too risqué, it doesn’t run. However, the policies needed to reform political advertising require the support of legislators who worry they’ll need such ads for their next election, which makes regulation improbable.
A Social Movement: Over recent years, we’ve seen the power that social media gives people to speak out against injustices. The #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements have shown that real change can occur when enough committed citizens actively embrace a cause.

These and other movements have demonstrated that socially-driven change depends first on the realization that a real problem exists. People must perceive negative political advertising as more than periodic unpleasantry and recognize that these ads tear at our national fabric by feeding political polarization and eroding respect for anyone whose political opinions differ from our own.

Boycotting advertising that fuels hate is a start, but America needs an even broader uprising against acrimonious ads, perhaps encouraged by #EndNegativeAds or #PositivePromotion. To avoid becoming a country consumed by anger, our nation needs to get angry at these ads that contribute to domestic division. We need to vote against such “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

9 Comments

Was Pulling "Finger Lickin’ Good" Just Publicity Grabin’?

10/4/2020

16 Comments

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

It’s comforting when a company puts society’s needs ahead of its own interests. One of the world’s leading purveyors of comfort food appeared to be following that recipe when it decided to drop its iconic tagline for health and safety reasons. So, why does it feel like Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has served up a bucket of artificial altruism?

Firms are fortunate if people remember their slogans for a few minutes, let alone days, weeks, or months. To create a theme that endures for decades is a creative coup that only the best marketing minds can claim, e.g., Just Do It (Nike), You’re in Good Hands (Allstate), The Real Thing (Coca-Cola).

KFC first served its iconic Finger Lickin’ Good tagline more than a half century ago. A restaurant manager reportedly cooked up the storied slogan in 1956, “off the cuff.”

Fast forward to August 2020, when many media began broadcasting the big news: In a show of public support, KFC decided to suspend its Finger Lickin’ Good slogan. Catherine Tan-Gillespie, KFC’s global chief marketing officer, explained the move saying that the slogan “doesn't feel quite right” or “fit in the current environment” in which licking one’s fingers violates best practices for avoiding the virus.

As a marketing professor who enjoys slogans and pays special attention to their use, I was surprised by the story for two reasons:

I thought KFC had already stopped using its one-time staple slogan.
I don’t recall any tagline ever grabbing so much publicity, especially for being taken off the menu.

In short, I was suspicious: Was the fast food giant’s concern for public safety genuine, or was the firm actually feeding consumers a line?

Because of other priorities, KFC's decision dropped off my radar, until a student in one of my marketing classes restored it: He shared an article he’d read about the suspended slogan and offered his assessment of KCF’s strategy, calling it “Mindful Marketing.”

When I questioned the motives behind the company’s move, much of the class clapped back against their professor, in support of their fellow student (they always do that). However, their reaction made me even more suspicious of hoodwinking, which doubled my determination to understand what was really happening.

It had been a while since I paid much attention to KFC. About five years ago I wrote a piece about the firm that wasn’t exactly flattering: I described how KFC’s own ads were lampooning, of all people, its deceased founder, the hard-working visionary Harland Sanders. I argued that he and any departed person deserved better.

So, I set out to investigate my hypothesis that KFC’s theme recall was less about protecting people’s health and more about grabbing headlines. The first step was to see if the company had been using its classic Finger Lickin’ Good theme before the August announcement. If you remember above, I said that I didn’t think it had been. Well, I was right . . . and wrong.

I found one website that catalogs companies’ slogans and another that curates their commercials, which I spent too much time watching. In the process, though, I discovered that for a few decades KFC had used in its ads a wide variety of other taglines with no mention of the iconic one, for instance:

However, I was wrong in that KFC did recently reprise Finger Lickin’ Good in its ad campaigns featuring Colonel Sanders fakes. Over a period of about five years, the company has employed an incredible 18 different ‘colonels,’ ranging from Rob Lowe to Reba McEntire. Most of these commercials have used Finger Lickin’ Good.

Watching KFC ads, which were often entertaining, was the easy part. The hard part is supporting that the company’s motives in pulling the classic slogan are not as pious as they appear. Here are four reasons I still maintain that KFC’s tagline tactic is more than a little suspicious:

1. Poor Health History: This is the same company that three decades ago, amid growing public concern about the health effects of fried foods, changed its name to an acronym rather than significantly altering its product line. It’s also the same firm that promotes $5 Fill Up Meals, which contain a whopping 2,160 calories, 104 grams of fat, and 202 carbs.

