Category: Single Minded2c3169a786

Artificial Endorsers

7/26/2019

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

Have you ever thought you saw someone you knew, went to talk to them, but found it wasn’t them? That’s embarrassing. Or, have you ever thought ‘someone’ was a real person, only to realize they weren’t? This second kind of mistaken identity will become more common if one particular promotional trend continues.

In an age of artificial intelligence and deepfakes, it’s not surprising that some brands are promoting themselves using people who aren’t people. Enter “virtual influencers”—digitally-developed endorsers who plug products not because they like the brand and want the money but because they were programmed to promote.

Perhaps the best known virtual spokesperson is someone/thing named Miquela Sousa, or Lil Miquela. From the splattering of freckles across her youthful face to her complaints of cold temperatures outside, Miquela looks and acts like a real person; however, she’s actually an avatar, the creation of Brud, “a mysterious L.A.-based start-up of ‘engineers, storytellers, and dreamers’ who claim to specialize in artificial intelligence and robotics.”

The company crafted Miquela’s persona to be that of a “19-year-old Brazilian-American model, musical artist, and influencer” who appears to hang out in hip New York and Los Angeles locales, with real-life celebrities. The avatar’s carefully curated personal brand has made her alluring to millions of real-life fans, including more than 43,000 subscribers on YouTube and over 1.6 million followers on Instagram.

That large of a following also makes Miquela highly marketable, which, after all, is her reason for existence. Although, a computer generated influencer (CGI) can’t really use brands, she showcases ones such as Coach, Balenciaga, Ouai, and Proenza Schouler. The promotional potential of Miquela and her fellow avatars (e.g., Blawko) certainly is real, as further evidenced by Brud recently raising $6 million in venture capital and Time placing Miquela among its “25 Most Influential People on the Internet” along with the likes of Kayne West and Kylie Jenner.

But, potentially big fan-bases are not the only attractive attributes of virtual influencers compared to real ones. Digital beings don’t need to be paid. Contrast those zeros to the seven-year $75 million sneaker endorsement deal basketball phenom Zion Williamson just signed with Nike.

Virtual influencers also can be precisely controlled to do and say exactly what advertisers desire, ‘on- and off-camera.’ Contrast that certainty with the risk inherent with real human endorsers, such as Tiger Woods, whose 2009 sex scandal caused two of his biggest sponsors, Gatorade and AT&T, to bail.

There seems to be real value in using unreal influencers, but as this blog always suggests, just because marketers can, doesn’t necessarily mean that they should. So, the question: Is it ethical for organizations to employ virtual influencers?

The thought of “employment” raises an immediate concern: Will digital endorsers put real ones out of work? It seems that some displacement is inevitable: If Miquela is promoting Coach, the brand probably doesn’t need as many flesh-and-blood models or actors.

On the other hand, there are also now new jobs. Someone needs to create and manage the digital personas. So, an argument about unemployment can be countered by the age-old logic that people always need to adapt their job skills in order to keep pace with new technology and not be displaced by it: To stay employed, people who dug holes with shovels needed to learn to drive backhoes and bulldozers.

For what it’s worth, my prediction is that virtual influencers will proliferate to a point of saturation, after which the pendulum will swing back in the opposite direction, at least somewhat, as consumers reaffirm their appreciation for real people’s authenticity, genuineness, and unmanipulated humanity.

For me, the biggest ethical concern surrounding virtual influencers is the potential for deception. As consumers, it’s critical that we recognize when someone is sharing an objective, unbiased recommendation versus one with some corporate connection. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with paid endorsement, but consumers need to know when they’re experiencing it so they can raise their perceptual defenses and properly interpret the message.

For example, as a college professor, I often speak with prospective students and their families about their college choice. They expect me to describe my school in a positive light and understand that I can’t be completely objective. However, if in some social setting I happened to have a conversation with a family, without revealing my association, they might gain an unreasonably favorable impression of my school because they didn’t know that the institution I described was my employer.

For virtual influencers, the potential for deception is different in one way but very similar in another. For instance, when Prada used Miquela to promote its 2018 collection, people probably recognized the ads as corporate messages, not an average consumer’s unbiased recommendation. However, to the extent that viewers didn’t realize Miquela was 100% digital, they may have been deceived.

The reason is that there’s a reasonable expectation that endorsers, whether paid or unpaid, either use the product they’re promoting or have some special knowledge about it that makes them reliable sources of information. For example, I earned my bachelor’s degree from Messiah College and have taught there for nearly 20 years, which should give me some credibility as an endorser. It’s impossible, however, for a virtual influencer to use or otherwise experience the brands they advocate because virtual influencers are not real.

When we see a human endorser in an ad, we assume they’re getting paid, which lessens their perceived objectivity. Still, even if they’re like Zion Williamson and receiving a boatload of money for their support, it’s reasonable to think that they wouldn’t risk their reputation with a brand in which they didn’t believe. People who can command significant sponsorship dollars usually have various endorsement options and can choose reputable ones.

Although Miquela can be pictured wearing or holding Prada products, she can never experience them because she isn’t human. But, if people believe she is real, they can incorrectly assume that her actual interaction with the brand allows her to make sound judgments about it. In short, consumers can be deceived.

Some may be thinking, “But, virtual endorsers really aren’t new, so hasn’t the potential for deception existed for decades?”

It’s true that companies have been using various types of animated endorsers for a long time, e.g., the Pillsbury Dough Boy, Tony the Tiger, the Energizer Bunny. In the 1950s, Pepsodent created Susy Q, an original cartoon character, to promote its toothpaste. More recently, some companies are offering to create unique animated spokespeople that even small businesses can afford.

The difference is the technology used to create Miquela and similar virtual influencers is much more sophisticated, making it increasingly difficult for consumers to distinguish who’s human and who’s not. Therein, again, lies the problem.

When we can tell that animated brand ambassadors aren’t real, we’re under no illusion that they use the products. However, when we believe a spokesperson is human, we assume that they use the product or have some special knowledge about it, which may give us unwarranted confidence in their recommendation.

It’s fine for organizations to use animated beings to promote their products, but they should be careful not to mislead consumers by making the influencers so real that they seem human when they’re not. That kind of deception may sell products but it is really “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

What Does "Meat" Mean?

6/1/2019

0 Comments

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

Girl Scout: “Is this [lemonade] made from real lemons?”

