Mindful Marketing - Mindful Marketing

Dos and Don'ts of Personal Branding with AI

11/18/2023

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

AI’s meteoric rise has encouraged companies to quickly embrace the transformative technology while countries have raced to erect guardrails on the all-powerful algorithms. These strategies are critical, yet such collective actions are often a function of individuals’ attitudes, which prompts the question: What's a personal approach for ethical use of AI?

If your newsfeed is like mine, it overflows with articles describing organizations’ creative and sometimes controversial use of artificial intelligence; for instance, recent news stories have included:

A Beatles song made with AI
Results showing that ChatGTP makes up things 3% of the time
Tom Hanks disavowing a deepfake dental ad video
Empathetic AI helping to heal broken office relationships

By now, AI has touched most industries in more ways than one, which is part of the reason the U.S. government and those of several other nations are taking more active and deliberate approaches to support AI development. By doing so countries can gain competitive advantage, enhance national security, and reduce negative impacts on their citizens.

On a personal level, parallel goals should motivate individuals’ use of AI. I’m not a tech expert or an authority on artificial intelligence, but several years ago I suggested a simple model for personal branding that might also serve as a useful guide for individual AI use. The 3Cs of personal branding – competencies, character, and communication can help frame how individuals should and shouldn’t use AI.

1. Competencies: What a person can do well; their skills, talents, and aptitudes.

The ability to use AI is already a competency that many employers want and that many more will demand over the coming months and years. However, experience alone with AI won't suffice. Competent users of AI should be able to:

Choose the right AI tool – since the rapid ascension of ChatGPT, a variety of other chatbots and AI tools have emerged, some of which are tailored to particular types of information, e.g., Jasper for business and marketers and Chatsonic for news content creators.
Ask AI the right questions – ones that effectively and efficiently enable the chosen chatbot to locate the right information and offer truly helpful responses
Identify errors – those that use AI often mention times when the technology makes mistakes, sometimes retrieving the wrong information and other times even fabricating facts.

2. Character: The kind of person someone is – Are they decent, fair, and honest? Do they show others respect and demonstrate social responsibility?

While personal branding for AI competency primarily involves what people should do, AI-related character largely describes things that individuals shouldn’t do, such as:

Suggest that work is one’s own when it was created largely or entirely by AI
Fail to give proper attribution, or credit, to others whose work AI appropriated
Forward AI results not checked for accuracy or that contain known mistakes
Share indecent content such as profane language, crude pictures, or other offensive subject matter generated by AI

3. Communication: How a person informs, persuades, or reminds others about their brand

There’s a growing number of AI products that can help users communicate more effectively. In a recent LinkedIn article, James Lusk highlighted several of the tools. The ones that seem best suited for positive personal branding are:

Grammarly – to improve one’s writing mechanics. But users shouldn't use it to write substantial content then claim authorship.
Zoom.ai – to manage communication tasks, including scheduling meetings and sending reminders. The tool also can be used to draft emails, so again, users should be careful to not give the impression they’ve written something they haven’t
Chorus.ai – to improve communication skills by analyzing one’s communication style, including interruptions, tone, and speaking pace

AI users also should be careful not to give others a false impression of what they’re like physically or otherwise, which can happen when using apps such as AI face enhancers.

Like other technology, AI is tool that can be used in good ways and in bad ways. As its rapid evolution continues, there’s no guarantee that AI will hold itself to any compelling moral standards. More likely, it will be individuals who accept personal ethical accountability and model it for others, thereby guiding AI's “Mindful Marketing.”

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

22 Comments

Paying Cash to Crash Weddings

10/21/2023

9 Comments

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

From $11,000 Taylor Swift concert tickets to $37,500 Chiefs-Eagles Super Bowl seats, people are increasingly willing and eager to pay, sometimes incredible amounts, for experiences. The trend toward doing rather than owning is good in many ways, but are there certain life events that shouldn’t be made pay-per-view?

A recent New York Times article described a growing trend among about-to-be-betrothed couples in India – inviting tourists to their weddings, for a fee. Having strangers pay for the privilege of attending the culturally rich ceremonies and often lavish receptions could be a way of lessening the costs of what can be very expensive events. For example, Yamini and Aditya Sharma’s January 2023 wedding in Jaipur, India cost $30 million rupees, or about $360,000. Surprisingly, though, financing doesn’t appear to be a main motive for selling wedding seats.

In 2016, Orsi Parkanyi, a Hungarian-Australian who lives in Norway, founded Join My Wedding – a web-based company that connects Indian couples willing to open their weddings to outsiders with those who want to attend them. The site provides a virtually endless stream of available matrimonial events, most of which include:

a picture of the couple
a little about their story
the location and date(s) of the wedding (some are multiday affairs)
a daily itinerary
dietary options
a dress code
the cost per person

Speaking from firsthand experience, India’s culture is truly special – from vibrantly colored clothing to deliciously spicy food to some of the world’s kindest and most caring people. I’ve never attended an Indian wedding, but I can imagine doing so would be a rich, culturally immersive experience unlike any other.

Such a unique opportunity explains why there’s interest or demand for attending Indian weddings. Hopefully, paying guests go to the weddings with a mindset of respect for the culture and an eagerness to appreciate and learn from it. Some attendees, however, may just want to see a spectacle that they can boast about in social media: “Look at the crazy thing I did (that you never will).”

But what explains the abundant supply of ceremonies for sale?

Again, the main motivation doesn’t appear to be financial. A quick survey of options on Join My Wedding shows that most couples price their tickets from $150 - $250. Subtract the cost of food and other per person expenses and the net profit from each paid guest’s is probably just $50 or so, which is nothing compared to a wedding that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So, given there’s no real monetary incentive, why are so many Indian couples willing to open for public consumption one of the most intimate moments of their lives?

Some of the couples have suggested they wanted to share their culture, while others have said they desired to add “a distinctive component to their wedding.” The second reason seems vague but makes more sense after hearing Mr. Sharma, whose $300K wedding was mentioned above, say he believed it would be unique to have a foreigner attend his wedding.

Of course, there are many other ways to make a wedding unique, so why do so by inviting complete strangers to share your special day?

Author of “Matchmaking in Middle Class India” and sociologist at the University of Cambridge, Dr. Parul Bhandari has explained that hosting foreign guests at their wedding can serve to raise the status of the couple:

“A non-Indian, particularly white person, attending one’s wedding is seen as a status symbol,” she added. “It communicates that the couple or their family have social networks beyond their country and by that token, demonstrates a sort of cosmopolitanism and ‘success.’”

Bhandari’s analysis is not surprising: While in India, I learned that, historically, lighter color skin was considered more desirable, as it signaled higher social class. The desire to flaunt different-looking foreigners also makes sense in an age of social-media-driven one-upmanship.

More people than ever are pursuing social validation measured digitally by likes and shares. Moreover, they’re yearning to stand out, to be seen as special, and to grab their “15 minutes of fame.” The idea of selling tickets to their special event and having ‘dignitaries’ attend likely fulfills those same needs and may even allow couples to feel a little like celebrities.

The idea that there are satisfied buyers and sellers on both sides of the growing number of wedding exchanges suggests that selling entry to Indian marriage ceremonies is good marketing, but is it ethical?

Aside from the occasional social gaffe, like tourists dressing inappropriately, the cultural understanding that likely occurs at the events is a benefit of the wedding sharing. Immersing oneself in a culture that’s different than one’s own is almost always a good thing.

However, there may be a consideration greater than the satisfaction of the individuals involved and perhaps even more important than the potential cultural understanding:

What about the impact on the institution of marriage?

Couples and their families are foundational components of most societies. New marriages are often the starting point, and sustained unions provide helpful continuity and stability for the couples themselves and for many people linked to them. There are also the greater social impacts of population maintenance and growth.

