Blog Posts

A Promotion Unlike Any Other

4/23/2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Comments

Is It Right to Sell Others Short?

4/10/2021

8 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Red Flag

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

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

Second Red Flag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Comments

NFT: Not Free for the Taking?

3/28/2021

2 Comments

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

Like most people, I was amazed when an NFT of a collage by the artist Beeple recently sold at auction for $69 million. It’s worth pondering why anyone would pay so much for a blockchain-based asset, but the sudden popularity of NFTs may signal a more important concern: the price that individuals increasingly pay because others can easily digitize and share their work.

Beeple’s nonfungible token has been one of several recent high-priced, head-scratching NFT purchases:

$389,000 for “Death of the Old,” a music video by the musician, singer, and songwriter Grimes
$580,000 for Nyan Cat, “an animated flying cat with a Pop-Tart body leaving a rainbow trail”
$3.6 million for “Ultraviolet,” an album by electronic-music artist Justin Blau, aka 3LAU

So, what do people who pay thousands or millions of dollars for such NFTs actually get? They receive proof of ownership of the digital item, which comes in the form of “a unique bit of code that serves as a permanent record of its authenticity and is stored on a blockchain, the distributed ledger system that underlies Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.”

What makes the passion for NFTs puzzling is that people who purchase them gain virtually no exclusive use of their virtual property. For instance, Nyan Cat is ten years old and “has been viewed and shared across the web hundreds of millions of times.” There’s no practical way for the feline’s new owner to stop others from viewing or posting their newly-acquired kitty.

What NFT owners receive amounts to little more than “digital bragging rights.” It’s kind of like holding the title to a car that anyone else can drive. Well, at least the owner can point to the title and say, “It’s mine.”

The possibility that others may be willing to pay even more for certain NFTs can give them value by virtue of their potential resale. There also may come a time when some NFT owners will be able to more readily restrict access to their digital property and monetize their asset.

In that way, perhaps NFTs have become so popular because people notice a troubling trend: Individuals spending their time, energy, and talents to create things of value, only to have ‘anyone with a smartphone’ duplicate and share the work with no consideration of, or compensation for, its creator.

This issue hit home for me recently when I saw this headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education: “Deadman Teaching.” As a college professor, I know how helpless one can feel in front of class when nothing seems to be going right, but the focus of this piece was quite different.

The article described the experience of Aaron Ansuini, a college student who was really enjoying an art history course taught on video by a deeply knowledgeable and enthusiastic “bespectacled, gray-haired professor,” François-Marc Gagnon.

During one of the engaging lectures, Ansuini had a question he wanted to ask his instructor, so he searched for the professor’s name online, thinking it would be faster than locating the syllabus on his laptop. What he found was an obituary--Gagnon had passed away at the age of 83 about two years earlier.

Until then, Ansuini and other students had no reason to think that their professor wasn’t still living. The course syllabus made no mention of his passing, and students had been receiving messages they thought were from Gagnon but must have been from a teaching assistant.

Tom Bartlett the author of the Chronicle article, reached out to one of Gagnon’s children, Yakir Gagnon, a researcher at Lund University, in Sweden. On one hand, the son thought his father would be very happy that his insights were still finding an audience; however, he also wondered about the intellectual property implications and who owned the rights to the work.

As someone who teaches a significant number of classes each week, I can’t help but wonder the same thing: whether ‘digital me’ might keep teaching after my death, but also how copies of my work might be used now without my knowledge or consent. I also can imagine two main objections to such concerns—one related to relevance and the other to responsibility. I’ll try to address both:

1) Relevance: A natural reaction might be, I’m not a teacher, so Gagnon’s case doesn’t apply to me.” However, people in all kinds of occupations write, say, and do instructive things that others will read and watch, if someone digitizes and shares them.

For instance, anyone familiar with YouTube knows its abundance of instructive videos, from cooking rice to repairing cars, which often come in convenient five- or ten-minute clips. Most of the videos are shared with the consent of their creators, but not all, as evidenced in part by many posts that seem prematurely removed. Some pirated videos likely earn money for others without their owners’ knowledge or consent.