Wednesday and Pugsley, seated at their lemonade stand: “Yes.”

Girl Scout: “I’ll buy a cup, if you buy a box of my delicious Girl Scout cookies.”

Wednesday: “Are they made from real Girl Scouts?”

This dark humor from the 1991 comedy movie The Addams Family may scare up a few laughs, but it’s actually a good example of the product name debate that has many people asking, “Does a burger have to be meat?” and “What makes milk, milk?”

Hamburgers are to blame for the most recent round of debate. A few weeks ago, Burger King started testing a “meatless Whopper,” a vegetable-based patty that contains heme, “a protein cultivated from soybean roots that mimics the texture of meat.”

Veggie burgers have been around for a long time, but thanks to business partner Impossible Foods, founded in 2011 by Stanford biochemistry professor Patrick Brown, the newest generation of vegetable patties not only taste much more like meat, they even bleed like beef.

Burger King isn’t the only fast food chain seeing potential in a plant-based future. McDonald’s has started selling a McVegan burger and vegan McNuggets in Europe, Del Taco will begin to offer meatless tacos, and White Castle and Red Robin are already serving meatless burgers.

For years, nutritionists have been telling us to eat less meat and more vegetables, so what’s not to like about the growing selection of ‘plant food’? The concern is that the new nomenclature, like the word meatless, confuses consumers.

For instance, Nebraska’s farm groups have lobbied for a more restrictive use of the word meat: “any edible portion of any livestock or poultry, carcass, or part thereof.” As one of the nation’s leaders in commercial red meat production, the state has a real “steak” in ensuring that consumers do not migrate away from ‘real’ meat.

Last October, Missouri became the first state to legislate that anything that doesn’t come from “harvested production livestock or poultry” cannot be called meat. That goes for lab-grown meat, like Finless Foods is creating by taking cells of dead fish, putting them in pretri dishes, and cultivating their division into edible protein.

The dairy industry has faced similar and even more far-reaching name-related challenges. For about the last two decades, producers of traditional cow’s milk have witnessed a surge in competition from the likes of almond, cashew, hemp, oat, rice, and soy “milk.” According to Mintel, dairy milk sales declined by 15% from 2012 to 2017, all while non-dairy milk sales increased by more than 60%, with almond milk grabbing a 64% share of the market.

It was in this context that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb remarked that almond milk shouldn’t be called milk since “an almond does not lactate.” Shortly thereafter, the FDA opened a public comment period, inviting consumers and industry members to share their opinions on the milk-naming debate.

The FDA is justified in asking whether there’s been slippage in the “standards of identity” that ensure consumers understand exactly what they’re purchasing. That’s its job. However, the agency would do well to look back much further than the last 20 years, for instance, to 1626 when Francis Bacon observed that certain plants “have milk in them when they are cut.” Likewise, in the late 1700s, the Encyclopedia Britannica published that “the emulsive liquors of vegetables may be called vegetable milks.”

The fact is, people have been using the word milk to refer to similar-looking white liquids for centuries, if not much longer, from a wide variety of sources. Consider, for instance, milk from coconuts, as well as milk from other animals like goats and camels. Indeed, “nondairy milks [have] abounded in many other cultures across the globe.”

Furthermore, meat and milk are far from the only names that have been extended to describe a broader range of products. Take another common dairy product—butter. Peanut butter is entirely plant-based (no dairy), yet the FDA carved out an exception because the product's creamy texture resembles butter and because few people would be eager to purchase “peanut paste.”

It’s not to say that anything goes, i.e., that industries and companies can feel free to call their products whatever they’d like. However, names needn’t be limited to one narrow product category, provided that they serve at least one of the following legitimate functions:

Identify who makes or sells the product, e.g., Avocados from Mexico, Starbuck’s
State for whom the product is intended, e.g., Children’s Tylenol, Dove for Men
Describe what’s in the product, e.g., wheat bread, whole grain pasta
Identify key product features and/or benefits, e.g., fat-free yogurt, Sketcher’s Relaxed Fit
Describe the product’s consistency, e.g., chunky peanut butter; Silk Soy Milk
State the product’s intended use, e.g., Hamburger Helper; Liquid Plumber

Most importantly, neither the product category name nor the brand name should mislead a reasonable consumer. The labels listed above probably aren’t confusing to you or the vast majority of people who read them because marketers and our culture in general have done good jobs educating us about the words’ meanings

So, most Americans know “meatless” means a product does not contain meat. Likewise, as attorney Justin Person has said, “If a consumer is confused about the source of a product labeled ‘almond milk,’ then he has bigger problems than being confused about which milk to buy.” Reasonable people also know that Girl Scout cookies don’t contain Girl Scouts.

It’s not surprising that the beef and dairy industries want to preserve exclusivity for their product category names. However, given that consumers aren’t confused by broader-based naming and may even be helped by it, it looks like the two industries are doing little more than protecting their own livelihoods, which makes their name-related lobbying “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Divine Humor

4/19/2019

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

How a Blind Marketing Student Sees a Smart Cane

3/8/2019

31 Comments

by Jason Polansky, Marketing Major at Messiah College

I enjoy each day without something that many take for granted—eyesight. To safely navigate a sight-friendly word, a blind person develops other aptitudes, like a keener sense of hearing, and learns to use technology, such as a smartphone with GPS. Now one company has developed a hi-tech version of a tool blind folks have used forever—the cane. The thought of a ‘smart cane’ is intriguing, but is it Mindful Marketing?

A few years ago, members of Turkey’s Young Guru Academy (YGA), a nonprofit organization aimed at assisting disadvantaged members of society, began to develop WeWALK, a smart cane that uses ultrasonic sensors, microphones, and speakers to help individuals with visual impairments “see obstacles.” More specifically, a WeWALK hardware unit attaches to the handle of a blind person's cane, allowing him/her to more easily navigate outdoor environments.

Despite its recent start, the company has rapidly gained a social media following on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The firm also has been featured on CNN International, NowThis, Forbes, Dr. Oz, and certain New York City television outlets.

