Category: + Stewardship

Does Using “Shuffle” Mean You’re Already ‘Stuffed Full’?

8/23/2020

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

“What do you want to watch?”
“I don’t know; what do you want to watch?”

That conversation must be happening in more homes than just mine, which probably inspired Netflix to introduce its new “Shuffle” feature, aimed at defeating this common viewing dilemma. But, should people who have to ask their TVs to “play something” even be watching television?

This past July, the entertainment-streaming icon started testing a new “Shuffle Play” button, placing a familiar-looking shuffle icon on select users’ accounts. Those who have the feature might find it below their user profile icon or on the left side of the home screen. When Shuffle is selected, Netflix serves a chef’s choice of shows “based on viewing history, preferences, and playlists.”

Problem solved: No more aimless scrolling and probably fewer arguments began by “Anything but that.” It’s nice to have choices. It’s also nice when someone/thing helps identify them.

But, will Netflix’s Shuffle keep people too tied to their iPads and cemented to their sofas? Does imploring one’s device to “play something . . . anything” signal digital drunkenness and suggest that the streaming service should stop serving?

In the midst of the pandemic, Netflix has been a hero for the homebound, keeping many a step away from wit’s end with easy access to inexpensive entertainment and even educational content. In the second quarter of 2020, the streaming service added an impressive 10 million new subscribers, bringing its worldwide total to about 193 million.

With so many customers already contently streaming, why does Netflix even need to add a new feature? Well, like any successful organization, it wants to keep its value proposition fresh and exciting. As a Netflix spokesperson says, “We’re always looking for better ways to connect members with shows and films that they will love.”

The company also needs to keep pace with competitors’ offerings, like HBO Max’s recommendation engine and NBCUniversal’s random play on Peacock. Likewise, Comcast’s Xfinity has integrated creative voice commands, such as “Surprise Me” and “Happy Stuff” in order to serve up spontaneous and hopefully stimulating shows.

In varied marketing roles, I’ve come across a couple of closely related psychological concepts that help describe the consumer itch Netflix and its competitors seem to be trying to scratch:

Satiation effect: people eventually grow tired of things they initially liked.
Variety-seeking behavior: enjoyment often increases with different experiences.

So, Shuffle might pull Netflix users out of their streaming ruts by providing them with an endless array of custom-curated and personally-satisfying program choices.

However, whether it’s taking excessive vitamin C or bingeing The Office, too much of even a good thing is too much. At some point, people need to turn off their TVs, put down their iPads, and move on to other things. The question, then, becomes: Does a shuffle feature make streaming too tempting and difficult to deny?

Pulling oneself away from an interesting program can be hard, which I experienced firsthand earlier today. In order to do some “research” for this piece, I turned on our TV to check out Xfinity’s voice commands. The channel happened to be on a high-diving competition, held on a beautiful stone bridge, over a river somewhere in Europe. I sat memorized for at least 10 minutes before returning to my senses and remembering why I was sitting there.

The bottom-line, though, is that I was able to break free from the screen without any extraordinary effort. Most people can muster at least the same amount of resolve, even when specially-selected programs are shuffled at them.

Speaking of resolve, I recently wrote an article that asked whether TikTok is addictive. The conclusion (spoiler alert) was “No.” When compared to commonly accepted addictions like alcohol and gambling, the app is not addictive in any scientific sense.

TikTok’s screen-swiping and Netflix’s Shuffle are similar in that both deliver virtually infinite, individualized video content. However, 15-second smartphone clips from ordinary people are much different than 2.5-hour professional-produced films. Is one spontaneous selection harder to resist than the other?

There should be a study, but it seems that TikTok's bite-sized content could be harder to forgo—like eating potato chips versus stuffed baked potatoes. Both are good, but eating an additional stuffed baked potato is a big commitment, whereas popping one more potato chip, then another, is easy to start and sustain. So, if longer programs have even less allure for consuming ‘one more,’ it seems that neither Netflix nor TikTok is truly addictive.

Having cleared the ethical hurdle, there’s still one more important consideration—effectiveness: Will people really want to use Netflix’s Shuffle? So far, reviews of the feature appear tepid; for instance, some have tweeted:

“Interesting new feature @netflix ... but what kind of insane person just says, “yolo, let’s spin the Netflix wheel of fortune”? (@TurnerLevison)
“they been testing this for months on mine and it’s trash, they put two things on your recently watched and if u shuffle again it’s just Netflix Originals.” (@BlondDaya)

Unfortunately, Netflix didn’t include me in its test market, so I haven’t been able to try the feature, but I have a hard time seeing many people using it. First, Netflix already curates at least somewhat customized selections that users can see at a glance on their home screens. Second, it may be frustrating or even mildly offensive to receive specific recommendations that make one wonder, “Why are they suggesting that for me?!”

To that point, after I stopped watching high-diving, I asked Xfinity to “Surprise Me.” It suggested Hallmark Channel’s “Tulips in Spring.” I had no problem declining that recommendation, which must have been meant for someone else in this house.

Given TikTok’s ‘swiping’ success, it wasn’t a bad idea for Netflix to test a ‘surprise me’ feature for its streaming service. It seems unlikely, though, that the same consumption behavior will transfer to considerably longer program content, which makes Shuffle Play a fitting selection for “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

29 Comments

Some Good Payout for John Krasinski

5/31/2020

6 Comments

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

Life for Dunder Mifflin paper salesman Jim Halpert revolved around two things: pleasing Pam and pranking Dwight; it was never about the money. Now some suggest that John Krasinski's acting is even better than we believed after he surprisingly cashed-in on his homespun, positivity-in-the-face-of-a-pandemic YouTube program. Millions enjoyed watching Some Good News, and many people contributed content, so should Krasinski pocket millions for selling the series?

