Blog Posts

Giving Poor Athletes an Assist

3/5/2020

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

Few fans of major professional sports ever say, “I feel so sorry for those players.” After all, the average NFL salary is about $2.7 million, and MLB and NBA players earn even more: $4 million and $7.1 million, respectively. However, what's a dream for many athletes can quickly turn into a nightmare once their playing career ends.

Yes, there’s the long-term impact of knee surgeries and head trauma, but many former professional athletes also endure another kind of body-blow: a financial one. Now a reality TV show with an unlikely host hopes to pull past players out of their poverty.

The NFL’s new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) has proposed increasing the minimum player salary from $495,000 to $510,000. You may be thinking, “That’s a ton of money,” which it is. There are, though, other important circumstances to consider when playing careers end.

While there are the rare retired athletes who land very lucrative endorsement deals, like the $130 million Michael Jordan makes annually from Nike, and the $17 million-a-year broadcasting contract former NFL quarterback Tony Romo recently secured from CBS, most former athletes’ incomes fall off a cliff. Once retired, they command only a fraction of what they earned on the field or court, partly because elite athletic competition often comes at the expense of developing other marketable job skills.

It’s possible to blame some athletes for spending too much and not saving enough, but it’s also true that many enter professional sports in their early twenties or even in their teens, where they may encounter corrupt financial advisors and temptations to make bad business decisions, all during playing careers that often last just a few short years.

Unfortunately, there’s a growing list of former professional athletes, including long-tenured ones, who have found themselves in financial peril after their playing careers ended. Some on that luckless list include well-known former NFL players Bernie Kosar, Warren Sapp, Lawrence Taylor, and Vince Young. If these once high-equity athletes can lose most of their money, it’s easy to imagine how ones on the opposite end of the earning scale can end up insolvent.

So, who has stepped to the plate to help poor past pros? It’s someone I wouldn’t have expected: former MLB player Alex Rodriguez.

During his 22 seasons of major league baseball, twelve with the New York Yankees, “A-Rod” established himself as one of the greatest players of all time with stats such as a .295 batting average, 696 home runs, 25 grand slams, 3,000+ hits, 14 All-Star appearances, and three Most Valuable Player Awards.

However, despite all that success, and two Gold Glove Awards, Rodriguez made an epic error: To deal with chronic back pain and so he could “put up big numbers,” Rodriguez violated MLB policy and used steroids. That mistake caused the league to suspend him for the entire 2014 season, which Rodriguez says, “cost me my reputation, and it may have cost me the Hall of Fame.”

Now, fast forward to a few weeks ago: I’m watching television, and a show comes on CNBC called “Back in the Game,” starring . . . Alex Rodriguez. I remembered promos for the program describing its premise—Rodriguez helps former athletes and entertainers rebound from financial ruin. I’m about to change channels when I see who he’s helping this episode: Ryan Lochte.

If you’ve forgotten, Lochte is a very accomplished U.S. swimmer who won 12 Olympic Medals but infamously embarrassed the entire nation after the 2016 Summer Olympics with a drunken escapade that included vandalizing the bathroom of a gas station in Rio de Janeiro. To cover up the mess, he filed a false police report, claiming that he and three teammates were robbed at gunpoint.

Not being a big fan of Rodriguez or Lochte, I have two good reasons to change channels, yet something compels me to stay tuned—maybe the unseemly sense of an impending train-wreck.

Reality-TV-show-host is just one of Rodriguez’s post-retirement gigs. He’s also an announcer for EPSN’s Sunday Night baseball. Furthermore, he’s the founder and CEO A-Rod Corp, a firm that “identifies, originates and manages investments across a broad array of industries, including real estate, sports and wellness, media, and entertainment.” On the corporation’s website, Rodriguez tells how his desire to start the company came from an impoverished childhood in which his mother tirelessly worked multiple jobs to afford ever-increasing rent.

Now, with annual income of about $33 million and net worth over $350 million, Rodriguez has clearly broken the cycle of poverty and achieved financial freedom in his post-playing career. Several pictures on the A-Rod Corp website visually support that success, such as one of the former slugger sporting sunglasses and a stylish grey suit as he poses proudly in front of his private jet with the firm’s ‘baseball swing’ logo emblazoned on the tail.

During his playing career, some described Rodriguez as “moody” and “aloof” and even as “the most egocentric player in Major League Baseball.” Could someone who was and still seems caught up in his own success, truly care about the well-being of others? Despite such skepticism about Rodriguez and Lochte, I can’t look away from the reality show spectacle.

As slugger met swimmer, the former challenged the latter to make lifestyle changes that could help anyone facing financial peril. For instance, Rodriguez urged Lochte to reduce reoccurring expenses by replacing pricey monthly payments on two very posh cars with a single lease on a much more modest ride.

Rodriguez also helped Lochte identify new income earning approaches, including some personal brand-appropriate endorsement deals and several solid speaking engagements. However, these new PR opportunities seemed likely to sink Lochte, unless the swimmer could rise above one ostensibly unsurmountable obstacle: his ego. Given Rodriguez’s own epic fail and apparent self-absorption, how could he possibly coach Lochte free from such hubris?