Degrading or trivializing marriage such that people enter into it lightly or for the wrong reasons can come at significant social costs, particularly if many marriages fail. Historically, India has had the lowest divorce rate in the world – only around 1%. However, some say that rate is now rising, as much as 50% - 60% particularly in urban areas. Whether divorce becomes more common in India and how it impacts the nation remains to be seen.

Ethics, however, aren’t just about consequences. Whether or not selling seats at weddings results in good or bad outcomes, there’s also the principle of respecting the wedding ceremony because of what it represents.

In many cultures, a wedding ceremony is considered a sacred event on par with just a few others, e.g., births and funerals. Commercialization can be a very good thing, but would it be right to sell tickets for seats in delivery rooms or memorial services? Are there certain events in life that simply shouldn’t be monetized?

Writing this piece in Central Pennsylvania, my thoughts went to the Amish, who are known for both their business savvy, e.g., producing and selling quilts and sheds, and their strongly held religious beliefs. So, I reached out to Dr. David Weaver-Zercher, assistant provost and professor of American religious history at Messiah University, who has authored several books about Amish life.

Weaver-Zercher shared that some Amish allow small outside groups to visit their homes for meals, e.g., for educational field trips, for which they accept nominal payment, e.g., $20 per person to cover their cooking costs. However, he firmly dismissed the notion that Amish would open their wedding ceremonies to outsiders who might want to pay to see them:

“Weddings are seen as worship services, and in many ways feel like a regular Sunday worship service, with only one small part of the service devoted to the actually wedding vows, etc. Just as Amish people wouldn’t open their Sunday morning services for spectators to pay a fee, neither would they open up a wedding for that purpose.”

Most of those involved in marketing weddings in India likely respect the ceremonies and the institution of marriage, but some seem as if they may not. For instance, below is a listing for one wedding in which the groom-to-be is pictured talking on his cellphone while his dutiful wife smiles awkwardly as she hugs him. Also, in describing the couple’s story, the groom says, “It has been confirmed that I will be handcuffed by my wife on this date.”

These particular components of the listing may have been meant in jest, but unfortunately, they likely signal what’s to come as more couples get creative and resort to unconventional tactics in trying to attract tourists to their ceremony over the many competitors. Weddings are joyous celebratory occasions that certainly can include fun, but they ultimately mark serious life- and society-impacting commitments.

India’s low divorce rate and its deeply rooted religious heritages suggest cultural predispositions to uphold the institution of marriage and to respect wedding ceremonies. So, any kind of degradation creep in India doesn’t bode well for countries next in line for wedding ceremony sales, where participants may play faster and looser with the notion of marital sacredness.

It's great that some people are experiencing an immersive view of India’s rich and diverse culture. Selling seats at weddings does produce some benefits; however, they’re outweighed by the moral costs of commercializing one of life’s most meaningful and important events. Accepting cash so outsiders can crash weddings is a commitment to “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

9 Comments

No Shorts, No Sunglasses, No Service

10/4/2023

1 Comment

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

We’ve all heard that our nonverbal communication conveys more than the words we speak. That saying is easy to embrace in principle, but it can become harder to accept when senators and sports legends seem to suggest otherwise. How might marketing, the banner carrier for image-building, inform the current debate of what people wear at work?

In his first year of service from Pennsylvania, U.S. Senator John Fetterman’s casual attire (sweatshirt, shorts, sneakers) was the apparent impetus for Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to relax the chamber’s formal dress code. However, that choice was negated a week later when the Senate passed a resolution that formalized the requirement for business attire on the chamber floor.

Meanwhile, Deion Sanders, former MLB player, NFL Hall of Famer, and head football coach of the University of Colorado, has grabbed headlines with his trademark attire, specifically his shades. His propensity to continually wear sunglasses, even during interviews caused Colorado State football coach Jay Norvell to comment, “When I talk to grown-ups, I take my hat and my glasses off. That's what my mother taught me.”

At first glance, Fetterman spurring the Senate to button up its dress code and Sanders sporting sunglasses during interviews have little to do with each other. However, both headlines are case studies in nonverbal communication – People’s clothes and how they wear them often portend their personalities and purposes; similarly, individuals’ eyes often signal what they’re thinking and feeling.

Still, what do a couple of guys wearing shorts and sunglasses to work have to do with marketing? They’re relevant to the field in at least two ways:

Internal marketing: Organizations market to their employees by trying to meet their needs, which can involve the policies they set and the procedures they follow, including ones related to work attire.
Personal branding: Each person has a unique brand, or identity, which is based on their character and competencies and is communicated to others through their words and actions, including what they wear.

Although I feel like I know something about nonverbal communication from my business, teaching, and life experiences, I wanted to talk to someone who is truly an expert, so I reached out to Mike True, a former coworker of mine who is an internationally renowned authority on career development and an in-demand speaker on many related topics, including professional etiquette.

When I asked for his thoughts on the U.S. Senate’s dress code decision, the main word that came to his mind was “decorum,” or setting high standards in specific settings. He continued that in the senate setting, professional business attire “speaks of order, neatness, and structure,” while very casual dress “speaks of a breakdown in respect for order, neatness, and structure – It speaks of lower standards.”

Knowing the high standards True sets for himself and encourages for others, his response about Senate attire was not unexpected. However, his analysis of Sanders’ sunglasses surprised me:

“Sunglasses are part of Deion’s persona and have been for many years. He has an eyewear deal with Blenders Eyewear, so it's a ‘product placement’ gig for which he is paid. The non-verbal here seems to be practical (protecting his eyes from the sun in outdoor practices and games, and from camera flashes and bright lights in interviews) and a brand of sorts. He is Coach Prime, and as such he seeks to project ‘coolness’ for himself, his players, and the whole Colorado football program. It's working!”

I wasn’t surprised that True knows marketing and recognized successful branding and product placement. He’s a student of business and surely read of how within one day of announcing its collaboration with Sanders, Benders “received $1.2 million in pre-orders.”

I thought, though, that he might take exception with the eye contact that Sanders’ dark sunglasses eliminate. As the saying goes, the eyes are the window to the soul. When our eyes widen and our pupils dilate, we communicate interest and excitement, whereas a furrowed brow can suggest worry or concern.

However, having enjoyed True’s etiquette dinners and other events in which he detailed appropriate professional behavior from handshakes to table conversation, I know he would never advocate wearing sunglasses to a job interview or networking event. So, why the apparent double standard? Similarly, why doesn’t he cut some slack for Fetterman or other senators who might feel more comfortable in more casual attire?

First, True did identify practical reasons why Sanders might want to wear glasses to shield his eyes from bright light, while also suggesting they’re not the only reasons. In short, as True alludes, Sanders’ personal brand, even for a coach at a major college football program, is a very unique one that dates back 35+ years when he first earned the nickname “Prime Time” for his exciting play and exuberant personality at Florida State University.

As I'm sure True would never advise emerging or seasoned business professionals to emulate Sanders’ dark shades in their interpersonal dealings, the standards for Sanders’ nonverbal communication are in many ways are a category of one.

Then, why doesn’t Fetterman, who probably has a more compelling reason for wearing sweats and sneakers, get a similar pass? After all, his battle with clinical depression led him to seek treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. There may be a few reasons for a different standard:

No slight on college football, but the business of the U.S. Senate is more important: nation- if not world-shaping policies vs. recreation or entertainment.
Attire often reflects expectations for the level of quality of work. Even in a football game, if players wear worn-out or mismatched uniforms, fans will take them less seriously, and the players may start to feel the same way about themselves.
Clothing needs to fit the setting and related cultural norms. People wear bathing suits on beaches not in boardrooms. People who work in and around football, like many sports, are accustomed to very casual attire.
Dress that’s deemed inappropriate in a given situation can become a distraction. It also could be offensive if the attire reveals body parts that others don’t care to see but can’t avoid looking at when interacting with the person.

