Blog Posts

Do You Believe in Better Business?

8/23/2019

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

Does the word business carry positive or negative connotations for you? My associations are affirmative ones, but for many people business carries significant baggage, perhaps from personal experience or from things they’ve read or heard. Those impressions may be changing, though, thanks to a bold pronouncement by leaders of some of the world’s largest companies.

On August 19, 2019, 181 CEOs of the Business Roundtable, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit comprised of “chief executive officers of America’s leading companies,” issued a Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation.

That news may not sound startling, but what is surprising is the new Statement’s focus on serving “all Americans”—an abrupt departure from what most people associate with business: making money for shareholders. The new Roundtable Statement, in contrast, details the executives’ commitment to serving the needs of all corporate stakeholders by doing things like:

Delivering value to customers
Investing in employees
Dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers
Supporting communities

The men and women who endorsed the new Statement aren’t just any execs. They’re the heads of many of the world’s largest and most successful corporations, for instance:

Jeff Bezos, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Amazon
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple
Brian Moynihan, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Bank of America
James Hackett, President and CEO of Ford Motor Company
David Solomon, Chairman and CEO of The Goldman Sachs Group
Marilyn Hewson, Chair, President, and CEO of Lockheed Martin
Lisa Davis, CEO of Siemens Corporation USA
Doug McMillon, President and CEO of Walmart, Inc.

Several signatories supplemented the statement with their personal thoughts, for instance, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Chair of the Business Roundtable said:
“Major employers are investing in their workers and communities because they know it is the only way to be successful over the long term. These modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.”

Similarly, Alex Gorsky, CEO and Chair of Johnson & Johnson added:
“This new statement better reflects the way corporations can and should operate today.” “It affirms the essential role corporations can play in improving our society when CEOs are truly committed to meeting the needs of all stakeholders.”

Those are nice sentiments. Unfortunately, though, they fly in the face of what many have accused business of doing for decades if not millennia—profiting at any cost. Moreover, some champions of capitalism have openly embraced that calloused approach to commerce, perhaps none more famously than economist Milton Friedman. In a September 13, 1970 New York Times article, among other places, Friedman argued that business’s only social responsibility was to increase profit, i.e., to maximize shareholders’ return on investment.

Beyond Friedman’s free markets manifesto, public cynicism about business has gained momentum thanks to a seemingly never-ending series of moral lapses and money grabs by certain businesspeople and companies such as Bernie Madoff, Enron, Arthur Andersen, Bear Stearns, Martha Stewart, Barclays, WorldCom, and Volkswagen.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that some are very critical of the new Business Roundtable Statement. One such cynic is business columnist David Lazarus, who in a recent Los Angeles Times article maintained that the edict is nothing more than “corporate propaganda” put forth by conscience-stricken executives trying to save face amid growing business backlash. Furthermore, Lazarus argues that the statement is conspicuously light on specifics, such as how exactly the companies purport to make all stakeholders their priority or what they might do to address the gross asymmetry in executive pay.

Lazarus is not the only one skeptical of the Roundtable Statement. For his article, he interviewed several others who share his beliefs, including Kenneth Osgood, a history professor at Colorado School of Mines, who said “It seems pretty obvious that CEOs are trying to head off growing public pressure on a number of fronts, including how much they’re paid and taxing the rich.”

Echoing those sentiment was professor of public diplomacy at USC, Nicholas Cull, who said “There seems to be a concern among the CEOs that they’re becoming the bad guys.” “This suggests that the business community is expecting blowback from their policies, and they’re trying to get ahead of it.” Similarly, University of Alabama history professor Margaret Peacock simply called the Roundtable Statement “a clear and pretty heavy-handed attempt to obscure reality.”

Time will tell whether such strong criticism is deserved or if, instead, the signatories’ companies will live up to the commitments. In the meantime, Lazarus and others critical of the Roundtable Statement should consider two key points about business:

1) Business benefits society. Yes, certain businesspeople and companies have made mistakes, but that harm is far outweighed by the positive economic and social impact business has had and continues to have on local communities, nations, and the world.

So many people, including Lazarus, owe their livelihoods to businesses, so many consumers enjoy the products/services firms offer, and so many governments benefit from the tax revenue companies provide.