As it turns out, Rodriguez had come to terms with his own rocky past, several years before. A 2017 ESPN article described how the former all-star genuinely owned his steroid error, tearfully admitting the hurt he had caused his wife, daughters, and others and accepting full responsibility for his “stupid” mistake.

In the Back in the Game episode, Rodriguez also recounted how he undertook another extremely difficult task—apologizing to his former teammates. Now the slugger was asking the swimmer to attempt the same formidable feat. At first Lochte balked, but eventually he picked up his phone and started making calls.

With just his first apology, Lochte’s countenance visibly changed. One could see how the normally brash competitor was visibly broken. One also could hear how those on the other side of the phone calls were moved by his genuine humility, as they accepted his heart-felt apologies.

As I watched both Rodriguez and Lochte realize redemption, my cynicism subsided. I gained new-found respect for these former athletes, and I was reminded of three things: even the mighty fail, everyone needs help in some way, and all people have the potential to change.

I haven’t yet watched other episodes of Back in the Game, and I’m not sure how many others have seen the show. It seems, though, that an interesting TV program that encourages personal responsibility and restored relationships can rise to the level 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!

7 Comments

The Impossible 'to Stomach' Whopper

2/22/2020

26 Comments

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

Green bumps, black specks, white fuzz. You saw the telltale signs when a piece of once fresh fruit or an edible vegetable fell to the back of a refrigerator drawer where it laid low for a few months. It took a deep breath and all the courage you could muster to pick up the nauseating produce and pitch it into the trash. So, why would one of the world’s leading fast food restaurants want consumers to see its most iconic menu item in a similarly sickening state?

Few food companies have the mettle to play with such fire, but one known for flame-broiling and often flagrant marketing does: Burger King. The fast food icon recently launched a “global, integrated advertising campaign showing its iconic Whopper® sandwich covered in mold.”

A video from the company begins with the staging of a very attractive Whopper. Then, against a music bed of “What a difference a day makes,” filming turns to a rapid time lapse and the burger ages abhorrently before our eyes.

First, the lettuce starts to wither. Then the bun sags and mayonnaise melts. Before we can look away, white fuzz flows over the beef patty and a green/blue ‘foam’ appears, making a cross-section closeup look like a storm at sea. Thankfully, the camera pans out, but only to show a bun enveloped in mold with some black substance oozing from the burger’s epicenter.

The visual agony eventually ends as a text overlay briefly appears: “The Whopper DAY 34.” The grotesque burger vanishes into an all-black screen that frames the tagline “THE BEAUTY OF NO ARTIFICIAL PRESERVATIVES,” followed by an all-white Burger King logo.

Most organizations agonize over advertisements, trying to ensure that their products are presented in the most positive light. Those in food industries seem especially attuned to their ads’ optical appeal, and for good reason: Studies have found that visual stimuli such as color, evenness, and shape “exert cognitive top-down influences that can and sometimes do alter assessments of taste and flavor.” In other words, there is truth to the old adage: ‘We eat with our eyes.’

So, why would Burger King flame-broil conventional wisdom by plating a burger that could make the Geico racoons retch?

The main reason stems from the spot’s tagline, “The beauty of no artificial preservatives.” The company wants consumers to realize that it has made a clean-break from past practice and it no longer uses nonorganic life-extenders, at least not in “most European countries and select markets in the United States.” Furthermore, according to Christopher Finazzo, Burger King’s Americas President:

“The Burger King® brand is currently rolling out the Whopper® sandwich with no preservatives, colors, or flavors from artificial sources in the U.S. The product is already available in more than 400 restaurants in the country and will reach all restaurants throughout the year.”

Unfortunately, in terms of touting “real food,” Burger is painfully late to the game. Chipotle, Panera, and a crowd of fast-casual restaurants have been making that claim for a few decades. Even many processed food manufacturers, like General Mills, have kept better pace with consumer desires for healthier food. The company has already removed artificial ingredients from most of its cereals.

So, maybe Burger King needed to do something shocking to grab the attention of a populace likely to overlook or be unimpressed by what is an increasingly common change. The promotion certainly has gained the company free media exposure and gotten marketers like me talking about it.

A similar tact also must have worked, at least somewhat, when the firm unearthed its Halloween-inspired “Nightmare King” in the fall of 2018. Although it never seemed that the green-bun burger was a big seller, it did grab headlines and likely helped keep the restaurant top-of-mind among those who frequent fast food.

It’s also possible that the Moldy Whopper promo resonates with Gen Zs and Millennials, who are used to unconventional advertising and who demand transparency from the brands they buy. These age cohorts might uniquely appreciate the combination of candor and irreverence.

Still, the avant-garde ad campaign takes an extraordinary and nearly unprecedented risk by essentially forgoing the Maslow-level-one appeal of appetizing food. Maybe having “no artificial preservatives” hits a higher tier of the hierarchy, such as safety or self-esteem, but according to the theory, people’s desires will never ascend to those upper levels if their hunger is unsatisfied.