It was seven years ago when Krasinski first had the idea for Some Good News (SGN), but he only decided to capitalize on the concept after an isolation-induced tweet on March 25, in which he asked his followers to share things that made them feel good or smile. The tweet astoundingly received over 3,000 comments and nearly 20,000 likes.

Seeing the virus-plagued public’s voracious appetite for feel-good stories, the actor/director/producer launched SGN on March 29, with production partner Allyson Seeger. Together they aired eight YouTube episodes, overflowing with pleasant programming from regular people, as well as occasional celebrity cameos by the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Brad Pit, and former Krasinski coworkers from The Office.

In the first episode, former Dunder Mifflin manager Steve Carell (aka Michael Scott) stopped by to chat about favorite Office memories, which garnered over 17 million YouTube views. The other seven SGN installments also drew big audiences, each in the millions.

That kind of instant internet success rarely goes unnoticed, especially when featuring a star like Krasinski. Soon corporate sponsors such as AT&T and the Boston Red Sox entered the action with giveaways, while others floated a much bigger proposition—purchasing the series.

At first, Krasinski resisted the “wave of incoming calls from a wide variety of suitors,” but at some point, in the midst of a “massive bidding war,” the paper salesman conceded and decided to close “an expansive deal with ViacomCBS,” the value of which “has yet to be reported,” but is very likely “rich.”

For many, Krasinski’s media contract changed the narrative from Some Good News to One Big Sellout. Fueling the social media storm were tweets of disappointment and anger, some snarky, others more serious:

So he made 8 YouTube videos comprised largely of unpaid contributions from fans, sold the brand to a major conglomerate, and isn't even going to make it anymore? Just cashed out? Does this rub anyone else the wrong way, kinda? (@Lons, May 22)
Remember when he created this free feel good YouTube show to “make people feel good” and now he is................selling it for $$$? really cool, 100% honorable (@lindseyweber, May 21).
Super awesome how you found a way to take a genuinely heartwarming viral series and sell out to the highest bidder (@kswa1987, May 22).
This whole 'Some Good News' sh-- was so transparent. John Krasinski basically monetized feel good stories when there was an opportunity to do so. It's just all about money while, appearing relatable to the unwashed masses, and it's super obvious (@EckhartsLadder, May 26).
You are profiting off Some Good News!?! I bought you hook like me and sinker... believed you were just trying to bring goodnesses to light. Going from YouTube (free) to a pay service...so disappointed...sellout!!! (@hydenson, May 22).
The "Good News" that @johnkrasinski had on his program is that he is now a sell out and putting his program behind a paid service so way less people can see it. He has made money off his "Good News" program while people are dying, laid off, can't get food, etc. Smart, John (@JustAHikerinVA, May 22).

When so much harsh criticism is hurled at one of America’s most admired celebrities, one has to wonder if maybe there’s some merit to the sentiment: Did Jim Halpert’s biggest sale come at the people’s expense? Answering four key questions may help clarify the controversy:

1) Was creating SGN part of some diabolical plan? Lest we forget, the same actor who played Jim now portrays a more cold and calculating character, CIA analyst Jack Ryan. In fact, Krasinski has blamed Jack Ryan for selling SGN; although, it’s not exactly like it sounds—more to come below.

It's hard to know for sure, but there’s little to suggest that it was Krasinski’s original intent to build up SGN only so he could sell it to the highest bidder. In fact, most evidence points to the opposite, for instance:

He launched the first episode saying, “I am John Krasinski, and if it isn’t clear yet, I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing.”
Among the show’s “low production values,” his daughters drew the SGN signage behind the ‘news desk’ and his own hand held the spinning globe used in the show’s opening.
The Hollywood Reporter claims that “His original plan was to continue to make SGN for the free and wide audience that YouTube provided” and that he “initially resisted the urge to sell the series.”

2) Did Krasinski ‘use’ people to make the program? There’s little doubt that SGN wouldn’t have succeeded without the voluntary contributions of a wide variety of regular people. Did the unpaid populace get a raw deal in that exchange? Probably not, for these reasons:

It’s unlikely that anyone was promised compensation for their participation, i.e., they did so eagerly for free.
Those whose content SGN featured enjoyed what was likely for them a very exciting once-in-a-lifetime experience.
No one needed to pay to watch SGN. People could view it for free on YouTube.
Krasinski gave far more to SGN than anyone else. For instance, he “self-financed and self-produced” the show from his own home; he utilized his considerable professional talent; he leveraged his own fame to attract followers and his personal connections to enlist other A-List celebrities. Which of us can get the casts of Hamilton or The Office to show up on our Zoom calls?

3) Did Krasinski have a right to sell the series? It certainly seems like he was entitled to monetize his investment for the reasons suggested above and because of the following two points:

The show was his baby. He created and developed it through much of his own time, talent, and resources.
He made no promises about what he would do or not do with the show. A few of the negative reactions shared above suggest there was some sort of implied social contract: “John, you keep producing SGN at your expense, a few of us will contribute content to each show, and millions of people will watch if for free, indefinitely.”

4) Did his reasons for selling make sense? Most people, understandably, have focused on the considerable cash Krasinski will likely collect from the sale. As the first point below expounds, there’s nothing inherently wrong with making money, but there are also other reasons why selling SGN was the sensible thing for him to do.