So, the U.S. Senate does have reasons for maintaining a dress code that aren’t easily transferrable to football. However, that doesn’t mean that the policies must stay the same forever: Almost two-and-a-half centuries ago, powered wigs and ruffled shirts were the style. Any organization’s dress code needs to evolve with the times.

Having a dress code also doesn’t mean that special accommodations can’t be made for specific individuals who warrant them. Those individuals and the policy also might meet somewhere in the middle, e.g., instead of shorts, full-length open-leg sweatpants, and instead of sneakers, very comfortable, sneaker-like shoes.

As has happened for me many times in writing this blog, the assumptions I had at the outset of this piece are not the same ones I have at the end, which leads me to two key takeaways that extend beyond best practices in nonverbal communication:

Although there are certainly generalizations that can be made for personal branding, everyone’s brand is unique and there can be special circumstances that warrant some people acting differently than others.
Make your brand a malleable one, or more specifically, allow knowledgeable others to inform your beliefs such that when fitting, you are willing to adapt judgments.

Understanding and employing effective nonverbal communication is important whether you’re calling plays or proposing national policy. Just as important is the ability to understand others’ perspectives and learn from them. Both life skills are critical inputs for “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

All Play: How Companies Can Make More Inclusive Toys

9/13/2023

7 Comments

A collection of play balls, some containing icons for sound, touch, and smell

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

Toss-Across, Evel Knievel, Simon, Big Wheel – the most popular toys of the 1970s offer a trip down memory lane for many of us who were kids during that unique era. We probably didn’t think then that some children weren’t able to enjoy these common playthings because of certain physical limitations. Over the past 50 years, the world has become more welcoming in many ways, but have toy makers kept pace with the inclusivity trend?

Legos have been fixtures in family rooms for at least a few decades. The tiny bumpy bricks provide appropriate challenge and fun for children from four to 14 and beyond. Kids who can’t see also can snap together the blocks to build shapes and structures, but they haven’t been able to appreciate the variety of colors or visualize their finished work in all the ways that sighted children can.

In 2019, the Lego Group conceived a creative way to bridge the participation gap by using the bricks’ raised knobs to represented braille letters. For the last few years, the company distributed its Braille Bricks selectively – mainly to individuals and organizations teaching children with visual impairments. Recently, the firm made the 287-piece set widely available for purchase, so blind and sighted members of any family can enjoy playing with and learning from the uniquely inclusive toys.

Mattel also has done a good in making its iconic Barbie doll more inclusive. For decades, the company has added dolls of different races and ethnicities to the collection, and in more recent years, it’s introduced dolls with disabilities and different body types.

Product inclusivity is a great thing. It’s hard to imagine products being ‘too inclusive,’ especially one’s targeted toward children.

As I’ve spoken with college students about product inclusivity, some have said they didn’t care whether their Barbies looked like them or not, but others really appreciated having dolls whose skin colors and other physical attributes mirrored their own.

Jason Polansky, one of my former advisees who is totally blind, has worked in employee recruitment roles for Microsoft and Whole Foods and now has a position as an unemployment claims interviewer with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. We had many good conversations when he was a student and more since he graduated several years ago, but I never thought much about his childhood – what it was like to grow up blind – and I certainly didn’t think of the toys he played with, so I recently asked him about them.

Polansky said he mainly liked playing with tactile toys such as Legos, Duplos, and Geomags, as well as a braille/tactile Battleship game, a Connect 4 game with holes in the black checkers, and braille Uno cards. He also enjoyed audible toys like a talking trivia globe, a puzzle map of the United States, a talking clock, and "two buckets full of dinosaurs and reptiles."

Sound was a mixed blessing for Polansky. Although he enjoyed listening to cassette tapes and AM/FM/shortwave radio, the same sounds sometimes created a problem when they kept him from hearing other noises in his environment that he needed to hear. In fact, when he was about six, he went through a stage in which many extraneous sounds scared him for that reason.

Sadie McFarland is one of my current advisees. Because of optic nerve hypoplasia, she has no vision in her right eye and limited functional vision in her left one, which means she is legally blind. Although McFarland reflects fondly on playing with Barbies and a variety of other toys and games when she was a child, her attention now as a college marketing major is drawn to the lack of playthings designed for children with disabilities, especially those with vision impairments.

Even as she credits brands like Barbie and American Girl for making dolls that “give beautiful nods” to individuals who have prosthetic devices, use wheelchairs, and have diverse skin tones, she laments that companies in the toy industry have done relatively little to represent blindness.

McFarland recommends making dolls whose eyes move sporadically, mimicking nystagmus, placing a white cane in the doll’s hand, and equipping it with a guide dog in harness. She adds that blindness also can be identified with certain types of glasses.

As an adult, McFarland still loves to play games but often finds them challenging because “at least 75% contain items with text that is nearly microscopic, even to the working human eye.” Some of her suggested fixes are to provide braille instructions and scorecards and to create tactile boards and differently shaped pieces. She also recommends reaching out to organizations like the National Federation of the Blind and American Printing House for the Blind, which can provide useful insights into meeting the needs of blind consumers.

It's nice to imagine a world in which more companies heed such advice and genuinely attempt to make products, especially toys, accessible to a broader range of people; however, the reality is that companies need to pay vendors, make payroll, and provide ROI to shareholders, all of which may appear to preclude satisfying some niche markets.

Of course, companies can gain goodwill be serving underrepresented people groups, but is it right to expect companies to lose money doing so? As a corollary, the law requires organizations to make reasonable accommodations for employees with special needs, unless doing so represents an undue hardship.

Fortunately, it doesn’t have an either-or decision. Several years ago, Polansky and I coauthored an article titled, “How Serving Blind Consumers Creates Competitive Advantage.” We summarized a main takeaway in this statement: “The same services that meet the unique needs of blind consumers often ‘delight’ other customers, thereby differentiating a brand and even offering competitive advantage.”

Since blind people lack at least some degree of sight, marketers must appeal to other senses like touch, smell, and taste. Of course, most sighted people also have these senses, and they similarly appreciate things that feel good, smell nice, and taste good. So, by integrating more senses for the benefit of blind people, marketers also increase their appeal to other consumers and differentiate themselves from competitors who don’t do the same.

McFarland maintains, “Play is a universal language that must be kept fully accessible for every child and child at heart.” Hopefully, increasingly creative toy design will see the introduction of more toys that tap into multiple senses for both inclusivity and profitability, which can be considered a playful approach to “Mindful Marketing.”

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

7 Comments

Has Tipping Reached a Tipping Point?

8/26/2023

36 Comments

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

There are many ways people are rewarded for good work, but few are as immediate as monetary tips. Restaurant servers have long received confirmation and big parts of their compensation from gratuities, but recently many other service providers have started tapping the same propensity for generosity. Given that these increasingly common appeals have become off-putting to some, it may be time to ask: Has tipping been taken too far?

The New York Times recently described a case in which, after some cosmetic medical treatments, a reader’s dermatologist asked her for a tip. If some physicians are soliciting gratuities, is it only time until other professionals start doing the same? Should professors like me put out tip jars?

We’ve all added a tip to a restaurant check, handed cash to a bellhop, or Venmoed a little extra money to another service provider. While physical tip jars have become increasingly common on retail store counters, digital technology has made it extremely easy for anyone accepting electronic forms of payment, in person or from afar, to casually ask for extra cash.

For instance, I recently placed an online order to pick up dinner from Chipotle. When I went to check out, just below the order total a prompt appeared: “Tip the Crew – Show some love to the team that prepares your order.” As I’ve grown accustomed to doing, I clicked one of the tip amounts but not without thinking, “Do I really need to?”