2) Responsible business strategies and tactics stem from a proper philosophy of business. Just like we wouldn’t expect someone who has a distorted view of relationships to treat others decently, we shouldn't expect businesses to consistently treat stakeholders with respect unless they first make it their mission to do so.

The Business Roundtable Statement isn’t intended to be an A to Z blueprint for how exactly to increase employee compensation or build communities, but what it does propose is a very important prerequisite: an overarching goal that can serve as a guide for all other business activities, including marketing.

No businessperson is perfect, but when they hold each other accountable for positive impact, they’re often able to bring about good that they couldn’t achieve individually. That’s the promise and potential of the Business Roundtable’s new ‘purpose statement,’ which also makes the edict “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!

4 Comments

Reading for Profit

8/9/2019

15 Comments

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

How did you earn money as a kid? Maybe you babysat, mowed lawns, or did chores around the house. Did you ever get paid to read? Probably not, but now one creative company rewards kids for reading while they get their haircut.

A haircut is a uniquely intimate interpersonal experience for someone of any age. You sit still for a half hour or more, while a person you may not know very well stands inches away, repeatedly handling your most important body part—your head.

Beyond the physical experience, there’s the social dimension of a haircut. Sitting so close to someone for that amount of time, it’s awkward not to talk. However, even adults can find such chitchat challenging; for kids, it may seem impossible. Most children don’t have advanced conversational skills, and they’re naturally short on life experience and knowledge of topics that tend to be good conversation starters, e.g., current events, food, sports, etc.

Those aren’t the reasons, though, that City Cuts, a barbershop located in Kutztown, PA, pays children to read while they receive haircuts. More comfortable kids may be a side benefit, but it wasn’t the main thing that motivated shop founder and owner Jon Escueta to start the ‘novel’ program.

Escueta immigrated from the Philippines when he was just eight years old. Not knowing any English proved to be a formidable social barrier, but a caring teacher helped him overcome the obstacle by using a book about basketball to encourage him to read.

Escueta, now 32, employs the same strategy in his barbershop, where kids can read aloud a book of their choice to the person cutting their hair, and anyone else within earshot. For every book kids read, they receive $3.

The benefits of reading are well known: greater knowledge, mental stimulation, vocabulary expansion, memory improvement, stronger analytical skills, improved concentration, etc. However, all of those advantages can accrue to readers who sit alone and read silently to themselves. Why, then, doesn’t City Cuts simply let kids borrow books to take home and read on their own time?

The reason is there are also significant benefits that can come from reading aloud in front of others. On her website Tutoring Academy, Sharee Chapman identifies some of those positive outcomes, for instance:
- Improved diction and expression
- Enhanced visual memory and the ability to see images in one’s mind
- Better spelling from sounding out words, detecting syllables, and visually connecting words to sounds
- Great practice for public speaking

It’s the last benefit that aligns most closely with Escueta’s intent and reflects the way his program seems to be working. For example, 8-year-old Connor, whose mother travels 20 minutes to take her two children to the shop, says that reading aloud has really helped him in the classroom. He explains: "It [the reading time] made me speak up," so that "I am always raising my hand to get picked."

However, as much as Escueta may want to help, City Cuts isn’t a charity. Without seeing its financial statements, one can imagine that a small barbershop, located in east-central Pennsylvania, doesn’t make money hand-over-fist. So, how can it afford to pay both its barbers and its customers?

Fortunately, the program has gained considerable community buy-in. City Cut’s customers and others donate both the books for the young readers and the funds to compensate them. Also, this past January, Escueta started a GoFundMe account that has raised over $6,100 toward its $7,000 goal.

So, the reading program seems sustainable, but shouldn’t we be cautious about such corporate influence in children’s lives?

From banks to bakeries, all kinds of businesses want to make inroads with kids, not because children have much money to spend now but because they are the next generation of consumers. Some big players have even used reading programs as a way of reaching kids.

For instance, Pizza Hut’s BOOK IT program has been rewarding kids for reading for the past three decades and still seems to be going strong. Children enrolled in the program receive a certificate for a free one-topping Personal Pan Pizza, a prize, and a sticker for every month they reach their reading goal.

Given that the program is “free,” those rewards for reading seem like a great deal. Of course, most parents don’t drop their kid off at Pizza Hut and say, “Go in and eat your free Pizza,” i.e., one certificate likely draws the entire family into the restaurant for food and drink, resulting in a profitable tab for the company.