What features and benefits does WeWALK offer that have spurred its rapid rise? The following list summarizes key parts of the new product’s value proposition:

vibration and an ultrasonic sensor to detect overhead and chest-level obstacles, such as hanging tree branches and telephone poles
a compass, accelerometer, and gyroscope for GPS technology and Google Maps integration
Bluetooth connectivity, to be paired with an iOS or Android smartphone and integration with apps such as Google Maps
touch controls that allow users to access their smart phone via the device itself, without having to remove the phone from a pocket, purse, or backpack
a microphone and speaker for voice control and Amazon Alexa integration
support for Turkish and English languages
approximately five hours of battery life
charging via a micro USB port
weight of 430 grams
length of approximately one foot
open platform for app developers to add integrations with the device
purchase price of $349 through Indiegogo

I applaud the idea and the innovation behind WeWALK and appreciate several of its strengths. For instance, overhead obstacle detection is a feature that I would find helpful. Oftentimes when I go hiking, or even when I am just walking down the sidewalk in a residential area, I never know when I am going to encounter an overhead object like a tree branch or some low-hanging sign.

In addition, the ability to connect to a smartphone via Bluetooth could save time and provide convenience by not having to hold a phone in one hand and a cane in the other. Allowing a free hand is a plus.

However, WeWALK also has some significant limitations. First, it does not attach to all types of canes that blind people use. I personally prefer a light-weight, rigid, National Federation of the Blind white cane with a metal tip, but WeWALK does not currently attach to this type of cane. Most of the canes that the device attaches to are much heavier and bulkier in nature. However, AppleVis does say that the firm has a goal of attaching to every popular cane in the world.

Another concern is how well the product can withstand the elements. Due to it being an outdoor product filled with many electronic components, one must be aware of rain during all seasons, as well as winter snow and summer heat. A useful addition to the product would be a protective case of some sort that would not muffle the sound from the speaker.

Speaking of the speaker, I would be interested in knowing how much volume can be produced. Outdoor environments can be quite noisy, due to traffic, construction, and other noises that may prevent the user from being able to hear its audio feedback while holding the cane at arm’s length.

It’s also worth noting that a five-hour battery life may not be enough to get someone through an entire day of traveling, especially while on vacation or otherwise being a tourist. Maybe this deficiency could be remedied by charging through an extra external battery that the user could carry in his or her backpack or purse. However, that power supplement would mean a rather long cord attaching the battery to the device, as well as extra weight.

One also must acknowledge the limitations inherent in any GPS product for the Blind. A GPS won’t tell a pedestrian when it’s safe to cross the street, the path to take through construction, nor will GPS directly lead the user across a large parking lot. Just about any blind person who is an experienced traveler would say that possessing strong mobility skills and knowing how to travel safely is essential before attempting to use any GPS product.

Just as when driving a car, a GPS will tell the driver how to get to the desired destination most of the time, but it does not know the rules of the road. It does not tell the driver to stop at a stop sign or obey the speed limit. Thus, I would not recommend this product to a blind person who does not possess adequate cane travel skills in the first place or who is fearful of traveling in unfamiliar environments.

Beyond the preceding limitations, a big turn-off for me is some of the language used on the firm’s about page. The first line says “WeWALK is the world's most revolutionary smart cane developed for the visually impaired people.” Using the word “the” before “visually impaired people” is a rather patronizing way of describing the target market, just as it is insensitive to use “the” before the name of a racial group. Furthermore, I don’t believe “blind” is a negative word, and I feel it’s fine to use “blind” when describing people who are not completely blind.

A better way to phrase the webpage phrase may be:

“WeWALK is the world's most revolutionary smart cane developed for blind and visually impaired individuals, allowing for greater independence and mobility through innovative technology,” or

“WeWALK is the world's most revolutionary smart cane, strategically built with the blind in mind, combining the white cane that you have known and loved for decades with ground-breaking technological advancements.”

In any case, the company should seriously rethink this use of language as it moves forward.

Overall, WeWALK is a decent and well-intentioned product that shouldn’t cause any serious harm. Still, at a price of $349, there are plenty of ways in which the product must improve before it can truly compete within the marketplace of technology and other tools targeted for blind and visually impaired individuals. Sometime in the future, WeWALK may be Mindful, but at this point I see the smart cane as “Simple-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!

31 Comments

Whole Grain Isn't the Whole Story

2/8/2019

30 Comments

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

You’re at a restaurant with friends and order a pepperoni pizza. The waiter brings the pie, which has a single piece of pepperoni in the middle. Your whole table expresses surprise, to which the server replies, “The pizza has pepperoni, so it is a ‘pepperoni pizza.’” Most people would not appreciate that response, yet that appears to be the tack some food marketers are taking in promoting their whole grain products.

You’ve probably noticed the phrase “whole grain” appearing more and more on product packages, ranging from breakfast cereals to bread. What’s your interpretation when you see “whole grain” on the front of a box? It’s reasonable to assume that all of the product’s grain content comes from whole grains, or at least that whole grain is the primary/first ingredient. However, when you turn the box around to read the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) required nutrition and ingredient labeling, there’s often an unsettling surprise.

Many products that promote themselves as being made from “whole grain” actually contain very little whole grain. Instead, their primary ingredient is refined flour, “a pulverized version of what may, at some point, have been a whole grain.” Whole grain contains every part of a grain kernel, “the bran, the germ and the endosperm (the inner most part of the kernel),” whereas the process of refining flour often involves “stripping off the outer layer, where the [more nutritious] fiber is located.”

How is this potentially misleading labeling allowed? Many blame lax directives by the FDA, which last issued “draft guidance on whole grain labeling in 2006.” The FDA, which regulates food labeling, continues to allow food manufacturers to print “whole grain” on the front of their packages without any absolute or relative reference information, i.e., how many grams of whole grain the product contains or how much whole grain there is relative to refined flour.

But, does printing “whole grain” on the front of a food package really deceive consumers? Several significant stakeholder groups believe it does. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has advised the FDA to “require firms to disclose either the percentage of whole grains and refined grains on pack, or the grams of both refined and whole grains per serving.” Similarly, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a Washington DC-based consumer advocacy group, has “urged the agency to make whole grain labeling clearer to consumers.”

Whole grain labeling becomes even more confusing when it appears on “hearty-looking, and sometimes artificially colored,” food items like multigrain or wheat bread. Such mismatched visuals are especially misleading for the elderly.

But, as consumers, don’t we bear responsibility for what we place into our grocery carts and eventually into our mouths? All we need to do is turn the package around and read the FDA-mandated list of ingredients to see where whole grain ranks into the mix.

Consumers should be expected to act rationally and make logical interpretations about product labeling. However, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), it’s unfair to subject people to deceptive messages that a “reasonable consumer” would find misleading. Courts have applied this reasonable consumer standard in ruling against those employing whole grain deception.