Burger King apparently is banking on viewers remembering the pristine burger that appears at the beginning of the ad for a few seconds, rather than the progressively repulsive Whopper that fills the other forty-five seconds. “Negativity bias,” however, upends that hope: Our brains are “simply built with a greater sensitivity to unpleasant news.” Said another way, there are some things we simply can’t ‘unsee’ and a mold-covered Whopper is probably one of them.

Although few organizations are so daring as to cast their products in a negative light, many do fall into the same general AIDA-defying trap: In an all-out effort to grab attention and retain interest, they sacrifice desire and action. As evidence, recall all the commercials you can from the last Super Bowl, then try to remember the companies responsible for each of them.

Like many other restaurants, Burger King is in an existential battle with all kinds of new competitors, especially those in the fast-casual space. It’s great that the fast food icon has taken steps to make some of its menu items more user-friendly, but those health benefits will never accrue to people who are put off by what they see in the company’s stomach-turning promotion. The new burger may be better for you, but etching the image of a moldy Whopper onto people's minds must be “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!

26 Comments

Should the FCC Have Thrown a Flag?

2/7/2020

9 Comments

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

The latest Super Bowl was another big game mired in controversy. This time the debate wasn’t whether a fourth-quarter play was a penalty, but whether the halftime show was pornography. Should the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have thrown a flag for ‘illegal use of the hips’ or ‘unnecessary raunchiness’? As armchair apologists argue, mindful marketers aim to analyze the action from each angle, hoping to make ‘the right call.’

Rocking hips, pulsing pelvises, and legs wrapped around a stripper pole sound like a scene from a gentleman’s club, but they were just part of the Super Bowl LIV halftime show featuring superstar entertainers Shakira and Jennifer Lopez.

Whether one enjoyed the performances or not, most agree that the show was a production spectacle, complete with elaborate scenery, extravagant costumes, moving stages, dozens of talented dancers, and amazing fireworks. The production level was fitting for the biggest television viewing event of the year, which this time drew an astounding 102.1 million U.S. viewers, making it the “11th most-watched TV show ever.”

With so many people watching the same thing, it’s not surprising that the show spawned differences of opinion. Some, like former Florida governor and U.S. presidential candidate Jeb Bush loved it; he tweeted, “Best Super Bowl halftime show ever.”

Many ordinary citizens have also sung its praises, including 2.3 million people who liked the YouTube video. Some of those fans have said:

“One of the most amazing shows ever.”—Lucy B.
“Loved both”--manel manel
“whos watched this more than 10 times? i know i aint the only guy”—Maxwel Rajcic
“I love JLo but i can't get over that Shakira performance. Damn.”—Annitah Lesley
“One of the best Super Bowl halftime show ever”—grace khuvung

However, a smaller but still substantial number (134K YouTube viewers) didn’t think the show was ‘so hot’; actually, they thought it was too hot. Some tweeted:

“I saw way more of J-Lo than I ever wanted to. There was a moment there that actually made me blink my eyes. Everybody in the room was blinking their eyes.”— @TheAnnoyedMan
“When your crotch shot reveals your panty liner than you’ve definitely crossed a line”—@meredithdicken1
“I’d settle for a halftime that is somewhere between Karen Carpenter and a pelvic exam.”—@Bookwormdearlor
“My 13 year girl old said ‘man, that was TRASHY.’”—@FilthyMcN
“My 9 year old asked, ‘Is this what sexy is?’”—@kdonohuenj
“It was inappropriate for the venue. They can't sell it as a family entertainment and then present something that millions of people had to quickly turn off AFTER their little people got an eyeful of soft porn.”—@Plainsspeak

Maybe detractors are being over-sensitive or narrow-minded, not giving enough consideration to factors such as:

The empowerment of women: The halftime show showcased two women’s exceptional voices and dance skills, physical strength and stamina, as well as their abilities to command one of the world’s largest stages. Furthermore, both women are over 40 years of age.
The celebration of Latin culture: The show served up large portions of energy and excitement, along with vibrant sounds and colors, for which Latin culture is known.

Those are valid arguments that we may not fully appreciate, depending on our own demographics. On the other hand, one may wonder if those lauding the performance have considered issues like these:

Demographics: Unlike most TV shows, an extremely wide swath of the population watches the Super Bowl—everyone from two-year-olds to 92-year-olds. The lower end of that range should not be exposed to sexually explicit content, and many would argue that no one should see it without warning at 8:00 pm, on broadcast television.
Legality: The halftime show may have violated the FCC’s mandate that “Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.” It’s hard to imagine that the agency would have allowed the same sexual content, which included very revealing apparel and highly suggestive camera shots, as part of a 30-second Super Bowl commercial; yet, the FCC permitted 14 minutes of the ‘exposure’ as a Pepsi-sponsored mini-program.
Addiction: If the halftime show represented ‘soft porn,’ as some have said, there’s a risk that the show encouraged pornography addiction for some viewers. Lest one think that’s a wild claim, check out Google search results: In the period from January 29, 2020 through February 4, 2020, at the exact time of the Super Bowl halftime show, there were extreme peaks in searches for terms such as: Hustlers (name of the film about strip clubs, staring Lopez), pole dance, stripper, and jlo hustlers dance.