A decade or two ago, one would usually only tip in a sit-down restaurant where a waiter or waitress took your order, brought your drinks and food, stopped by your table to see if you needed anything else, delivered the check, and processed your payment. As the word “gratuity” suggests, your tip was a way of saying thanks for their multipronged service, and the amount you gave was a way of expressing how good you thought the service was.

In the case of Chipotle, no one did any of the aforementioned things for me, so it seemed reasonable to wonder, “Who exactly am I tipping and why?” The easy answers to these questions are the restaurant staff that prepared the food and placed it in the carryout containers because they work hard for low wages, but even if those inputs and circumstances warrant tipping, how similar are they to those of other occupations that are also now panning for tips, including at least one dermatologist?

The complexities and potential inequities in tipping are further illustrated in examples like this one in Sanibel, FL. A couple of years ago, Island Cow, a popular restaurant on the island, was ordered to pay $222,000 to 48 employees because it created an illegal tip pool that “required tipped employees to share earnings with non-tipped workers, including dishwashing assistants and kitchen expeditors.”

This incident and others like it prompt a variety of questions and concerns including:

Do tips always make it to their intended parties?
Do owners sometimes pocket tips for themselves?
Do workers who don’t deal directly with customers deserve to be tipped?
Why don’t companies just pay their employees more so they don’t need to receive tips?

The last question may simply seem hypothetical, but a recent visit to Europe reminded me how services can be delivered effectively with just base pay and little or no tipping. A few times, when dining out in France, I received my check, which had no place to add gratuity. When I asked how I could leave a tip, the waiter/waitress replied that tipping wasn’t necessary.

Of course, that norm is not indicative of every restaurant in France, and it’s certainly not true across all Europe, where the likelihood of tipping varies widely from rather unlikely in Norway (14.3%) and France (39.9%) to very likely in Sweden (82.8%) and Germany (96.7%).

Whether in the United States or abroad, the total wages that service providers earn should have some bearing on whether or not they’re tipped. While the question of whether customers are being asked to subsidize the poor wages from employers is a fair one, it also might be moot because when employers are forced to pay higher wages, they often pass those increased costs on to customers in the form of higher prices.

So why not do away with tipping entirely and just pay more for restaurant meals, etc.? Theoretically, tipping provides value to customers because it allows them to adjust the amount they pay based on the quality of service they receive. Meanwhile, service providers have an incentive to do their jobs better, as they gain feedback about how well they’re performing. However, in reality, those benefits may not accrue for several reasons:

Feelings of obligation: Even if service is very poor, patrons may feel obligated to offer an average tip, so they don’t seem cheap or unempathetic.
Product prices: When customers believe they’re already paying a lot for something, they’ll sometimes scale back their tips – like the person who told me that while they typically tip for everything, they don’t always tip at Starbucks because they’re already paying $5.00 for a coffee.
Poor timing: As suggested by my Chipotle example above, some companies ask for tips before the service has been completed. In those cases, your order may come out completely wrong, but you’ve already given a tip.

Despite several decades of work experience, I’ve never been in an occupation that received tips, which made me eager to hear from those who have. So, I reached out to two of my current students who have considerable food industry server experience.

Sarah Schall has worked in a variety of retail occupations, including as a counter-service food worker and as a waitress. She makes the important point that particularly in a sit-down restaurant, one’s overall dining experience is a function of many employees’ contributions, which should impact how patrons approach tipping:

“Although the waiter/waitress is the one who may seem to be in charge of a guest’s entire experience, it’s important to remember that there are many team members who go into creating a dining experience. Therefore, it wouldn’t be right to lower the tip that’s going to the server if the food took a while due to a slow kitchen staff.”

“If the food wasn’t up to par, or if it took a long time to get to the table, it most likely was the kitchen staff at fault rather than the waitress. Instead of leaving a poor tip, guests should inform the waiter/waitress that they were disappointed with their meal so that way the restaurant can improve and the server can work to reconcile the problem.”

Josh McCleaf grew up in the restaurant industry, working in a variety of front- and back-of-house positions in his family’s multigenerational restaurant. This experience has given him particular appreciation for the multifaceted and prolonged engagement servers have with customers in traditional dining:

“When you sit down at a table-service restaurant, you expect your server to spend the next 45 to 90 minutes getting you drinks, refills, meals, extra napkins, sides of ranch, and anything else you might need for your dining experience. It's also important to note that your server is not only fulfilling the needs of your table during your visit, they are also trying to fill the needs of every other table in their section at the same time.”

McCleaf contrasts this typical sit-down dining scenario with his own recent experience as a counter-service customer:

“A few weeks ago, I walked up to a Cinnabon stand in a mall to purchase two bottles of water. While the transaction was short and the water was only an arm's length away from the cashier, I was still faced with the increasingly popular iPad flip and a prompt asking me if I'd like to leave a tip. I have to admit that this put me in an odd position, and I was left to answer some questions: Was this one-minute interaction and simple order worthy of a 20% tip? Even if it wasn't, how bad would it look if I said no?”

McCleaf likens this incident to experiences patrons have at quick-service restaurants where interactions last for just three to five minutes and are “one and done,” i.e., people order, pay, receive their food, and leave, which is much different than the sustained engagement with servers in sit-down dining.

However, McCleaf emphasizes that even in these faster service restaurant formats, good customer service is vital, as servers who demonstrate dedication to their work, strong communication skills, enthusiasm, and patience may be well-deserving of tips. He concludes:

“What's important is that you tip at your own discretion. You should never be guilted into leaving a tip at these kinds of establishments.”

His admonition is a good one: guilt, fear, and other strong-handed emotional appeals represent coercion and aren’t appropriate for marketers to use. I’d add that organizations should be sensitive to how the tipping choices they offer, or don’t, can remove customers’ control and force their decision-making.

For instance, our family recently ate at a sit-down dining restaurant where when paying the bill, the lowest tip listed among the iPad’s preset choices was 20%. While I was happy to offer more than that amount, and I believe that servers deserve more for the hard work they do, it struck me as being too prescriptive – Why shouldn’t a patron be able to more easily offer any amount that reflects their satisfaction with the service they received?

To be true to its nature and intent, tipping must remain a discretionary thing – while it certainly should be encouraged, it shouldn’t be compelled.

Anyone who has the ability to tip generously should do so, but ultimately, consumers deserve: 1) to decide without pressure how much they’d like to tip, 2) to make their choice, ideally, after they’ve received the service, and 3) to know, with some assurance, who will receive their gratuity. Discounting these ingredients for equitable tipping is a recipe for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

36 Comments

What's to Like about Twitter's Rebrand

8/6/2023

9 Comments

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

“There’s nothing I like about it,” said a family member after seeing a large brown sun sail I bought to shade our backyard patio. I actually appreciated the blunt assessment because I also had misgivings about the tarp-looking sail, which fortunately was easy to return. Many have similarly bemoaned Twitter’s unexpected rebranding, which won’t be as easy as the unappealing patio shade to retract, but are there actually things to like about “X”?

Like a quick-moving summer thunderstorm that seems to emerge from nowhere, Twitter’s announcement that it was replacing its acclaimed name and famous bird with the moniker/graphic “X” seemed to catch even the most astute business analysts by surprise.

In reality, the curious move was several months, if not years in the making. This past April new-owner Elon Musk formally changed the company’s legal name to X Corp. He also had gained ownership of X.com six years earlier, which makes one think that the rebrand was more of a long-term plan than a knee-jerk reaction to Musk-revival and Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg’s recent launch of Threads.

