Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind! >
      • More Ads
    • Forum - Speak Your Mind
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Was Pulling "Finger Lickin’ Good" Just Publicity Grabin’?

10/4/2020

16 Comments

 
Picture

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

It’s comforting when a company puts society’s needs ahead of its own interests.  One of the world’s leading purveyors of comfort food appeared to be following that recipe when it decided to drop its iconic tagline for health and safety reasons.  So, why does it feel like Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has served up a bucket of artificial altruism?
 
Firms are fortunate if people remember their slogans for a few minutes, let alone days, weeks, or months.  To create a theme that endures for decades is a creative coup that only the best marketing minds can claim, e.g., Just Do It (Nike), You’re in Good Hands (Allstate), The Real Thing (Coca-Cola).
 
KFC first served its iconic Finger Lickin’ Good tagline more than a half century ago.  A restaurant manager reportedly cooked up the storied slogan in 1956, “off the cuff.”
 
Fast forward to August 2020, when many media began broadcasting the big news:  In a show of public support, KFC decided to suspend its Finger Lickin’ Good slogan.  Catherine Tan-Gillespie, KFC’s global chief marketing officer, explained the move saying that the slogan “doesn't feel quite right” or “fit in the current environment” in which licking one’s fingers violates best practices for avoiding the virus.
 
As a marketing professor who enjoys slogans and pays special attention to their use, I was surprised by the story for two reasons:
  1. I thought KFC had already stopped using its one-time staple slogan.
  2. I don’t recall any tagline ever grabbing so much publicity, especially for being taken off the menu.
 
In short, I was suspicious:  Was the fast food giant’s concern for public safety genuine, or was the firm actually feeding consumers a line?
 
Because of other priorities, KFC's decision dropped off my radar, until a student in one of my marketing classes restored it:  He shared an article he’d read about the suspended slogan and offered his assessment of KCF’s strategy, calling it “Mindful Marketing.”
 

Picture

When I questioned the motives behind the company’s move, much of the class clapped back against their professor, in support of their fellow student (they always do that).  However, their reaction made me even more suspicious of hoodwinking, which doubled my determination to understand what was really happening.
 
It had been a while since I paid much attention to KFC.  About five years ago I wrote a piece about the firm that wasn’t exactly flattering:  I described how KFC’s own ads were lampooning, of all people, its deceased founder, the hard-working visionary Harland Sanders.  I argued that he and any departed person deserved better.
 
So, I set out to investigate my hypothesis that KFC’s theme recall was less about protecting people’s health and more about grabbing headlines.  The first step was to see if the company had been using its classic Finger Lickin’ Good theme before the August announcement.  If you remember above, I said that I didn’t think it had been.  Well, I was right . . . and wrong.
 
I found one website that catalogs companies’ slogans and another that curates their commercials, which I spent too much time watching.  In the process, though, I discovered that for a few decades KFC had used in its ads a wide variety of other taglines with no mention of the iconic one, for instance:
  • There’s Fast Food, Then There’s KFC
  • Nobody Does Chicken Like KFC
  • Chicken Capital USA
  • KFC What’s Cookin’
  • Life Tastes Better with KFC
  • Taste the Unfried Side of KFC
  • So Good
  • Taste the Fiery Grilled Wing Side of KFC
  • Today Tastes So Good

​However, I was wrong in that KFC did recently reprise Finger Lickin’ Good in its ad campaigns featuring Colonel Sanders fakes.  Over a period of about five years, the company has employed an incredible 18 different ‘colonels,’ ranging from Rob Lowe to Reba McEntire.  Most of these commercials have used Finger Lickin’ Good.
 
Picture

Watching KFC ads, which were often entertaining, was the easy part.  The hard part is supporting that the company’s motives in pulling the classic slogan are not as pious as they appear.  Here are four reasons I still maintain that KFC’s tagline tactic is more than a little suspicious:
 

1. Poor Health History:  This is the same company that three decades ago, amid growing public concern about the health effects of fried foods, changed its name to an acronym rather than significantly altering its product line.  It’s also the same firm that promotes $5 Fill Up Meals, which contain a whopping 2,160 calories, 104 grams of fat, and 202 carbs.

People certainly need to be careful about coronavirus, but if KFC is truly concerned about consumers’ health, why does it appear apathetic to heart disease—the leading cause of death in America?
 

2. Rap Sheet of Irreverence:  While KFC hasn’t been known for championing healthiness, it does have a reputation for insolence.  It’s commercials featuring the Colonel Sanders imposters, are prime examples of the offhand humor, which makes fun of people in all sorts of social situations while also roasting its founder.  So, if KFC doesn’t take itself and its customers seriously, why should we believe that jettisoning Finger Lickin’ Good isn’t also a joke?
 
3. Expert Agreement:  CNN has described KFC’s tagline takedown as a “clever” “marketing campaign.”  Although, I take issue with the news conglomerate’s implication that all marketing is manipulative, it’s worth noting that the media giant sees KFC doing the same thing I do: making a weakly-veiled attempt to gain brand exposure.

4. Reverse Psychology Strategy:  The most compelling evidence that KFC’s slogan stoppage is a stunt can be ‘somewhat seen’ in its own advertising.  Rather than removing the tagline entirely from billboards and chicken buckets, the company simply blurred two of the four words to read:  It’s  - - - - - -    - - - - - - -  good!  In addition, a video showing images of the same items ends with the message, “That thing we always say.  Ignore it.  For now.”
 
In psychological terms, KFC is using ironic process theory, which holds that “deliberate attempts to suppress certain thoughts actually make them more likely to surface.”  The classic example is telling someone not to think about a pink elephant.
 
KFC’s ‘don’t think about it’ strategy reminds me of Doritos 2019 “No Logo” commercial in which the company intentionally kept its brand name and mark out of a 60-second TV spot in order to play on consumers’ curiosity and create a buzz.  Given how often the commercial was shared, the strategy seemed to work.
 
Many people, however, have seen through KFC’s charade.  In the UK, the Advertising and Standards Authority (ASA) has received 163 complaints about the ads.  These critics and others can tell when an organization is truly trying to be socially responsible and when it’s just giving Finger Lickin’ lip service.
 
It’s nice when large companies wield their significant influence to nudge people in a positive direction, especially one that keeps them from harm during a pandemic.  However, a firm pretending to encourage consumer well-being, when it's really just trying to grab publicity should make all of us at least a little sick to our stomachs.
 
In a best case scenario, the public just laughs off KFC’s ploy.  In a worst case, the company’s irreverence encourages people to take virus-prevention measures less seriously, placing themselves and others at greater risk of COVID-19.
 
Kudos, KFC, for removing the inappropriate tagline.  However, this food marketing critic still gives you a poor review for cooking up a big serving of “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
16 Comments

Corporate Social Responsibility Everyone Should See

9/19/2020

7 Comments

 
Talking pill bottles

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

By now we all have a story of how the pandemic has negatively impacted us or those we love.  Life has become more difficult for everyone, but for people with disabilities, daily living can be exponentially harder.  One business, however, has made it its mission to meet such needs in an unforeseen way.
 