The most notable litigation likely has involved one of the best-known snack crackers, Cheez-It, the product of one of the world’s leading food manufacturers--Kellogg’s. In December of 2018, a second circuit appeals court ruled against the packaged-goods icon in a class action lawsuit that claimed deceptive labeling on “Whole Grain” Cheez-Its, a relatively new extension to the company’s flourishing cracker line.

Printed on the front of the box, in large letters, is the phrase “WHOLE GRAIN.” Above those words, in a much smaller font, are the words “MADE WITH.” Meanwhile, a very big (4.5” x 4.5”) and unusually dark Cheez-It serves as a background image. Despite those distinct package design elements, which are very different than those of Original Cheez-Its, when one turns both boxes to the side, the nutrition facts for each list “enriched flour,” not whole grain, as the first ingredient.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that the second circuit appeals court agreed with the consumer plaintiffs, issuing a unanimous decision that said the whole grain cracker’s nutrition facts “contradict, rather than confirm, [Kellogg’s] ‘whole grain’ representations on the front of the box.”

Kellogg’s effort to include more whole grain in its crackers is good in that “scores of studies link the amount of whole grain [people consume] to better health.” So, the 8 grams of whole grain found in a serving of Cheez-Its can help get people closer to the target daily intake of 48 grams of whole grains for adults.

The problem, however, is that when the front of a package promotes “WHOLE GRAIN” in large letters, against a dark background, it’s reasonable for consumers to conclude that the product’s principal ingredient is whole grain. People might even presume that the crackers are somehow healthy, which is a hard argument to make for any snack cracker, including Cheez-Its, which have the following daily values: total fat–10%, saturated fat–8%, sodium–10%, and total carbohydrates–6%.

Consumers should read the labels and exercise good judgment for the products they use. However, food marketers also should help people make right choices and not mislead them with mixed messages on product packages. Their continued prevalence on supermarket shelves suggests that Kellogg’s Whole Grain Cheez-Its are a success, but the cracker's first ingredient really is “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

30 Comments

It's About a <<Fiji Water>> Girl

1/12/2019

18 Comments

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

Have you ever been photobombed? Friends and family often have fun slyly inserting themselves into each other’s pictures. Sometimes it’s a complete stranger who appears in the background of a vacation photo, smiling for the camera. People are used to those kinds of photobombs, but do A-list celebrities expect such interlopers on the red carpet of a major awards show?

Fiji Water Girl, perhaps the most famous photobomber ever, rose to global prominence in Beverly Hills, just this past weekend. Like other award programs, the Golden Globes features a preshow red carpet event during which the many talented people of television and film stroll in front of the media while slowing making their way into the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

The promenade of stars in elegant evening gowns and stylish tuxedos provides countless photo opportunities that the celebrities graciously accommodate. This time, however, as many of them posed for the paparazzi, the same, solitary figure appeared behind them: Fiji Water Girl. Her intriguing presence in the background of so many popular celebrities’ pictures ignited a social media firestorm—Who is that girl and how did she get in the images of all those icons?

For each Golden Globe awards, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) selects a small number of companies to be
“awards sponsors,” which means they help underwrite the cost of the program, and in return, they are permitted a demure presence at the event that includes sharing their prestige products with the program’s distinguished guests. This year’s awards sponsors were Moët & Chandon Champagne, Lavazza Coffee, Lindt Chocolates, and, of course, Fiji Water.

Fiji outfitted several young, attractive women in matching royal blue gowns, and positioned them on the red carpet, holding clear trays of the firm’s trademark bottles. Ostensibly, the idea was that thirsty guests would avail themselves of the product samples, appreciate the refreshment, and gain a positive impression of the brand. However, one particular model,
Kelleth Cuthbert, used some strategic photobombing to parlay her gig into so much more.

As mentioned above, Cuthbert somehow managed to place herself in the background of photos of a variety of top celebrities including Jim Carrey, Idris Elba, Judy Greer, Eric Lange, and Tony Shalhoub, often making “direct – and sultry – eye contact with the camera.” Social media shares of the pics quickly made Fiji Water Girl one of the web’s hottest trending topics and, according to Apex Marketing, earned Fiji about $12 million in free media exposure.

So, the $12 million question is: Was Cuthbert’s photobombing serendipitous, or was it planned?

Fiji seemed surprised by all the attention, suggesting that although it appreciated the extra exposure, it hadn’t tried to orchestrate it. The company tweeted: "We're so glad everyone is talking about our water! *senses ominous presence* She's right behind us, isn't she? #FIJIwatergirl.”

It’s also worth noting that of the several Fiji Water girls stationed on the red carpet at the Globes, Cuthbert was the only one whose presence went viral. If Fiji truly had been trying to gain mass media attention, wouldn’t more of its models have been found photobombing celebs?

All the above makes it seem like Cuthbert may have ‘gone rogue’ and taken up the photobombing herself. Since her meteoric rise to stardom, the model has had several opportunities to address such claims. She’s often suggested that her presence in so many celebrities’ pics was unplanned, for instance:

“There’s tons of photographers everywhere. It doesn’t matter where you stand, you’re in the crossfire of every shot.”

“No matter where you move, you’re in somebody’s shot. I don’t know, you just have to look at what you’re doing and be aware of where everyone is. But know that you can’t avoid it.”

“I don’t even think there was a point where I made any conscious decision [to lean into the photography]. I think from so many years of modeling, when I hear a shutter, I just kind of give a face.”

On the other hand, Cuthbert told a Los Angeles times reporter that “It’s all strategic” and “You’ve got to angle.” She also hasn’t shied away from the cameras since the Golden Globes, appearing on Inside Edition to describe her photobombing experience, taping her own mock award acceptance speech for YouTube, and making a cameo on the Late Show with James Corden.

Not having been there or spoken with Cuthbert, it’s hard to evaluate her somewhat conflicting statements and other disparate evidence. One person who was at the last Golden Globes and has many years of experience with paparazzi is accomplished film actress Jamie Lee Curtis . She expressed clear and strong sentiments about what happened to her on the red carpet:

“I specifically moved away from the blatant promotions by Fiji and Moet where young women with their trays filled with their wares stood near a designated camera. I knew why there was a photographer poised there and I moved away as I said out loud that I didn’t want to be doing advertising for either. Clearly this angle shows that I moved from her being behind me and yet from the side it still happens. The sponsors of events need to get permission from people when they get them to take their picture next to products.”