Regardless the timing or the reason, to say the response to Twitter’s rebrand has been critical is certainly an understatement. Some of the criticism has included:

‘”Completely irrational’: By changing Twitter’s name, Elon Musk is wiping out $4 billion to $20 billion in brand value” – Fortune

“This sudden transformation poses a significant obstacle for marketers who had been relying on the platform as part of their social media strategies.” – Digiday

“It’s rare for corporate brands to become so intertwined with everyday conversation that they become verbs. It’s rarer still for the owner of such a brand to announce plans to intentionally destroy it.” – AdAge

“I am concerned that Musk will continue to make random changes to the platform, either alienating more casual users of the service who tend to be people my company would market to, or change the advertising tools that allow us to target users.” – Brian Chevalier-Jordan, CMO at National Business Capital

All of the above seem like valid criticisms; however, the last one appears to have forgotten the remarkable number of successful business innovations Musk has to his credit:

The Boring Company
Neuralink
PayPal
Tesla
SpaceX

In addition, Musk founded OpenAI in 2015, and more recently he launched a new AI company xAI.

All this to say, Musk and those who work with him are likely extremely competent people. You can’t build the world’s leading brand of electric vehicle and launch people into space without having significant engineering and business acumen.

Given Musk’s elite team members and track record, maybe the rebrand from Twitter to X is some kind of marketing rocket science that’s beyond the ability of casual observers and even most marketing professionals to understand.

I have no inside information on Musk’s strategy, but here are a few considerations that may have gone into the surprising decision:

1) Appeal to Gen Z: Overtime, virtually every brand loses followers simply because its core demographic’s wants and needs change as it gets older and those consumers age out of the market. So, companies constantly need to be making inroads with the next generation, which is about to age into the market.

As someone who works with many Gen Zs, my sense is that Twitter has been falling out of favor with them, not unlike Facebook has with this young age cohort. Maybe a younger, hipper feeling brand would help them reconsider.

2) Restore Relevance: Even consumers whose needs haven’t changed can grow tired of a brand over time. Most of us experience this kind of satiation effect whether it’s with the music we listen to or the food we eat.

To avoid stagnation or worse, customers switching to other firms’ products, brands sometimes will attempt a refresh so they’re perceived as new and exciting, like Jell-O did recently for the first time in ten years.

Aside for some minor tweaks, it didn’t seem like Twitter had changed much over the last decade, so maybe a major brand refresh was in order, not just for Gen Zs but for every user who was growing bored with the brand.

3) Regain Attention: Brands want to be top-of-mind, which helps in their ongoing efforts to retain and grow business. When consumers stop hearing about them, they may stop thinking about them and purchasing from them.

Simply slipping out of the news cycle is bad enough; it’s even worse to be replaced by a competitor, which is what happened to Twitter thanks to Meta’s new Threads.

These three are realistic reasons for Twitter to consider rebranding, but as the earlier criticisms implied: Was this refresh worth the very high costs?

Perhaps no cost loomed larger than this one AdAge and others identified: Abandoning the verb to “tweet.” Very, very few organizations are ever so fortunate as to have their brands turned into verbs, e.g., Google, Photoshop.

Of course, firms need to be careful that their brand names aren’t used generically to represent the entire product category (e.g., calling any brand of tissue a Kleenex), which can lead to a firm losing its legal trademark protection.

Still, there is tremendous value to having so much mindshare with consumers that they turn the noun of a company into an action. It’s hard to imagine that any or all of the three refresh reasons would warrant Twitter abandoning that extremely unique competitive advantage.

There’s also a perceptual disconnect between what social media typically stands for and the psychological meaning of “X.” Social media such as Twitter, tend to be about connecting people and having conversations, whereas “X” often represents the opposite. For instance, an “X” is often a person with whom one no longer associates, e.g., X-spouse, X-roommate, etc.

Ironically, “X” is also the tiny symbol that people often click on to close a webpage or an app. In fact, if someone says, “X out of that,” we know they’re giving a command to close something digital. In short, changing people’s existing interpretations of “X” from negative to positive is a very tall order.

Musk is among the most talented entrepreneurs of this generation, and he may deserve to be counted among humanity’s most innovative thinkers, but even business savants sometimes make mistakes, for instance:

Henry Ford’s first automobile firm, the Detroit Automobile Company, failed miserably, leading him to bankruptcy.
Walt Disney was fired from his job at a newspaper because he “lacked imagination and had no good ideas.”
Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple, the company he co-founded.

Perhaps hindsight will prove 20/20, and history will exonerate the Twitter/X rebrand a few years or more from now. Now, though, it looks like it may go down as one of Musk’s bigger mistakes and an unfortunate instance of “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

9 Comments

How Data Analytics Find You

7/19/2023

2 Comments

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

As a marketing educator, I take some pride in understanding organizations’ marketing and sharing it with others. However, two unexpected emails from unfamiliar online retailers left this professor perplexed and led me to reach out to a former student to teach me what had happened.

It was a Saturday evening when the emails hit my inbox within minutes of each other. They caught my attention because both were from furniture retailers that I never heard of before. Although I hadn’t been shopping for furniture, I knew my wife had been online helping our son find furnishings.

I asked her if she recognized the retailers. She said she had visited their websites earlier that day but hadn’t purchased anything or provided any contact information. Nonetheless, she also had started receiving emails from them.

Most of us have experienced the remarketing that happens when we search for a specific product online and soon after, ads for the same product start appearing on webpages we visit. However, that kind of digital targeting is typically confined to websites; it doesn’t lead to us receiving emails since we didn’t provide an email address.

While I was surprised that my wife had received emails from the two retailers, I was baffled by how I’d been added to their lists.

I understood that it’s easy for companies to access data linking our email addresses to our internet protocol (IP) address, “the unique identifying number assigned to every device connected to the Internet.” That connection is evident each time we complete an online form that asks for our email address, among other personal information.

Companies that don’t harvest that data themselves also can buy it from those who do. The market for data brokering is huge – now a $138.9 billion industry that’s expected to top $229 billion by 2025.

Big tech companies like Facebook and Google, as well as credit bureaus like Equifax and Experian, are among the biggest players in the data collection market. These organizations often say they don’t sell customer data; rather, they “share” it with their advertising partners. Of course, advertisers pay these big data collecting companies to run their ads, so selling vs. sharing seems like semantics.

Having exhausted the extent of my digital data-sharing knowledge, I turned to an expert. Dan Shaffer was once a BIS major and a student in my Marketing Principles class. He’s since risen to Director of Marketing Operations at WebFX one of the world’s leading digital marketing companies. I asked him how the two furniture retailers, who were completely unknown to me, could have gotten my email address.

Shaffer said that the companies were likely using https://retention.com/ to tie my IP back to my email addresses via brokered data – a process that started when at some point my email address and IP address were paired, probably from an online form I filled or an email newsletter to which I subscribed sometime ago.

Even though my wife and I use different devices to access the Internet, and each device has its own unique IPv6, the first 14 digits of that number are the same for every device in our household. So, a company with data from both my wife and from me could connect our datasets and target not just an individual shopper but as Shaffer described, our “household’s browsing history and interests.”

So, to summarize, the two unknown furniture retailers found me by using a very specialized analytics service (Retention.com) that: cross-referenced myriads of data it either harvested itself or purchased from others, found correlations among my wife’s and my separate online activities, and used those connections to paint a digital picture of our household.

That’s a simplified view of what happened and how. Given the moral focus of Mindful Marketing, the bigger question is, should it have happened? Was it right for the two furniture retailers and Retention.com to put my wife on their email list and target me?

It’s interesting that Retention.com dedicates an entire webpage to answering the question, How is Retention.com Legal? Who else does that? Does your employer take time to explain why it’s legal? An organization that does so naturally makes us ask: Should I be worried? Are there reasons why this business may not be legitimate?