Two years ago I wrote about Starbuck’s innovative efforts to serve deaf consumers through a specially-designed store in Washington, D.C.  Among its unique attributes, the store featured an open layout, low-glare surfaces, and employees who knew American Sign Language (ASL).
 
Even as I, a non-coffee-drinker, applauded the company’s ingenuity and initiative, I could imagine some cynicism about the social responsibility:  “That’s nice, but Starbuck’s is a luxury people can live without.  Who’s meeting the real needs of people with disabilities?”  A former student of mine recently gave me a great answer to that question.
 
I first heard of Accessible Pharmacy a few weeks ago when that former student, Jason Polansky, told me he was applying to the company for a job.  Jason, who wrote a guest blog for Mindful Marketing about a smart cane and who was my coauthor on a CommPRO article titled, “How Serving Blind Consumers Creates Competitive Advantage,” is completely blind.
 
Fast forward to a few days ago when I received from Jason the good news that Accessible Pharmacy had hired him to be its Director of Business Development for Central Pennsylvania.  It’s great that the company identified Jason as an ideal candidate for the position and offered it to him.  However, Accessible Pharmacy’s commitment to blind people runs much deeper than its hiring.  Its mission is to make a life-sustaining service safely available to a group of consumers who are consistently underserved.


Accessible Pharmacy logo

According to the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC), in the United States in 2015, there were 1.02 million blind people, i.e., who had vision impairment of 20/200 or worse.  Furthermore, 3.22 million Americans had lesser impairment as measured by “the best-corrected visual acuity in the better-seeing eye.”  These numbers are expected to double by 2050 due to an aging U.S. population and more frequent incidents of diabetes and other chronic diseases associated with vision loss.
 
That’s a significant and growing portion of the population that could benefit from all kinds of products tailored to its unique needs.  As Starbuck’s example illustrated, some business models already have been adapted, but largely missing has been a solution for one of the most critical human needs:  medicine.
 
People who are blind take most of the same medicine others do, but for individuals who don’t drive, there’s the challenge of traveling to a pharmacy to pick up a prescription.  Even more significant, blind people can’t easily read the instructions on a bottle of ibuprofen or see that the prescription pill they’re about to ingest is the right one. 
 
According to a 2018 CNBC article, between 250,000 and 440,000 people die each year in the United States because of medical errors, making them the third-leading cause of death, behind only heart disease and cancer.  Unfortunately, the inability to see the medicine one is taking contributes to those statistics.
 
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.”  Medicine certainly is supposed to make people stronger, but wrongly medicating can kill a person, especially someone who can’t see the medicine they’re taking.
 
Enter Accessible Pharmacy, “a comprehensive, home delivery pharmacy service specializing in the needs of the blind and low vision community and their families,” which claims to be “the only provider of its kind.”
 
For many companies, asserting such exclusivity is merely a matter of marketing communication, i.e., they simply say that they “specialize” and do nothing to support the claim.  Accessible Pharmacy is different.  Its ‘product features’ back up its brand promise.  For instance, the Pharmacy offers:
  • Patient education and consultation
  • Disease monitoring via teleconference
  • Cognitive behavior assistance
  • Medication regimen management
  • Customized packaging
  • Presorted disposable pill organizers by week or by month
  • Braille and large-print labels
  • ScripTalk: unique RFID tag labels that work with consumer devices to convert text to speech
  • Home delivery of prescriptions, as well as over-the-counter medications, vitamins, and supplements
 
In researching and writing about corporate social responsibility (CSR), I’ve often considered whether there’s a best way for companies to give back.  Although I believe donation (giving money to worthy causes) and volunteerism (encouraging employees to serve those in need) are both important approaches, the most effective CSR occurs within a business model that marries financial goals with societal good.

Picture

In other words, positive social impact is woven into the very fabric of the business’s operations.  Accessible Pharmacy is an excellent example of such integrated CSR.
 
Yes, the firm is a for-profit company with income expectations—a fact that might give some people pause.  But should we be wary of Accessible Pharmacy making money by serving blind people?
 
Of course, there are other ways that organizations doing social good can be funded, for instance by donors and by government.  Such models play important roles in addressing societal needs; however, what happens when donors decide to give elsewhere or politicians elect to underwrite other needs?
 
The point is, CSR that’s integrated into a for-profit firm’s value chain is highly sustainable.  As long as both producer and consumer benefit, the mutually valuable exchange can continue indefinitely.
 
When I asked Jason what excites him most about his new position, he mentioned working with people with disabilities and using his marketing background to make a positive impact on their lives.  He undoubtedly will enjoy both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards from his work, as he should.  So should his employer.
 
It’s very challenging to start and run a successful business.  It’s even harder to maintain one that addresses pressing societal needs as part of its mission.  Accessible Pharmacy does just that, which make it a clear example of “Mindful Marketing.”


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

Capri Sun Practices Child’s Play

9/5/2020

31 Comments

 
Picture

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

Have you ever been food pranked?  Someone gives you something to eat and “Yech!” it turns out to be much different than you expected—toothpaste inside an Oreo is a classic gag.  Kids love to prank each other, but should the maker of one of the world’s most popular kids’ drinks fool its biggest fans?  
 
Capri Sun, internationally-renowned producer of juice pouches, has decided to prank not just a few kids but a big portion of its target market by filling select silver packages with water.  The company filmed reactions of several pint-sized punk’d consumers, who were given unmarked pouches and asked to test “a new flavor” of juice.  It then edited the outtakes into a few video promotions.
 
Compared to most food pranks, which often elicit expressions of disgust, the responses to Capri Sun’s ruse were rather subdued.  Perplexed young taste testers made comments like, “It’s very plain,” “tastes a little bit bland,” and “it doesn’t have any flavor.” 
 
What made Carpi Sun’s prank poignant is that the company’s juice pouches are familiar to so many.  Since its introduction in Germany in 1969, the company has expanded distribution of its drinks to 119 countries.  According to its website, “ In 2014, our fans all over the world drank 6 billion pouches of Capri-Sun!” 
 
One significant serving of drink sales have come from the greater Chicago area, where Kraft Heinz acts as distributor and a newly-formed advertising firm, Mischief at No Fixed Address, produced the prank.  The campaign’s full scope includes distribution of five million filtered water pouches labeled, “We’re sorry it’s not juice,” to Chicagoland schools for free.  Also appearing prominently at the top of each package is “Capri Sun” in 70-point all capital letters.