Cultural relativism: Virtually every culture, past and present, has had good things to offer, but not everything in a given culture is good (e.g., segregation, subjugation of women). Latin dancing is known for its sensuality, which people may debate is good or bad, but for the situation at hand, the discussion should consider the prevailing culture and composition of Super Bowl viewers, as well as when, where, and with whom most watched the halftime show.
Empowerment or Objectification: As implied above, my maleness limits my ability to appreciate the ways in which Shakira and J Lo’s performances may have made other viewers feel empowered. However, as one who has studied oversexualization in advertising, I saw many signs of objectification of women, i.e., reducing their personhood to specific body parts (e.g., legs, bottoms) and ‘serving them up’ as objects for others’ sexual gratification. For instance, in the YouTube video of the performance, there’s a camera shot at about 2:22 focused just on Shakira’s belly and hips, i.e., no head or feet, and another at 7:06 centered squarely on Lopez’s bottom, as she bent over, back to the camera.

In an article that includes several helpful illustrations, Ronnie Richie develops a seemingly useful distinction between sexual objectification and empowerment, the bottom-line being that a person is sexually empowered, not objectified, when she/he holds power versus the person looking at them. That analysis likely works on one level, such as for superstar celebrities like Shakira and J Lo, but the reality is that oversexualized images in mass media often impact others within the same people group (e.g., women, children) with tragic consequences.

According to UNICEF, “The objectification and sexualization of girls in the media is linked to violence against women and girls worldwide.” On a personal level, former Yale University student Veronica Lira Ortiz shared her unfortunate experience as a child in a Latin culture infused with machismo: “I was twelve years old, and a man on the street [in Mexico] was already verbally harassing me. He looked at me as if I were a juicy steak instead of an innocent child. Shakira and J Lo may have held power in their Super Bowl situation, but many indirectly affected by their performances do not.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” but when the beholders number over 100 million, including millions of children and adults anticipating family-friendly entertainment, and when many others are indirectly affected by what’s shown, the creators and broadcasters of ‘said beauty’ should demonstrate better discretion. So, the replay of the action suggests that the FCC should have flagged Fox, Pepsi, and others associated with the Super Bowl LIV halftime show for a broadcast communication violation, as well as for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

9 Comments

Should Apple Open a Backdoor?

1/25/2020

23 Comments

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

Imagine that someone you know is coming to your home, but you’re not able to let them in, so you tell them, “I’ll leave the backdoor open.” Of course, doing so means that anyone else, with good intentions or bad, can easily enter. To help fight crime, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has again asked the world’s most iconic tech company to ‘open a backdoor’ on its smartphones. Shouldn’t Apple finally oblige?

On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire at a holiday party in the Inland Regional Center of San Bernardino, CA, killing fourteen people and injuring 22 others. Because both terrorists died in a shootout with police, law enforcement was left wanting to know more about what motivated the attack and whether there were accomplices. So, the investigation turned to Farook’s locked iPhone:

“Agents wanted Apple to write a new operating system that would bypass the 10-attempt limit on the security code and other security measures. With this done, agents then planned to use a computer program to churn through the 10,000 possible passcodes until they hit upon the right one.”

Apple cooperated in other ways e.g., making engineers available, providing data, and trying to unlock the phone, but it refused the request to create a “backdoor,” to its phones, citing concerns over consumer security and privacy, as well as the precedent that such a concession would create.

Eventually, the FBI was able to gain access to the inside of Farook’s phone. The Bureau didn’t say how, but reports circulated that it paid Cellebrite, an Israeli forensics company $900K to hack into the device. In the end, however, “the FBI didn’t find any information they didn’t already have.”

Fast forward to the present, and we see how history often tragically repeats itself. Almost exactly four years after the San Bernardino shootings, Mohammed Saeed Alshamran, a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force, opened fire at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, FL, killing three U.S. sailors and wounding eight others. Once again, the terrorist died in the attack, leaving behind two locked iPhones that the FBI can’t crack. U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr has explained the need to access the phones’ contents:

“It’s very important for us to know with whom and about what the shooter was communicating before he died. This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that investigators be able to get access to digital evidence once they have obtained a court order based on probable cause.”

Again, Apple has refused to acquiesce and build a backdoor to its phones. Barr has claimed that the company has offered “no substantive assistance” in the investigation. However, Apple, has rejected that characterization, saying “Our responses to their many requests since the attack have been timely, thorough and are ongoing.”

So, why isn’t the intelligence and security service of one of the world’s superpowers simply able to hack into a few smartphones? The most likely answer is that the data encryption, which Apple improved significantly with the introduction of iOS 8, is that good. Other explanations for the inaction are that “the FBI simply doesn’t understand (or won’t accept) Apple’s inability to help,” which had led to “Attorney General Barr’s larger anti-encryption push.”

Notwithstanding concern for citizens’ safety, and perhaps even national security, in terms of marketing’s 4 Ps, Apple’s backdoor decision has profound impact for its “product,” i.e., the value users derive from owning very securely-encrypted iPhones and the company’s ability to continue to sell smartphones to those consumers.