Pizza Hut also gains brand exposure in the ‘sacred’ learning environments of schools from BOOK IT-related items on which its logo appears such as posters, flyers, and the award certificates. All that said, it’s reasonably to wonder if the benefits the company receives far outweigh the few pizzas the children earn.

Then again, BOOK IT does get kids to read. Maybe that outcome justifies the corporate influence, but there’s also the risk that kids’ interest in books may begin and end with free food. In other words, the extrinsic, physiological reward of pizza may overshadow the more important intrinsic, intellectual reasons for reading, mentioned above.

City Cut’s reading program, on the other hand, appears to avoid these risks. Unlike pizzas, haircuts are necessities that children typically don’t crave and upon which families rarely overindulge. Similarly, unlike problems inherent with connecting reading to eating, it’s hard to imagine an association between reading and haircuts that could negatively affect kids later in life.

In terms of corporate collateral, it would be naïve to think that City Cuts doesn’t profit from its reading program. Like the mother who drives 20 minutes to take her children to the shop, there are probably other parents who go out of their way to involve their kids in City Cuts’ reading program.

However, whatever increased business City Cuts gains, it deserves. By encouraging children to read aloud, Escueta and his colleagues offer young customers a uniquely valuable, developmental experience while extracting very reasonable value in return.

It’s fine for companies to profit from their philanthropic efforts, provided that the community/company benefits are balanced. City Cut’s reading program seems to strike that right ratio, which makes inspiring confidence in young customers “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!

15 Comments

Artificial Endorsers

7/26/2019

11 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Comments

Is it Too Risky for Kids to Rideshare Alone?

7/12/2019

1 Comment

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

Among a parent’s worst nightmares is this: Your child climbs into a car alone with a stranger. Just the thought of that scenario strikes fear into the heart of any mother or father. So, why would a company create a business model based on that situation?

A few months ago, ride-sharing icons Uber and Lyft grabbed headlines and goodwill by saying that they do not allow those under age 18 to use their services. Like others who heard the news, I applauded it: “That’s great—two for-profit firms forgoing income in order to protect young people.”

At the same time, the news made me wonder if there are other ride-sharing companies that don’t hold the same convictions and, instead, are willing to put kids into cars with whomever might be driving them. That’s when I came across a company that doesn’t just transport minors occasionally, it specializes in chauffeuring them.

In 2014, three southern California moms who were struggling “to get their busy kids to and from school and all their activities,” founded HopSkipDrive, a transportation service specifically designed for those age six and up. Just five years later, the firm has a staff of 50+ people, a presence in large metropolitan markets like Los Angeles and Washington D.C., and contracts with over 150 school districts.

How did a small, unconventional startup not only grow so quickly but even more importantly, persuade so many parents and others to trust the company with their most “precious cargo”? HopSkipDrive has achieved this rapid success through a combination of clear mission-focus and strict attention to detail.

Yes, busy parents who need to get their children to afterschool practices, lessons, etc., want to be sure that their kids arrive on-time, but their main concern, as mentioned above, is safety. If someone else is driving, who is the person who will be alone with their child in a car? Of course, the individual should be a skilled driver, but more importantly, can he/she be trusted?

Unfortunately, even with ridesharing companies that vet their drivers, you can’t always be sure ‘who you’re getting.’ Many of us have heard of rare but horrific incidents in which unstable drivers have harassed, raped, and even killed their passengers.

Nothing bad has happened to me while ridesharing, but my own recent experience caused me to question driver-screening. Our family had been staying at a resort for a few days and needed to get to a certain rental car center in order to continue our vacation. Using the Uber app, I requested a ride and watched on my phone for several minutes as the driver made his way toward the resort. Then, when he was only a minute away, he dropped the ride!

I can’t be sure what happened, but here’s my guess: A minute from where I was waiting, the resort had a gate where those entering the grounds via private vehicle needed to stop and show identification, i.e., a driver’s license. It may not be the reason he bailed at the last moment, but it’s sobering to think that the person who was going to give me a ride either didn’t have a valid driver’s license or wasn’t responsible enough to bring it with him.

It’s one thing to imagine a questionable driver chauffeuring an adult, it’s another thing to think of a young child confined in that vehicle. How could any company eliminate the risk inherent in such a situation?