Picture

Given the immense physical, mental, and financial stress the pandemic has placed on kids and their parents, it’s kind of Capri Sun to help schools, where fountains are shut down and children need other ways of getting water.  But, will the company’s corporate social responsibility really remedy that problem, and what’s likely to be the long-term impact on the brand?
 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city of Chicago, not including the greater metropolitan area, has a population of 2.69 million, of which 21.2% are under the age of 18 and 6.5% are younger than five.  Those stats suggest that there are nearly 400k school-age children in Chicago (570,280 - 174,850 = 395,430).
 
Providing all of those children with a drink a day for a week would mean 1,977,150 water pouches.  A full month of water would entail a total of 7,908,600 (2.9 million more than Capri Sun’s pledge).  Keeping kids hydrated from September through December would require about 31,634,400 pouches.
 
Of course, no one company should be expected to satisfy so much demand for free.  Meeting massive public needs tends to take a team effort—collaboration among the public sector, for-profit companies, and other organizations.
 
Still, although it may seem cynical or even ungrateful, it’s reasonable to wonder whether the social impact of Capri Sun’s philanthropy is proportional to the promotional benefits the firm may receive:  Do a few drinks of water warrant the brand splash in front of hundreds of thousands of captive young consumers? 
 
When a company gives away something significant, it’s fair for its brand to benefit.  However, the amount of that benefit should be on par with the amount of social good done.  The rationale is analogous to a firm needing to ante up millions of dollars, not thousands, for naming rights to a building or stadium.
 
It’s hard to know Capri Sun’s costs in producing and distributing five million pouches of filtered water, but an estimate of .10 per packet would put the total cost at $500,000.  That’s a significant spend, but not that much for a firm with annual revenues of about a half billion dollars.  A few other issues further complicate the equation.
 
First, Capri Sun’s promotional benefits might be multiplied in that it seeks to put pouches with its name into the hands of the most impressionable of consumers—children.  Kids are understandably less discerning of promotional messages than are adults, which is why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prioritizes protecting children. 
 
Second, it seems that there should be some subtraction from the social good Capri Sun portends because of the message emblazoned on the foil pouches: “We’re sorry it’s not juice. [It’s just] Filtered Water.”
 
Is Capri Sun dissing in front of kids one of the most important substances for human existence?  Of course, the company is trying to be funny.  There is, however, the unhumorous reality that many children consume far too much sugar, much of it coming from sugary drinks. (1)  To its credit, Capri Sun Fruit Punch contains a relatively low 13 grams of sugar.  That’s not much compared to some drinks, but it is high compared to water.
 
Then, there’s an even more intriguing twist . . .
 
On August 5, the Chicago Sun Times announced major Lori Lightfoot’s decision to close Chicago Public Schools due to worsening coronavirus conditions—the city’s children will be learning online.  That news would seem to punch a hole in Capri Sun’s water pouch plans; however, over two weeks later, on August 21, an AdAge editor’s pick article described the campaign with no mention of the district’s pivot away from in-person education.
 
Picture

Maybe AdAge missed the mayor’s announcement, or perhaps Capri Sun has found another way to distribute the water without access to kids in classrooms.  Assuming the later, there’s still one more potentially serious flaw in Capri Sun’s ‘Got Juice?’ strategy:
 
By associating its iconic packaging with a less desirable drinking experience, the company risks leaving a bad taste in the mouth of young, impressionable consumers.
 
Can you imagine sipping a Starbuck’s coffee and discovering it was only warm water, or biting into a Hershey’s Bar and finding it was sans-sugar?  It’s doubtful either company would intentionally give even one consumer such an indelibly unpleasant experience, let alone broadcast the negative reaction for millions of others to see and learn from vicariously.
 
As suggested at the onset, a large part of Capri Sun’s food prank success was the fact that so many people, including children, recognize the straw-impaled drink packs and associate them with sweet refreshment and other pleasant sensations.  Those positive associations can be easily washed away, though, by even one unfavorable brand encounter that one experiences him/herself or sees others endure.
 
Of course, a natural retort is, “It was just a joke!”  That’s true, and the prank itself was kind of funny.  However, there are some things that food and drink companies just don’t joke about, a main one being the taste of their products.  Any such negative association is too risky.
 
It’s a little like when Watergate-embroiled president Richard Nixon infamously declared, “I am not a crook.”  Regrettably for him, many people forgot the words “I am not” and remembered Nixon and “crook.”  Any negative frame is inherently precarious, particularly when it involves food.
 
Advertising humor can be very effective, and who loves to laugh more than kids?  However, although Capri Sun’s water switcheroo may have been well-intended, the campaign threatens to spill much of the brand equity the drink maker has built over fifty-plus years, making “I’m sorry it’s not juice “Simple-Minded Marketing.”


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

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

8/23/2020

29 Comments

 
Picture

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

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


That conversation must be happening in more homes than just mine, which probably inspired Netflix to introduce its new “Shuffle” feature, aimed at defeating this common viewing dilemma.  But, should people who have to ask their TVs to “play something” even be watching television?
 
This past July, the entertainment-streaming icon started testing a new “Shuffle Play” button, placing a familiar-looking shuffle icon on select users’ accounts.  Those who have the feature might find it below their user profile icon or on the left side of the home screen.  When Shuffle is selected, Netflix serves a chef’s choice of shows “based on viewing history, preferences, and playlists.” 
 
Problem solved:  No more aimless scrolling and probably fewer arguments began by “Anything but that.”  It’s nice to have choices.  It’s also nice when someone/thing helps identify them.
 
But, will Netflix’s Shuffle keep people too tied to their iPads and cemented to their sofas?  Does imploring one’s device to “play something . . . anything” signal digital drunkenness and suggest that the streaming service should stop serving? 
 
In the midst of the pandemic, Netflix has been a hero for the homebound, keeping many a step away from wit’s end with easy access to inexpensive entertainment and even educational content.  In the second quarter of 2020, the streaming service added an impressive 10 million new subscribers, bringing its worldwide total to about 193 million.
 
With so many customers already contently streaming, why does Netflix even need to add a new feature?  Well, like any successful organization, it wants to keep its value proposition fresh and exciting.  As a Netflix spokesperson says, “We’re always looking for better ways to connect members with shows and films that they will love.”
 
The company also needs to keep pace with competitors’ offerings, like HBO Max’s recommendation engine and NBCUniversal’s random play on Peacock.  Likewise, Comcast’s Xfinity has integrated creative voice commands, such as “Surprise Me” and “Happy Stuff” in order to serve up spontaneous and hopefully stimulating shows.
 
Picture

In varied marketing roles, I’ve come across a couple of closely related psychological concepts that help describe the consumer itch Netflix and its competitors seem to be trying to scratch:
  • Satiation effect: people eventually grow tired of things they initially liked.
  • Variety-seeking behavior: enjoyment often increases with different experiences.
 
So, Shuffle might pull Netflix users out of their streaming ruts by providing them with an endless array of custom-curated and personally-satisfying program choices.
 