Some may suggest that Curtis overreacted to what occurred or was too cynical to think sponsors try to stage such photo ops. However, Business Insider has corroborated her claims, reporting that a specific Fiji-commissioned photographer was the initiator of the photobombing strategy.

Stefanie Keenan, the photographer contracted through Getty Images, was at the Golden Globes for the purpose of taking photos that would “elevate” Fiji, which mainly meant getting pictures of celebrities drinking the water. Cooler temperatures, however, led few stars to take the samples, so, according to Getty’s vice president of global entertainment Kirstin Benson, Keenan “came up with the idea to have a Fiji brand ambassador creep in to some shots.”

This revelation certainly supports Curtis’s experience, while contradicting many of the things that Cuthbert said. It seems, then, that the photobombing was the collaborative effort of Keenan and Cuthbert. Fiji corporate also bears responsibility in as much as it contracted with the companies that provided the photographer and the model.

But even if the photobombing was intentional, is there anything wrong with it? As mentioned at the outset of this article, it’s often funny when people photobomb others. That photobombing takes on a different meaning, though, when the pictures are used for commercial purposes.

As Curtis suggested, people, whether celebrities or ordinary citizens, have the right to choose the companies they support. You probably wouldn’t want your likeness associated with an organization whose mission you don’t endorse. You also wouldn’t want a company to profit from the use of your image without your consent.

However, that’s how Fiji unfairly benefited from the photobombing. Although the company undoubtedly paid for the privilege of being one of the few Golden Globe awards sponsors, it didn’t secure permission from or provide payment to Jamie Lee Curtis, Jim Carey, or other celebrities whose personal brands it co-opted without their consent.

Some may say that no one would assume Curtis endorses Fiji Water just because a model bearing the firm’s bottles appears behind her in a picture. A lack of an express endorsement is certainly significant; however, simply showing Curtis and Fiji together starts to establish a connection in people’s minds, especially when the picture keeps reappearing. Branding often leverages such repeat associations, as when a brand uses the same colors and fonts.

Cuthbert’s ‘performance’ on the red carpet at the Golden Globes made her and Fiji Water viral stars. They owe that celebrity status, however, to the real stars whose painstakingly-developed personal brands Fiji and company commandeered. Hopefully photobombing people with commercial content won’t catch on, as it’s clearly a picture of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

18 Comments

Targeting Teens for E-Cigarettes

11/30/2018

35 Comments

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

Remember when teenagers would rush from high school so they could light a cigarette? Some would even try to sneak a smoke in the bathroom between classes. Those days are now back with a 21st century twist. Like many other things, cigarettes have gone high-tech, which makes them more appealing to minors, but has the biggest e-cigarette maker intentionally targeted teens?

During a recent marketing class, our discussion turned to e-cigarettes and one student, who was just a year or two removed from her own secondary education, mentioned that e-cigarette use is rampant in high school. I didn’t realize that lighting up electronically had become such an obsession for adolescents. A little online research, however, quickly supported the student’s claim.

According to the National Institute on Drug abuse, 16.2% of 12th graders used e-cigarettes in the past month, with the rate among boys being twice that of girls. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reported that more than 2 million middle schoolers and high schoolers regularly used e-cigarettes in 2017, making e-cigarettes “the most commonly used form of tobacco among youth in the United States.”

Some describe an “epidemic” of e-cigarette use among adolescents. In fact, certain high schools, like Plainedge High School in New York, have installed special chemical detectors in bathrooms to sense changes in the air and notify administrators when students are “vaping.” All of this is happening despite the fact that FDA regulations prohibit minors from buying e-cigarettes in stores and online.

For those who find a way to purchase e-cigarettes, there are plenty of choices--over 460 different brands are competing for consumers. However, the biggest brand by far is Juul, which has about 72% of the market. Juul Labs, soared past $1 billion in sales after just its third year in business.

As might be expected, Juul has drawn special scrutiny when it comes to young people’s use of e-cigarettes. This past September, the FDA warned Juul and four smaller competitors (Vuse, MarkTen, blu, and Logic) that they had “60 days to convince the agency that they have adequate plans to stop kids from vaping with their products.” If Juul and the others can’t show how they’ll do a better job keeping minors from vaping, they will need to cease selling.

When e-cigarettes first hit the market in 2004, there was a sense of optimism: ‘Here’s a safer way for smokers to satisfy that desire and hopefully kick the habit entirely.’ So, what happened to that prediction, and why are so many teens, most of whom never smoked before, such a significant part of the e-cigarette market?

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “e-cigarettes are not an FDA-approved quit aid, and there is no conclusive scientific evidence on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for long-term smoking cessation.” In fact, for teens, the relationship between e-cigarettes and cigarettes seems to be the opposite.

Of teenagers who use e-cigarettes 30.7% start smoking regular cigarettes within 6 months, compared to just 8.1% of those not using e-cigarettes. Similarly, a study found that “students who had used e-cigarettes by the time they started 9th grade were more likely than others to start smoking cigarettes and other smokable tobacco products within the next year.”

Plaintiffs have brought several lawsuits against Juul specifically, alleging that its products’ high levels of nicotine caused the users to become addicted. Ironically, some of them choose to use JUUL because they thought it would help them quit smoking.

E-cigarettes are addicting because, just like traditional cigarettes, most contain nicotine. Juul’s products’ have especially high levels of the chemical: A single JUUL pod contains “as much nicotine as a pack of 20 regular cigarettes.” In addition, Juul’s particular formulation of nicotine salt “increases the rate and amount of nicotine delivered into the blood, compared with other formulations.”

Nicotine is particularly detrimental for young people because it can impede brain development, which is critical in the teen years. In addition, adolescents who are exposed to nicotine are at greater risk of future drug addiction.

One good thing is that e-cigarettes don’t have as many harmful chemicals as burned cigarettes. However, e-liquids still contain “at least 60 chemical compounds.” One study found that the vapor from some e-cigarettes carried toxic chemicals and known carcinogens, while the devices themselves contained “potentially toxic metal nanoparticles.” Also, unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are susceptible to explosion, given that they are electronic devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid.

So, e-cigarettes are dangerous in more ways than one, but did Juul really take any specific steps to target teens? This is where analysis becomes complicated. Despite an organization’s sharpest marketing strategies and best intentions, consumer behavior sometimes goes in directions that are very hard to predict. Take Tide Pods.