When I first heard of HopSkipDrive, I was skeptical, not about demand for the service, but about the firm’s ability to ensure children’s safety in such an offering. As a working dad who helped drive his busy kids for years to/from school and practices and who commiserated with parents in similar predicaments, I knew there was a need. I wasn’t sure, though, how a company might manage the business model in a way that would give parents the confidence to say, “I’ll let my daughter or son ride with you.”

In light of such significant reservations, the main way HopSkipDrive maintains the trust of thousands of parents and schools each day is by painstakingly picking its drivers. In fact, the company uses an exhaustive 15-point certification process that requires the following of each applicant:

Worked with children and has at least 5 years of caregiving experience
No criminal record
Fingerprinted
No sex offender record
Valid driver’s license
Good driving record
Age 23 or older
Owns or leases a vehicle not more than 10 years old seating 4-7 passengers
Passes a 19-point vehicle inspection by a certified mechanic
In-person meeting
Completes in-person driver orientation
Has personal auto insurance coverage
Adopts the HopSkipRules
Adopts our zero tolerance policy for smoking, drugs, and alcohol while driving
Adopts the zero tolerance policy for illegal mobile device usage while a rider is in the car

Because of the meticulous selection process and the exceptionally kind and positive rapport those hired are expected to have with their passengers, HopSkipDrive doesn’t just call its personnel “drivers” but “CareDrivers.”

Special care and concern for safety begins as soon as CareDrivers arrive for a pickup. They wear bright orange HopSkipDrive t-shirts and verify their identity by confirming their passenger’s code word and birthday. Customers also can review CareDrivers’ profiles before pickup in order to know “who they are, what they look like, and the kind of car they drive.”

Throughout the ride, the company continues to leverage technology in order to ensure security. Dedicated HopSkipDrive staff members monitor each ride remotely through its duration, and parents can do the same. They also can receive alerts when their child has been picked up and dropped off.

As good as all of these systems are for onboarding employees and overseeing operations, they probably wouldn’t be effective if the company didn’t do something else very well: Embrace a compelling mission.

HopSkipDrive doesn’t just see itself as a provider of transportation service, i.e., getting kids from point A to point B, or even as an alleviator of parental stress, which it certainly does. Instead, this front-and-center statement on the company’s homepage communicates its mission: “Success starts by showing up. We help get them there.”

HopSkipDrive takes kids to school, piano lessons, basketball practice, and countless other developmental activities that are vital for children’s intellectual, social, and emotional growth. Those formative in-person experiences help them thrive now and contribute to their success in life for years to come. However, children can’t enjoy those activities unless someone ‘gets them there.’

In an interview with Yahoo Finance, HopSkipDrive’s CEO Joanna McFarland affirms that mission, saying “Oftentimes mobility is a huge barrier simply to access to education, and that’s something we’re helping to solve.”

It’s also confirming that employees appear to embrace the same purpose, such as one CareDriver who says “I feel really empowered being part of the greater good, getting kids safely where they need to go.”

As you might expect from the exacting service standards described above, “the greater good” does come at a higher cost. McFarland acknowledges that HopSkipDrive is a “premium service” that has “much different economics” than those of Uber and Lyft. Rides reportedly start at about $20.

However, the rates are comparable to what one would pay a caregiver. McFarland suggests the same in saying, “We think about [HopSkipDrive] much more as a substitute to a babysitter that drives than a comparison to an Uber and Lyft.”

The bottom-line is whether a substantial number of consumers (families and schools) find value in HopSkipDrive’s services. Apparently they do, as evidenced by the facts that the company is in seven markets and growing rapidly, has served over 6,000 schools, and has transported more than 650,000 children.

The most important validation, however, comes directly from those children—the actual riders—such as one young passenger who says, “They know my passcode, they talk to me, they make me feel very welcome. I’m never like, nervous to get in. In fact, I usually look forward to it because it’s a lot of fun.” Her experience is the best evidence that HopSkipDrive’s ridesharing for kids is “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Pizza Protection

6/29/2019

4 Comments

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

Unfortunately, there are accidents in life. Cars collide. Homes flood. People break bones. Insurance lessens the impact of such events, but what about damage to pizza? Well, Domino’s now offers protection for even that unexpected occurrence.

The nation’s pizza deliver leader is very good at getting its products from its stores to our doors, but it seems less confident about our ability to do the same. For that reason, the company recently introduced “carryout insurance.”