2) Responsibility: Even those who understand that unauthorized sharing can potentially affect anyone may still believe that employers own everything their employees do. It’s true that in a principal-agent relationship, the agent (employee) has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest their principal (employer).

In the case of Gagnon, because his university presumably paid him, he (the agent) had a responsibility to do what his principal (the university) required, i.e., to teach art history classes. If for some reason he didn’t want to do that, he shouldn’t have collected a paycheck. However, did paying the professor to teach a specific class during a particular semester give his employer the right to use his digitized teaching to instruct other classes, without giving him or his heirs additional compensation?

In the world before hyper-digitization, such obligations were rather clear-cut: Job performance happened in real-time, largely constrained by a particular place and time. The introduction of early recording and duplicating devices (e.g., video cameras, copy machines) stretched those boundaries.

In the current era of highly-advanced and widely-democratized digital technology, along with broadly-used social media platforms, those boundaries have been blown wide open. Duplication and sharing anyone’s work, including employees’, is incredibly easy and enticingly convenient.

The questions, then, become what employee work is fair to share digitally, where, and for how long. Some may suggest that employers hold complete sharing rights during and even after the agent-principal relationship has ended. Perhaps such broad employer ownership could be justified if agreed to with informed consent, but even then, the agreement would only be fair with appropriate compensation.

What is appropriate pay? It might be a percentage of the present value of projected future earnings from the digitized work. Or, it could be royalties, or residual income, that accrues whenever the work is shared. The latter suggestion may seem unreasonable, but there is strong precedent in the form of television actors who are often compensated with royalties for each episode that airs in syndication, or songwriters who earn money every time their music is sold or played.

Although some undoubtedly do this, it would be unfair to pay a musician to play a piece once, record the performance without her knowledge, and make money by selling her art without her consent. But again, even if there is informed consent, people deserved to be fairly compensated for their digitized work when it’s shared and continues to bring in dollars.

In a sense, everyone is an artist, creating content that benefits others now and perhaps into the future, if digitized and shared. Maybe that future will include more robust ownership standards based on blockchain systems for sharing. The current fervor for nonfungible tokens may be unfounded, but NFTs might be writing a script for more “Mindful Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

Recoloring History

3/12/2021

5 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Comments

Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence

2/28/2021

3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Comments

When TV Commercials Wink

2/14/2021

14 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Comments

General Motors – Going Electric, Going for Broke?

2/6/2021

7 Comments

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

There’s news and there’s NEWS. The unexpected announcement that one of the world’s best-known companies, in an indispensable industry, had decided to convert all its product lines to clean energy was shocking NEWS that’s gained public praise. However, is this storied firm making a PR promise that its bottom-line can't bear?

About a week ago General Motors made the stunning announcement that it would “phase out petroleum-powered cars and trucks and sell only vehicles that have zero tailpipe emissions by 2035.” Companies revamp product lines all the time, so what makes this U-turn so extraordinary?

Throughout most of its 113-year history, the gasoline combustion engine has been the driving force inside the vast majority of the automaker’s products. Gas has been to GM like chicken is to KFC. In fact, GM could stand for Gasoline Motors.

GM has long-been known for gas-gulping sedans like Buicks and Cadillacs, as well as increasingly popular pickup trucks and SUVs, including one with one of the lowest MPGs of any noncommercial vehicle in the modern era--Hummer.

Not only has the company been an avid user of petroleum-burning technology, it’s also been a developer. For instance, “In 1971, GM pioneered the use of engines that could run on low-lead or unleaded petrol.”

Meanwhile, this world-leading automaker hasn’t exactly been heading the charge into electric vehicles (EVs). In 2016, Bloomberg estimated that GM lost $9,000 on every all-electric Chevrolet Bolt it sold, and in 2019, the company halted production of its Chevrolet Volt hybrid car. Both of these short-circuits likely contributed to projections that EVs would account for just “5 percent of the automaker’s total production by 2026.”