However, whether it’s taking excessive vitamin C or bingeing The Office, too much of even a good thing is too much.  At some point, people need to turn off their TVs, put down their iPads, and move on to other things.  The question, then, becomes:  Does a shuffle feature make streaming too tempting and difficult to deny?
 
Pulling oneself away from an interesting program can be hard, which I experienced firsthand earlier today.  In order to do some “research” for this piece, I turned on our TV to check out Xfinity’s voice commands.  The channel happened to be on a high-diving competition, held on a beautiful stone bridge, over a river somewhere in Europe.  I sat memorized for at least 10 minutes before returning to my senses and remembering why I was sitting there.   
 
The bottom-line, though, is that I was able to break free from the screen without any extraordinary effort.  Most people can muster at least the same amount of resolve, even when specially-selected programs are shuffled at them.
 
Speaking of resolve, I recently wrote an article that asked whether TikTok is addictive.  The conclusion (spoiler alert) was “No.”  When compared to commonly accepted addictions like alcohol and gambling, the app is not addictive in any scientific sense. 
 
Picture
 
TikTok’s screen-swiping and Netflix’s Shuffle are similar in that both deliver virtually infinite, individualized video content.  However, 15-second smartphone clips from ordinary people are much different than 2.5-hour professional-produced films.  Is one spontaneous selection harder to resist than the other?
 
There should be a study, but it seems that TikTok's bite-sized content could be harder to forgo—like eating potato chips versus stuffed baked potatoes.  Both are good, but eating an additional stuffed baked potato is a big commitment, whereas popping one more potato chip, then another, is easy to start and sustain.  So, if longer programs have even less allure for consuming ‘one more,’ it seems that neither Netflix nor TikTok is truly addictive.
 
Having cleared the ethical hurdle, there’s still one more important consideration—effectiveness:  Will people really want to use Netflix’s Shuffle?  So far, reviews of the feature appear tepid; for instance, some have tweeted:
  • “Interesting new feature @netflix ... but what kind of insane person just says, “yolo, let’s spin the Netflix wheel of fortune”? (@TurnerLevison)
  • “they been testing this for months on mine and it’s trash, they put two things on your recently watched and if u shuffle again it’s just Netflix Originals.” (@BlondDaya)
 
Unfortunately, Netflix didn’t include me in its test market, so I haven’t been able to try the feature, but I have a hard time seeing many people using it.  First, Netflix already curates at least somewhat customized selections that users can see at a glance on their home screens.  Second, it may be frustrating or even mildly offensive to receive specific recommendations that make one wonder, “Why are they suggesting that for me?!”
 
To that point, after I stopped watching high-diving, I asked Xfinity to “Surprise Me.”  It suggested Hallmark Channel’s “Tulips in Spring.”  I had no problem declining that recommendation, which must have been meant for someone else in this house.
 
Given TikTok’s ‘swiping’ success, it wasn’t a bad idea for Netflix to test a ‘surprise me’ feature for its streaming service.  It seems unlikely, though, that the same consumption behavior will transfer to considerably longer program content, which makes Shuffle Play a fitting selection for “Simple-Minded Marketing.” 


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

Too Attached to an App?

8/10/2020

22 Comments

 
Picture

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

Of all the dangers facing the United States—natural disasters, terrorism, racism, a global pandemic—who would have thought a social media app would be mentioned among them?  China's TikTok has aroused the ire of the Trump administration because of its apparent threat to national security, but is addiction to the app an even greater cause for concern?
 
For the past year or more, TikTok has been on my radar screen, mainly because I try to keep tabs on what’s trending with the Gen Zs I aim to engage.  Last fall, the topic of the hugely popular social media app came up in one of my marketing classes, which inspired me to ask the question: “Should I be on TikTok?”  Several students immediately yelled “Yes!” while a seemingly equal number shouted “No!”  I wondered if either group had my best interest at heart.
 
Still not a user, the app gained more of my attention throughout the spring as several of its most popular videos made their way into mainstream media and marketers began talking of TikTok strategies.  Meanwhile, accusations of Chinese spying surfaced, and at least one U.S. firm asked its employees to remove TikTok from company mobile devices.
 
President Trump then threatened to ban TikTok, only to reverse course a few days later when global tech icon Microsoft indicated interest in buying the meteoric app.  Most recently, the President signed an executive order that will result in barring TikTok from the U.S. market unless an American company buys the app, which has led parent company ByteDance Ltd. to sue the administration.
 
Each of these intriguing developments has kept me on the edge of my seat, wondering what will happen next, but no news sparked my interest as much as a blurb in an August 4th email blast from marketing tech guru Shelly Palmer, who stated that “TikTok is already near (or at) the top of the list of the most addictive [emphasis added] social media apps.”
 
Surveillance by a foreign state has seemed like TikTok’s biggest threat, but is Americans’ addiction to the app an even greater concern?
 
To answer this question, it’s essential to understand exactly what TikTok is, as well as what it’s so rapidly achieved—some of us above a certain age may need a primer.  Steve Wright of Learn Online Video offers a nice overview of the app.  He shares a few of its endless stream of 15-second videos, in which their usually young creators often dance and/or lip sync to popular songs.  Wright describes the content, which is extremely varied, as “a smorgasbord of [the most] weird, creative, amazing, bizarre videos I’ve ever come across.”


Picture

Apparently many find the eclectic selection of “simple, goofy, irreverent” videos appealing.  Since its launch in 2017, the app has been downloaded more than a billion times.   According to Liv Benger, writing for Medium, “over 682 million people downloaded TikTok in 2019 and [spent] an average of 50 minutes a day” using it.
 
Those stats certainly suggest rapid growth and near saturation of specific population segments, but do they actually indicate addiction?  Most of us know how hard it can be to put down our smartphones or other devices and stop checking email, playing games, texting friends, etc.  For some people, those behaviors become compulsive, but do they really rise to the level of addictions?
 
According to Cornell student Niko Nguyen, the answer is ‘yes.’  In February, The Cornell Daily Sun published an essay in which Nguyen described that the main reason for his difficult decision to delete his TikTok account was that he had found himself “sucked into its addictive grasp.”  He went on to explain why he believed TikTok is addictive: 
 
“The app itself is designed to keep us glued to our screens. With most other social media platforms, the majority of content is derived from accounts that you follow. And although you can follow and “friend” a lot of accounts on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat, there’s eventually a point where all the “interesting” content runs dry. With TikTok, that isn’t the case.
 
Nguyen’s explanation might sound like someone at a buffet who can't stop filling his plate because, “Everything tastes so good.”  In that case, we’d probably tell the patron he needs to control his own eating; we wouldn’t blame the restaurant for his overindulgence.
 
TikTok, however, isn’t the 'typical ‘restaurant.'  It uses something that most other apps don’t, at least not in such a sophisticated way.  Nguyen alludes to that something, which several others identify directly: artificial intelligence (AI).