Retention.com makes a case for the legitimacy of its practices with a variety of alleged facts including:

According to the US CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 you do NOT need an opt-in to send email marketing in the USA. In Europe, you do; but in the US, you don’t.
To be CAN-SPAM compliant, all you need is an opt-out link in the communication, and you need to make it clear that it’s an advertisement, along with a few other requirements (see below).

The webpage goes on to discuss that the conventional definition of SPAM is email that is both unsolicited and bulk. However, Retention.com argues against that definition because although it comes from Spamhaus, which is “an important, and influential organization in Email Marketing,” “Spamhaus is NOT the US government.”

At the same time, Retention.com also claims that it complies with Spamhaus’ definition because it provides “verifiable consent, ie, a third-party opt-in date and time, and the URL of our partner website that they opted in to.”

Furthermore, the site argues that the emails sent thanks to its services comply with the main requirements of the Federal Trade Commission’s CAN-SPAM act:

No false or misleading header information
No deceptive subject lines
Identifying the message as an ad
Telling recipients where the sender is located
Telling recipients how to opt out of receiving future emails
Honor opt-out request promptly
Monitor what others are doing on your behalf

To Retention.com’s credit, I can confirm that the emails I received from the two furniture retailers complied with most of the seven stipulations above. However, one significant falsity appeared at the top of each email: “You’re receiving this email because you stopped by our site. Unsubscribe”

Before I received the first email from them, I didn’t even know these retailers existed; I certainly never visited their websites.

Given that my wife did browse the sites, perhaps the retailer and Retention.com could argue that “you” is plural, i.e., ‘you people,’ or ‘your household.’ Of course, even individuals in the same family or household often have very different personalities, preferences, and internet use patterns.

Why would a company want to risk annoying, alienating, or even offending potential customers, given the possibility that by targeting households one of the following could happen:

Spoil a surprise – What if my wife was hoping to surprise me with some new piece of furniture? Well, she can’t now!
Reveal sensitive information – Others don’t need to know that someone in their household is looking into treatment for a certain medical condition or for an attorney, a therapist, protection from domestic abuse, etc.

Besides being dishonest (“you stopped by our site”), it seems like Retention.com and these furniture retailers are taking a step backward in terms of best practices in marketing.

Ever since marketing began as a science in the mid-1900s, marketers have continually worked to refine their target markets, i.e., tailor them more and more to the needs of specific individuals vs. amorphous groups.

Now that digital media have enabled true one-to-one marketing and mass customization, why turn back the clock?

At the same time, I realize that Retention.com, like many digital marketers, is playing a numbers game. It doesn’t need to get my business for its clients. As long as its shotgun approach gets 15-20% of recipients to open the unsolicited emails and even smaller percentages to visit the retailers’ sites and make purchases, it’s probably providing ROI.

On its ‘right to exist’ page, Retention.com poses a rhetorical question that compares Spamhaus’ guidance to what’s legal:
Why abide by this definition, even though it’s considerably more restrictive than the law?

This question cuts to the heart of the difference between law and ethics and evokes a time-honored moral truism: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

First, there is at least one reason to believe that Retention.com’s practices do run afoul of the law, specifically concerning the Federal Trade Commission’s standard for truth in advertising, which mandates that “Under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair . . .” (1) Since I never visited the two furniture retailers’ sites, to say I did is blatantly untruthful.

Second, even if Retention.com is given a legal pass, it’s practices still raise moral questions, e.g., What really represents ‘opting in,’ and how might less-than-transparent and/or manipulative systems mislead or coerce consumers?

For instance, at some point months or years before, my wife and/or I may have clicked “yes” on terms-of-use agreements that in an array of opaque legalese said that certain companies could “share” our customer information.

Is there really informed consent when you have 1) practically no idea with whom your data will be shared and for what purposes and 2) you’ve been shopping online for a long time, the terms-of-use agreement is the last thing you need to check off before completing the purchase, and the agreement is 10 pages long, in 8-point type, single-spaced?

Just because a company like Retention.com can “legally” assimilate reams of data, find connections, and sell those association services to others, should it? Instances of deception and possible coercion suggest, “no.”

Despite my own unpleasant experience and critical analysis, Retention.com probably is helping to convert a small percentage of surprised email recipients to customers for its clients, making its data amalgamation and email inundation approach “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

Is Extreme Tourism Worth Its Costs?

7/3/2023

7 Comments

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

How far are you willing to go for fun? For some, it’s battling the traffic and crowds at busy summer beaches. For others, it’s climbing over ice and fighting to breathe on an expedition up Everest. Depending on one’s taste and budget, either one of these experiences can be a great time, but as extreme tourism increases, it’s time to ask, are extraordinary leisure activities worth their costs?

By now, most have heard of the Titan submersible’s ill-fated excursion to explore the sunken Titanic. When I first learned that OceanGate’s record-setting sub went missing enroute to the wreckage that lies 2.37 miles below the surface of the North Atlantic, I assumed it was a scientific expedition. Only after additional news reports did I realize that the five passengers passed away on a pleasure trip.

Regardless of the reason for the voyage, it’s tragic that these individuals lost their lives. It’s frightening to think of a sub imploding; hopefully, their passing was quick and painless. Still, the nature of the trip has caused some to question whether such a tour should have been offered, given its inherent risk.

Many people have jobs that require them to risk their lives each day such as: first responders, miners, loggers, construction workers, oil and gas workers, electrical power line installers and repairers. These brave individuals are typically well-trained and well-aware of the danger in their work, which they do to serve others, as well as for income. Leisure activities, in contrast, are by definition discretionary.

While everyone should have recreational time in which they can refresh their body and mind, there are many things people can do that require minimal cost and pose little or no risk, from reading, to walking in a park, to playing pickle ball. So, why does anyone need to do extremely dangerous activities like:

Free climbing – climbing a rock face with no ropes
Base jumping – parachuting from a fixed structure
Bull running – jogging with horned bovines
Big wave surfing – boarding on swells that reach 50 ft. or more

Of course, everyone is wired differently in terms of the recreational activities that bring them pleasure. While some like low-key, passive leisure (e.g., watching movies), others enjoy the physical exertion and competition that comes from playing a sport (e.g., tennis, football). Still others crave much more, like:

Experiencing an extreme adrenalin rush
Seeing or doing something that few others have seen or done
Testing one’s physical and mental limits

Before becoming vice president for finance and administration at Martin’s Famous Potato Rolls and Bread 12 years ago, Scott Heintzelman had a successful two-decade career in public accounting, including a long tenure as a CPA firm partner. For many people in his position and stage of life, the most leisure energy they’d expend would be on a round of golf. However, just before the age of 50, Heintzelman ran his first marathon, then soon turned his attention to triathlons. Over the past five years he's completed 13 Ironman races.

Heintzelman’s friends, family members, and others sometimes say he’s crazy to needlessly put himself through the months of grueling training followed by the body-breaking 140.6-mile competitions, which culminate with him crying upon crossing the finish line. So, why does he choose to recreate in such an extreme way?

Heintzelman says he likes testing himself mentally and physically and adds that enduring pain, delaying gratification, and overcoming negative thoughts have helped him become more disciplined, focused, and resilient – qualities that serve him well in other areas of life.

As the preceding suggests, participating in an Ironman certainly comes with physical costs. It also comes with some significant financial ones such as $1,000-$5,000 for a race-quality bike, $800 for travel expenses, $150 for a 6-month gym membership, and a $600-$800 race entry fee.

Still, these costs pale in comparison to an ultra-extreme sport like high-altitude mountain climbing, for which participants pay “around $100,000 or even more for the privilege to get to the world’s highest peaks.” In the process, there’s real risk of life altering injuries and death from falls, extreme cold, and oxygen deprivation, where above 8,000 meters, “there is so little oxygen that the body starts to die, minute by minute and cell by cell.”