What’s more, in an effort to promote a gas-fueled future, General Motors joined a Trump administration lawsuit against California aimed at compelling the state to decrease its gas-mileage standards to the lower federal levels.

In short, “General Motors’ history hasn’t been especially kind to electric mobility.”

So, would a company kept afloat for so long by gasoline really want to sever that fuel line?

Given GM’s history and current product portfolio, it’s easy to suspect that the company is simply playing a PR card. Perhaps ‘no petroleum by 2035’ is a stretch goal that the company doesn’t actually expect to achieve, or the objective is just symbolic of the firm’s intent to be more environmentally-friendly.

Companies making such bold long-term projections can take cover in our collective amnesia. In 2035, will anyone remember what GM promised a decade and a half earlier, let alone hold the company accountable?

GM’s current CEO, Mary Barra, has been leading the automaker since January of 2014. Given the five-year median tenure for CEOs of large-cap companies, how likely is it that she’ll be at the helm in 15 years at the age of 74? If there is accountability for GM’s no-petroleum pledge, it probably will fall on one of Barra’s successors. That protection along with pressure for next quarter’s earnings could encourage a leader to promise anything!

However, GM doesn’t really need a confidence-building headline right now—the company is actually doing well. Since a low of $16.80 per share on March 18, 2020, its stock price has tracked steadily upward to its current price of $54.25, making a market cap of $72.54 billion. The company’s trailing twelve months revenues are $115.79 billion with net operating income from continuing operations of $3.39 billion.

Furthermore, many have an optimistic outlook on the firm, including 18 investment analysts CNN recently polled, all of whom gave the stock a “buy” rating. Given the momentum of its existing operations, maybe a better question to ask is: Is GM making a big mistake by promising to sever its gasoline fuel line?

One very good reason for wondering is that GM’s sales are increasingly skewed toward bigger products. In 2019, GM delivered 2,887,046 vehicles in the U.S., of which more than 2 million were full-size pickups, SUVs, and crossovers. Those bulkier vehicles need more energy to move their larger masses, especially if they’re hauling or towing things. That kind of power demand can be hard for battery power to support.

Political uncertainty is another issue. After the Biden administration’s win and call for more clean energy, GM withdrew from the California fuel efficiency lawsuit—a move that seems prudent now, but what happens if the pendulums of politics and consumer sentiments swing back, away from environmentalism, as they’ve done on more than one occasion? Will GM wish it hadn’t made such a life-changing commitment?

It’s reasonable to ask these kinds of questions about the authenticity of GM’s promise and the acumen of its long-term strategy. However, it’s still very likely that the company’s electricity-powered approach is its best path forward, for strategic and moral reasons:

No future in fossil fuels: Each year, more organizations and individuals convert their energy consumption to renewable sources such as solar and wind. Although economic influences like low oil prices may temporarily slow the trend, it will continue, especially with more pro-environment government policies, purchase incentives, and industry innovation, such as Apple’s potential autonomous EV.

Turning an aircraft carrier: Many of the newer EV producers are more nimble than GM because of their smaller sizes, flatter corporate structures, and more risk-tolerant organizational cultures. It typically takes an older, larger company longer to make a significant business model change, especially if the company is not privately held but needs to answer to shareholders.

A planet in peril: In the face of mounting evidence, it’s hard to overlook the negative impacts that CO2 emissions are having on the environment, including its animals, plants, and people. Even if GM could continue to sell petroleum-powered products for another hundred years, moral considerations like fairness to those breathing polluted air and stewardship of limited resources suggest that the company shouldn’t continue production as usual.

As often happens in the auto industry, GM’s changes will have some significant impacts on other companies such as its main suppliers, as well as on thousands of other organizations that automotive touches like service centers, gas stations, and replacement parts suppliers.