This blog has suggested many times: If you can give someone good value in an exchange and make money for yourself, it's a good thing. Furthermore, unless someone else is supporting us, we all need to make money in order to take care of our own needs and hopefully help others in need. Even if Krasinski doesn’t need more money, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t earn more and maybe use it to benefit others. The fact that he had the conscience to create SGN suggests he’s the type of person who is likely to do so.
Krasinski is a busy man. Besides being an actor (e.g., Jack Ryan), a director, and a producer, he’s a husband and a father, and he probably plays several other significant life roles. So, we can believe him when he recently explained that continuing to produce SGN “wouldn’t be sustainable with my prior commitments.”
More people may be exposed to good news. In justifying his decision to sell, Krasinski added that he was excited about the potential for SGN to be seen by “so many more people.” Of course, millions were already watching the show for free on YouTube, but his suggestion is more than a convenient excuse or wishful thinking. It’s reasonable to believe that an organization with the experience, resources, and reach of ViacomCBS could carry the concept of SGN much further than a guy (even a top celebrity) working out of his living room. Plus, if SGN gains even broader appeal, it’s likely to attract knockoffs from other media, which wouldn’t be a bad thing for a society desperately needing to focus more on the positive.

Do all the above bullets mean that Krasinski’s decision-making was perfect? No. Before the sale was announced, he could have clearly communicated his intentions, which wouldn’t have satisfied everyone, but it would have significantly softened the blow. As such, my own takeaway from the events are:

Good marketing communication responds considerately in a crisis.
Great marketing communication avoids a crisis by anticipating reaction and proactively shaping the narrative.

As a rule, people are much more accepting of unpleasant information when we tell them in advance, rather than letting them hear it later from someone else.

So, back at Dunder Mifflin, maybe Michael gives Jim a little grief for not telling him he had such a big deal in the works. Still, The Office’s manager is elated that Halpert scores the Scranton White Pages (it’s a hypothetical metaphor; you have to watch the show). In the end, everyone can appreciate that John Krasinski’s sale of SGN was “Mindful Marketing.”

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

6 Comments

Burberry after its Burning Ban

12/28/2019

14 Comments

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

Did you give or receive clothing this holiday season? You may not know that if that sweater, jacket, or hat hadn’t been purchased, it might have been burned. In an age of increased environmental consciousness and frequent corporate cutbacks how can companies tolerate such waste? It has to do with building brands.

In 2017, the upscale British fashion label Burberry destroyed over $38 million worth of its own clothing, perfume, and accessories. BBC News says that over a five-year period, the brand scrapped products worth a total of about $121 million. Fortunately, Burberry announced last year that it would stop the ‘self-destructive’ behavior; although, it hasn’t said how it will handle the excess product. Unfortunately, Burberry isn’t the only brand known for trashing its own inventory.

According to Vox, other participants in the practice include luxury labels like Louis Vuitton, Michael Kors, and Cartier. However, even basic brands such as Eddie Bauer, Nike, and H & M, have been cited for incinerating unsold merchandise.

Why would any company destroy products it spent valuable time and resources making? Motives may vary for such a seemingly inexplicable practice, , but the main reason seems to be that high-end fashion brands, especially, need to preserve perceptions of exclusivity.

Some manufacturers, e.g., makers of snack foods and soft drinks, would like as much of their products sold as widely as possible. Certain other brands, however, seek to create an air of exclusivity in one of three main ways, either by not making the products available: 1) all the time, or 2) everywhere, or 3) for everyone.

For instance, although McDonald’s Shamrock Shake is available all over at a price that most people can afford, the ice cream is only sold for a limited number of weeks each year. Notwithstanding ever-increasing ticket prices, Disney positions its theme parks as entertainment for a very wide range of people, year-round, but it maintains ‘the magic’ by limiting the number of locations to just a few around the entire world.

Upscale fashion brands like Burberry, in contrast, place no real time restrictions on purchase of their products. Likewise, although they’re not as ubiquitous as MacDonald’s restaurants, these fashion retailers tend to have a decent number of brick-and-mortar locations. Burberry has about 50 stores in the continental U.S. in addition to its easily-available online storefront.

The main difference is that Burberry and similar luxury fashion brands aim for exclusivity by positioning their lines as prestige products sold at premium prices. For instance, a search for “all bags” on Burberry’s website returns a low price of $490 for a “Grainy Leather Card Case with Detachable Strap” to a high price of $2,750 for a “Medium Quilted Monogram Lambskin TB Bag.”

Of course, price alone excludes most people, who can’t afford to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a handbag, from buying Burberry; however, other positioning of the products also adds to their exclusive appeal: They’re not the purses we see shoppers carrying into the average supermarket.

‘Mousingover’ specific products on its website, reveals images of the kinds of people Burberry envisions owning its bags: ultra- stylish, impeccably-attired, young, affluent, runway-model types. That description probably doesn’t apply to most people reading this blog, nor does it apply to the person writing it, but Burberry doesn’t mind.

While MacDonald’s considers it a win if hundreds of millions of people eat its hamburgers, and Disney is delighted to have an even wider variety of people visit its theme parks, Burberry and other luxury labels don’t covet consumption of their products by the masses. Their brands’ allure is based largely on limiting availability to the relatively few people who can afford their products and who live the more lavish lifestyles associated with their use.

If somehow ‘average people’ began buying Burberry’s bags, the brand’s true target market would be turned off. Though its loyal customers may not articulate it, one reason they like Burberry is because very few people own the brand. Burberry banks on feelings of exclusivity, allowing its users to assert, "I own something that not everyone else has."

That brings us back to the issue of over-supply and what companies like Burberry should do when they’ve made too many handbags, hats, etc. In the past, Burberry has justified burning excess inventory, saying that it captured the energy from the burning, making the annihilation environmentally-friendly.