This year, 12 climbers have died on Mount Everest, the world’s highest peak, and regrettably, five more who are missing and likely dead will make 2023 “the deadliest year ever.” One of the reasons for the increase in fatalities is overcrowding, as more inexperienced guides and climbers have made for a record number of climbing permits and caused traffic jams on already very challenging slopes. At times, queues of climbers enroute to the summit have looked like lines of vacationers waiting for a popular Disney World ride.

There are reportedly more than 50 companies that offer guided tours on Everest. Great supply is usually good for consumers, as added competition typically means more options and lower prices. Those things are true to some extent for Everest, but they’ve also meant a dangerous lowering of standards for climber competence and safety, to the point that certain companies will “take absolutely anyone up the mountain, regardless of experience, and cut corners on safety standards.”

One company that’s particularly notorious for taking human life lightly is Seven Summit Treks. Unlike other firms that usually limit their expeditions to 20 people, Seven Summit “is known to take as many as 100 climbers up the mountain — many of whom are unprepared for the altitude and physical exertion.”

The company also offers a VIP Everest Expedition “designed for those seeking to summit Mt. Everest in the utmost comfort and convenience” whether they are “an experienced climber or a first-timer for 8000er.” The expedition includes lessons at Everest basecamp on “ice wall climbing, ladder crossing, and other techniques that will be required for the ascent” – skills you’d think anyone who hopes to climb the world’s highest mountain would have already mastered.

This piece has gone from the depths of the sea with the recent OceanGate tourism tragedy to the heights of the earth with lives lost seeking to summit Everest. So, what do these two elevation extremes and all the options in between mean for those providing extreme leisure activities? Here are three potentially helpful considerations:

1) It’s hard to judge what leisure is too costly and risky: I would generally describe myself as cost-conscious and risk-adverse, which makes me want to point my finger at others spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and risking their lives to do things like deep ocean exploring and high-altitude climbing. Then I remember that I’ve done some leisure activities that others might consider too expensive and risky.

More than a decade ago, when my wife and I visited Kauai, we took advantage of what seemed like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity: to view the breath-taking island by helicopter. The nearly $200 we spent per ticket certainly could be considered excessive for the 50-minute ride. Likewise, flying inside canyons on the rugged Napali coast had risk. Then again, anyone who flies or drives anywhere for a vacation could be accused of incurring unnecessary cost and risk.

The point is, it’s difficult to draw a clear line between what is and isn’t excessive leisure. That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be a line or that anything should go but rather that it might be helpful to consider factors like cost relative to the individual’s income, if not per capita income, as well as the percentage of instances of severe injuries or death for those who engage in the activity.

2) Leisure interest can lead to scientific discovery: Sometimes people’s leisure leads to discoveries that benefit much larger groups of people. For instance, amateurs have documented unique animal behaviors and even discovered new species.

People pursing their recreational passions also have played significant roles in advancing fields like avionics and computing. Most recently, companies including SpaceX are leveraging what they’re learning from offering space tourism to create the potential for dramatically faster point-to-point travel on earth, such as a flight from New York City to Shanghai that might only take 40 minutes.

3) Consumers’ safety is critical: Ultimately, what matters most for companies marketing recreation of any kind, including extreme tourism, is safety. Of course, before people participate in dangerous activities, organizations must clearly communicate the risks. It’s fine to ask participants to sign waivers; however, those releases should never become substitutes for taking every reasonable step to ensure that individuals simply looking for a pleasurable leisure experience don’t return injured or dead.

It seems that the two extreme tourism companies mentioned above have both fallen short of this critical standard. Since OceanGate’s Titan submersible exploded, many have reported that there were serious safety concerns surrounding the structural integrity of the deep-diving craft. Similarly, beyond Seven Summits Treks’ questionable onboarding practices described above, the firm’s owner resists rules for who should or shouldn’t enter into Everest’s death zone; instead, he recommends, “If [people] have enough energy, they can go.”

As Baby Boomers and Gen Xs look for a last hurrah and experience-driven Gen Ys and Zs gain disposable income, it’s likely that demand for extreme tourism will continue to increase. Companies that want to capitalize on this trend should ensure that the benefits they provide to clients are proportionate to the costs they incur. In addition, others outside the exchange shouldn't be asked to bear costs (e.g., environmental degradation, rescue costs) without receiving benefits.

Above all, organizations must do everything possible to ensure their clients’ safety. In an often-unpredictable natural world complicated by periodic human error, safety can seldom be guaranteed. However, at 3,800 meters below sea level or 29,000 meters above it, companies should have air-tight models for returning their clients safely; otherwise, they’re liable for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

7 Comments

Why Did the PGA Stop Keeping Score with LIV?

6/20/2023

2 Comments

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

“If you can’t beat them join them.” This old adage, suggesting that adversaries become allies, has been used to describe everything from Vichy France aligning with Nazi Germany to Apollo Creed training Rocky Balboa. Now a very surprising real-life sports pairing has made ethics appear expendable or at least raised the question: Is it okay to have a moral change of mind?

The Professional Golfers’ Association’s (PGA) decision to merge with LIV Golf was a move that virtually no one expected. Even professional golfers and analysts who cover the game were shocked by the news. The PGA’s sudden change of heart, which went from viewing LIV as a bitter rival to a bedfellow also represented for many an epic moral capitulation.

Over the past year, the PGA and LIV have been “at war.” The PGA had threatened to suspend golfers who defected to LIV and even ban them for life. Why such acrimony? Of course, no organization wants a new competitor, especially one that steals its product (golfers) and commandeers its place (golf venues).

However, the PGA’s disdain for LIV was rooted in more than competition-fueled conflict. Many in the veteran golf association, as well as others, took issue with LIV’s funding source – the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, the nation of origin for 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks and a country known for human right abuses.

In an interview just a month ago, the PGA’s CEO, Seth Waugh, was heard “trashing” LIV Golf ahead of the PGA Championship. How is such a seemingly irreconcilable relationship so suddenly repaired? One ESPN piece, “How the shocking PGA Tour-LIV Golf deal went down” details the events leading up to the proposed merger and its players, while another describes how the unification, which also includes the DP World Tour (Europe), might solidify the sport long-term.

This Mindful Marketing article doesn’t pretend to know what’s best for the future of professional golf; rather, it aims to ask a more general philosophical question: Was it okay for the PGA to have a moral change of mind?

Of course, it’s not organizations but the individuals that manage them who make decisions, including ethical ones. Most of us have experienced that our initial inclinations are not always optimal. As evidence, we’ve all mistakes and often realized later the option we should have selected.

Imperfect decision-making is a thread that has run continually through human history and often involved ethics. For instance, decisions in favor of racial segregation in the U.S. in the 19th- and 20th century are ones that most Americans now reject, as are the choices that kept women from voting until 1920.

Realizing the error of one’s way and self-correcting a moral stance is a good thing. However, it’s also important to help others understand the reason for the reversal. Intelligent, inquiring people want to know not just that a judgment that was A is now B but why it’s changed That’s where moral reasoning helps.

In a moral argument, a person first identifies a moral standard then suggests one or more alleged facts, which lead to a conclusion, or moral judgment. A month ago, it seemed that many PGA supporters/LIV detractors morally reasoned along the lines of the following:

Human rights should be upheld. (moral standard)
Saudi Arabia has not upheld certain human rights. (alleged fact 1)
LIV Golf’s funding come from the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. (alleged fact 2)
LIV Golf’s funding source taints the league. (alleged fact 3)
It’s wrong for professional golfers to play for LIV. (moral judgment)

Then, without notice, the PGA reversed course, announcing its merger with LIV and thereby introducing a new moral judgement: It’s fine for professional golfers to play for LIV.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with having a moral change of heart, especially if it’s the result of ethical enlightenment. However, others deserve to know what changed the moral judgment, which is where the PGA fell short of the cup.