No one wants his/her phone to be hacked, just ask Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, but does such personal protection outweigh a nation’s ability to fight terrorism and other crime? Clearly, the issue is complicated. Here are three related questions to consider:

Would a backdoor mean less crime? Some may accuse Apple of averting justice by not providing an easy unlock for its phones, but less iPhone security could easily lead to more unlawful behavior. Although subsequent hacking would probably more often involve nonviolent crime like bank fraud and identity theft, there’s also reason to believe that users’ physical safety could be at risk by virtue of address information, GPS locations, and smart home apps found on many people’s phones.
Would more easily-unlocked iPhones deter terrorism? Like most things in life, crime probably takes the path of least resistance. If one phone becomes easy for ‘the Feds’ to unlock, criminals will likely switch to another, and if every phone proves vulnerable, they’ll find other forms of communication. Also, if law enforcement is mainly accessing terrorists’ phones after the fact, they’ll just be more diligent in destroying them.
Can governments be trusted? Although some individuals around the world and in the U.S. would answer this question emphatically, ‘No,’ most people appear to have a fair amount of faith in their local, state, and national officials. However, trusting anyone doesn’t necessarily mean giving them access to information or other sources of power that could prove too tempting to resist using unscrupulously. The founders of this country certainly had this principle in mind as often evidenced by various directives in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, any one of us or a loved one might become the next victim of terrorism or another criminal act, possibly committed with the aid of an iPhone. However, providing easier access to the information inside our smartphones doesn’t appear to be a way of reducing that risk. In fact, such entry would likely introduce many more issues ranging from invasion of privacy to physical harm.

As the introduction of this blog post suggested and Apple affirms, “there is no such thing as a backdoor just for good guys.” If a smartphone maker creates one, it enables access to its users’ lives by anyone who can locate that entry point. By resisting pressure to comply and keeping its phones securely-encrypted, Apple engages in “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!

23 Comments

Fighting Fire with Desire

1/12/2020

6 Comments

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

Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods—natural disasters are unfortunate reminders of how powerful earth is and how weak humans are. Yet, in the wake of such tragedies it’s encouraging to see caring people help others in need. So why has one woman’s philanthropy aimed at fire relief for Australia sparked a media firestorm?

Since late July, “Australia is [still] being ravaged by the worst wildfires seen in decades.” A terrible drought and record-high temperatures are helping fuel the horrific flames. So far, the tragic toll includes 27 people dead, over 2,000 homes destroyed just in the state of New South Wales, smoke 11-times the hazard level in Sydney, more than 17.9 million acres of land burned, and millions of animals likely dead.

Thankfully there are organizations and individuals responding to the tragedy. One of those people is Kaylen Ward. An attractive 20-year model from Los Angeles, Ward tweeted a promise on January 3 to send a picture of herself to anyone who sent her proof of a donation of $10 or more to a legitimate fire relief organization such as the Australian Red Cross or Salvation Army Australia. Ward kept her promise, and within four days, her efforts helped raise an amazing $1 million!

Why has Ward’s work been so successful and controversial? It was because she wasn’t wearing anything in the photos; Ward was nude.

The people receiving the pictures, weren’t surprised—they got exactly what Ward promised and what might be expected from an “influencer and sex worker” who makes a living from nakedness, often by selling nude photos and videos of herself on OnlyFans. Recently, she’s come to call herself “The Naked Philanthropist.”

One reason people have taken issue with Ward’s promotion of wildfire relief was a perception that she must somehow be skimming money off the top for herself. However, she quickly clapped back at such allegations, tweeting that “none of the donation money to Australia has or ever will go to me. The only money I have made is money from my [Only]fans. I guarantee I am not pocketing any donation money.”

Given that people donated directly to the relief organizations and just direct messaged Ward copies of receipts, she had no access to the money. In contrast, Ward apparently incurred some direct costs from her philanthropy. After her initial tweet went viral (over 88K retweets and more than 226K likes), she said she had to hire four people to help her sort through all of the messages, verify the donations, and send out over 10,000 nude photos.

It’s likely, though, that whatever those cost were, they were more than offset by all the free media ‘exposure’ (sorry) she’s received, probably worth at least tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the contact list of future customers she undoubtedly built from all those who direct messaged her for a free pic.

Likewise, Ward’s social media following exploded. Before her first ‘fire relief post’ she had about 176K Twitter followers. She now has over 387K.

Knowing those positive personal outcomes, some may argue that her philanthropy was intentionally self-serving. Ward takes issue with that assessment, however, saying that she had seen the impact of the recent California fires firsthand and knows “how devasting” they can be.

Also, soon after stopping her nude photos promotion, Ward started a GoFundMe campaign aimed at raising money for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and the World Wildlife Fund. She stated: “I want to continue raising funds to save the people and animals of Australia,” because the causes are “very important to me.”

It’s hard to judge motives. There’s also not necessarily anything wrong with a person wanting both to help others and to advance his/her own career. Many forward-thinking organizations take a similar strategic approach to their philanthropy such that they do well financially while doing good socially.

But, then there’s the specific nature of Ward’s career. It’s pornography.

Many individuals and organizations believe that there are standards of decency that should be upheld, including ones involving sexual explicitness. Facebook, which owns Instagram, is one of those organizations: It disabled Ward’s Instagram account because she apparently violated the site’s prohibition of offering nude images.