Perhaps Proctor & Gamble, maker of Tide, could have anticipated the candy-like appeal its colorful, round detergent balls would have to consumers. However, it’s hard to imagine anyone predicting the viral rise of the ill-advised Tide Pod Challenge in which young people put pods in their mouths, sometimes ingesting them. P & G certainly did not encourage that behavior.

Are e-cigarette sales to teens Juul’s equivalent of the Tide Pod Challenge—an unfortunate, unforeseeable happenstance? Probably not. For one thing, young people’s use of e-cigarettes has proven to be much more than a fad. Moreover, unlike P & G, Juul employed several specific strategies that made its marketing attractive to teens.

For example, Juul used young, attractive models in its ads, who might appeal to anyone but would be especially alluring to image-obsessed teens. On its website, the company surrounded its product with “luscious-looking images of fruit.” It also chose youth-friendly flavor names like crème brulee and mango. In addition, Juul designed its products to be trendy and sleek, like flash drives, which could be accessorized with colorful skins.

Despite this circumstantial evidence, there doesn’t appear to be any ‘smoking gun,’ i.e., a Juul executive’s on-the-record admission or a leaked internal document outlining intentional targeting of teenagers. Does that lack of explicit evidence of clear intent absolve Juul? It should not, for two main reasons:

First, marketers at Juul should have realized that their tactics would have significant teen-appeal. If Juul really wanted to convert seasoned smokers to e-cigarettes, not enlist teens, it would have taken a different approach, like featuring older, former tobacco smokers in its ads. Interestingly, Juul initially did take that tack, but when it “failed to gain traction on social media and failed to gain sales,” it switched to the more kid-friendly strategy. Juul has since returned to its original adult approach, but only after considerable external pressure.

Second, Juul knew who was using its products, even though Juul executives have denied knowing how many teens were buying Juuls—a claim that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has called “incredulous.” Even if Juul somehow didn’t have access to accurate retail sales data, it could have easily seen the multitude of young people posting pictures of themselves using Juul products on social media. These users even coined a company-specific term to describe their actions: “Juuling.” That kind of branded verb creation is typical of teens and only tends to happen for the biggest social phenomena, e.g., Photoshop, Google.

Regardless whether Juul intended to target teens, its strategies encouraged their action, catching many in an unwitting cycle of addiction, which fits the description of an unfortunate legal/ethical concept: adverse impact.

Pressure from the FDA and the Massachusetts attorney general has compelled Juul to drop most of its kid-friendly tactics, but at this point, it will be difficult to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. Juul and other e-cigarette makers who ‘inadvertently’ targeted teens may continue to deny responsibility, but they will always be known for their “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!

35 Comments

Killer TV

11/2/2018

25 Comments

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

"In the future everybody will be world-famous for fifteen minutes." Social media has made Andy Warhol’s words at a 1968 Stockholm art exhibit more prophetic than ever. Notoriety for all seems nice, until we remember that despicable acts like mass murder also gain fame for those who do them. Avoiding identification of killers may be impossible, but should television shows capitalize on their criminality?

A week ago, America suffered yet another incident of mass murder. This time the tragedy took place in Pittsburgh, where a gunman entered the Tree of Life Synagogue and took the lives of 11 people, while also wounding several others.

Just a day after the shooting, the killer’s name, which I won’t mention here, was already approaching 30 million hits in a Google search, and detailed background information about him filled articles including ones in the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post. That’s already much media exposure for a murderer, but his ‘15 minutes of fame’ is just beginning.

In the days and weeks to come, many more details of the massacre will surface, and analysts will paint a clearer picture of who the gunman was and what caused him to act. However, even those news accounts probably won’t end the perpetrator’s publicity. It’s very likely that the killer will eventually become the focus of at least one made-for-television documentary.

Why does such programming seem so certain? At least three networks now have television series dedicated to detailing the actions and lives of well-known murderers:

Netflix’s I am a Killer features death row inmates giving firsthand accounts of their crimes.

CNN’s How it Really Happened describes “some of the most notorious crimes, mysteries, trials, and celebrity tragedies of our time.”
Oxygen’s It Takes a Killer examines “the world's most notorious murders and takes you inside the minds of the killers.”

In fact, Oxygen has much more than one TV show focused on killers. Oxygen Media, which is part of NBC-Universal, describes itself as “a multiplatform crime destination brand for women” that is in over 77 million homes. The network also airs a show called Method of a Serial Killer, and it has a webpage titled “Martinis and Murder. In other words, whether on TV or online, Oxygen is all crime, all the time.

You may be thinking, “Television based on crime, even murder, isn’t anything new.” That’s true; however, the newer genre of crime TV is different than past TV series. For instance, writers scripted the crime in classic shows like Columbo, Matlock, and Murder She Wrote, i.e., the programs weren’t based on real murders. Furthermore, the focus was on solving the crime not on the gruesome act itself or on the life-story of the person who did it.

On the other hand, shows like America’s Most Wanted and The Hunt with John Walsh did feature the crimes of real killers, but the reason was to gain the public’s help in finding the fugitives so they could be brought to justice. These shows gave enough information about the murderers to facilitate their capture; they certainly didn’t glamorize the killers.

Of course, it’s unlikely that the creators of I am a Killer or any of the other new shows have an agenda to idolize murderers. The producers probably just want to satisfy viewer desires, and unfortunately many people have an appetite for information about killers.

For instance, just two days after the recent tragedy in Pittsburgh, a Google search of “synagogue shooting” produced 19.9 million hits, while a similar search of “synagogue shooter” yielded 82.7 million—over four times more.

So, why not give people what they want? If TV viewers are fascinated by murderers’ methods and bios, what’s wrong with letting them watch those things? Actually, when it comes to murder, there are several reasons why it's best not to give consumers what they want, but rather to give society what it needs.

First, it’s important to recognize that unlike America’s Most Wanted, TV series like I am a Killer do little to improve anyone’s safety. The serial killers the latter show highlights are already behind bars and no longer a threat, whereas those in the former were still on the lam and needed to be caught.

One might argue that I am a Killer could help others identify unbalanced individuals and perhaps prevent future slayings, but the program seems just as likely to motivate people on the cusp of violence to act out their hostilities, partly because of the recognition they will get. Fame could very well be an extra incentive for them to kill.