Unfortunately, though, “the energy that is recouped from burning clothing doesn’t come anywhere near the energy that was used to create the garment.” In addition, burning garments that contain polyester, which comprises about 60 percent of the fiber market, means the release into the air of harmful CO2, as well as chemicals often present in clothes.

Other ways firms have attempted to destroy unwanted products have included shredding and landfilling. Of course, these methods carry their own negative environmental impacts and fail to qualify as sustainable solutions.

Some may wonder why excess clothing can’t be recycled or donated. Mixed fiber cloth, from which many woven clothes are now made, makes recycling especially challenging, as do buttons and zippers, whose removal is very labor-intensive.

Others may ask “Why can’t surplus clothing simply be donated or sold at a discount?” For many companies, such product disposition ‘makes cents’ (pun intended), but not for high-end fashion labels. These brands can afford to take a hit on their enormous markups, but as mentioned above, they can’t accept dilution of their brands’ images, which occurs if their products fall into the hands of the less-than-modish masses.

So, what can fix this problem that pits environmental stewardship against brand equity? Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a clear solution. In a 2018 interview with Vox, Timo Rissanen, an associate dean at Parsons School of Design and a professor of fashion design and sustainability at the school’s Tishman Environment and Design Center, provided a thorough analysis of firms’ destruction of excess product, but in the end, the best solutions he offered were for consumers to avoid impulse-buying and to instead purchase secondhand products.

Those are valid recommendations for you and me, but unfortunately they don’t really address prevention of the problem, i.e., what companies can and should do. I’m no fashion expert, and the following thoughts are admittedly undeveloped, but I’ll offer two possible ways to decrease the production of excess goods:

Implement quick response processes: Fashion lead-times are often three months or more, making it challenging to match supply and demand. Spanish retailer Zara, however, has developed ultra-responsive production processes that allow it to move from product conception to consumer within a few weeks. If more brands would ‘follow suit’ (pun again intended), it might help to close the gap between what’s made and what consumers want to buy.
Use artificial intelligence: Firms have employed data-based demand forecasting for decades, but even more accurate prediction is now possible through artificial intelligence in which machines learn from past experience and use algorithms to very accurately estimate future consumption. Such technology holds great promise for synchronizing supply and demand.

Burberry’s decision of over a year ago to stop burning its unsold clothes was certainly laudable and might be considered Mindful Marketing if the company were to implement some of the strategies mentioned above or take other consequential action. However, in the absence of a clearly conceived and communicated plan for managing excess inventory, Burberry’s announcement now seems like “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!

14 Comments

Marketing Giving

11/29/2019

34 Comments

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

Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, Cyber Monday . . . the biggest shopping season of the year can excite even the most apathetic shopper. Some, however, would have us believe that we should do something different with our money, instead of buying things for ourselves or others. But, isn’t shopping a key to holiday happiness?

Over the last few years, you’ve probably heard of an initiative that seems contrary to the capitalism often associated with holiday shopping. In contrast to the plethora of promotion persuading us to buy more, “GivingTuesday” boldly encourages people to give to others. The day targeted for philanthropy is typically the Tuesday after Thanksgiving; this year it’s December 3.

GivingTuesday’s website describes the initiative, which began in 2012, as “a global generosity movement” that “inspires hundreds of millions of people to give, collaborate, and celebrate generosity,” “unleashing the power of people and organizations to transform their communities and the world.”

Those are admirable and far-reaching claims, but is it really possible to market giving?

For many people, marketing is inextricably linked to buying and selling products, so much so that ‘marketing giving’ seems like an oxymoron, along the lines of jumbo shrimp and civil war. If people give their money, they’re not spending it, which may seem antithetical to marketing.

However, marketing concepts can be applied to virtually any endeavor. Besides marketing physical goods, like food, and intangible services, like haircuts, organizations and individuals can market ideas like “Don’t drink and drive” and mindsets like “Do well in school.”

So, there’s no reason that giving can’t be marketed, but effective marketing must include more than just a simple message like “give!” Most of us have seen similar appeals in social media and elsewhere. GivingTuesday, however, has created what many would consider to be a full-fledged marketing plan, incorporating each of the iconic Four Ps:

- Product: Unlike receiving something tangible in return when one shops, GivingTuesday promises intrinsic rewards like satisfaction from providing greater dignity and opportunity for others and helping to build “a more just and generous world.”

- Price: The cost of GivingTuesday is up to the organization and individual. While some might give millions, the average online gift is $105.55, but money isn’t the only thing that can be given. Participants also can donate goods or volunteer their time to serve others.

- Place: As the previous P implied, GivingTuesday can occur virtually anywhere in the physical world or in the virtual realm in a variety of ways. Meanwhile, having a specific date, the first Tuesday after Thanksgiving, helps build consistency, as well as create some sense of urgency, which is often needed in order to encourage consumers to act.

- Promotion: “GivingTuesday” is a memorable moniker that likely builds brand recognition and supports understanding of the initiative through paid and earned media. GivingTuesday’s website also offers a variety of helpful resources for organizations and individuals inclined to participate, e.g., “Ideas and Case Studies” and a “GivingTuesday Toolkit.”

Those are strong inputs, but what matters ultimately for marketing are outcomes, and at least one person believes GivingTuesday isn’t effective for many organizations.

In an article in the Fundraising Authority, Joe Garecht praises GivingTuesday as “a noble effort,” yet he discourages nonprofits from participating in the initiative, particularly small and mid-sized ones. His rationale includes reasons such as an overabundance of organizations asking for gifts at the same time and the encouragement of one-time “spot giving” versus building long-term donor relationships.