People certainly need to be careful about coronavirus, but if KFC is truly concerned about consumers’ health, why does it appear apathetic to heart disease—the leading cause of death in America?

2. Rap Sheet of Irreverence: While KFC hasn’t been known for championing healthiness, it does have a reputation for insolence. It’s commercials featuring the Colonel Sanders imposters, are prime examples of the offhand humor, which makes fun of people in all sorts of social situations while also roasting its founder. So, if KFC doesn’t take itself and its customers seriously, why should we believe that jettisoning Finger Lickin’ Good isn’t also a joke?

3. Expert Agreement: CNN has described KFC’s tagline takedown as a “clever” “marketing campaign.” Although, I take issue with the news conglomerate’s implication that all marketing is manipulative, it’s worth noting that the media giant sees KFC doing the same thing I do: making a weakly-veiled attempt to gain brand exposure.

4. Reverse Psychology Strategy: The most compelling evidence that KFC’s slogan stoppage is a stunt can be ‘somewhat seen’ in its own advertising. Rather than removing the tagline entirely from billboards and chicken buckets, the company simply blurred two of the four words to read: It’s - - - - - - - - - - - - - good! In addition, a video showing images of the same items ends with the message, “That thing we always say. Ignore it. For now.”

In psychological terms, KFC is using ironic process theory, which holds that “deliberate attempts to suppress certain thoughts actually make them more likely to surface.” The classic example is telling someone not to think about a pink elephant.

KFC’s ‘don’t think about it’ strategy reminds me of Doritos 2019 “No Logo” commercial in which the company intentionally kept its brand name and mark out of a 60-second TV spot in order to play on consumers’ curiosity and create a buzz. Given how often the commercial was shared, the strategy seemed to work.

Many people, however, have seen through KFC’s charade. In the UK, the Advertising and Standards Authority (ASA) has received 163 complaints about the ads. These critics and others can tell when an organization is truly trying to be socially responsible and when it’s just giving Finger Lickin’ lip service.

It’s nice when large companies wield their significant influence to nudge people in a positive direction, especially one that keeps them from harm during a pandemic. However, a firm pretending to encourage consumer well-being, when it's really just trying to grab publicity should make all of us at least a little sick to our stomachs.

In a best case scenario, the public just laughs off KFC’s ploy. In a worst case, the company’s irreverence encourages people to take virus-prevention measures less seriously, placing themselves and others at greater risk of COVID-19.

Kudos, KFC, for removing the inappropriate tagline. However, this food marketing critic still gives you a poor review for cooking up a big serving of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

16 Comments

Should People Be Mascots?

7/21/2020

8 Comments

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

After evading public pressure for decades, financial concerns have finally sacked the National Football League’s (NFL) Washington franchise, causing it to change a name that Merriam-Webster defines as “offensive.” While it’s good that Native Americans will no longer be subject to that denigration, a broader question remains: Should any sports team’s mascot be a person?

High school, college, and professional sports are peppered with teams named after people groups. In 2014, USA Today reported that of the 10 most popular high school mascot names, three had human connections: Vikings (#4), Warriors (#9), and Knights (#10). People names are also prevalent in Division I collegiate athletics, e.g., Knights and Spartans. Then there are professional sports franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, Milwaukee Brewers, and Cleveland Cavaliers.

In fact, nearly a third of teams in the United States’ four major professional sports leagues use people as mascots (39/123 = 31.7%). Here’s the breakdown by league:

Major League Baseball (MLB): 13/30= 43.3%
National Football League (NFL): 13/32= 40.6%
National Hockey League (NHL): 9/31= 29%
National Basketball Association (NBA): 4/30= 13.3%

To argue to change a team name that serves as a racial slur is pretty straightforward, but what about the dozens or hundreds of other anthropological nicknames? Is society failing to see now a practice that in years to come will be deemed abhorrent?

Apparently, few people objected in 1933 when George Preston Marshall changed the name of the then-Boston-based football franchise from Braves to the current one. Likewise, few appeared to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision in 1967 that gave the name legal protection.

In 1972, a variety of Native American organizations asked team president Edward Bennet Williams for a name change, but their plea evidently gained little public support and ultimately failed to alter his attitude.

The point is this: Just as the majority of the population was apathetic about the need for the Washington football team name change for most of its history, people might look back 20 years from now and wonder, “How could individuals in 2020 have been so ignorant to have people as mascots for sports teams?”