Consistent with that thought, it’s notable that networks have long-since stopped broadcasting people who trespass on the field or court during sporting events. Even though many TV viewers are probably curious and would like to see the spectacles, the live shows’ producers quickly select other camera shots, as announcers divert attention from the unseen disruption. The reason: Networks don’t want to give the interlopers the undeserved fame they seek or encourage others to follow suit.

Second and closely related to the first point, unstable individuals might see a show like I am a Killer as a kind of ‘how-to guide’ for committing murder. True-crime programs often recount killers’ tactics in considerable detail. Most people watch these exposés with unsettled interest—like a roadside car accident from which we cannot avert our gaze. Potential killers, however, might pick up tips and envision how they could use them on specific people. Needless to say, educating for mass murder is not a desirable thing.

Third, and perhaps most important, shows like I am a Killer demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to murder victims’ loved ones. A few years ago, I was scrolling through TV channels, when a documentary about the Unabomber caught my attention. I watched for 30 minutes or so with uneasy interest. Now I ask myself, “How would I feel about that show if the terrorist's bombs had killed one of my family members or friends?”

I probably wouldn’t want to see his image anywhere, let alone watch him receive hours of network television exposure. For many people, the Unabomber is an unseemly fascination, but for those impacted by his violent acts, his likeness is likely a painful reminder of how their loved ones were lost.

It’s bitter irony that the perpetrators of mass murder tend to receive inordinate media attention while their victims are often barely acknowledged as individuals; rather, their identities are lumped together in the massacre’s death toll, e.g. “11 Killed.” TV series that focus on real killers perpetuate that injustice, perhaps even incentivizing and encouraging more murder. Such true-crime shows are guilty of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

25 Comments

Smile, You're on Social Media

8/9/2018

16 Comments

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

"When it's least expected - you're elected. You're the star today. Smile! You're on Candid Camera!” It used to be that a hidden camera TV show was the only way others might see our most embarrassing or intimate moments. Thanks to cellphones and social media, millions can now easily watch outtakes from our lives, whether we like it or not, which is what one unsuspecting airline traveler recently experienced.

A few weeks ago, Helen (last name unknown) was settling into an Alaskan Airlines flight from New York to Dallas when another passenger, Rosey Blair, asked if she’d switch seats. Blair wanted to sit next to her boyfriend, Houston Hardaway, who was in the row behind her. Helen obliged, which put her in front of Blair and Hardaway, and next to an attractive stranger, who later identified himself as Euan Holden, a former professional soccer player.

As the plane took off, so did an apparent romance between Helen and Holden. The unexpected seatmates’ casual conversation turned flirtatious and eventually the two were touching elbows on that ambiguous middle armrest. When the flight landed and passengers deplaned, the two could be seen strolling through the terminal together.

Given 40,000+ flights in the United States each day, how do we know so much about the interaction between two ordinary air travelers? We’re privy because Blair chronicled everything about the blossoming relationship from the row behind them.

Around 15 times, Blair tweeted about things she saw and overheard such as the couple discovering that they were both personal trainers and vegetarians. Pictures and videos accompanied some of the tweets, as well as the hashtags #PrettyPlaneGirl and #PlaneBae. In very little time, Blair’s tweets amassed 630,000 likes and 250,000 retweets, then mainstream news media began to share the touching tale.

Sounds like a relationship and social media success story, right? Not quite. Helen was unaware of Blair’s inflight antics and was very unhappy to be flung into the national media spotlight, especially after the attention led to online harassment and the need to delete her social media accounts. Helen issued a statement through an attorney that included: “I did not ask for and do not seek attention. #PlaneBae is not a romance - it is a digital-age cautionary tale about privacy, identity, ethics and consent.”

Wow. That’s a strong reaction, but did Blair do anything wrong? After all, it’s legal to photograph people in public places where there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The incident occurred on a commercial airliner, apparently in coach, where hundreds of people are packed like sardines. It’s hard to get much less private.

“Reasonable expectation of privacy,” however, is subject to interpretation. Yes, a commercial airliner is a rather pubic place, but most passengers wouldn’t expect the people behind them to be eavesdropping on them throughout an entire flight or photographing them from above and between the seats.

An even bigger issue involves Blair’s occupation. According to her Twitter page, she a plus-size fashion, lifestyle, and travel blogger, which means her livelihood depends on sharing content on social media. Gaining likes, shares, and followers is key to her success, and to have a post go viral is golden.

Blair’s profession matters because it reframes her motives and recontexualizes her actions. She’s no longer just a person sharing with friends a few photos she took of strangers. She’s an entrepreneur employing visual and verbal accounts of others to advance her business interests. She’s a marketer using Helen and Holden, without recompense, to build her brand. Jayson DeMers describes such situations in a 2014 Forbes article:

“The danger in using photos of individuals for your online marketing purposes is that your efforts could be seen as commercial. The rules when it comes to using photos for commercial purposes differ from when you’re merely sharing vacation photos with your buddies. Even if you aren’t directly making money off of the usage, a photo in a social media campaign can easily be seen as similar to using a photo in a print brochure or billboard ad.”

What Blair did was not clearly illegal, but her actions could easily land her on the losing end of a lawsuit, as DeMers continues to explain: “If your subject believes his likeness was used to sell a product without his permission, you may find yourself on the losing side of an argument in front of a judge.”

Ethics, however, is not simply a matter of ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’ It’s about doing the right thing no matter what the law says. In that light, a good question for Blair or anyone in a similar situation to ask is “Would I want someone else to eavesdrop on my conversation, take pictures of me without my knowledge or permission, and share those things on social media?”

Most of us would say, “Of course not.” So, if that’s the kind of consideration we’d like for our own privacy, we should obey the Golden Rule and show the same respect to others.

Everyone makes mistakes, and Blair seems to recognize that her social media sharing of two strangers’ personal interactions was wrong. She has offered an apology; although, she failed to delete most of her tweets about the incident. For this reason and all of the above, Blair’s creation and promotion of “Plane bae” should be considered “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!

16 Comments

No More Deaths by Duck Boats

7/27/2018

4 Comments

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

It was a sunny spring day, and 28-year-old Allison Warmuth was doing one of the things she enjoyed most—riding her red scooter through the streets of Boston. Tragically, that ride on April 30, 2016 was her last. A duck boat operator failed to see her stopped at a traffic signal and plowed into her scooter from behind.