Domino’s now promises: “If damage occurs to your carryout order after you leave the store, just bring it back and we’ll remake it for free.” The firm lists a few reasonable provisos: The order must be uneaten, with nothing missing, in its original packaging, and accompanied by a receipt. The firm also offers examples of accidents that qualify for a claim like slipping and falling, "my kid sat on it," and "a stranger sneezed on it." In other words, it seems like the company will cover just about any claim consumers make.

How much does the pizza insurance cost? According to Domino’s it’s “free for all customers.” Some may be thinking, “But, there are no free [pizza] lunches,”—customers must be paying for the insurance indirectly. That may be true; however, Domino’s doesn’t appear to have increased its prices. The company needs to be careful that the costs of its pies stay in-line with those of Papa John’s and Pizza Hut in the highly competitive pizza market.

It’s also likely that pizza insurance claims haven’t taken a significant bite out of the firm’s bottom-line, which raises a key question, “Do people really need pizza insurance?”

Let’s say that someone spends $30 on a pizza pickup order, then drops it while taking it out of their car. The accident may ruin their day, but it probably wouldn’t pose any significant financial hardship. People who can afford to spend $30 on takeout food generally can afford to lose $30 worth of takeout food.

Contrast that loss to a serious car accident, a home fire, or the death of a family’s primary breadwinner. Those events could prove financially devastating, if not insured.

Such scenarios remind me of advice my dad once gave me: Insure the big things that could break you; don’t bother to insure littler things like electronics and lawn mowers. Even though they may be somewhat costly to replace, it’s worth the risk because replacement wouldn’t be financial catastrophic. I also liked the line my Dad said to salespeople who tried to pressure him to insure small items: “All your talk of insurance is making me wonder about the quality of this product and whether I should be buying it.”

My father’s insurance advice is similar to that of Todd Erkis, a professor of finance and risk management at Saint Joseph’s University, who says that “Insurance is key to protecting yourself against financial ruin.” Consistent with that view, Erkis suggests that new college graduates should buy just four types of insurance in order to hedge against possible financial hardship: health, long-term disability, renter’s, and car insurance.

Writing for Mint Life, Nicholas Pell adds just two other types of insurance to buy: home owner’s, which is analogous to renter’s, and life insurance. New college graduates often don’t have dependents and, therefore, don’t really need life insurance, but those who do should use insurance to protect their survivors from poverty.

All this to say, people don’t need pizza insurance, even if it’s “free.” So, what is Domino’s doing? In the very crowded market for restaurant pizza, Domino’s is probably trying to gain a little bit of perceptual separation from its closest competitors. Papa John’s and Pizza Hut don’t offer carryout insurance, which makes Domino’s distinct.

However, while Domino’s may have created a difference, the insurance doesn't deliver any real competitive advantage. Again, people don’t need the insurance, so it probably won’t sway many purchase decisions. Furthermore, who ever thinks they might drop their pizzas? In sum, the insurance just doesn’t offer any measurable improvement to Domino ’s value proposition.

Still, Domino’s has savvy marketers. The company wouldn’t be so successful if it didn’t. The firm’s marketing team probably intends carryout insurance as more of a promotional strategy than a product enhancement. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the insurance causes people to buy more pizzas, as long as publicity and word-of-mouth about the unusual offering helps keep Domino’s top-of-mind. That added exposure, in turn, should lead to more pizza purchases.

But would the firm really go to such lengths just for promotion? It's done so before.

Prior to carryout insurance, the company’s “Paving for Pizza” campaign represented a similar strategy. Domino’s promised to patch potholes around the country so the road hazards wouldn’t wreck pizza deliveries. Of course, a company as far-flung as Domino’s could never repair enough roads to actually make a significant delivery difference in most of its locations. However, the notion of a pizza company patching roads was so novel it captured press attention, as well as created some community goodwill. In short, the program seemed to be a very effective, albeit unconventional, means of pizza promotion.

Will carryout insurance, work as well for Domino’s? I doubt it. Despite the fact that I’m writing about it now and you’re reading about it, I don’t believe the company’s newest ploy will capture the interest or hearts of people like the paving program did.

There’s nothing wrong with Domino’s promising extra protection for pizzas; in fact, it’s a nice extra benefit, if anyone ever needs it. However, that lack of real consumer value, teamed with minimal promotional impact, places carryout insurance in the box of “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!