Some may say, though, that the means justify the ends, i.e., given the devastation Australia has endured, ‘baring’ oneself is acceptable in order to provide relief to those in need. Such an argument usually stems from a belief in consequentialism, or that the greatest net happiness is what determines whether an action is ethical, not freestanding moral principles like decency, dignity, and decorum.

But, if one considers consequences, there’s a need to look at all the consequences likely to come from Ward sharing her nakedness. Those include consequences associated with pornography. Here are several of the negative outcomes that individuals often experience from using porn, provided by Caron Andrews:

Changes the brain: Through the release of dopamine each time, the brain requires more and more porn.
Affects behavior: Porn users often have more violent attitudes toward women and exhibit more domineering and harassing behavior toward them.
Leads to sexual dysfunction: Actual physical intimacy becomes less stimulating.
Harms one’s sense of sexuality: Porn can cause people to have deviant and even dangerous sexual tastes.
Stunts real-life relationships: Users often draw away from others and keep secrets from them.
Teaches that women are sexual objects: Women are often ‘stripped’ of dignity and presented as vehicles for men’s sexual satisfaction.
Makes people feel bad about themselves: The lack of congruity between one’s values and actions causes stress and feelings of hypocrisy.
Changes moods: People who use porn are often easily annoyed, angered, and depressed.

The preceding list isn’t comprehensive. Besides negative impacts on individual users and those close to them, some suggest that pornography carries a major economic price: $16.9 billion a year in lost productivity.

Again, it’s impossible to know Ward’s true motivation, but even if she really did mean well, her philanthropic approach was greatly misguided. The nude photos probably pleased their recipients and the corresponding donations likely helped ease Australia’s pain, but Ward discarded basic decency while fueling the flames of a terrible social problem, which makes her work “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

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

Peloton's Psychological Problems

12/13/2019

4 Comments

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

“If my husband gave me a Peloton for Christmas, I’d give him divorce papers.” Such raw emotion has typified reactions to the spin cycle maker’s “Gift that Gives Back” commercial. People are permitted their opinions about the ad, and Peloton is entitled to explain its position, but a few principles from psychology might help both sides see how the cycle commercial could have avoided such a controversial turn.

Many reactions to the spot suggest that ‘no husband should surprise his wife with a piece of exercise equipment,’ regardless of her body-type. That’s a valid point; however, before dismissing Peloton’s ad as complete incompetence, Abraham Maslow’s classic hierarchy of needs may remind us that there is often more than one reason for riding a stationary bike:

Physiological Needs: Exercise doesn’t satisfy hunger or thirst; in fact, burning calories increases those needs. Similarly, anyone ‘spinning’ isn’t resting; however, exercise can lead to better sleep. That connection proves true for many, as it did recently for me: After walking around New York City one day with family for hours, I enjoyed one of my best night’s sleep in months.

Safety Needs: Exercise doesn’t immediately make us safe; however, cardiovascular fitness is an investment in long-term health, which connects to the second level of Maslow’s hierarchy. Many viewers of Peloton’s ad have bemoaned that “Grace in Boston,” an already slim woman, even needs to exercise, but they’re missing the point that working out isn’t just about losing weight. Thin people also reap health benefits from aerobic activity.

Social Needs: In one tweet about the ad, a Peloton user mentioned that she appreciates the bonding that comes with working out with others. People don’t need to be physically present to build relationships. Social benefits can also accrue when interacting in the virtual realm, which apparently happens for at least some Peloton users.

Self-Esteem Needs: All of us want to feel good about how we look and the kind of person we are. Sticking to an exercise regimen can bolster both of those self-concepts. Most viewers of Peloton’s ad don’t notice any physical change in Grace, but perhaps she experiences something intangible, like feeling more self-disciplined or self-confident.

Self-Actualization Needs: There aren’t many products that can legitimately claim to help people reach their full potential in some significant area of life, but a piece of exercise equipment used seriously might produce such top-level benefits, partly like the way basic training transforms marines. We don’t know exactly what Grace meant by the statement, “A year ago, I didn’t realize how much this would change me,” but if it wasn’t physical change, maybe a year of Pelton transformed her mentally or emotionally.

The five levels of Maslow’s hierarchy offer consumers useful lenses for processing the controversial commercial. A psychological principle can also teach Peloton an important lesson, summed up in one sentence: “Perception is reality.”

We perceive when a stimulus crosses our senses, we attend to it, and we make an interpretation, for example: “The big dog bounding toward me looks dangerous.” Sometimes our interpretations are correct; other times they’re wrong. However, whether they’re accurate or not, our perceptions determine our reactions.

As thousands of social media posts have suggested, people perceived things to be true of Peloton’s ad that the company apparently didn’t intend, for instance:

that Grace was initially overweight
that she wanted to become even thinner
that her husband pressured her to use the bike

Peloton can argue that these interpretations are incorrect, but ultimately the court of public opinion rules based on objective judgment of cues in the ad, prevailing social norms, and the broader cultural context, because perception is reality.