Garecht raises some valid concerns, particularly related to potential return on investment; however, if his two arguments mentioned above were applied to organizations marketing traditional products, companies wouldn’t participate in the holiday shopping season because: 1) their promotions would be lost among those of other companies advertising at the same time, and 2) first-time transactions wouldn’t lead to future purchases. Clearly that rationale doesn’t apply to most for-profit firms during the holidays, and it probably isn’t relevant for many nonprofits either.

Instead, GivingTuesday appears to be an initiative that keeps gaining momentum. Among nonprofit participants who seem to find the program productive are World Vision, the American Red Cross, and St. Jude. All together, GivingTuesday saw 3.6 million gifts given in 2018, including $400 million online. In the U.S. alone, GivingTuesday has raised over $1 billion since 2012.

In his 1789 sermon titled “The Use of Money,” English cleric and theologian John Wesley famously urged listeners to “earn all you can, save all you can, and give all you can.” In a 21st century sense, Wesley was ‘marketing’ giving. Marketers today have many more tools at their disposal, yet any tactics that encourage organizations or individuals to give of their money or time to help others in need can be considered “Mindful Marketing.”

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

34 Comments

Walmart Says Goodbye to Greeters

5/3/2019

3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Comments

How a Blind Marketing Student Sees a Smart Cane

3/8/2019

32 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!

32 Comments

Churches for Men Who Don’t Like Church

7/7/2018

6 Comments

by Michael Zigarelli, professor of leadership and strategy at Messiah College
mzigarelli@messiah.edu

“Jake” is not his real name, but he’s a real guy experiencing real change. Jake is 37 with three kids, married for 13 years, many of them unhappy. His life and his work are uninspiring, but it’s a living.

Gradually, his living is becoming a life, and it’s happening in the last place he’d expect: a church.

Jake’s making friends there, his first since becoming a parent. The chronic loneliness of his life—he didn’t even know how bad it was—is subsiding. There’s more peace in his household, too, probably because there’s more peace in Jake. The kids notice that dad’s different; Jake and his wife have turned back the clock 10 years. The aquifer of anger just beneath the surface has dried up.

Gone as well is Jake’s misperception of God. He’s learning that God really does love him. That’s changed everything, giving Jake a new identity—his real identity.

Now multiply Jake’s experience by a hundred thousand. Maybe more. Research I’m conducting across the United States reveals that there are countless Jakes out there because a few innovative churches have figured out how to reach them.

Why Some Churches Target Men

The concept of a “target market” is Business 101, just as the analogous concept of a “target people group” is Missions 101. It’s axiomatic. It works. From a theological perspective, it’s good stewardship.

So consider the logic of “adult men,” or some subset, being a church’s primary target. First, a scant one in five men attends religious services weekly in the United States. Second, there’s the longstanding gender gap: Sit in the back pew this Sunday and you can count 50 percent more women than men. And third, targeting men seems to accelerate church growth. Consider these strikingly-consistent perspectives from senior pastors I interviewed:

“It’s a very simple argument: You reach the man, you reach the family.”
“If the men are respected and feel comfortable in your church, the families will follow.”
“We stumbled into this strategy: If you get the man, you often get everyone in his circle.”
“We asked ‘how do we reach the most people?’ and it seemed that if we could reach the husband or the dad, then we had a good shot at reaching the rest.”

The churches in my study do not appear to be part of some masculinity movement. Rather, they’ve simply adopted an efficient and catalytic strategy: Get the man, get the family. The approach not only reaches a vast and underserved “people group,” it has the byproduct effect of bringing in women and children by the vanload.

Perhaps that’s why most of these churches have gone from start-up to thousands in weekly attendance in a mere decade or two. One, in fact, now attracts 10,000 visitors a week system-wide. Another attracts 27,000.

As a strategy professor, I can’t say I’m surprised by the growth. These churches are pursuing what’s known in my world as a “blue ocean strategy,” the disproportionately powerful decision to go where the “non-customers” are—that is, to serve an ignored segment of the market that would buy your product under the right conditions. The pastors have simply provided the right conditions, enabling their churches to claim, again, to use the business language, “uncontested market space” (i.e., the men who would not be in any church otherwise).

Hence the metaphor of operating in an undisturbed “blue ocean.” No competition there, only demand. It’s the same approach that propelled Henry Ford, Milton Hershey, Sam Walton, and Steve Jobs. Many others as well: Southwest Air, CNN, Home Depot, Airbnb, Cirque du Soleil, Starbucks, Nintendo, Netflix, Quicken—all have soared by serving those formerly on the sidelines.

My emerging sense is that there is plenty of room in that blue ocean for churches beyond those in this study. In other words, there seems to be a wide-open space for more effective evangelism and discipleship of men, and by extension, those in their sphere of influence. Let me introduce you to a few exemplars.

Seven Man-Friendly Churches

For this project, I found seven churches overflowing with men. They’re not that way by chance. Rather, they’ve been intentional, even relentless, about pursuing men as their primary “target people group.” In alphabetical order, the churches in this study are:

121 Community Church, Grapevine TX, Founding Pastor Ross Sawyers
Christ’s Church of the Valley (CCV), Peoria AZ, Founding Pastor Don Wilson
Coastal Church, Daphne AL, Founding Pastor Chad Stafford
Mecklenburg Community Church, Charlotte NC, Founding Pastor Jim White
Northwood Church, Summerville SC, Founding Pastor Fred Richard
Revolution Church, Tucson AZ, Founding Pastor Josh Reich
Wheatland Salem United Methodist Church, Naperville IL, Pastor Jennifer Wilson

Each is man-friendly at its core, designed to reach the unreached. Their goals and strategies make that plain. So do these quotes from some of the senior pastors I interviewed:

“I have the Biblically-illiterate, f-bomb-dropping guy in my head with every talk I write.”