However, just as this large corporation’s changes will threaten certain industries, those that respond to the challenge and adapt may find great economic opportunities, like manufacturing batteries and operating charging stations.

GM’s 15-year conversion commitment is a big, bold move, yet it’s one the company needs to make for its own success, as well as for the wellness of our world. Maybe this major player’s actions will inspire others to take similar steps, making GM’s electrical charge even more “Mindful Marketing.”

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

7 Comments

Natural Light Imitates Art

1/23/2021

5 Comments

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

Often those fortunate enough to earn a college degree proudly display their diploma in their office or another personal location. Now the credentials of one large group of college grads are on exhibit in a much more public place—New York City's Grand Central Terminal. But, at a station known for transportation, is the art’s creator paying homage to higher education or throwing a college degree under the bus?

The intensely competitive alcohol industry has led many beer manufacturers to become very creative marketers: from elaborate point of purchase displays in retail stores to highly produced commercials during Super Bowls. Now the world’s biggest brewer, Anheuser-Busch InBev, has found an especially innovative way to broadcast a brand message—a work of art, in the heart of New York City, valued at $470 million!

The exhibit, called “the Da Vinci of Debt,” is a collection of 2,600 real diplomas that Natural Light, one of Anheuser-Busch’s signature brands, has rented from degree earners. Resembling a blizzard of super-size snowflakes, the white diplomas cascade downward from ceiling to floor of Grand Central Terminal’s Vanderbilt Hall. It’s an installation that’s both impressive in its grandeur and appealing to the eye.

So, what’s behind Natural Light’s foray into ‘fine art’ and its claim to have constructed “the most expensive piece of art in the world”? The company says it wants to bring attention to the burgeoning problem of student debt, which helps explain the firm’s valuation of the exhibit at $470 million--the average total cost of a four-year college education times 2,600 degrees.

As someone who’s taught in higher education for 20 years and paid for two children to attend college, Natural Light’s cost estimate seems right: $470 million divided by 2,600 diplomas is $180,769 per degree, or $22,596 per semester. Unfortunately, this price has risen precipitously over the years, increasingly exceeding families’ abilities to pay, save for significant financial assistance, often in the form of student loans.

To some extent, faculty members like me are responsible for the extreme price up-tick: Employee salaries often represent organizations’ biggest costs. However, higher ed’s steeply-sloped expense history is more complicated.

When those who attended college several decades or more ago visit campuses today, they’re often awestruck by the number and nature of amenities today’s students enjoy: from beautifully-appointed apartments, to state-of-the art classrooms, to expansive sports centers. These expensive and largely consumer-driven upgrades also have contributed to rising college costs.

Regardless, it’s important to affirm Natural Light’s suggestion that student debt is a serious problem. That doesn’t mean, though, that the Da Vinci of Debt is an impeccable piece of art: A real concern is that the exhibit conveys a misguided message: That a college education is not worth its price.

Some may not gather that interpretation from the exhibit, which is good; however, it’s reasonable to believe that many who see or hear about the art will draw the conclusion that those willing to part with their diplomas must feel dissonance about their degrees.

Unfortunately, some do get a less-than-ideal return on their college investments for various reasons that can include choosing the wrong school or major but more likely stems from failing to take their academics seriously—a tragic misstep that’s ironically related to Natural Light. I’ll say more about that and two other 'art ironies' in a moment.

First, it’s important to note that the experiences college students enjoy and the relationships they form are often invaluable, or at least defy quantification. At the same time, some like Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce have calculated the typical financial payback a college education offers:

A Bachelor’s degree is worth $2.8 million on average over a lifetime.
Bachelor’s degree holders earn 31 percent more than those with an Associate’s degree and 84 percent more than those with just a high school diploma.

So, is a college degree expensive? Yes. Is it worth the cost? Yes, provided that the student properly ‘consumes the product,’ which leads to the three art ironies referenced above.

Irony #1: Most Anheuser-Busch executives hold one or more higher education diplomas.