Some may suggest it was Peloton’s plan to cause a controversy that would capture publicity. If so, the company probably didn’t anticipate a 14% stock price decline in three days. Consumers can use Maslow to better understand what the cycle maker likely intended, but more importantly, companies like Peloton can learn to more effectively pretest their ads so corporate perceptions better align with consumer reality and don’t spin into “Mindless Marketing.”

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

4 Comments

Marketing Giving

11/29/2019

32 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!

32 Comments

Pay to Pray

11/16/2019

11 Comments

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

“The best things in life are free,” for instance, an evening with family, a walk on a sunny morning, a conversation with a friend. For many people, going to God is another 'free'dom they cherish. Why, then, does one religion appear to be putting a paywall between its people and God?

The Catholic Church recently surprised many of its parishioners and others by introducing an eRosary, “a wearable device connected to a mobile app that's activated by making the sign of the cross.” While paying homage to traditional rosary bracelets, the new product’s black agate and hematite beads, paired with a “carefully finished” gunmetal-color cross, make the modern version appear very ‘apple-esque.’

Many have heard of people praying with rosary beads, but if you’re not familiar with Catholicism, here’s a quick primer. The Holy Rosary, or Dominican Rosary, is a very important prayer for Catholics that is arranged in sets of prayers called decades. Holding a rosary bracelet or chain in one’s hand and feeling each individual bead helps followers recite the prayer’s Hail Marys and other specific petitions in the proper sequence.

The Rosary is a central part of many Catholics’ spiritual lives, as praying it guards against trials and temptations and serves as a buffer against all types of evil. Pope John Paul II declared that the Rosary was “among the finest and most praiseworthy traditions of Christian contemplation.”

The Vatican’s eRosary offers much more functionality than just feeling beads with one’s fingers. Working with an app, the digitally-designed bracelet lets users choose the specific rosary they would like to recite (e.g., standard or thematic), then charts the devotee’s prayer progress and tracks completion with “the guide of special audiovisual contents.”

The Vatican suggests the device serves as “a meeting point between technology and spirituality” that “unites daily life and prayer,” helps one “pray deeply,” and unites people around the challenges that confront humanity and the mission of the Church.

The eRosary also touches the physical realm, acting as a “personal health assistant” by recording fitness data and providing wellness information. In doing so, the device encourages people to live healthier lives.

However, wearable technology can’t just do things; it also needs to look good on those wearing it. Fortunately, the eRosary marries form and function. The Pope’s Worldwide Prayer Network suggests that the device lies where “simplicity meets elegance” thanks to its stylish black and silver colors and its “simple lines and curves.”

So, why is the Vatican marketing a ‘faith-based fashionable Fitbit’? Engadget suggests the Catholic Church is “hoping to attract tech-savvy youngsters.” It’s true that Gen Zs increasing expect digitally connected experiences. Also, any organization that wants to stay in existence must remain relevant to the next generation of ‘consumers.’

Still, we’re talking about the Church and faith. Doesn’t technology distract from meaningful spiritual experiences? Or, perhaps even more important, is it right for the Catholic Church, which has about 1.28 billion adherents, many in countries with low per capita income, to sell a product that costs 99€ (about $110) on Amazon?

First, it’s helpful to remember that technology influencing faith isn’t just a recent phenomenon; it’s interface dates back as least many hundreds of years. In 1452, Johannes Gutenberg printed 180 copies of the now famous Gutenberg Bible. In many ways, the use of moveable type technology to mass print the Bible and other religious books democratized Christianity and formed the foundation for a revolution in the Church.

Over the years, other new technologies also have impacted people’s spiritual lives in, often in positive ways. For instance, radio and television have allowed people to share religious information with others thousands of miles away. Advances in construction have enabled the building of larger and more functional places of worship. And, automobiles are what many people use to travel to those worship centers.

However, when one arrives at a church, synagogue, or mosque, there’s usually not a fee at the door. The notion is that religion should be free to all. ‘Growing closer to God shouldn’t be based on one’s ability to pay.’

Fortunately, there’s nothing to stop even the poorest person from offering prayers of petition and gratitude to the Divine. And, if people are mobile, they might walk or share a ride with other believers to a place of worship where they can venerate God and learn together for free.

Some religions also make copies of their key texts available to others for free. For instance, Wycliffe Bible Translators, a nonprofit mission organization, has translated the Bible into hundreds of different languages since its founding in 1942. Likewise, the Gideons International gives away thousands of Bibles a year in most of the world’s countries.

Then, how do eRosaries, iPhones with Bible apps, and other faith-related merchandise fit with the notion that religion should be free? All of the items that cost money to aid reverence are optional. They may be helpful to those who can afford them, but they’re not essential for a relationship with God.

A useful metaphor might be a social medium like LinkedIn. Some people who have needs for more advanced features pay for LinkedIn Premium. In contrast, for many years I’ve used the free version of the platform, which meets all of my professional networking needs and more. Just as I’m not precluded from enjoying LinkedIn because I don’t pay, people who don’t buy eRosaries or similar religious products are not prevented from relationships with God.