“The person we’re trying to connect with is the 20- to 40-year-old guy who comes in, probably late, sits in the back row, folds his arms and says ‘God, this is your last shot.’”

“Our target is the young dad who was in a fraternity, went to church and hated it, is now working 60 hours a week. He’s more in need of community than he’s ever been in his life; he’s so disconnected from God.”

One pastor summed it up straightforwardly for them all: “I go after guys who were raised Christian, but who haven’t been to church in a while.” Simple. Focused. The classic hedgehog technique from Good to Great.

How do they do it? Their implementation weaves its way through the music, the messages, the staffing choices, the platforming and promotions, even the colors and decor. They’ve replaced flowers and pastels with earth tones and lobby screens tuned to ESPN. They avoid love songs to Jesus and other language that makes guys feel weird. They keep the service to an hour, the messages to a half-hour, and the content intensely practical.

And they do so much more. You can find the details in this Christianity Today article or these more in-depth pieces on LinkedIn and on YouTube.

Women and Children Love These Churches, Too

While it’s possible to become a man-friendly church at the expense of others, the leaders I interviewed seem better than that, seeking win-wins. Most, for example, have gone big with children’s ministry—huge, in fact—not just to serve the kids, but because guys who won’t come to church for themselves will attend if their kids love it.

Women are also enthusiastic about these churches, according to the leadership. Ecstatic in many cases. This quote from one of the pastors echoes what I heard from several of them: “No lady has ever said we’re too masculine. But I’ve had dozens of them come to me with tears in their eyes, saying ‘I’ve been trying to get my husband to go to church for 20 years and this is the only church he will ever go to. Thank you so much!’”

While this research is ongoing, my preliminary conclusion is that these church leaders have found an approach that is working for everyone, reaching thousands who would otherwise remain alienated from God, and offering us a novel, nonprofit example of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

6 Comments

Does Apple Really Care About iPhone Addiction?

6/15/2018

8 Comments

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

Like breathing, our smartphone use has become almost an involuntary action. Whenever we find a spare 60 seconds, we pull them out, sometimes without a specific reason. It’s no wonder research suggests that smartphones are addictive. What’s surprising is who wants to help us resist the urge: Apple.

That’s right, the global technology leader and iconic iPhone maker wants to lessen smartphone use. Such a notion sounds as believable as Dunkin limiting donut sales or Papa John’s restricting pizza purchases, but Apple actually has a strategy for curbing customer consumption.

At its recent Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in San Jose, Apple’s Craig Federighi described the plans, which are part of the company’s Digital Health Initiative: “a series of tools to help users monitor how much time they spend on their devices and inside of certain applications.”

More specifically, the new software features will allow users to do things such as:

Monitor and set limits on their screen time
Manage notifications more effectively in order to avoid distracting pings from texts, etc.
Set better parameters for Do Not Disturb, e.g., during meals or bedtime

All of this sounds nice, but let’s be real: Companies want consumers to use their products more, not less. Can you imagine a business meeting in which the CEO says, “We need to see a 15% decrease in sales next quarter”? Such self-limiting action almost never happens; however, it can occur, and there are plausible reasons for Apple to consider it.

First, it’s helpful to recognize Apple’s unique position of influence. With a market cap that’s approaching an unimaginable $1 trillion, Apple is the world’s most valuable company. It’s global share of smartphones is second only to Samsung, and in the fourth quarter of 2017, Apple’s sales surpassed those of its close rival. In the United States, Apple is the leading smartphone OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer).

For these reasons, Apple generates considerable public interest (big understatement), which comes with a higher degree of scrutiny than most companies ever experience. Almost anything Apple does, or doesn’t do, is newsworthy and plays out in the media spotlight.

Second, technology is, for many of us, a mixed blessing. We love the things it does for us, but we’re worried about everything from artificial intelligence taking our jobs to smart speakers co-opting our kids. We’re also concerned how digital devices, despite their benefits, may be adversely affecting our daily lives.

That’s the context in which Apple operates. In sum, the company is ‘the’ culture-tech leader in a world that’s still trying to figure out what’s appropriate use of smartphones and similar devices. By self-regulating, Apple seems to be stepping up and saying that it will be ‘the adult in the room.’

So, maybe Apple’s Digital Health Initiative is socially responsible and perhaps it will generate goodwill, but won’t the program also threaten the firm’s financial health? Probably not. Though rare, there are legitimate reasons why a company might try to decrease use of its own products:

To avoid legal issues: A classic example is a bar refusing to serve a patron who has already had one too many drinks. The pub could see a lawsuit if one of its customers drives drunk and injures another person.

To lessen crowding: No one wants to be packed like sardines into an airplane, train, etc. So, transportation companies often raise prices during peak travel times in order to decrease demand. Some highways have even implemented a similar approach of “dynamic tolls” in order to reduce rush-hour traffic.

To increase customer satisfaction: The law of diminishing marginal utility says that people gain less enjoyment per unit from each additional unit they consume and at some point, the cost of consumption starts to outweigh its benefits. No organization should push its customers beyond that point. Short-run sales may be nice, but customer regret will hurt the company in the long run.