​
Picture

Palmer, mentioned near the onset of this piece, is one person who claims AI is at the root of TikTok addiction.  He says, “TikTok is a remarkably sophisticated AI model that literally tunes itself to your behaviors with a single goal: addicting you to TikTok.”
 
Others have further unpacked how AI might accomplish that objective.  In a New York Times article, John Herman identified the technology underlying each TikTok user’s very personalized For You page as “an algorithmic feed based on videos you’ve interacted with, or even just watched.”
 
Unlike other social media in which users have a significant say in the content they receive by virtue of who they friend or follow and what those people post, TikTok’s AI notes what users actually like to watch, regardless who shared it, then sends them more of the same, making TikTok “more machine than man.”

A piece in Fixing Port supported the same assertion:  “The TikTok algorithm can be blamed for this [addictiveness] to an extent. The algorithm sees what type of content you are watching (particular uploaders, particular genres, etc.) and then customizes the upcoming content to that liking.”
 
In The New Yorker, Jia Tolentino detailed her own ‘addiction’ to the AI-driven app:
 
“I was giving TikTok my attention because it was serving me what would retain my attention, and it could do that because it had been designed to perform algorithmic pyrotechnics that were capable of making a half hour pass before I remembered to look away . . . The algorithm gives us whatever pleases us, and we, in turn, give the algorithm whatever pleases it. As the circle tightens, we become less and less able to separate algorithmic interests from our own.”
 
In her article on Medium, Benger identified a psychological phenomenon, random reinforcement, that explains more precisely what TikTok users experience:  Although not every video provides the same level of reward, like playing a slot machine, the periodic payouts come often enough that users keep pulling the lever/swiping their screen because the next clip could be a real winner.
 
The way TikTok employs AI does seem to put the app in a different category in terms of possible addiction.  Whereas traditional methods of generating engaging content eventually run dry, the app’s AI-based video selection seems to know consumers better than they know themselves, allowing an endless array of just-often-enough, captivating content.
 
Notwithstanding these authors' insightful analyses of the app, two important and closely-related questions remain that none has appeared to answer:
  1. What exactly is addiction?
  2. Just because something is enjoyable, is it addictive?
 
Most people would likely easily answer the second question, ‘No,’ as there are many things that are very enjoyable to consume (i.e., eat, use, do) that are probably not ‘addictive,’ for instance:  take-out from a favorite restaurant, a round of golf, a concert, ice cream!
 
Over the years, I’ve often written about potentially addictive products, some of which have included:
  1. Alcohol
  2. E-Cigarettes
  3. Gambling
  4. Pornography
  5. Online shopping
  6. Smartphones
  7. Video games​
​
Picture

In researching to write these and similar pieces, a few things I’ve learned are:
  • People tend to play fast and loose with the word addiction.
  • Genuine addictions tend to occur in relatively large percentages of the population, not with just a few people.
  • There are specific clinical criteria for classifying substances and other things as addictive:
      - an overpowering need
      - a tendency to increase consumption
      - a psychic dependence.
 
Although it’s common to hear people say things like, “That cake is so good; it’s addictive,” it’s unlikely that any of the clinical characteristics of addiction apply to eating cake.  For these reasons, when I wrote the blog posts above, I concluded that numbers 1-4 are often true addictions, while Numbers 5-7, though problematic for certain people, really aren’t.
 
TikTok, seems to fit best with the second set of products as a non-addiction.  That doesn’t mean that the app isn’t a time sink for some, or that it doesn’t present other potential problems.  Most people, however, likely can control their use of the app by setting time limits and mustering some will power.  Also, as Nguyen showed, it’s not that hard to close one’s TikTok account—it’s certainly much easier than dealing with a drinking problem or stopping smoking.

TikTok appears to provide its target market with inexpensive entertainment while also inspiring creativity and collaboration among users.  Although some of us may not understand its appeal and there could be other issues with its content or use, at this point the app should be ‘swiped up’ as "Mindful Marketing."


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

Should People Be Mascots?

7/21/2020

8 Comments

 
Picture

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

After evading public pressure for decades, financial concerns have finally sacked the National Football League’s (NFL) Washington franchise, causing it to change a name that Merriam-Webster defines as “offensive.”  While it’s good that Native Americans will no longer be subject to that denigration, a broader question remains:  Should any sports team’s mascot be a person?
 
High school, college, and professional sports are peppered with teams named after people groups.  In 2014, USA Today reported that of the 10 most popular high school mascot names, three had human connections: Vikings (#4), Warriors (#9), and Knights (#10).  People names are also prevalent in Division I collegiate athletics, e.g., Knights and Spartans.  Then there are professional sports franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, Milwaukee Brewers, and Cleveland Cavaliers.
 
In fact, nearly a third of teams in the United States’ four major professional sports leagues use people as mascots (39/123 = 31.7%).  Here’s the breakdown by league:
  • Major League Baseball (MLB):  13/30= 43.3%
  • National Football League (NFL):  13/32= 40.6%
  • National Hockey League (NHL):  9/31= 29%
  • National Basketball Association (NBA):  4/30= 13.3%​
 
To argue to change a team name that serves as a racial slur is pretty straightforward, but what about the dozens or hundreds of other anthropological nicknames?  Is society failing to see now a practice that in years to come will be deemed abhorrent?
 
Apparently, few people objected in 1933 when George Preston Marshall changed the name of the then-Boston-based football franchise from Braves to the current one.  Likewise, few appeared to challenge the  U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision in 1967 that gave the name legal protection. 
 
In 1972, a variety of Native American organizations asked team president Edward Bennet Williams for a name change, but their plea evidently gained little public support and ultimately failed to alter his attitude.  
 
The point is this:  Just as the majority of the population was apathetic about the need for the Washington football team name change for most of its history, people might look back 20 years from now and wonder, “How could individuals in 2020 have been so ignorant to have people as mascots for sports teams?”

Now, however, many see being chosen as a team mascot as a sign of respect.  After all, sports are about competing and winning.  So, teams tend to pick mascots that are known for strength, speed, or ferocity or that possess some other desirable qualities that might reflect positively onto the franchise.  Although sports teams called Acorns and Spudders actually exist, they are the exceptions.  Instead, most team names are chosen because they suggest power and inspire confidence, like Wildcats and Warriors.
 
Picture
 
At first glance, Merriam-Webster’s definition of mascot reinforces the notion that being chosen as one is a positive thing:  A mascot is “a person, animal, or object adopted by a group as a symbolic figure especially to bring them good luck.”  How many people, however, want to be someone else’s good luck charm?  Most people probably want to be the one enjoying success, not the token symbol responsible for helping someone else win.
 
A mascot, therefore, is a kind of ‘second class citizen,’ more of a possession or pet than a person.  Of course, many mascots are actual animals, kept in cages or put on leashes and paraded in front of fans on gameday.  Although mascots are typically chosen for their prowess, it's strength subdued in service to another.
 