4 Comments

Dynamic Pricing or Discrimination?

6/14/2019

0 Comments

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

Eric, a friend of mine who happens to be a CPA, realized he was running low on string for his grass trimmer, so he went shopping where he’d purchased the product before—Amazon. Finding what seemed like a good price ($18.94) for the same 3-pack of spools he bought a few years earlier, he placed the item in his cart. Then he discovered something that might make all of us question the prices we pay for products.

Eric decided to check the price for the same Amazon item, using a different web browser—one he had never used before to order from Amazon. Entering the website, he navigated anonymously to the item page, where his suspicion was confirmed: The price he saw was just $16.89, i.e., $2.05 lower than the price for the same item he had placed in his shopping cart minutes before.

Although most of us haven’t been so clever as to catch an ecommerce giant in apparent pricing hypocrisy, many of us probably have wondered whether Amazon and other online retailers were somehow taking advantage of us through increasingly-sophisticated pricing strategies. Responses to Eric’s Facebook post about the incident confirmed such concerns:

“I wonder if the price is also because you're a logged in Prime user in one and they compensate for some of the free shipping.”

“I’ve worked with some sellers on Amazon. They are a beast to deal with and it can really wreck a small business. And there is nothing the business owner can really do to combat their practices. They are the 8 million pound gorilla in the room.”

“I read [your post] out loud to my daughters, I thought it was so significant.”

“The exact same thing happened to me just recently. I was going to protest the increase in price over a year's time. What can we do?”

Frustration over similar experiences may lead to accusations of “price discrimination,” i.e., when a seller changes the price of the same product for different consumers. Generally speaking, it’s not fair to charge people different prices for the same item, but there are some seemingly legitimate exceptions, for example:

Quantity discounts: Buying a 36-pack of bottled water should be cheaper per bottle than buying a single bottle of the same water.

Good credit ratings: Individuals with better credit scores deserve lower interest rates on loans compared to those with weaker credit ratings.

New customers: The risk of trying a new business or products may warrant giving a discount to first-time buyers.

In reality, none of the preceding truly represents price discrimination because people can, if they choose, put themselves in the more favorable pricing position. For instance, they could: buy more bottles of water and store them, follow sound financial practices to improve their credit scores, or assume the risk of purchasing from a new company.

If Eric’s experience falls into any of these three categories, it might represent the last one. Perhaps because of his lack of history with the second web browser, Amazon pegged his subsequent shopping visit as that of a new customer and wanted to offer him an extra incentive for making a first-time purchase.

That explanation may be right, but it has some flaws, namely that companies tend to clearly communicate when they’re offering discounts for new customers; otherwise, loyal customers may locate the discrepancy, as Eric did, question the companies’ motives, and even become resentful: “I’ve given them my business for all these years; if anyone deserves a discount, I do.”

Chances are, Amazon wasn’t practicing any form of price discrimination. It’s more likely that Eric’s experience was a result of the strategy that many online retailers increasingly apply: dynamic pricing.

Dynamic pricing involves changing prices continually, based on prevailing market conditions, which includes factors such as consumer demand, purchase intent, and competitors’ prices, as well as company goals for customer acquisition, retention, and brand-switching.

If you’re thinking that dynamic pricing is a new phenomenon, you’re partially right. Sellers have lowered and raised product prices on the spot for millennia, based on factors as simple as weather conditions and buyers’ apparent interest.

Over the past 30 years or so, airlines probably have been the most common users of dynamic pricing, as they’ve perpetually adjusted prices to keep flights at or near capacity. To a lesser extent, those selling hotel rooms and tickets to popular entertainment events have done the same. Frequent historic fluctuations in gasoline prices also suggest dynamic pricing.

However, recent advances in digital technologies have really enabled dynamic pricing to thrive. For instance, from 2008 to 2010, the average time between regular price changes was 6.7 months. In the time period from 2014 to 2017, that average fell to 3.7 months.

Today, to implement far-reaching price change is no more difficult than a few computer key strokes, and it’s as easy as allowing a third-party software program, like an algorithmic repricer, determine when to make price adjustments and how big they should be.

Although Amazon, which reportedly makes millions of prices changes a day, is probably the greatest single user of dynamic pricing, it is far from the only retailer employing the strategy. Walmart, the biggest retailer in the world, has taken a remarkable step away from its long-standing ‘everyday low pricing’ strategy and embraced repricing software for its online sales.