Here is a partial list of Anheuser-Busch’s U.S. leadership team members and their degrees:

Nick Caton, U.S. Chief Financial Officer: Bachelor of Science in mathematics from Stanford University; Juris Doctorate from Yale University
Agostino De Gasperis, U.S. Chief People Officer: Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Toronto
Ingrid De Ryck, U.S. Chief Sustainability and Procurement Officer: bachelor’s and master’s degree in business engineering from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Benoit Garbe, U.S. Chief Strategy Officer: MBA from Harvard Business School
Craig Katerberg, General Counsel: degrees from the University of Chicago and from Northwestern University School of Law
Elito Siqueira, U.S. Chief Logistics Officer: a degree in mechanical engineering; two executive MBAs; completed supply chain programs from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University

This list could include several other Anheuser-Busch executives, with equally impressive pedigrees, all of whom appear on the company’s website. It’s unusual for businesses to mention their leaders’ academic credentials so prominently, which makes Anheuser-Busch’s higher ed highlighting even more unique.

Moreover, given the positions these individuals hold with a firm that ranks #205 in Fortune’s Global 500, it seems that all have gotten good returns on their college and master’s degrees. I wonder if any of them regret the educational expenses they incurred, or if they chose to include their diplomas in the Da Vinci display.

Irony #2: Beer and higher education are notoriously bad partners.

Unfortunately, alcohol abuse on college campuses is legendary: If you haven’t witnessed it personally, you’ve likely seen it portrayed in movies or on TV. I’ve written two other pieces that have highlighted the coed alcohol epidemic:

The first piece questioned Dos Equis being made “The Official Beer Sponsor of the College Football Playoff.” In light of the destruction alcohol has done to so many young lives, I argued that college-related events should never have a “beer sponsor.”

The second piece had a similar theme, but this time the event was graduation and the sponsor was . . . wait for it . . . Anheuser-Busch. Yes, Natural Light was making the same dangerous association of beer and books, attempting to put an intoxicating brand spin on what should be a very meaningful if not solemn ceremony.

I wonder how many people have had their college careers completely derailed by alcohol, or graduated but so frequently missed classes or walked around buzzed that they failed to gain nearly what they should have from their college experience.

Such lackluster collegiate performance correlates with low GPAs and lack of good post-college employment opportunities. I wonder how much alcohol abuse has increased the cost of college and made it more difficult for graduates to pay off their diploma-related debt?

Irony #3: Anheuser-Busch doesn’t mention student debt relief among its social initiatives.

In 2018, to the company’s credit, Anheuser-Busch launched “an annual College Debt Relief program” that annually awards “$1 million to students under financial pressure.” The plan is to pay out $10 million toward college debt relief over 10 years.

Of course, $10 million is a ‘drop in the keg’ compared to the $1.7 trillion level college debt is projected to reach in 2021, but no one company can be expected to do it alone. By the same token, however, Anheuser-Busch had total operating income of over $16 billion in 2019, and in the same year spent $1.53 billion in the U.S. on advertising.

A million bucks a year is a nice donation, yet it does seem somewhat paltry for a firm dealing in billions of dollars. Perhaps that’s the reason Anheuser-Busch makes no mention of education or student debt relief on its social responsibility website page, “Purpose Beyond Brewing.” The one CSR area that comes closest is “Economic Impact,” but that page just describes the company’s commitment to care for employees, support the restaurant and bar industry, and create jobs for farmers.

So, under which of Anheuser-Busch’s expense lines does student debt relief really belong? Is it serious social responsibility or is it a straightforward advertising-spend?

Regardless, I’m not sure how much the Grand Central Terminal art exhibit will make a positive impact for Natural Light. The brand communicates many countervailing messages, such as images on its website that seem more like an ode to spring break in Fort Lauderdale than any serious concern for student well-being. That disconnect and relative lack of exposure may doom Da Vinci.