Why remember an accident more than two years past that took a single life, when 17 people riding a duck boat on Table Rock Lake near Branson, Missouri drowned just a week ago? The reason is personal: I knew Allison Warmuth.

Several years before, Allie had been a student in one of my marketing classes. I quickly learned that she was a bright and hard-working student, as well as a kind and compassionate person. She wore a warm smile and exuded charm that endeared her to others.

I was Allie’s teacher for only a few months, but the latest Duck Boat accident has evoked thoughts of her untimely passing, returning sadness to me and others who knew her. It’s hard to image the pain that those closest to such accident victims feel, having suddenly lost their brother or sister, husband or wife, daughter or son . . .

Mindful Marketing didn’t exist when Allie was a student. Today other marketing faculty and I use the Mindful Matrix with our classes to assess the marketing actions of organizations like Ride the Ducks. I wonder what a sharp student like Allie would have said about duck boats, not knowing that one would one day take her life, or that similar vessels would be responsible for the deaths of dozens of others.

Over the past 19 years, 43 people have died in duck boat-related accidents. Foreshadowing the Branson tragedy, thirteen people passed away in 1999 when a duck boat sank on a lake near Hot Springs, Arkansas. In 2010 in Philadelphia, two tourists died when a tugboat pushed a barge into their stranded duck boat.

The amphibious vehicles also have been responsible for several fatalities on land. In addition to Allie’s death, a woman fell backward from a duck boat in a parking lot in Boston in 2003, while taking a picture. Also, in 2015, “five college students were killed and more than 70 people injured when a duck boat veered into a charter bus on a bridge above Seattle's Lake Union.”

It’s important to realize that one company does not own and operate all of the nation’s duck boats; rather, several different firms run tours in select cities around the country. For instance, Original Wisconsin Ducks®, located in Wisconsin Dells, WI, bills itself as “the ONLY duck tour in the world in continuous operation since 1946.” Meanwhile, “Ride the Ducks” offers duck boat tours in Branson, MO; Seattle, WA; Stone Mountain Park, GA, and Guam. “Boston Duck Tours” is yet another private company, providing tours just in its namesake city and claiming to be “Boston’s most popular tour.”

Our course, what all of these companies have in common is their use of the distinctive duck boat, a World War II-era vehicle used to transport troops and supplies from ship to shoreline during beach invasions. Duck boats reportedly were responsible for delivering over 40% of over-beach supplies during the first four months of the invasion of Normandy.

During combat, a complex system of switches and levers kept the boats afloat by cranking the propellers, managing tire inflation, and pumping water out of the hulls. Some of the duck boats used today, including the one that sank in Missouri, date back to WW II. Most of those boats have been retrofitted in certain ways, including cabin extensions to accommodate more passengers.

The obvious benefit of a duck boat is that it can operate both on land and in water. Like a printer that also makes copies, dual-purpose can be a plus. The problem with some multi-functional devices, however, is that they do neither of their main tasks especially well, i.e., they’re ‘jacks of all trades, masters of none.’

Attorney Andrew Duffy, who has handled cases involving duck boat fatalities in Philadelphia, supports that description and then some. He calls the vehicles “death traps” that are “not fit for water or land because they are half car and half boat.”

On land, the main issue is visibility. Duck boats were designed to travel up empty beaches, not to navigate crowded city streets, which pose challenges for their considerable length and girth. More importantly, the vessels’ high elevation and long bows create a wide, five-foot-high blind-spot that makes it easy for operators to overlook smaller vehicles and pedestrians. Such design contributed to Allie’s death on that fateful day in April.

In water, duck boats’ relative lack of buoyancy causes them to sit lower in the water than many other boats, which becomes an even greater issue in bad weather like that on the day of the Branson disaster. Perhaps the biggest dangers, though, are the fixed canopies and roll-down window covers. Duffy explains: (2) “When you are cruising along in a normal boat, if it capsizes you go [out of the boat and] into the water. With duck boats, you have the opposite effect. The canopy literally acts to drag you down with it.”

Duffy adds that the “heavy cellophane” many duck boat companies use for windows makes escape from a sinking craft even more difficult. Furthermore, passengers who don life jackets are at greater risk of being trapped underwater, as the vests push them upward and into the submerged canopy.

But, 43 deaths in about 20 years is miniscule compared to 40,100 U.S. motor vehicle fatalities in 2017. So, should we really be concerned about duck boats?

One thing to consider is that the total number of motor vehicle excursions in the U.S. in a year is undoubtedly many times the number of duck boat tours over the past two decades, so it should be expected that there will be many more ‘non-amphibious’ motor vehicle accidents than amphibious ones. Furthermore, when we climb into cars and onto buses, we assume the risks because we usually don’t have other options: We need to get to work or school, and motor vehicle transportation is the only reasonable way to do so.

On the other hand, no one needs to take a duck boat tour. It’s a low-intensity leisure activity that’s easy to substitute, so the risk to those on or near the vehicles should be virtually zero. Yes, some recreational pursuits like bull riding and mountain climbing place people at considerable risk of death or injury, but well-trained and adventurous adults knowingly accept those risks. Families with young children, senior citizens, and others simply looking to see the sights of a city shouldn’t have to worry about dying on a tour.

However, some duck boat companies, like Original Wisconsin Ducks, which operates the nation’s largest fleet of ducks (92), claim to have never had an accident. Should they be allowed to operate as-is?

That’s a decision that objective experts need to make; however, it’s worth noting that Ride the Ducks in Branson also apparently never had an accident before 17 people died, even though company spokesperson Suzanne Smagala-Potts has said that “The safety of our guests and employees is our number one priority” and despite a private safety inspector having warned the firm about life-threatening design flaws in its vessels less than a year before the fatal accident.

It’s also worth noting that James Hall, former chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, has suggested that duck boats are inherently dangerous and should be banned from commercial recreational use. Hall doesn’t believe there’s a way to make the vehicles safe, especially during bad weather.

What would Allie Warmuth say about duck boats? As a sharp businessperson, she would likely appreciate the tours’ strong consumer demand. However, as a rational and caring human being, she also would recognize that revenue potential doesn’t outweigh the risk to life. As a result, duck boat tours should be considered “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Note: Allie’s family has created a Facebook page to help prevent similar accidents and to ensure the safety of others. Please consider visiting and liking Street Safety for Allie.