At this point, some of you may be understandably thinking, “Relax!  They’re just mascots.  Sports are supposed to be fun!”  I get that.  I’ve appreciated mascots for many years and still do.
 
When I was much younger, I played for Danville, PA’s high school basketball team, whose mascot name still is the “Ironmen” (granted, not very gender friendly); the town was a key player in America’s 19th century iron industry.  I’m also a long-time fan of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers.  Honestly, I never thought much about implications of these mascots being people . . . until now. 
 
Would an iron mill or steel mill worker mind that their occupation was selected for mascot status?  I'm speculating, but my guess is they wouldn’t; in fact, they might even feel honored.  Their reputations as occupations that require unique physical and mental toughness probably makes their selection seem complimentary.
  
These two examples, however, help identify a potentially important distinction:  Not all human mascots involve occupations, which people self-select.  Some mascots are based on demographics like race and ethnicity (e.g. Cleveland Indians), over which people have no say.
 
That lack of choice is compounded by the issue of stereotypes.  Any human mascot suggests a certain image for all those belonging to the demographic.  For instance, the name Braves implies that all Native Americans are courageous and strong.
 
But, what could be bad about being perceived as strong and courageous?  Aren’t they attributes that anyone would want?  Perhaps they are, but the reality is, not everyone has them to the same extent.  For Native Americans, that 'positive stereotype' might negatively impact them in at least two ways.
 
First, the Braves mascot stereotype might make those who weren’t born with as much natural strength or courage feel inadequate, like they’re not living up to an important social standard.  Second, a seemingly positive stereotype still pigeonholes people, or presents an unnecessarily narrow or inaccurate view of their abilities.
 
For example, I’ve been around sports enough to know that African American men are often stereotyped as great athletes.  At first blush, that stereotype may seem positive, but if you’re an African American man, you may not appreciate people assuming that you played and/or excelled in sports, especially if you never did.  You also wouldn’t like it if people discounted your intellect, as they sometimes do for athletes, inaccurately assuming that a strong body means a weak mind.
 
There really is no such thing as a positive stereotype.  Unfortunately, mascots perpetuate stereotypes, which may not be an issue for animals or inanimate things but can be problematic for people if the mascot is tied to a demographic like race or ethnicity that individuals do not choose.
 
In more recent years, it seems that sports leagues have become more ‘enlightened,’ as it’s rare for expansion teams to be given human names.  For instance, since 1976, six new teams have entered the NFL, but only one was given a people name—the Houston Texans, which is not directly tied to race or ethnicity. 
 
The Washington Post reports that the Cleveland Indians are now considering a name change.  It may not be long before other teams named Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. do the same.  Projecting further into the future, it’s conceivable that some of sports’ most storied franchises, e.g. Celtics, Fighting Irish, will do the same.
 
Mascots related to occupations, which people choose, can likely stay.  However, team names based on race or ethnicity should be retired because of the narrow and unfair stereotypes they project.  Years from now, if not sooner, people will see such team names and call them “Single-Minded Marketing.”
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
8 Comments

How Marketing Still Needs Racial Redemption

7/4/2020

1 Comment

 
Picture

by Dr. Sonja Martin Poole, associate professor of marketing, University of San Francisco

Our nation is clearly in crisis. During a time focused on re-opening the economy after the onset of a viral pandemic, there are glaring signs that the United States is suffering from another type of pandemic—racism.  While conquering COVID-19 lies mainly in the hands of certain medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies, overcoming racism depends on everyone and everything, including marketing.

Over the last few weeks, throughout cities across the United States and the world, people have been taking to the streets to express their pain and anger over the senseless deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and countless other Black people killed by police and vigilante whites. At the same time, videos of racial violence and racists threats toward Black people in America are flooding social media and news outlets.

Racism is not a new disease. It is a malady that has deep historical roots. It is a system of racial oppression and violence steeped in colonial and imperialist practices that sought to legitimize White privilege and power. That means it is not just a sum of the prejudicial acts of individual “bad seeds.” Rather, it is ingrained in the fabric of our society. Despite the elimination of explicit state-sanctioned policies, such as segregation under Jim Crow, many overtly racist practices are now interwoven into our institutions and normalized, and have a reverberating impact that still significantly affects the lives of racially targeted people.

So, what do these actions have to do with marketing? The short answer is, everything. Interpersonal, systemic and institutionalized racism are often normalized, immortalized, and (re)produced through marketing and marketplace practices.

Take the case of artificial intelligence (AI), a tool that is dramatically transforming industries, institutions, workplaces, and consumer behavior. The technology is being used to analyze and predict or generalize consumer behavior from their unique set of traceable digital activities, actions, contributions and communications. By being able to predict consumer behaviors, marketers can considerably improve their ability to target buyers with personalized promotions and advertising, or protect against fraud. AI is also used to benefit consumers throughout the consumption process, from automatic logins and entertainment suggestions based on viewing history, to self-driving cars and suggesting the fastest routes to and from work.

One application of AI is facial recognition technology which is used to check the identity of people based on the symmetry of facial features unique to every individual. It allows users to unlock their smart phone, verify their identification for travel and entry to sporting events, and complete purchase transactions. Major corporations such as Unilever also use it in the labor market to assess job candidates’ facial and linguistic performance against information compiled from successful prior interviews.

While facial expression technology has been praised as a bias-free tool, concerns have been raised that this powerful tool is imperfect and potentially dangerous. Numerous studies have found that the software is not 100% accurate in identifying individuals. In particular, studies have found that when two different people were wrongly identified as the same person, error rates for Black people were two times higher than for white people.

Even more unsettling, the software has been known to misidentify people of color as non-human, often as animals or objects. This happens because the accuracy of any machine learning tool depends on the machine’s ability to detect algorithms ‘taught’ to it by engineers who are, needless to say, human. Since humans perpetuate biases that exist in society, so can the machine.

Picture

Studies in marketing which address the use of AI technologies generally emphasize how consumer experiences are enhanced through AI-powered applications and assume that the impact is equal across all consumers. But these assumptions ignore disparities in lived experiences. These assumptions also ignore research evidence which indicates inherent (automated) bias in AI technology. This automated bias has serious implications in the treatment of and opportunities for people of color.


The issue outlined here is just one example of the insidious ways that racism operates in marketing. Keeping silent, becoming overly defensive and overgeneralizing are other ways racism is perpetuated. To adequately address racial injustice, it is important to move our discourse in marketing and business beyond marginalization in the workplace and harmonious interpersonal relationships. We must take a close look at the impact of racism in marketplaces and how these effects are shaped by intersecting forms of systemic oppression.

The good news is that marketing and business leaders are starting to accept the challenge to acknowledge, affirm and act in ways that promote equity and justice and activate meaningful change. As was proclaimed by authors in a recent Harvard Business Review article, “racism isn’t just a Black people’s problem its everyone’s problem because it erodes the fabric of society.”