Admittedly, the author of this piece has an employment-influenced bias in favor of higher education and against alcohol consumption by young people. He’s also not an accomplished art critic. Still, his professional opinion suggests that Natural Light’s Da Vinci of Debt is a monument to “Mindless Marketing.”

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

5 Comments

Committed to Cursing

1/5/2021

9 Comments

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

Do you have a resolution for 2021? According to Parade, the most popular annual self-promise is to lose weight. Given interests in appearance and health, it’s understandable that many people want to watch what they put into their mouths. What’s surprising is that individuals seem increasingly unconcerned about what comes out of their mouths. In fact, an ad campaign from an unexpected source is encouraging people to let profanity fly.

One might guess the campaign comes from a company like Budweiser, which a few years ago ran an infamous Super Bowl ad featuring outspoken British actress Helen Mirren who delivered a caustic anti-drunk-driving rant that had parents rushing to cover their kids ears. Amazingly, the current profanity-laced campaign is from the Mental Health Coalition.

Actually, “laced” is an understatement. The 90-second spot’s central theme and action are the F-word and its accompanying hand gesture. Why so much obscenity? The premise is that since people have suffered so much over the last 12 months from a global pandemic, racial injustice, and an extremely combative election, the best thing to do is to blow off steam by telling 2020 exactly what we thought of it.

The ad ends with a fittingly obscene call-to-action: “Text [middle finger emoji] to 1-877-EFF-THIS and donate $5 to the Mental Health Coalition.”

Why would the Mental Health Coalition want to connect its mission and brand to cursing? The rationale is not as tenuous as you might first think. In fact, there’s a body of literature that suggests that expressing anger through swearing is good for mental health.

One study, which asked participants to submerse their hands in ice water, discovered that swearing increased pain tolerance by nearly 50%. Other research found that people could achieve greater physical performance, pedaling a bike, when employing profanity.

Writing for Psychology Today, Neel Burton, M.D., a psychiatrist and philosopher who teaches in Oxford England, offers “The seven best reasons for swearing,” which he suggests are:

Pain relief
Power and control
Non-violent retribution
Humor
Peer and social bonding
Self-expression
Improved psychological and physical health

It’s hard to argue against empirical science and respected health professionals, but it seems that the preceding research and writing gives less than adequate treatment to a pair of important considerations, which the following two questions address:

1) What’s the long-term impact of swearing on self-concept? Even if uttering a curse word helps reduce pain in the moment, it seems that swearing could affect one’s extended mental health, which is partly a function of others’ perceptions of us.

First, to be forthright and hopefully avoid seeming self-righteous: I have sworn. I’m not sure that any of those irreverent expressions helped me in the moment, but one thing is certain: I never felt good afterward about what I said; rather, I regretted each of those instances.

While it’s uncomfortable for me to admit that I’ve sworn, it would be very painful if I had to think of myself as ‘a person who swears,’ and it would be unacceptable if I in some way encouraged others to have such a perception of me. I don’t want to swear and, for various reasons that include my faith, I would never want swearing to be something that defines me.

A few years ago, triggered by what I saw as a troubling increase in casual cursing, I wrote an article for The Marketplace, “Don’t curse your own brand.” In the piece I identified five adjectives, or “unbecoming brand qualities,” that profanity projects: unintelligent, angry, unproductive, indecent, and untrustworthy.

Granted, it may be more important for some people/professions to maintain the impression of piety than it is for others. Still, a vulgar vocabulary fuels the preceding unfavorable perceptions in others, which is hard to believe have a positive net impact on anyone’s self-concept.

2) What’s the impact of profanity on others? Almost all of the research and writing of others I referenced above suggests that ‘You should swear because it’s good for you.’ Largely missing in the analyses is the affect that one’s cursing has on those exposed to it, especially if the unpleasantries are directed at them.

Burton does mention that swearing can foster “peer and social bonding.” I believe there are better ways to foster social bonds than swearing, but I can understand how cursing could work to that end, if it’s ‘friendly’ and mutually accepted.

In most instances, though, being on the receiving end of a curse word is not appealing. That’s why in any kind of potentially volatile situation, from a customer service encounter to a hostage negotiation, swearing rarely helps. In fact, it usually increases the tension by making people more uncomfortable, angry, or upset.

Overlooking the impact of cursing on others is probably the biggest irony of the Mental Health Coalition’s ad campaign. On the organization’s own website, its homepage expresses an important truth: “The language we use is powerful, so let’s talk about it.” Yes, words are powerful, and, contrary to the “sticks and stones” adage, poorly chosen ones can hurt deeply.

Of course, being bullied or shamed can’t be good for anyone’s mental health, but how that belittling often occurs is particularly pertinent here. A report on workplace bullying by Safe Work Australia found that “The most common forms of bullying included being sworn at or yelled at (37.2 per cent).” Others affirm the connection between cursing and bullying, for instance:

“Shouting and swearing while doing criticising is bullying” (Business-Live.Co.UK)
An example of bullying is “yelling or using profanity” (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety)
A report from an Anita Hill-led Hollywood Commission for Eliminating Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace identified “swearing” as a specific act of bullying that with other undesirable actions can serve as “a gateway to sexual harassment and other abusive conduct.”

To summarize:

Cursing --> Bullying --> Low Self-Concept --> Poor Mental Health

These relationships are a big miss of the ad campaign, but there’s one more notable fail: Tourette syndrome, “a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics.” Though rare, some individuals with the disorder experience coprolalia, which includes “uttering socially inappropriate words such as swearing.”

Although Tourette’s is a disorder of the nervous system, not a mental illness, one can imagine that people who suffer from the syndrome are easy targets for bullies, and that those social interactions could be especially strained if the individual’s specific symptoms include swearing.

At the risk of getting waylaid on memory lane, many of us can remember a time, not that many years ago, when it was unusual to hear people swear outside of an R-rated movie or a locker room, both of which carried ‘language warnings,’ express or implied.

Now it’s not unusual to be shopping in a grocery store or watching ESPN and hear conversations punctuated with profanity. It’s also puzzling that, unlike those in the Mental Health Coalition ad, the people cursing often don’t appear to be angry or upset; rather, swearing has simply become part of their routine communication. Do ads like the one in question normalize such indecency?

The Mental Health Coalition serves a very important societal mission in aiming to “to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness.” Unfortunately, however, its ‘swearing ad’ curses that very purpose, making the campaign an unfortunate example of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

9 Comments

Did Apple Make a Debundling Blunder?

12/21/2020

1 Comment

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

It’s a parent’s classic Christmas morning fail: After having the foresight to purchase the holiday’s hottest new toy, they forget to buy the batteries! By not including a charger with its newest ‘toy,’ has the world’s most valuable brand set up its customers for gift-giving/getting failure?

The introduction of almost any new Apple product, particularly an iPhone, is newsworthy. Even people who don’t buy Apple are interested in the features the firm unfurls in its latest phones. This time, though, it’s what Apple hasn’t included that’s made headlines.

The iPhone 12 packs many impressive features including an A14 bionic chip, an edge-to-edge OLED display, a ceramic shield, and night mode, but consumers won’t find in the box two items they’ve come to expect with any iPhone: EarPods and a charging adapter.

Given that many people are particular about what they put on/in their ears, and some wanting wireless, it’s not surprising that Apple decided to forgo ear accessories with its new phone models. What is surprising, though, is that the iPhone 12 comes sans charger—something everyone needs in order to use the product.

A main reason Apple has omitted the charger is that it believes people already have one, which probably is true for many of those interested in the latest iPhone. At the same time, if someone is willing to pay $800+ for the base model iPhone 12 or $1,000+ for one of the Pro versions, shouldn’t Apple oblige by including a comparatively inexpensive power supply?

Apple’s omission has challenged me to think of precedents for such a strategy, which seems akin to an automaker selling cars without spark plugs. As suggested at the onset, some companies market toys and other low-end electronics with the package disclaimer “batteries not included,” but that’s increasingly rare. Plus, batteries are inexpensive and easy to find . . . at least most are, which reminds me of a shopping experience I had a few months ago.

With both my gas-powered leaf blower and string trimmer on their last legs, I started searching for battery-powered replacements. In the process, I noticed several units labeled “tool only,” which were often priced $100+ less than what looked like the same models. I soon realized that some people only buy the implement because they already have one or more batteries and chargers from prior purchases of tools that use the same power system. For those individuals, the manufacturers’ “unbundling” of the battery and charger from the tool is a big benefit.

We’re used to seeing companies bundle products, i.e., market related items together and, in doing so, offer consumers an overall lower price, e.g., value meals at fast food restaurants, home and auto insurance policies. Unbundling is the opposite: A company realizes that consumers dislike paying for products they don’t want/use, so it deconstructs the bundle and sells products separately, usually at somewhat higher individual prices.

There’s a significant cost difference, however, between power supplies for yard tools and those for iPhones. A battery and charger accounts for about half the price of a yard tool package, while the phone charger represents just a fraction of an iPhone’s cost.

That discrepancy suggests that, unlike most unbundling strategies, Apple’s approach was not driven by consumer’s desire to save money. Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of environment, policy, and social initiatives explained how the company had, instead, sustainability in mind:

"There are also over 2 billion Apple power adapters out there in the world, and that's not counting the billions of third-party adapters. We're removing these items from the iPhone [12] box, which reduces carbon emissions and avoids the mining and use of precious materials."

Apple’s website elaborates on the environmental ends the company aims to accomplish by omitting the iPhone 12 charger:

Carbon savings equal to 450,000 fewer cars on the road per year
Reduced mining and use of precious metals
A smaller phone package, allowing more boxes per shipment and fewer overall shipments
The elimination of 2 million metric tons of carbon emissions each year

Those intentions are certainly admirable. It’s questionable, though, if that projected positive environmental impact will actually occur, given that consumer behavior will likely adjust as a result of the iPhone 12 coming without a charger.

Of course, some iPhone 12 buyers won’t have a workable adapter and will have to buy one, either from Apple or a third party. However, even if customers already own a serviceable power supply, they still might decide to buy a new one for one or more of the following reasons:

If they sell or gift their old iPhone, the recipient will probably want the charger.
It can be convenient to have more than one charger (e.g., one for home, one for work).
Consumers don’t usually want to use old accessories with new products. For instance, few people want to put used tires on a new car or old laces in new shoes.
The old chargers are not completely compatible with the newest iPhones. Although one can connect an iPhone 12 to an old power adapter using an old lightning to USB-A cable (the USBs with the large, wide connectors), the new iPhone won’t charge as fast as it will by plugging the included lightning to USB-C cable (small, compact connector) into a new adapter, purchased separately.

In sum, many people will still want or need to buy an adapter, which “will now need to be packed and shipped separately from the phones, thereby increasing the environmental consequences.”

The change in buyer behavior is coupled with the fact that chargers from smartphones, tablets, etc., account for a very small percentage of all e-waste. Ruediger Kuehr, head of the Sustainable Cycles (SCYCLE) Programme hosted by the United Nations University, estimates that Apple’s move could save at most 25,000 metric tons, or .05 percent of annual e-waste.

Granted, any e-waste avoided is a good thing, but the packaging and transportation costs from secondary market charger sales could erase some or most of the environmental gains of keeping the charger out of the original package.

Apple is an environmentally-conscious company with a continually-improving track record for sustainability, which includes reducing toxic components in its hardware, nearing 100% use of recycled materials in its phone manufacturing, and aiming to be carbon neutral by 2030.

Still, omitting an iPhone 12 charger doesn’t promise to be the “boon to the environment” that the company has suggested.

Apple’s unbundling was likely well-intended, but the reality of little environmental impact and negative consumer reaction, makes the strategy a case of “Simple-Minded Marketing.”