A year ago, PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan was invoking the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a main reason to reject LIV. Now, he will reportedly serve as CEO of the newly created company.

Monahan and the PGA have offered little evidence that their change of heart had anything to do with recognition of either a more compelling moral standard or more salient alleged facts such as, ‘Saudi Arabia’s record on human rights is improving’ or ‘Where money comes from doesn’t matter as much as what’s done with it.’

Moreover, it appears that the PGA has made a wholesale change in its moral decision-making from principle-based ethics, or nonconsequentialism, to outcome-based ethics, or consequentialism. Evidence of this philosophical shift can be seen in recent statements from the PGA and Monahan that focus not on upholding specific moral principles but on prioritizing outcomes for the game of golf, for instance:

“We are pleased to move forward, in step with LIV and PIF’s world-class investing experience, and I applaud PIF Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan for his vision and collaborative and forward-thinking approach that is not just a solution to the rift in our game, but also a commitment to taking it to new heights. This will engender a new era in global golf, for the better.”

Understandably, given what’s transpired, this explanation has failed to reach the green for many of the tour’s most important stakeholders. Many top professional golfers, have felt blindsided by the decision and left to wonder what inspired it. Rory McIlroy, the third ranked golfer in the world, said he was surprised by news of the merger, he felt like a “sacrificial lamb,” and he hated LIV and hoped it would go away.

Similarly, hall of fame golfer Tom Watson sent a letter to Monahan questioning the merger Watson also acknowledged that his skepticism about the new structure has been “compounded by the hypocrisy in disregarding the moral issue.”

If the merger goes through, professional golf, with its strong new financial backing and consolidation will likely thrive. However, the PGA’s pivot has left a moral divot that will not be easily replaced.

It’s the prerogative of any person and professional sports association, to have a moral change of heart. However, when such happens, it’s also important to say why. By not explaining how it so quickly arrived at a very different moral judgment about LIV, the PGA hit the ball into a bunker of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

A 3D Approach to Corporate Social Media Responsibility

6/6/2023

5 Comments

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

Most of us receive warnings during our lives whether they’re about talking in class, highway speeding, or forgetting to pay a bill. When the U.S. surgeon general issues a warning, it’s a serious admonition for everyone, usually about some potential physical harm. So, when the physician in chief warns about the dangers of social media, what should the organizations that use it do?

The New York Times has called U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy’s most recent warning “an extraordinary public advisory,” which is saying something since warnings from the nation’s top doctor are uncommon and have included some grave concerns like AIDS, drunk-driving, obesity, video game violence, gun violence, and, of course, cigarettes.

How could social media possibly warrant the same level of concern?

Gen Z uses Instagram to share fun videos, parents turn to Facebook to celebrate family milestones, and professionals leverage LinkedIn to post and find job opportunities, all of which seem like positive and productive things. Unfortunately, though, most of us also have read about, if not experienced, social media’s negative impact.

I teach about sociological and psychological influences on behavior, but I don’t use social media much, so I’d like to believe I’m above its affirmation-seeking lure. However, I have to admit, there are times I’m disappointed that my posts don’t receive the numbers of likes and shares that those of others do.

Putting too much weight on other people’s reactions can be problematic, but it’s just one of social media’s potential pitfalls. As the following two lists suggest, misuse of social media can impact individuals’ well-being mentally (M), physically (P), and socially (S) in many different ways.

First, Entrepreneur identifies four other pitfalls in its list of five social media dangers:

Real-life interaction is replaced if you allow it (M, P, S)
Feelings of envy emerge based on fabricated lives (M, S)
Moments are missed and memorable experiences are diluted (M)
Addiction (M, P, S)
It can ruin your sleep, impacting your physical health (P)

Still, others suggest many more potential perils. For instance, McMillen Health identifies 15 social media dangers:

Sedentary behavior (P)
Less sleep (P)
Social Media addiction (M, P, S)
Cyberbullying (M, S)
Missing out on face-to-face relationships (S)
Less time for other activities (M, P, S)
Social comparisons (M, S)
Affecting self-image (M)
Damaging online reputation (M, S)
Harmful to mental well-being (M)
Misleading information (M, S)
Scams (M, P)
Normalizing risk-taking behaviors (P)
Misleading marketing (M, P)
Inappropriate content (M, P, S)

Although anyone can be negatively impacted in these ways, children and adolescents tend to feel social media’s impacts most acutely, partly because they’re heavy users of the platforms but mainly because individuals’ formative years are ones in which they often look to others for validation, and they more easily feel ostracized from their peers.

Mayo Clinic cites many studies that found evidence of adverse effects of social media on teens, including the following:

12- to 15-year-olds in the U.S. who used social media for more than three hours a day were at greater risk of mental health problems.
For 13- to 16-year-olds in the U.K., using social media more than three times a day was associated with poor mental health and well-being.
Various studies have found links between social media use and symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Even with this evidence, it’s important to note that social media is not inherently bad. As suggested at the onset of this piece, platforms like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and others provide very worthwhile services that range from connecting people, to offering entertainment, to delivering education.

It also bears emphasizing that ultimately people are responsible for their own social media use. Even in the case of so-called ‘addictive’ apps, like TikTok, people have the ability to stop using them without experiencing physical withdrawal symptoms associated with trying to stop smoking or doing drugs like cocaine and heroin.

One qualification, however, is that parents share some responsibility for the social media use of their children, especially younger ones. Unlike adults, children can’t necessarily comprehend the potential risks because they lack life experience and knowledge of social and psychological phenomenon. It’s up to parents to help moderate their children’s social media use.

Notwithstanding the preceding points, if companies care about their own consumers and people in general, they should want to contribute to their well-being and help them avoid harm.

Here are three “Ds” every organization should do to make their social media use more responsible.

1. Discourage divisive content: This is understandably a difficult phenomenon to police, but companies from the largest social media platforms to the smallest should work to eliminate content that unnecessarily pits people against each other.

While social media platforms shouldn’t be in the business of monetizing such content, all businesses should model civil dialogue and discourage polarizing posts.

2. Don’t allow abusive behavior: The social media communication that likely weighs heaviest on young people’s mental health is the communication that involves bullying and/or shaming. Yes, freedom of speech is important, but it shouldn’t mean that anything goes, particularly when that anything involves demeaning dialogue and personal attacks.

Smaller companies also can monitor their social media pages for abusive posts, removing them as they see them and banning users who make them.

3. Decrease overuse: Bars stop serving patrons who have had too much to drink. Social media platforms can at a minimum notify users of their time on the platform, similar to Apple’s screentime notifications. Beyond that, platforms could also ask people to set their own time limits, before they start using the app, when they’re still thinking about their use rationally and objectively.

Of course, most business that use social media aren’t platforms or major apps. Still, even small businesses can discourage social media overuse by limiting their posts to reasonable numbers, e.g., one or two a day versus four or five, which communicates to followers that they can and should have lives outside of their interactions with a single business.

Companies don’t need to stop using social media because of the U.S. surgeon general’s warning, but they should reassess how their use may be impacting people. The three Ds described above don’t represent a comprehensive plan for responsible social media use, but they are important steps toward more “Mindful Marketing.”

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

5 Comments

<<Previous

Dos and Don'ts of Personal Branding with AI

Paying Cash to Crash Weddings

No Shorts, No Sunglasses, No Service

All Play: How Companies Can Make More Inclusive Toys

Has Tipping Reached a Tipping Point?

What's to Like about Twitter's Rebrand

How Data Analytics Find You

Is Extreme Tourism Worth Its Costs?

Why Did the PGA Stop Keeping Score with LIV?

A 3D Approach to Corporate Social Media Responsibility

Editor

Archives

Categories