It’s good that certain companies finally have resolved to remove overtly racist branding (e.g., Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben), but as the example of AI-powered facial recognition shows, there’s still more, often less conspicuous marketing that needs to change in order to offer people of color the respect they deserve.  Framed positively, many opportunities remain for racially-aware organizations to redeem the field in pursuit of more “Mindful Marketing.”
​

Picture
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

Business’s Best Path to Racial Justice

6/27/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture

by Abbigail Jones, former customer solutions specialist at Webstaurant Store;
current co-youth director at Middletown Presbyterian Church and mom

Although profitability is a priority for any successful business, it’s narrow to overlook the capacity that companies have to change the world for the better: to lift communities of color out of poverty and provide economic opportunity.

As an African American woman, a Christian, and a millennial, social justice is near and dear to my heart.  When working for a company, I want to know that it cares about addressing the legacy of inequality in our nation, one hire at a time.  The recruitment, hiring, and retention of persons of color is a vital factor in ensuring economic development and justice for all.

By interacting intentionally with their surrounding communities, businesses can help heal broken relationships, including those that cross racial lines.  Now more than ever, business leaders must expand their rubric for success beyond financial achievement and assess how their firms function as responsible citizens, consistent with Elkington’s “triple bottom line.”

It’s difficult to embrace such outcomes, however, without first acknowledging that the great racial divide within our country and lack of representation of black and brown Americans in the workplace stems from structural inequalities deeply entrenched in society.  We continue to reap a harvest of racism sown by a legacy of slavery, segregation, violence, and voter suppression.

The consequences of Jim Crow laws and red-lining have endured for generations along with the outcomes of other systematic efforts to exclude black and brown people from the American dream.  Just as these injustices were not casually implemented, measures to undo them also must be comprehensive.

According to MarketWatch, for the past 70 years a wealth gap has existed that’s seen black households remain 80% poorer than white ones.  Put another way, the typical white family has wealth of $171,000 versus $17,150 for an average black family.  The National Economic Association, formed by black economists in 1969, suggests that the current widespread protests against police brutality are related to this wealth gap and as a result, racial conflict will likely continue until fundamental inequities are addressed.

​
Picture

But, why should businesses attempt to address deep-seated issues that span centuries and defy easy answers?  Aren’t there governmental organizations and nonprofits already dedicated to solving this problem? I believe businesses are uniquely equipped to propel entire communities forward, thereby closing the wealth gap and making a lasting difference for people of color.

Furthermore, businesses that care about both the prosperity and unity of our nation can wield their economic influence to play a much-needed reconciling role.  By tackling this issue of inequality, they will create stakeholder value even as they promote positive societal values.

Firms that employ a diverse workforce, benefit from a range of perspectives that ultimately make the organization stronger.  Likewise, today’s customers increasingly care about the ethos of the brands they support.  Millennials believe small acts of enlightenment can add up to larger societal change, while Gen Z sees its buying power as a means of activism:  According to Forbes, 76% of this age cohort says it’s purchased from a brand in order to support the issues it espouses.

In the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a white police officer, we have seen CEOs across the county issue company-wide and public statements condemning racism within society as well as within their organizations.

I celebrate these leaders who have leveraged their influence to stand against injustice. These statements not only reflect sound leadership, they have allowed conversations against injustice to continue in the marketplace.

I would also encourage those same leaders to continue on this journey of racial reconciliation and racial justice even as this topic moves out of media coverage. It will take hard, long-term work and commitment in order to combat deep-seated and systemic racism. However, on the other side of this endeavor are meaningful relationships and networks with communities of color.

Businesses can accomplish this transformation most effectively by nurturing an employee base that gives meaningful work opportunities to people society has historically marginalized.  People of color need access to quality, life-sustaining jobs with fair wages, as well as benefits like healthcare, retirement plans, childcare, and tuition assistance so they can begin to close the wealth gap and gain financial freedom.

Here are seven steps that businesses should take to market themselves as employers of choice who offer real economic opportunity to people of color:
  1. Assess the current organizational climate:  Evaluate existing recruitment practices and organizational culture by asking, “Is our workplace one where an individual from a minority group feels welcomed and accepted? and “Is there no tolerance for racist rhetoric or innuendo?”  Answers to such questions will help to clarify community-building goals and to determine if the workplace is an inviting one, likely to retain people of color once they are hired.
  2. Enlist internal champions:  While your goal may be for everyone in your organization to embrace the idea of racial reconciliation, not all will be equipped or enthusiastic about this plan. Consequently, it’s important to identify and engage specific leaders: individuals who are well-suited and passionate about the initiative and who can garner support from entire teams. 
  3. Build external relationships:  Partner with civic organizations and non-profits that focus on placing qualified, ethnically diverse people into corporate environments.  Also, solicit the aid of local government in tackling this societal issue.  Ask each entity for initial input and ongoing support, including leveraging their networks to help identify qualified people of color for particular positions.
  4. Develop a strategic diversity and inclusion plan:  Using feedback from internal and external stakeholders, draft a document that outlines the general strategies and specific tactics the organization should implement in order to achieve measurable outcomes for diversity and inclusion.
  5. Create a roadmap for success: Develop strategies that will help retain people of color within your organization. While each new hire’s needs may be different, recognize that their new position likely will pose a major life transition; for example, the employee may need to relocate. Provide the new hire with real estate contacts in the area or even an apartment to rent in order to make relocation easier.
  6. Keep the conversation going:  At the launch of the initiative and thereafter, host regular discussions aimed at encouraging racial reconciliation in the workplace and at ensuring that restorative programs continue to be seen as top priorities.​
  7. Make higher education possible for employees’ children:  To truly break the pattern of wealth disparity, it’s important to provide educational opportunities for future generations, which can happen by offering current employees support in saving for their children’s education.  By the way, those children may even decide to join the same organization when it’s their time to enter the workforce.

By intentionally reaching out to communities of color with offers of gainful employment, organizations clearly communicate that they see injustice in society, they understand that separate is not equal, and they are willing to do everything they can to make opportunities available to those often marginalized, because they care.

Committing to a more diverse workforce can bring its own set of challenges, which may at times cause business leaders to wonder if their effort is worth the reward.  Ultimately, though, the investment in inclusive excellence will pay generous dividends to those organizations and our world, making employment initiatives aimed at racial restoration “Mindful Marketing.”
​
Picture
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

Listen and Act, for Marketing and Racial Reconciliation

6/13/2020

6 Comments

 
Picture

by Will Young IV, business administration major, marketing minor,
​
and member of the men's basketball team at Messiah College 

As a Christian, to consider marketing’s role in racial reconciliation means understanding reconciliation from a biblical perspective.  Four times in his letters to the early Church, the apostle Paul used the Greek word katallage, which means to exchange one thing for another.  That definition of reconciliation reminds me of my first marketing class in which we discussed the discipline being about “mutually valuable exchange,” powered by two important activities: listening and doing.
 