This third reason is likely the one that Apple’s Digital Health Initiative has most squarely in mind. If consumers use their iPhones in excess, they could jeopardize their jobs, their education, their relationships, and more. At any of those points, their attitude toward Apple could change for the worse, which might lead them to drop their smartphones entirely, as some people have done, including a surprising set of A-list celebrities.

For these reasons, we can place some trust in Apple’s self-regulation initiative. Laws aimed at curbing smartphone use are very unlikely to come. Furthermore, the company deserves kudos for getting the jump on any significant social pressure to reform. In this case, less Apple is more “Mindful Marketing.”

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

8 Comments

For Lives, For Profit

5/16/2018

1 Comment

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

Childbirth can be dangerous—Claudine Ndayishime found out firsthand when a C-section complication caused her to lose blood and slip into a coma. Tragically, the hospital didn’t have her blood type in stock. As her life hung in the balance, help came from above.

Flying in from many miles away, a small and very fast drone delivered the blood she desperately needed. Thankfully, Ndayishime and her daughter are alive and doing well today. The drone that made the life-saving delivery wasn’t from who you might expect, e.g., the hospital system or the Red Cross. It came from Zipline, a for-profit startup company whose mission is about “life-saving delivery by drone.”

Ndayishime’s story of death defiance is not unique. Since launching in Rwanda in October 2016, Zipline’s innovative approach to delivering critical medical supplies has “logged more than 186,000 miles and over 4,000 deliveries,” often for cases of critical need. Rwanda’s Minister of Health Dr. Diane Gashumba suggests that many lives have been saved as a result.

Aerial drones are increasingly common. A simple search on Walmart.com returns over eighty drones that end-consumers can buy. So, why are Zipline’s drones special, and how does a small start-up deliver life-saving service on a national scale? For a clear and quick understanding of Zipline, watch the following three-minute video: https://youtu.be/6wBeXIgD4sY

One big difference from other drones is that Zipline’s have fixed wings, i.e., they’re like airplanes not helicopters. Zipline uses fixed-wing aircraft for the same reasons commercial airlines do—they can fly farther and faster. While Amazon’s delivery drones hit top speeds of 50 mph, Zipline’s drones travel as fast as 80 mph, making its technology “the fastest commercial delivery drone on earth.”

In critical situations when every minute matters, that speed saves lives, as does the reach of Zipline’s drones. The firm’s fixed-wing craft are more efficient than typical drones, allowing them to fly for nearly 100 miles round trip, or about 200 times further than the average quad-copter. Zipline’s drones also are cable of “flying over tall mountains, and even through high winds and downpours"--something most drones could never do.

However, Zipline’s success stems from more than just the type of drones it uses. The company employs comprehensive logistics that include strategically-located distribution centers for medical supplies, a text message-based ordering system, and “military-grade GPS” that guides the drone to the appropriate destination, where the valuable cargo is dropped softly by parachute.

Another important feature of Zipline’s drones is that they don’t take off and land like typical fixed-wing aircraft. Instead, the “zips” fly more like jets on and off an aircraft carrier. The drones are catapulted into flight for take-off, and they are tail-hooked out of the air upon returning to the distribution center, all of which adds to speed of service and location flexibility.

At this point, Zipline’s operations are restricted to Rwanda, but the company has plans to place distribution centers in many other countries around the world, including in the United States. Zipline has raised over $41 million in capital, which will help fuel the expansion.

That last piece of information may make some people uncomfortable: Zipline is a for-profit firm. As such, the company not only needs net income, it must produce a big enough return on investment to satisfy existing investors and to encourage future ones to buy into the business model. The average rate of return venture capitalists expect is 25%.

So, Zipline’s motivation is based on more than a selfless desire to do good. If your life were on the line, would you want the outcome to rest on the wings of a for-profit company? Wouldn’t you want aid from an organization that was more purely altruistic?

It would be helpful to ask these questions of Ndayishime and others in Rwanda who Zipline’s fast-moving drones have saved. My guess is they would have no problem with a for-profit firm being in the business of saving lives.

It’s a fallacy to think that individuals and organizations cannot hold different motives concurrently. Most of us do that kind of balancing in several areas of our lives. For instance, we’re employees who want to help the people our organization serves, but we also want to get paid. Those motives are different but complementary: the better we serve others, the more likely it is that we'll keep our jobs and perhaps receive a raise.

A similar relationship exists for Zipline. The better it serves hospitals and their patients, the more likely it is to retain their business and gain new accounts from other institutions. In the case of Zipline and many other companies, profit serves as an added incentive to innovate and to deliver their products/services more efficiently and effectively, which benefits others.

At a time when many say that technology is taking jobs and that business is bad for society, Zipline offers an excellent example of the opposite: Its work saves lives, provides employment, and ultimately makes our world a better place. It’s a company that can be commended for its “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Can Happy Be Healthy?

3/19/2018

3 Comments

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

It can be hard to remember what we ate for lunch yesterday, let alone when we were kids, but many of us can recall the unique childhood experience of a Happy Meal. Children may like McDonald’s food, but for most it’s all about the toy tucked inside the red and yellow box. So, why does the fast food icon want to tinker with a nearly 40-year-old recipe that’s been as golden as its arches?

Happy Meals were the brainchild of McDonald’s St. Louis regional advertising manager Dick Brams. When the kid-focused combo first hit the market in 1979, each box contained a burger, fries, cookies, soda, and a toy like a “McWrist” wallet or a “McDoodler” stencil. While the toys regularly varied, the food remained pretty much fixed until 1983, when chicken nuggets became an entrée option.

One of the biggest Happy Meal happenings took place in 1987, when McDonald’s began partnering with Disney. Well over a hundred different Disney characters have since appeared inside the boxes, including Mickey, Aladdin, and Nemo. Moreover, this commercial collaboration opened the floodgates for all manner of other cobranding with the likes of Legos, Transformers, Hello Kitty, and one of the most popular product premiums ever: Ty Teenie Beanie Babies. The small, squishy creatures first appeared in 1997 and were reprised in 2009 for the Happy Meal’s 25th anniversary.

Fast-forward to the present and perhaps the biggest Happy Meal change ever: McDonald’s has decided to remove cheeseburgers from the Happy Meal menu. Why would the company with a name that’s synonymous with burgers and renown for “billions and billions served” make a move analogous to Dunkin’ ditching donuts or Little Caesar’s shelving pizza? It’s all about trying to be healthier.

Most of us recognize that Happy Meals aren’t the most nutrition things kids could be eating. To put McDonald’s dilemma into perspective, a cheeseburger Happy Meal with small fries and a 1% chocolate milk has 700 calories, 27 g of fat, and 1,060 mg of sodium. Those are high levels for young children who are the primary consumers of happy meals and who need as few as 1,000 calories per day.

So, as the biggest restaurant chain in the U.S. by revenue (over $36 billion), McDonald’s is a natural target for concerns about childhood obesity, which has become a national epidemic. The Obesity Action Coalition states: “Pediatric overweight and obesity now affects more than 30 percent of children, making it the most common chronic disease of childhood.” Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that fast food consumption “has been linked to weight gain in adults” and is “associated with higher caloric intake and poorer diet quality in children.”

Not surprising, this isn’t the first time McDonald’s has moved toward healthier Happy Meal options. In the early 2000s, the company introduced juice boxes, 1% milk, and apples with low-fat caramel dip. It reduced the size of Happy Meal fries to 1.1 ounces in 2011 and announced plans to limit added sodium and sugar in certain other items. In 2013, McDonald’s promised to more seriously promote sides of fruits and vegetables and to change the default beverage option from soda. The company also introduced a new brand of lower-sugar orange juice last fall.

As part of the latest round of Happy Meal makeovers, McDonald’s plans to serve a smaller size of fries with the six-piece Chicken McNuggets, make bottled water a featured beverage option, and reduce the added-sugar in its chocolate milk. Cheeseburgers will no longer be among listed Happy Meal options; however, customers will still be able to receive them upon request.

All of these changes are part of the company’s longer-term goal, which is to have at least half of all Happy Meals come in under 600 calories, with less than 10% of those calories from saturated fat or added sugar, and with under 650 mg of sodium.

Some people with unique insight into health-related matters believe McDonald’s plan is a good one:

“We think McDonald’s is raising the bar,” said Howell Wechsler, the chief executive of Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which advised the chain on the menu changes.

“This is an important step in the right direction,” commented Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association.

There is some precedent for such changes having a positive impact. McDonald’s reports that orders of soda fell by 14% after the item was removed from the Happy Meal menu. Meanwhile, the chain saw a corresponding increase in meals purchased with water, juice, or milk.

McDonald’s actions also appear to influence its competitors. Burger King, Dairy Queen, and Wendy’s followed McDonald’s lead by replacing soda as the default drink in their kids’ meals. McDonald’s reportedly receives more business from families with children than does the competition, but its peer impact is certainly not negligible.

Not everyone, however, is happy about the Happy Meal changes. Corporate Accountability, a national nonprofit and frequent critic of the restaurant chain maintains that a 600-calorie meal is still more than many young children need. Furthermore, spokesperson Alexa Kaczmarski suggests that McDonald’s actions are simply aimed at getting kids addicted to junk food for life.

New York University professor of food studies Marion Nestle offers a more moderate but still critical analysis of the restaurant’s moves, calling them “tweaking” and saying “it’s hard to convert junk foods to health foods in any meaningful way.”

Jennifer Harris of the University of Connecticut's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity echoes these concerns as she describes the reality of what often occurs inside a fast food restaurant:

“If you're in a restaurant and your child smells french fries and sees the soda, it’s very difficult for kids to get the healthier choices . . . If you're a parent, do you risk having a meltdown or do you get your child what’s most appealing to them?"

Harris’ point is a compelling one: It’s one thing to offer healthy options, it’s another thing for a target market of kids, with understandably few health concerns, to choose such options, especially when all kinds of other food looks and smells more appealing.

Add onto that temptation the likelihood that the children’s parents aren’t eating very healthily either. Sure, some people go to McDonald’s and order salads, but the vast majority of parents probably sit across the table from their kids eating their own Quarter Pounder with Cheese and fries. So, even if dad orders chicken nuggets and a side of apple slices for Junior, Junior is already planning what he’ll eat when he’s old enough to order for himself.

People will always want some indulgences, but given trends toward healthy eating and better-quality options, the long-term future of fast food doesn’t look particularly promising. As I interact with members of Generation Z, most tell me they’d definitely prefer to eat at Panera or Chipotle, rather than the typical fast food restaurant. That preference doesn’t bode well for McDonald’s now, and it’s not likely to get better over the coming 5-15 years, as this next generation of young parents will have even less motivation to buy their kids Happy Meals.

McDonald’s is, in many ways, trying to chart a new path. That’s a tall order, however, even for one of the world’s most successful companies when its brand has been tied for so long to largely unhealthy food. I’m glad that McDonald’s continues to make menu changes, especially ones that may positively affect children. Unfortunately, it’s doubtful that the net impact will be proportionate to the company’s influence. It’s a tough call, but healthier Happy Meals still seem like “Simple-Minded Marketing.”