Most other e-tailers are following suit. In fact, some predict that within 5-10 years, dynamic pricing will become so fine-tuned that “everything you buy will be based on personalized offers.”

So far this discussion has been about what has happened and will continue to happen with dynamic pricing. However, at the core of Eric’s experience is an ethical question: Should Amazon or anyone be pricing products this way? Or, as Nick Saunders, director of GlobalData Retail has said, just because something is technologically feasible “doesn’t mean it’s socially desirable.”

On one hand, it does seem like dynamic pricing puts purchasers at an added disadvantage. Companies already have a natural information-advantage over consumers since “knowledge is power” and every business knows more about its products and its industry than does the average consumer.

What’s more, sellers have always known more than buyers about when prices will change, so with dynamic pricing dramatically increasing the frequency of those deviations, consumers experience even more uncertainty while sellers gain greater leverage.

But, the digital age also has been a significant boon to consumers. For much of human history, sellers only had to compete on price with competitors physically close to them. Sears, Roebuck & Co. and other catalog retailers changed that situation somewhat. The Internet and ecommerce have turned traditional retail on its head.

Now people sitting in their living rooms use shopping bots to search products from retailers around the world, while shoppers in brick-and-mortar stores pull out their smartphones and ask for price matches in checkout aisles.

In addition, dynamic pricing itself has produced some benefits for consumers. As described above, the strategy does favor individual sellers in specific transactions; however, the fact that all sellers can easily alter their prices means they must compete more against each other on price.

In short, buyers and sellers both enjoy advantages in the digital age with dynamic pricing—a phenomenon that Eric recognizes, as he astutely reflects:

“This [experience] strikes me as another example of the free market and competition driving markets and pricing. As much as I might not like it, in my opinion Amazon as the seller has every right to offer its goods to me, their customer, at whatever price point they desire. And I, in turn, have every right to buy it or not!”

“Furthermore, there are times when I might willingly pay a higher price from Amazon because of other factors such as shipping speed or knowing that Amazon customer service is incredible for dealing with product issues or returns. From Amazon’s perspective, if they do the hard work of building loyalty with me, their customer, then it’s their privilege to offer me goods at a price point which might, at times, be higher than necessary.”

“The risk they take is that if I conclude that Amazon is no longer competitively priced, they might experience a decline in my loyalty. Which undoubtedly is another data point Amazon tracks about me! If they sense my purchasing loyalty is deteriorating, I suspect their pricing algorithms will work to win back my loyalty!”

Although I haven’t asked Eric directly, I think we both agree that frequent price changes don’t necessarily mean price discrimination. In fact, dynamic pricing can be an example of “Mindful Marketing.”

Eric Wenger is managing partner at RKL, LLP in Lancaster, PA.

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

0 Comments

What Does "Meat" Mean?

6/1/2019

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Making Kids Too Competitive?

5/15/2019

7 Comments

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

Cutthroat Kitchen, The Amazing Race, The Voice—television viewership is one sign that our culture loves competition. However, adult obsessions often trickle down to the littlest in society: Now children are the main participants in contest programs like American Ninja Warrior Junior, which prompts the question: Is marketing making kids too competitive?

It’s been 19 years since CBS’s Survivor kicked off the ‘recent’ reality TV craze, which American Idol and other competition-based programs helped explode. If one considers gameshows, then people first watched competition television in 1938 with Spelling Bee and in 1941 with Truth or Consequences.

It could help at the onset to clarify concepts. Not all “reality TV” involves competition per se, e.g., Keeping up with the Kardashians. Likewise, there’s a broad range of competition TV, some of which is more real/organic, like Deadliest Catch, while other shows are more scripted, e.g., Family Feud.

For many years, adults have been the primary participants in these programs, but more recently that focus has shifted to series showcasing much younger competitors, for instance:

American Ninja Warrior Junior: Athletes in three age groups (9-10, 11-12, 13-14) race through extreme obstacles for a top prize of $15,000.

Chopped Junior: Young ‘chefs’ frantically prepare three courses for a panel of judges, with the chance to win $10,000.

Design Squad: “Contestants design whimsical machines in order to win an Intel college scholarship worth $10,000.”

Food Network Stars Kid: Children cook against each other with the hope of hosting their own cooking show.

Project Runway Junior: Clothing designers age 13 - 17 compete for a “full scholarship to the prestigious FIDM in California; a complete home sewing and crafting studio, plus, the dream machine, all courtesy of Brother; a feature in Seventeen Magazine; and a $25,000 cash prize, to help launch their line.”

So You Think You Can Dance–The Next Generation: Dancers from 8 to 13 years old leap, twirl, and wiggle to win a top prize of $250,000.

The Voice Kids: Young singers compete for prize money worth over $30,000, as well as a trip to Disneyland Paris.

This list is by no means comprehensive; there are many other kid-focused, competition-based television series, not to mention dozens featuring adult competitors, which begs the question: Are these shows telling children that life is all about winning?

Take even a brief look at plants and animals of the natural world and it’s easy to understand the old adages eat or be eaten and only the strongest survive. Life is competitive. However, we’re human beings. Aren’t we above winning at any cost? Shouldn’t we value cooperation over competition?

In her U.S. News & World Report article “How Toxic Competition Is Ruining Our Kids – and What to Do About It,” Katie Hurley identifies four outcomes of over-the-top competitiveness for children: fractured friendships, stress, burnout, and missing out on part of their childhood.

Kids are naturally wired to want to win. Anyone who’s played games with children, whether it’s checkers or chess, knows that you don’t have to tell them to dislike losing. In fact, many kids, even very young ones, loath defeat so much that they have a hard time dealing with not winning: Some throw tantrums or storm out of the room and sulk.

Is kid-focused competition TV fueling that destructive fire? Are these shows encouraging the next generation to exalt winning above all?

First, it’s important to support that competition is fundamentally a good thing. Yes, all life needs to be competitive to survive, but beyond perpetuating existence, competition teaches things like responding to adversity, avoiding complacency, and valuing hard work. And, when participating in a group, competition also can teach teamwork and communication.

It’s natural to think of competition in connection to sports, but the preceding benefits, as well as others, often accrue to individuals who engage in all types of competition, including academic ones.

The last three years, I’ve had the opportunity to involve teams of marketing students in a regional marketing plan competition. First, there’s a wealth of learning that occurs in the preparation process, getting ready to compete. Second, the knowledge that you’re competing against other schools, encourages everyone to ‘up their game.’ Third, you can learn from your competitors: seeing what they do well and emulating those best practices.

Whether it’s academics or sports, competition also is just plain fun, part of which is undoubtedly from the adrenaline rush—you’re on stage, being tested, while others watch. There’s also the pure ‘love of the game.’

Growing up, my favorite sport was basketball. Although, I enjoyed shooting around by myself, there was nothing like playing a game against others. In fact, besides playing on our high school team, I often arranged pick-up games with my peers. There were plenty of times I didn’t win, and I certainly didn’t like losing, but having the opportunity to play was always more important than the outcome. Win or lose, I could congratulate my opponents, telling them “good game” and suggesting “let’s play again sometime.”

Continuing with sports examples, it’s unlikely that just watching competition, live or on TV, does much to make a person more competitive. For instance, there are plenty of older sports spectators sitting on couches who may be passionate about their favorite teams, but they don’t exhibit any signs of becoming more competitive.

On the other hand, younger people are probably more prone to watch competitions they enjoy and want to participate in them, provided they have the requisite skills. It’s really what happens after joining ‘the game’ that makes a person more or less competitive.

In the same “Toxic Competition” article referenced above, Hurley describes how most often super-competitive kids are products of overzealous parents, pushing their offspring too hard to achieve. Most of us who have been around kids’ sports or similar competitive endeavors can relate: It’s really not the kids who are too competitive; it’s their parents.

I haven’t seen all of the kid-focused competition TV programs listed above, but I have watched some of them. From what I’ve witnessed, the shows model healthy competition, e.g., the children are not placed under inordinate amounts of stress, they are frequently praised for their efforts, and any criticism they receive is constructive. The shows also present positive reactions to the outcomes, highlighting both humble winners and gracious losers.

Like most human behaviors, there are probably many factors that contribute to kids’ competitiveness. It’s unlikely, though, that competition TV causes children to espouse winning at any cost. Rather, most of these programs model healthy competition for kids. As such, the shows also represent “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

Walmart Says Goodbye to Greeters

5/3/2019

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Divine Humor

4/19/2019

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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