It is possible to live without digital devices. Also, sometimes when we have them, we let them get in the way of fruitful living. Used properly, however, it’s not hard to see how technology can benefit religious practice, much as it enhances other areas of life. It’s great to be able to share prayer requests via email, send text messages of encouragement to others, study the Bible on an iPad, and listen to podcasts of sermons online.

Because I’m not Catholic, I’ve never experienced confirmation, gone to confession, or prayed the Rosary. It appears, though, that an eRosary can help those participating in one of Catholicism’s central religious practices. For people of faith, digital devices that enrich their spiritual lives and bring them into closer relationship with God and others, seem to be “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!

11 Comments

Promotion in Disguise?

11/3/2019

35 Comments

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

Halloween was here and gone, but its effects live on. For kids, that may mean ongoing sugar rushes from a huge candy haul. For adults, it could be as serious as a DUI arrest after too much partying. However, one company you probably wouldn’t expect, stepped in to deter Halloween-related drunkenness.

It may come as a shock that the “King of Beers” created a unique Halloween-themed advertising campaign to discourage drinking. Budweiser, flagship brand of the iconic American beer company Anheuser-Busch, which is now a subsidiary of Belgium-based ABInBev, used the marketing firm David-Miami to develop some edgy Halloween-inspired ads to decrease drinking.

Budweiser’s promotion featured photos of several real people wearing Halloween costumes and funny looks on their faces. While there’s nothing unusual about pictures like that, especially around Halloween, what made these shots different was that they were mugshots. One of the photos, for instance, had a woman in a cat costume with black and white face-paint. Below her was the caption “Don’t let Halloween haunt you forever,” the Budweiser logo, and the tagline “Drink Wiser.”

In many ways, what Budweiser did was great. While alcohol is an important part of many people’s lives when socializing and celebrating, it’s also an addictive substance that when used in excess can wreak havoc on those using it and those who cross paths with them (e.g., physical and verbal abuse, drunk driving). Some call alcohol a drug and describe its use in the U.S. as an epidemic.

Still, it’s reasonable to ask the question: Does a company whose livelihood depends on beer sales really want people to drink less? There just aren’t many examples of organizations trying to decrease demand for their own products. The only two I can think of off-the-top are power companies asking residents to use less electricity during peak consumption times and casinos providing 800 numbers for those with gambling problems. I’m not sure the second example even qualifies.

Budweiser does, however, have a history of prodding people to ‘drink responsibly.’ Over 100 years ago, the company used the tagline “Budweiser Means Moderation,” and about 35 years ago the firm’s ads challenged consumers to “Know When to Say When.” The current “Drink Wiser” campaign, which kicked-off last year, urges customers to “hydrate between Buds.” Also, beers bought in certain locations between October 21 and November 1 on Drizly entitled drinkers to a $5 Lyft gift card “for a safe ride home.”

So, Budweiser has taken some steps to mitigate overindulgence, but do these measures really make a difference? In a 2008 study, Atkin, McCardle, and Newell found that consumers tended to perceive alcohol moderation advertisements as ambiguous and self-serving. Jones, Hall, and Kypril’s 2017 research produced similar findings: Consumers had difficulty interpreting many of the alcohol industry’s moderation messages.

The results of these studies and similar ones don’t bode well for alcohol moderation messages overall, but perhaps Budweiser’s “Drink Wiser” Halloween photo campaign was an exception. In lieu of research specific to the campaign, it may be helpful to dissect the ads and predict consumers’ likely response. So, here’s this marketer’s assessment of the campaign using communication's well-known AIDA model (attention, interest, desire, action):

The ads’ colorful and unusual photos of costumed people, probably grabbed viewers’ attention.
The curious-looking pictures likely also kept viewers’ interest, as they wondered why the bizarre subjects were posing for the camera and what they had to do with Budweiser, whose large logo was prominently displayed with the ad copy, i.e., more than just a small tag at the bottom.
The use of a humor appeal probably impacted viewer’s interpretations of the ads and ultimately their desire to accept the ads’ supposed call for drinking in moderation. The funny looking photos likely acted as “dissonant visuals,” serving to counteract the ads’ serious message. One might even say the comical pics made light of drunk driving.
What’s more, with the tagline “Drink Wiser” appearing just inches below the large Budweiser logo, it’s conceivable that consumers interpreted the ads’ call-to-action not to ‘drink smarter’ but simply to ‘drink Budweiser.’ In other words, people may have seen “Wiser” simply as an abbreviation for Budweiser, in the same way Pizza Hut is sometimes call “the Hut.”

So, were Budweiser’s Halloween-themed mugshot ads effective in deterring irresponsible drinking? I don’t know, but to the Gen Ys and Gen Zs to whom to the campaign most likely appealed, the ads probably just seemed like another application of the irreverent humor brands often try to use to attract young consumers to their products. In other words, the supposed deterrent actually may have acted more as a purchase stimulant.

It’s hard to judge motives—Did Budweiser really want to keep people from irresponsible alcohol consumption, or was it secretly banking on higher Halloween-holiday beer sales? We don’t know, but analysis of the ads makes it seem improbable that people were inspired to “drink wiser” as much as they were reminded to ‘drink Budweiser.’ As a result, the company’s likely misinterpreted mugshots are a snapshot of “Single-Minded Marketing.”