Now, however, many see being chosen as a team mascot as a sign of respect. After all, sports are about competing and winning. So, teams tend to pick mascots that are known for strength, speed, or ferocity or that possess some other desirable qualities that might reflect positively onto the franchise. Although sports teams called Acorns and Spudders actually exist, they are the exceptions. Instead, most team names are chosen because they suggest power and inspire confidence, like Wildcats and Warriors.

At first glance, Merriam-Webster’s definition of mascot reinforces the notion that being chosen as one is a positive thing: A mascot is “a person, animal, or object adopted by a group as a symbolic figure especially to bring them good luck.” How many people, however, want to be someone else’s good luck charm? Most people probably want to be the one enjoying success, not the token symbol responsible for helping someone else win.

A mascot, therefore, is a kind of ‘second class citizen,’ more of a possession or pet than a person. Of course, many mascots are actual animals, kept in cages or put on leashes and paraded in front of fans on gameday. Although mascots are typically chosen for their prowess, it's strength subdued in service to another.

At this point, some of you may be understandably thinking, “Relax! They’re just mascots. Sports are supposed to be fun!” I get that. I’ve appreciated mascots for many years and still do.

When I was much younger, I played for Danville, PA’s high school basketball team, whose mascot name still is the “Ironmen” (granted, not very gender friendly); the town was a key player in America’s 19th century iron industry. I’m also a long-time fan of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers. Honestly, I never thought much about implications of these mascots being people . . . until now.

Would an iron mill or steel mill worker mind that their occupation was selected for mascot status? I'm speculating, but my guess is they wouldn’t; in fact, they might even feel honored. Their reputations as occupations that require unique physical and mental toughness probably makes their selection seem complimentary.

These two examples, however, help identify a potentially important distinction: Not all human mascots involve occupations, which people self-select. Some mascots are based on demographics like race and ethnicity (e.g. Cleveland Indians), over which people have no say.

That lack of choice is compounded by the issue of stereotypes. Any human mascot suggests a certain image for all those belonging to the demographic. For instance, the name Braves implies that all Native Americans are courageous and strong.

But, what could be bad about being perceived as strong and courageous? Aren’t they attributes that anyone would want? Perhaps they are, but the reality is, not everyone has them to the same extent. For Native Americans, that 'positive stereotype' might negatively impact them in at least two ways.

First, the Braves mascot stereotype might make those who weren’t born with as much natural strength or courage feel inadequate, like they’re not living up to an important social standard. Second, a seemingly positive stereotype still pigeonholes people, or presents an unnecessarily narrow or inaccurate view of their abilities.

For example, I’ve been around sports enough to know that African American men are often stereotyped as great athletes. At first blush, that stereotype may seem positive, but if you’re an African American man, you may not appreciate people assuming that you played and/or excelled in sports, especially if you never did. You also wouldn’t like it if people discounted your intellect, as they sometimes do for athletes, inaccurately assuming that a strong body means a weak mind.

There really is no such thing as a positive stereotype. Unfortunately, mascots perpetuate stereotypes, which may not be an issue for animals or inanimate things but can be problematic for people if the mascot is tied to a demographic like race or ethnicity that individuals do not choose.

In more recent years, it seems that sports leagues have become more ‘enlightened,’ as it’s rare for expansion teams to be given human names. For instance, since 1976, six new teams have entered the NFL, but only one was given a people name—the Houston Texans, which is not directly tied to race or ethnicity.

The Washington Post reports that the Cleveland Indians are now considering a name change. It may not be long before other teams named Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. do the same. Projecting further into the future, it’s conceivable that some of sports’ most storied franchises, e.g. Celtics, Fighting Irish, will do the same.

Mascots related to occupations, which people choose, can likely stay. However, team names based on race or ethnicity should be retired because of the narrow and unfair stereotypes they project. Years from now, if not sooner, people will see such team names and call them “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!

8 Comments

<<Previous

Why Can't TikTok Block the Blackout Challenge?

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

Has OnlyFans Sold Its Soul?

Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence

When TV Commercials Wink

Do We Really Want State Farm’s Rodgers Rate?

Can Google Be Trusted?

Why Negative Political Advertising Works & What Can Stop It

Was Pulling "Finger Lickin’ Good" Just Publicity Grabin’?

Should People Be Mascots?

Editor

Archives

Categories