Business transactions often culminate with the exchange of need-satisfying products, but they begin with more basic exchanges of time, questions, answers, and ideas.  Driving the process is one critical activity—listening: offering one’s ears along with a genuine desire to understand.
 
Just as listening sustains good marketing, listening is the first step toward racial reconciliation.
 
Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese peace activist once said, “In order to reconcile, you have to possess the art of deep listening.” Following the tragic murder of George Floyd, the world, specifically the black community, was outraged. The reason was not necessarily that we were shocked it had happened because, quite frankly, there has been a plethora of deaths of unarmed black men and women throughout the years, many a result of police brutality. The uproar, protests and rioting were infused with so much force and rage because for years we had been trying to call attention not just to police brutality but to other racial injustices, but we were never really heard.  Very few would listen.
 
The nation’s collective failure to listen to the voices of those crying out about racism has allowed many senseless events, like the killing of Floyd, to happen time and time again.  Martin Luther King Jr. predicted what happens when injustice meets apathy when he said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.”  While I in no way support rioting or looting, it is important to note that such actions typically don’t happen when people feel like they’re being heard—when others are listening.
 
No competent marketers ignore the needs of their consumers.  No country should ignore the needs of its citizens, particularly those crying out about racial injustices.  Both fail to create mutual value.  Businesses have a unique opportunity to hear the voices of the black community and others crying out for change by having open and honest conversations with their employees, customers, and other stakeholders.  Large and small companies are in prime positions to break down the racial barriers they once avoided by genuinely listening.
 
As important as listening is to marketing and racial reconciliation, it only gets you in the room.  Action is what allows you to stay there.
 
People say, “be the change you want to see,” but actually being the change involves effort and often uncomfortableness.  If marketers want to play a role in racial reconciliation, they need to move beyond words and model what racial reconciliation looks like.
 
Ben & Jerry’s is a good example of such action.  The company’s website displays a staff composed of many different races, from African-American, to White, to Asian, to American Indian. The firm shows the world that despite our nation’s racial and political divisions, people of all races, cultures, and ethnicities can work together to achieve a common goal. Ben & Jerry’s is not just speaking about the change that should occur.  It is clear the company is intentional in hiring so it can be the change.
 
The firm also has introduced an ice cream flavor called “Pecan Resist,” centered on exchanging narratives of exclusiveness for inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color.  In many ways, this product represents the gold standard of what marketing should do to be the change.
 
Picture

Businesses wondering about the role they can play in racial reconciliation should recognize that people have largely done their part.  Movements like Black Lives Matter have expressed anger and voiced concerns, upholding their role of the exchange.  They’re now looking for something in return for their voice, which, again, first means others who will listen.  Businesses should lead by example in lending an ear, but not stopping there.
 
After listening, organizations and individuals must go a step beyond and act on what they’ve learned, which is strengthened by understanding the history of racism, having uncomfortable workplace conversations, and donating to movements that advocate for racial equality and shared justice.  Simply stated:  They must do something.  Don’t leave the exchange relationship one-sided; make it mutually-beneficial, thereby encouraging racial reconciliation and creating priceless value for generations to come.
 
No two companies are the same.  Likewise, every business that chooses to listen and act will play a different yet important role on the road to racial reconciliation.  All such actions, however, must uphold common values: fairness, honesty, and respect. Whatever their specific role, companies that facilitate mutually beneficial exchange leading to racial reconciliation create a life-giving legacy of “Mindful Marketing.”



Picture
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

Can Marketing Make a Difference?

6/13/2020

4 Comments

 
Picture

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

When considering our world’s challenges, people tend to see marketing as part of the problem, not the solution.  Such perceptions surface in Gallup’s annual poll about the honesty and ethics of various occupations:  Respondents consistently rank marketing roles like advertising practitioner, insurance agent, and car salesperson near the bottom of the list.  So, who would ever claim that marketing can combat prejudice and even encourage racial reconciliation?  
 

One of those marketing optimists is me.  More than a decade ago, I wrote a paper about marketing and reconciliation in which I made a rather simple observation:  People who buy and sell from each other tend to stay on good terms and build healthy bonds.  In contrast, fractured relationships often lack any meaningful exchange: verbal, material, or other.
 
Marketing often brings together people from different backgrounds, whose paths wouldn’t otherwise cross, for shared economic gain as well as other mutual benefit.  For instance, a white family enjoys food from a restaurant owned by an Indian couple; a black salesperson appreciates her Asian client, and vice versa; a Hispanic CEO values contributions from hundreds of employees representing an array of race and ethnicity.
 
Business, in general, and marketing, specifically, are catalysts for countless positive interracial interactions and relationships.  As people’s lives interlace with individuals who are different than them, while partnering for a common purpose, they often come to respect and appreciate their differences.
 
There’s also the notion that racial equality is closely tied to economic opportunity.  When people can work in well-paying jobs or even start their own companies, aspirations and optimism replace desperation and despair.  Marketing helps provide such hope-inspiring possibilities.
 
While I truly believe all I’ve just shared, I need to remind myself and disclaim that these words come from someone who, because of his own background, has not experienced significant racial prejudice and who will never truly understand the struggles that the black community and other people of color have endured for centuries.
 
One thing I can do is share this platform of Mindful Marketing with some who have experienced racial injustice firsthand, who wake up each morning to its effects, and who, also importantly, see business and marketing as a way forward—not necessarily as “the” answer, but as part of it.     
 
I recently reached out to a few black friends, asking if they would be willing to share their perspectives on the roles that business and marketing may play in racial reconciliation.  I received four enthusiastic and thoughtful responses from: a current student, a former student, a college classmate, and a research partner.  My intent is to share each person’s reflection in its entirety over the next several blog posts.
 
It's a small gesture that I feel led to make for several reasons:
  • I care about these friends and their families.
  • I want to understand the current situation from the perspectives of those most affected.
  • Our opinions impact what others believe and do.
 
In an age of social media, the third bullet point may seem glaringly obvious; however, it takes me back fourteen years to my doctoral dissertation in which I applied Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to accounting clients’ referral intentions.  Key to the TPB, which hundreds of studies have validated, is that our intent to do anything is impacted by societal (subjective) norms, or what we perceive others believe is good or bad. 
Picture
So, even if I’m not promoting racism, my silence might lead others to believe that I think it’s okay, which is not okay.  I want to use my voice to help establish the social norm that racism is wrong and that respecting others, regardless of their skin color, is right.  My friends who have kindly accepted the offer to share this platform want to do the same.   
 
In my Marketing Principles classes, students learn that people can market three types of “products”: physical goods, intangible services, and ideas.  Now is the time for all of us to leverage our own social influence to market reconciliation—one of the most important applications of “ Mindful Marketing .”
​

Picture
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
<<Previous
Forward>>
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

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

    Archives

    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly