Mindful Marketing - Mindful Marketing

Can AI Advertising be the Real Thing?

12/1/2024

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

Coca-Cola has a long history of very memorable holiday ads, from its iconic Coke-swigging Santa to the surprisingly peaceful polar bears. This year’s campaign seeks to capture similar feelings of goodwill, warmth, and cheer but with AI-generated output, which raises the question: Should the company that’s touted its product as the real thing for more than a century now be creating advertising that’s not?

Longer-tenured consumers like me remember Coca-Cola’s longstanding tagline “The Real Thing,” which the company leaned on heavily in the 1970s following its successful 1969 campaign, “Can’t Beat The Real Thing.” Actually, the company had articulated the theme even earlier, e.g., on painted signs in the 1940s.

The notion that Coke is the real thing, or the original cola, can be traced to the late 1800s: Coke came to market in 1886, 12 years before its archrival Pepsi, giving Coca-Cola not only first-mover advantage but the right to boast that any cola coming after it was a mere facsimile.

The word real hasn’t appeared in all the company’s advertising, yet Coca-Cola has always sought to position itself as authentic and genuine – distinct branding threads that have woven their way through the company’s varied promotion, particularly in its holiday ads.

For instance, the look of the Santa Claus character that many know and love is largely a Coca-Cola creation. In 1931, the company and D'Arcy Advertising Agency tapped Haddon Sundblom, a Michigan-born Illustrator, to create images of Santa Claus for the firm’s ads.

Before then, Santa Claus was often depicted as “everything from a tall gaunt man to a spooky-looking elf.” Sundblom, however, took inspiration from Clement Clark Moore's 1822 poem "A Visit From St. Nicholas" (aka “Twas the Night Before Christmas”) to transform Santa’s image into what’s typical today – “a warm, friendly, pleasantly plump and human Santa.” Such an inviting persona meshed seamlessly with Coca-Cola’s wholesome brand image and helped to further propagate its portrayal as the real thing.

Beside his appealing personality, Sundblom Santa’s bright red hat and coat, their white trim, and his full white beard also placed him squarely on-brand in terms of colors, and the company used the holiday character heavily over the next several decades.

In 1993, Coca-Cola introduced another endearing creation – animated polar bears. Although the company had used a polar bear in a French print ad in 1922, the bears that Coca-Cola creator Ken Stewart designed in the early 1990s developed a much longer-lasting legacy.

In their first television commercial, about sixteen furry white polar bears, each holding a bottle of Coke, sat contently on the artic tundra, oohing and ahhing as they watched the aurora borealis (northern lights). Near the end of the 30-second spot, they sipped their sodas, smacked their lips, and let out one more collective ahh. The commercial culminated with a close-up of one particularly pleasant bear with plump cheeks and friendly eyes that seemed to smile for the camera as it held its frosty soda bottle high.

In another 90-second spot from around 2005, the bears crashed the Christmas party of a pack of penguins that were dancing to the Beach Boys’ holiday favorite “Little Saint Nick.” At first the penguins were startled, but after one of their chicks shared a bottle of Coke with a bear cub, everyone smiled and happily joined the festivities. Leave it to Coca-Cola to make even one of the world’s fiercest predators fit its brand.

Even as the polar bears’ popularity grew, in 1995 the company unfurled another memorable campaign called “Holidays are Coming” that featured a seemingly endless caravan of light-bedazzled and ornately decorated 18-wheel big rigs sporting Coca-Cola’s trademark script lettering and larger-than-life images of its affable Santa Claus.

The spectacular line of long haulers rolled down country roads to the chant of “holidays are coming,” lighting up forests and bridges as they passed and pleasantly surprising a variety of delighted onlookers. Although certain parts of these mid-1990s ads leveraged special effects, much of what viewers saw was real, including the people in the spots.

Thirty years later, these “Holidays are Coming” ads are the inspiration for the company’s new AI-generated campaign, which carry the same name and decked-out trucks but haven’t engendered the same warm response as the original ads.

Produced by three different AI studios, the three new AI-generated ads, have received some very frosty reviews. As the New York Times has reported, one critic called the ads “slop” that “ruins the Christmas spirit,” while another claimed the company has significantly lowered its standards with the “heartbreaking” campaign, and a third, Alan Hirsch, the creator of the animated TV show Gravity Falls, suggested Coca-Cola’s signature red represents “the blood of out-of-work artists.”

So, why risk messing with a good thing and the Real Thing by using AI to produce the new ads? A main motivation was likely money, as Garrett Sloan writing for AdAge suggested: “Backers of the technology are excited about how it could bring more creative tools to more people, more cheaply.”

It’s easy to imagine that Coca-Cola’s original “Holidays are Coming” ads, with their elaborately decorated trucks, remote outdoor settings, and abundant special effects, were very expensive to produce – probably millions of dollars – and took a long time to script, schedule, shoot, and edit. Why shouldn’t the company leverage technology’s cutting edge to save time and trim expenses?

Asking that question seems to fly in the face of the conclusion of my last Mindful Marketing article, “Does Human Made Matter?” in which I deduced, Yes, it matters. So, why was AI use out-of-bounds a few weeks ago but in-play now?

While some suggest that AI shouldn’t be used for anything and others argue that all AI use is acceptable, I stand between the two extremes. I’m firmly in the middle but will lean a little closer to one side or the other based on the efficacy of the application and the ethics of the situation.

As the last Mindful Marketing article suggested, many value originality in art and appreciate a sense of personal connection with the art’s creator, such as ones stemming from shared life experiences. Human connections and true originality are both things that are difficult if not impossible for AI to replicate.

On the other hand, most people probably don’t mind if AI generated a promotional email they received or was used to create a billboard they read.

The ultimate purpose of most advertising is to sell products, so although advertising is part science and part art, it doesn’t have the same thresholds for originality and personal connection as pure art does. Most people probably feel a deeper human connection with a favorite painting or song than they do with a Coca-Cola promotional piece. The notion that there’s a different standard for commercial content opens the door for AI use in advertising.

Someone who sees firsthand the effective and ethical use that marketing can make of AI is Matt Caylor, Account Director with Martin Communications, Inc., located near Harrisburg, PA. While he warns against blindly accepting AI output, which can be dangerous because it’s not always correct, Caylor also has experienced many productive uses of the technology including copy iteration, data analysis, and design assistance, as he explains:

“The technology can save time in editing and design, taking some of the mundane or tedious work off our plates. It can work as a partner in the initial iteration of messaging, often acting as an agent to bounce ideas off. It can be an agile assistant that reviews and analyzes large data sets, crunches numbers, or helps develop new queries.”

Does human input matter to Caylor and others at Martin Communications? It surely does, and like many others working in marketing, Caylor and his colleagues are continually learning how to effectively integrate their own insights with the technology tools – just as humans have done for millennia.

So, does it matter if Coca-Cola’s “Holidays are Coming” ads aren’t the Real Thing. Yes and no.

It matters in that consumers’ perceptions, whether correct or not, are their reality. For instance, some viewers seem to believe that all the people in the ads are AI-generated, even though Pratik Thakar, Coca-Cola’s VP and global head of generative AI, says at least some are not. Still, when people perceive a little AI in an ad, their tendency is to extrapolate that everything in it is AI.

On the other hand, Coca-Cola is only doing what Caylor and individuals in many other fields do each day – use AI selectively and responsibly to leverage their own time and talents. As Thakar explains: “Our human creatives make decisions and use AI as a tool.”

There’s nothing inherently wrong with Coca-Cola’s using AI as a tool to help create its new “Holidays are Coming” ads. However, given individuals’ current impressions of AI, because people have special expectations for authenticity around the Holidays, and since Coca-Cola has built a reputation for realism, the company’s AI use in the ads may have been too much too soon, or a case of Simple-Minded Marketing.

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

1 Comment

Does Human-Made Matter?

11/2/2024

0 Comments

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

How do you position a business ethics book versus dozens of others on the market? That’s been a top-of-mind question and exciting opportunity while writing my book on Mindful Marketing. One point of differentiation I wouldn’t have imagined when I started blogging about ethics 10 years ago is this: My book is written by a human.

A few weeks ago, I came across the interesting and apropos news that the Author’s Guild, “the nation’s oldest and largest professional organization for published writers,” has plans to offer a new “Human Authored Label” that it’s 15,000 members can place directly on the covers of books they write.

The impetus for the initiative, of course, is to distinguish works written by real people from those compiled by AI. Apparently, the surge in AI-authored books has become so strong that Amazon has set a policy limiting self-published Kindle eBooks to three per day.

A related concern is that the purveyors of some AI-written books are trying to scam readers by pretending that real people wrote them, which is part of the bigger issue of AI appropriating others’ work.

As a human author, my first reaction to the proof of personhood label was “That’s great!” Then, I glanced around my home office space and started considering all the things I use each day that weren’t handcrafted by humans, which made me wonder:

Does human-made matter?

I doubt that one specific person made the MacBook on which I’m typing. Considering the hundreds of different parts that comprise a computer, it’s likely that dozens of people played different roles in designing, manufacturing, and delivering the laptop, which I still don’t think of as human-made, but in some ways it is.

Humanity has a long history of inventing specific tools and automating entire production processes to accomplish work more efficiently and effectively, for instance: the spear, the wheel, plows, harvesting machines, moveable type, internal combustion engines, excavating equipment, assembly line machinery, microchips.

These innovations and many others have been integral to the advance of civilizations and improved quality of life. Along the way, technology also has made obsolete certain jobs, e.g., digging with shovels, while creating new ones, e.g., designing, selling, operating, and servicing excavating equipment.

Like most people, I’m grateful for the innovative goods and services, some not available just a few decades ago, that make work more productive and life more enjoyable. I’m also thankful for the technological tools that have made many of these products possible, sometimes with little human input.

Lack of human intervention is a main difference between artificial intelligence and other technology to-date. Take this article, which I’ll write over the course of several days or more and will end up being about 2,000 words. Yet I know if I were to give ChatGPT the prompt, “Write a 2,000-word Mindful Marketing article on the topic ‘Does Human-Made Matter?’” it could probably compose a coherent piece in about five seconds.

Could I claim authorship of the essay? Well, if the chatbot trained on the more than 300 Mindful Marketing articles I’ve written over the past decade, yes. Otherwise, I wouldn’t feel right taking credit for the piece. Doing so would kind of be like asking Einstein to explain the theory of relativity, then claiming ownership of his answer.

Asking a question, even a very good one, isn’t the same as answering it. In most cases the latter is a much, much heavier lift.

In terms of who or what’s doing the lifting, we might envision a continuum. On one end are tangible goods like laptops and services like haircuts that require interaction with the physical world. Although AI can show us digitally what we’d look like with a different hairstyle, actual hair cutting/styling is still a people-intensive service that needs real scissors and actual human hands, at least for now.

On the other end of the spectrum are intangible/digital products like this article, cover letters, and work emails that AI can crank out with no more than a simple human prompt. Apple’s new “Apple Intelligence” ad spoofs how easy it is for AI to turn human-made trash into supervisor-pleasing treasure.

The 60-second spot shows an utterly incompetent employee, Warren, typing this message into his iPhone 16: “Hey, J, this project might need a bit of zhuhzing . . . but you’re the big enchilada. Holler back, Warren.” Before sending it, he taps the writing tool icon “Professional,” which metamorphosizes the mess.

Moments later J, who appears to be Warren’s boss, receives the transformed message: “Hey J, Upon further consideration, I believe this project may require some refinement. However, you are the most capable individual to undertake this task. Please let me know your thoughts. Best regards, Warren.”

J is noticeably impressed as he reads the memo aloud, then pauses with surprise at the signature, “Warren? Huh.” His tone and facial expression suggest he thinks he may have been underestimating his seemingly inept subordinate. Meanwhile, Warren celebrates his tech-enabled victory, boldly twirling a USB cable in the air to the sound of an upbeat Apple music bed with lyrics “I am genius, whoaaa . . ”

Human made didn’t seem to matter to Warren. Will it matter to J? Stay tuned.

Of course, on the digital end of the continuum, there are more profound, spirit-moving, and sense-stimulating things AI can create than a work email: AI also can make art.

AI’s creation of visual and aural art has been a point of contention for artists who understandably don’t want blatant forgeries and veiled facsimiles of their work sold without proper recognition and reward.

But what if AI makes art that appears, for all intents and purposes, to be original, i.e., it doesn’t infringe in any noticeable way on any specific artist’s intellectual property? In those cases, should human-made matter?

Since my own artistic background is limited, I recently reach out to two people who very legitimately hold the title artist and asked each to answer the question, “Why does human-made matter?”

One artist I approached was Susan Getty, a freelance artist, writer, and editor. Full disclosure, our home proudly displays several of her paintings.

In describing why human-made matters to her as an artist, Susan emphasized that art’s value stems not just from the finished work but from the process of making it. She extolled fulfilling “an inborn impulse to create” that comes from working with her hands in tangible, physical materials.

She also pointed to the value of what she learns through the art-making process, like “understanding how colors mix, how paper folds, how a brush spreads different kinds of paint.” This constant learning stimulates her imagination and helps keep her “connected to the physical world,” which she laments may be lost by a society that spends too much time in virtual space.

Susan also appreciates art’s value in allowing a person to learn from their mistakes and cope with failure:

“There’s something crucial about a deep personal investment of time, money and effort and experiencing either an enthusiastic reception or apathetic dismissal from others. I believe that every human ought to, at some point in life, come to their own terms on what success and failure mean.”

Although Susan appreciates technology and uses the web to find reference photos, learn about different artistic techniques, and gain inspiration from the work of artists around the world, she doesn’t believe artmaking is intended to be the quick and easy process that AI tries to make it.

As an art appreciator, she wants to feel a connection with the artist, which comes from seeing energy, spontaneity, and individual interpretation in the work. Ultimately, she wants herself and those who appreciate her art to have what AI can’t provide – a shared human experience.

The other artist I asked to answer the question “Why does human-made matter?” is one I know especially well – my son Daniel Hagenbuch, who is both a musician (violin and piano) and a composer. He’s currently completing a Master of Music in Composition at Peabody Institute in Baltimore.

Daniel believes music is a gift that composers create very intentionally for their audiences: “[Music composition] is a time-based art form that both requires composers to spend time thoughtfully crafting ideas and time for listeners to hear those ideas unfold.” He adds that a gift a person carefully and specifically makes for someone else naturally has more meaning than one given with little reflection or effort.

He contrasts quick-and-easy AI-generated music to human composers spending “hundreds of hours transcribing music by hand, using notation software, engraving, creating parts, and rehearsing music with live performers in order to create the best experience for audience members.”

Daniel believes this intimate involvement with their craft gives human composers “a more nuanced approach and understanding of the compositional process from start to finish,” which allows them to make writing choices that defy computer algorithms and depart from the formulaic patterns by which AI operates.

He maintains that composers, like all humans, have distinct personalities that are functions of their personal experiences and that show through in their music, “reflecting their individual musical tastes and intuition.” Listeners, he contends, are drawn to those personalities and connect with them through the music.

He concludes: “People are wired with a desire for human connection and only human composers can fulfill that longing.”

Oil paints and C sharps – Their art is very different, but many similarities exist between Susan’s and Daniel’s responses to the question of why human-made matters. For instance, both emphasize the importance of the creative process, for artists and for those who appreciate their art.

Each also suggests that art becomes more meaningful when there’s an artist-appreciator relationship, i.e., a human connection. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the two ever meet, yet the appreciator feels like they know the artist by virtue of learning the artist’s story and/or being familiar with their other work.

The bottom-line is human-made does matter, maybe less for some things, like my laptop’s components, but very much for other things, like art. It’s good to lean into technology in ways that make sense, but we also need to be careful not to become like Apple’s Warren and depend on devices to the detriment of our own personal and professional development. Even Apple hinted that Warren’s ineptitude will be found out.

In the book-writing process, I’ve asked AI a couple of specific questions and enlisted its help in formatting bibliography references, but I haven’t had it write any of the manuscript. Maybe that’s a mistake – ChatGPT is much smarter than I am. However, AI hasn’t enjoyed the special experiences and rewarding relationships I have that form the stories and fuel the insights that are the backbone of much of the narrative.

As technology becomes increasingly pervasive in our lives, there will be more opportunities to use it productively and to position against it by appealing to the unique impact of personhood. Human-made is not a fail-safe, but it will always hold potential for Mindful Marketing.

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

0 Comments

A Decade of Very Demure, Very Mindful Marketing

10/1/2024

1 Comment

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

It’s hard to believe that Mindful Marketing has been shining a light on ethics in the field for ten years! TikTok didn’t exist in September 2014, when I wrote “CVS Quits Smoking,” the very first article on MindfulMarketing.org. Likewise, the appetite for influencer content, such as Jools Lebron’s “Very demure, very mindful” viral videos, was just starting to grow. The world looked different in many ways during the fall of 2014:

Barrack Obama was a year-and-a-half into his second term as president.
Prince Harry was still single and part of the British royal family.
Tom Brady had won just three of his seven Super Bowls.
Instagram was only six years old.
Apple’s newest phones were the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.
On May 23, Tesla stock closed at a mere $13.82 a share.
Russia had invaded Crimea just a half year earlier.
George Floyd was still alive.
The #MeToo movement was several years away.
The world didn’t know what a global pandemic would be like.
It was still a year before Volkswagen’s notorious Dieselgate.
The URL MindfulMarketing.org was still available.
I had less gray hair

When I created the Mindful Marketing concept and Mindful Matrix ten years ago, I dreamed of doing the impossible: moving the needle on ethics in my field. As most people realize, marketing unfortunately has a reputation for being among the most morally suspect professions.

Each year Gallup conducts a poll in which it asks respondents to rate the honesty and ethical standards of 20 or so occupations. Inevitably, at the top of the list are jobs like doctor, nurse, and pharmacist, while near the bottom are several marketing occupations such as telemarketer, advertising practitioner, and car salesperson.

High-profile morale lapses like Volkswagen developing a defeat-device to trick emission tests, Wells Fargo employees creating fake accounts, and Turing Pharmaceutical’s CEO Martin Shkreli increasing the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000%, have suggested that marketing ethics are easily forgotten.

Several other fields like accounting and law have continuing education requirements that include focus on ethics. Unfortunately, marketing does not. Consequently, a main aim of Mindful Marketing has always been to make ethics sticky.

A research paper I coauthored by Laureen Mgrdichian, published in Marketing Education Review, explains how Mindful Marketing utilizes a common analytical tool, a 2 x 2 matrix akin to the Boston Consulting Group’s portfolio matrix, to encourage conversations about ethical issues. The article also describes how Mindful Marketing leverages branding – a tool that organizations large and small use to differentiate their products from those of competitors and make them more memorable, i.e., stickier.

Admittedly, in ten years Mindful Marketing hasn’t come close to grabbing the incredible social media attention that Jools Lebron has gained in a few months – 2.2 million followers on TikTok – but it has received other significant recognition and exposure including:

Dozens of articles republished on CommPro.biz
Interviews by The New York Times, Fast Company, U.S. News & World Report, National Public Radio, and The Boston Globe
Many speaking opportunities such as at the American Marketing Association’s annual Leadership Summit, the Marketing & Public Policy conference, the Marketing Management Association conference, and a special AI-focused conference of the British Academy of Management.

The most exciting new development is that there will soon be a Mindful Marketing book!

I’ve signed an agreement with Kendall Hunt to write “Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick,” which should be published this December. I am grateful to have been granted a sabbatical from teaching this fall to work on the book, which is now 80 percent complete.

Over the years, several people have asked me whether I might write a book on Mindful Marketing. Initially, I brushed off the suggestions, but as the site’s marketing ethics content continued to grow and gain traction, I began to give the idea more serious consideration.

A few years ago, I traveled back in the Mindful Marketing archives to September 2014, reviewed all the articles from that time forward, and curated them into specific categories to match topics I teach in my business ethics class. There are now over 320 Mindful Marketing articles, which provide a wealth of choices for engaging real-world applications to almost any ethical issue in marketing imaginable.

The articles have served my business ethics students well for discussions of topics ranging from utilitarianism, to economic and social justice, to decency. So, I thought if Mindful Marketing works for my course, it might work for others' classes. Moreover, a book seemed like the logical way to extend Mindful Marketing’s reach.

Some may wonder why marketing should be the focus of a business ethics book. Among other strong support, there are the arguments that marketing:

“Is the distinguishing, unique function of business”
“Is the lifeblood of any company”
Touches every business area
Directly impacts consumers many times a day
Is used by business leaders (e.g., CEOs, VPs, partners)
Is used by everyone (e.g., market their ideas, themselves)
Is replete with moral issues to which students can readily relate

While students are the primary audience, I believe the book also will have value for marketing practitioners, who are the ones making the moral decisions that ultimately determine the ethical perceptions and realities of the field. Of course I’m biased, but I believe the book also will be an interesting read for anyone who is intrigued by, or concerned about, marketing’s unique impact on our world.

Most important, my hope is that the book will encourage more students-turned-marketing-professionals to hit pause and ask if the strategies they see or plan to use are Mindful Marketing.

Our world will be a better place when there are more professionals like Kaylee Enck, who even when hearing about a rom-com’s unconventional promotional approach, remembered the Mindful Marketing conversations she engaged in a few years earlier as a student, felt moral dissonance, and questioned the film producer’s strategy. Kaylee’s experience and others like hers show that Mindful Marketing’s stickiness offers strong hope for making an impact on ethics in the field.

It’s interesting to see how much more often the word mindful is used now than it was a decade ago. Sometimes the contexts are physical health, or mental well-being, or even demure attire. Although those uses are different, they’re complementary – they’re all about being thoughtful and principled.

It’s good for us to be mindful in many different ways. Given the breadth and depth of marketing’s reach, our world will especially benefit from more Mindful Marketing.

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

1 Comment

How Should Companies Handle Underconsumption?

9/1/2024

0 Comments

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

I was fascinated to see video recently of a remote Amazonian tribe, deep in the rain forest of Peru, that’s one of the world’s last uncontacted people groups. Interestingly, while its members live successfully with very little, influencers in other parts of the world are suggesting minimalist lifestyles, being called underconsumption. Any trend of people buying less is troubling for many consumer-dependent companies, but it’s a great opportunity for firms to consider how they might diversify their goods portfolios and better meet consumers’ intangible needs.

The underconsumption movement apparently grew from a few people put off by the proliferation of self-proclaimed spokespeople using social media to promote an endless array of “must-have” products to their thousands or millions of followers. What’s more, the influencers receive many of the products they promote for free from the companies that market them, which makes their testimonials less trustworthy.

In contrast to those typical influencers whose bathrooms are bursting with new cosmetics and closets are cluttered with the latest workout gear, individuals advocating underconsumption show how little they own and how they find ways of doing more with less.

For instance, one TikTok user describes how for years she’s used the same tub of Vaseline for cracked hands, scrapes, and itchy skin. Vaseline smartly leaned into the content of this self-proclaimed brand advocate and included her clip on its TikTok site.

One can image how other brands with multifunctional products might take a similar tack. That’s what Arm & Hammer is doing on its TikTok site, which features videos of its iconic baking soda used for everything from cleaning dog toys, to washing pesticides from food, to relieving insect bites.

Of course, most brands don’t have the Swiss-army-knife utility of baking soda – there aren’t nearly as many varied uses for a Stanley Tumbler or Lululemon Leggings. Also, even brands like Vaseline and Arm & Hammer have product line extensions they also want to sell, e.g., Vaseline Hand Cream and Arm & Hammer Toothpaste.

Companies obviously need product sales in order to bring in revenue and earn income. Furthermore, that profit isn’t just self-enrichment. The money firms make allows them to pay taxes, provide employment, and pay dividends to shareholders, some of whom depend on the passive income during retirement.

So, how should companies that want to market mindfully respond to the underconsumption trend? Anytime there’s a challenge or problem, a good starting point is to ask why, in this case:

Why does underconsumption resonate with people?

There likely are several motivations for underconsumption, which may differ from person to person:

Money: Gen Zs, especially, may not have the discretionary income to spend on many non-necessities. Part of the problem is debt, which continues to rise nationwide: In the second quarter of 2024, U.S. credit card balances rose by $27 billion to $1.14 trillion. Some families are even going into debt to take Disney vacations.

Simplicity: Even for people who can afford more, the idea of decluttering and simplifying their life can be very appealing. It can provide peace of mind. Also, just like more money, more problems, one can argue that the more you own, the more things can go wrong, i.e., more possessions, more problems.
Stewardship: Some people feel that consuming less is something they can to do protect the environment and support sustainability. Fewer goods produced helps conserve natural resources, reduce carbon emissions, and lessen trash going to landfills.
Self-esteem: Staying out of debt, living a simpler life, and being a good steward also can make people feel good about themselves. Of course, individuals’ esteem also receives a boost when social media friends and followers like and share their unique posts.

Given the many compelling reasons for buying less, what should companies, which depend on people buying more, do? Here are four suggestions:

Understand how the motivations above apply to their own consumers. Some firms’ customers may be much more interested in saving the environment than in simplifying their lives. For others, it may be all about money. There’s little reason for an organization to discuss needs that don’t matter to its own customers.
Make multifunctional products: Stanley probably doesn’t want to promote that its tumbler also can be used as a flowerpot, but it has given the item some versatility by developing different interchangeable lids that allow the same bottle to be used in different ways, e.g., at work, in a car, while hiking, etc.
Give options for product disposal: People who are concerned about stewardship are probably more likely to buy products that they know they can trade in, resell, recycle, or upcycle into something else.
Understand what else people are doing with their money: For consumers whose motivation for buying less is not lack of funds but simplicity, stewardship, or self-esteem, there’s probably money they’re not spending on products that they’re using in other ways, like the four below. Granted, the examples may be more feasible for some firms than for others, but all are worth considering.
1. Paying off debt: Partner with a financial institution that provides debt consolidation services.
2. Saving: Work with a bank or other institution that offers savings instruments.
3. Spending on experiences: Develop marketable services, ideally ones related to the company’s goods, or partner (e.g., cobrand) with an organization that offers them. For instance, there are many kinds of goods makers, e.g., luggage, clothing, shoes, technology, that could consider opportunities related to travel.
4. Giving: Help customers find good causes to which they can donate. This approach is unlikely to be a direct revenue producer for the firm, but it is a worthwhile strategy that can count as corporate social responsibility, earning the firm goodwill and eventually new customers.

No matter what our worldview, we all should agree on several truths related to goods, that:

You can’t take them with you.
People are more important than things.
Life does not consist in an abundance of possessions (Luke 12:15, NIV).

Those living successfully in the Amazon rainforest with very little should remind us that it’s possible to survive without continually purchasing products from the other Amazon. Still, most companies that produce goods do help make our 21st century lives healthier, more productive, and more stimulating. These firms need to make money for our benefit and for theirs.

The four diversification strategies described above are general but might spark thoughts of how companies can complement their tangible product offerings with intangibles. Considering more carefully what one buys is mindful consumption. Understanding those consumer desires and building strategies to support them is Mindful Marketing.

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

0 Comments

How to Talk Appropriately About Pooping

8/2/2024

1 Comment

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

There are certain subjects polite people don’t discuss in public in order to maintain decorum and show respect to others. So, what do you do when you work in advertising and you’re asked to make commercials about one of those taboo topics? Even ad veterans can struggle with such an assignment, but two interns accepted the challenge and crafted a very creative and considerate campaign that surprisingly won one of advertising’s greatest accolades!

Every living person does several of the same things: breath, eat, sleep, excrete. While it’s generally acceptable to do the first three in public, social norms strongly discourage doing or even talking about bowel and bladder functions with others. Why? Probably because they involve private parts and because the outputs are by most standards . . . gross.

Meanwhile, billions of consumers regularly purchase a wide variety of products to assist in managing those two unseemly bodily functions, urination and defecation, from diapers to toilet paper to air fresheners. There also are products that individuals require at certain times when one of the functions isn’t performing properly, like laxatives.

Proper pooping is a serious concern. A recent study found a relationship between stool frequency and healthy kidney and liver function. Furthermore, “things like constipation are associated with chronic disease,” says Professor Sean Gibbons of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle. This science underscores the importance of the promotional question:

How can one tactfully advertise a product that will relieve consumers’ constipation?

That was the very challenging assignment given to Rag Brahmbhatt and Nidhi Shah, interns at the advertising agency Serviceplan in Hamburg Germany. The client, Macrogol Hexal, wanted to promote its constipation-relieving powder, which, as suggested above, is not the most socially acceptable topic.

However, Brahmbhatt and Shah, two young people who are both from India, rose to the occasion, creating a very unique audio approach to communicate the ease of using the laxative and experiencing the desired bowel relief.

The pair pitched using a voice similar to that of British biologist and broadcaster David Attenborough in a series of nature-inspired scripts, accented with environmental sounds, to paint evocative pictures in listeners minds’, ostensibly about events like an otter sliding effortlessly into a river, but really about what Hexal can help happen on the toilet.

In addition to the otter sliding into a river, an AdAge article contains embedded video of other spots’ vivid metaphoric descriptions of a meteor landing in the ocean, a coconut falling, and a volcano erupting. Each spot culminates with a consistent question and answer “Could it be this easy? With Macrogol Hexal it is,” as well as the campaign’s fitting tagline, “Smooth Laxative Relief.”

Serviceplan submitted the work to Cannes Lions, the annual gathering in Cannes France where “the advertising and communications industry meets to celebrate the world's best work.” To the great surprise of Brahmbhatt and Shah, their otter spot won the top prize in the Script category of the Audio & Radio awards, a Gold Lion.

Beyond the very clever metaphors, the artfully written script, and the realistic sounds, what makes the work especially unique is how it took a very socially awkward issue – a taboo conversational topic and inelegant human action – and made it not just acceptable but inviting for mass communication.

That approach is in many ways counterintuitive and countercultural. While the two interns took the somewhat disgusting concept of constipation and made it decent, others in advertising unfortunately often do the opposite, i.e., To promote decent products like food, clothing, and cars, they use indecent promotion such as oversexualized images and expletives.

Why do others resort to indecency? Although one reason may be to cater to the tastes of certain target market members, the main reason is likely because indiscretion takes less creative thinking. In other words, it’s easier. Unfortunately, there’s no shortage of companies that have made the low-level investment in indecency, for instance:

Liquid Death: In many ways the canned water company is a poster-child for indecency. It may be a cartoon ad, but in it blood flows everywhere as an axe-wielding brand mascot monster violently kills a dozen people.
Girls vs. Cancer: The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned the charity organization’s billboards, aimed at encouraging positive sex for women with cancer because of the catchphrase, “Cancer Won’t be the Last Thing that F*cks Me.”
Kraft Heinz: The maker of the world’s best-known macaroni and cheese, a perennial favorite kid food, has surprisingly leaned into profanity for promotions more than once, first asking consumers to “Get your chef together,” then, for a special Mother’s Day campaign, encouraging moms to “Swear Like a Mother.”

Can these low-brow approaches work? They can to some extent.

Most advertising aims to accomplish AIDA: grab attention, retain interest, tap into desire, and spur action. It’s not hard to get others’ attention by showing something vulgar, making an explicit reference to sex, or swearing. Sometimes a continuation of such clickbait-like tactics can even hold interest. It’s much less likely, though, that those approaches will lead to desire for the product or meaningful action.

Worse, indecency can do irreparable damage to a brand. What does a purportedly family-friendly company like Kraft gain by suggesting swearing, versus the credibility it stands to lose with stakeholders?

Remember Go-Daddy’s sex-infused Super Bowl commercials that over many years earned it the reputation as the big game’s “raciest advertiser”? The company eventually realized that sex doesn’t sell web services but has had difficulty rebounding from its well-established reputation for raunch.

More than any of these companies, Brahmbhatt and Shah could have legitimately capitalized on filth in making ads for a laxative. However, the two seemingly less-experienced interns dug deeper to develop a truly creative and clean campaign that likely will be effective for their firm’s client, Macrogol Hexal.

Does that mean the ads are entirely above reproach? Not necessarily. There is the possible issue of the ads using what sounds like Attenborough’s voice. Would you want your vocal likeness to endorse a laxative without your consent? It’s unclear whether Attenborough’s permission was something Serviceplan sought and gained.

In terms of decorum, it’s great that two emerging professionals have reminded the advertising industry that creativity doesn’t mean compromising values like decency. Moreover, Brahmbhatt and Shah have provided an excellent example of the moral math: effective + ethical = Mindful Marketing.

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

1 Comment

Making Money from People Who Talk Funny

6/29/2024

0 Comments

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

“Don’t make fun of the way others talk.” It’s a rule most of us learn early in life, but apparently not all advertisers have adopted it. Humorous ads can be entertaining and effective, but is it okay for them to poke fun at the speech patterns of specific people groups?

As a marketing professor, I probably pay more attention to advertising than most people do, which sometimes leads to seeing similarities among ads and noticing interesting trends. I recently saw several video spots, all from different advertisers, each lampooning the ways specific nationalities/ethnicities communicate:

It’s important to note that each portrayal is intended to be funny, which is certainly common for national ads – think Super Bowl commercials. But like beauty, humor is in the eyes and ears of the beholder, so when do commercials move from silly/stupid, to annoying/irritating, to distasteful/objectionable, to repugnant/offensive? Or, more specifically, when does mocking people’s accents become unethical?

Like communication in general, humor is highly contextual, which is why there are inside jokes that only people aware of a specific backstory understand. Mocking accents can be acceptable and even desirable in certain contexts of social intimacy. For instance, two friends – one from New York City and the other from Boston – might playfully tease each other about their different food preferences, favorite sports teams, and distinct ways of speaking.

With advertising, backstories aren’t between just a few people; rather there’s common knowledge and shared experiences among people regionally, nationally, or even globally, some of which are positive and others, negative. Advertisers should be especially sensitive to the latter.

At some point in their lives, most people probably have had someone comment on the way they talk, perhaps in a complimentary way or maybe critically. However, some people endure daily comments about their accents that often turn into ridicule and even racism. Unfortunately, it’s not hard to find examples of such verbal abuse online, like the following:

Terry Nguyen is an effective writer, but she thinks twice before speaking because she sometimes mispronounces words, which came from growing a home with two Vietnamese parents who spoke rough English.
Sharada Vishwanath tells the story of a classmate imitating her Indian accent, which began as lighthearted and fun but quickly changed to annoying and offensive, as the agitator mentioned the words curry and cheaper.

Belittling people because of the way they talk can be “linguistic racism,” which in work environments may cause those targeted to refrain from speaking and to miss opportunities for professional advancement.

So, do the commercials mentioned at the onset represent linguistic racism? Possibly. An important distinction is whether depictions are of race vs. ethnicity vs. nationality. Another issue is that not all accent imitation is the same – as mentioned earlier, the interpretation of any communication is partly a function of the backstory, or broader context.

Historically, in many English-speaking western nations, people of color from places like Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been the recipients of far more accent abuse than Europeans whose first language is not English. For Terry and Shandra, mentioned above, criticism of their speaking is not a one-off experience but a regular occurrence.

Over the past century, television shows and movies have cast Asian, Black, Latino, and Native American actors and often had them speak broken and improper English, which has contributed to shameful stereotypes of people of color being less intelligent and more socially inept.

One common troupe is that of an Asian who adds “ee” to the ends of words (e.g., “talkee”), omits definite articles (e.g., this, that), and replaces L’s with R’s (e.g. Herro instead of Hello). In one of its final scenes, the classic Christmas movie A Christmas Story employs this Asian stereotyping.

Indians are also frequently stereotyped for a particular style of English speaking. Such accent mocking is what led The Office’s Kelly Kapoor in Season 1 to slap her bigoted boss Michael Scott. For decades, the animated TV show The Simpsons lampooned Indians through its reoccurring character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, until he was finally removed from the show in 2017. Imitation of Indian accents is so common that there is a word for it – brown voice.

Ridicule is bad enough, but “At worst, linguistic racism can lead to deprivation in education, employment, health and housing,” as benefits and opportunities are sometimes withheld from those who talk differently. Perpetuating negative perceptions easily leads to social stigmas that carry significant physical and economic consequences.

However, mockery of the accents of French, Dutch, Germans, and other Europeans who are not native English speakers is not only much less common, when comments about their accents are offered, they usually take on a different tenor. Their speech is more often complimented as sounding cute, sexy, or sophisticated, whereas that of Asians and Indians tends to be criticized for grammatical errors and pronunciation mistakes.

So, does this asymmetry in experience make it acceptable to mock Europeans’ accents? I’d like to offer three reasons why it does not:

1. People are still hurt. Isabelle Duff, a native of Ireland whose job took her to London, recounts how she often felt harassed by coworkers who continually imitated her Irish accent. Scottish actor Billy Boyd, who played “Pippin” in Lord of the Rings, refuses roles, common in scripts, that call for an incomprehensible Scottish accent, which is an unfair and demeaning stereotype of Scots. A similar example is the unintelligible babble of Sesame Street’s Swedish Chef, who many Swedes don’t find funny.

2. Wrong for one should mean wrong for all. There aren’t many examples in ethics where compelling cases can be made that it’s okay to harm certain groups of people, but not others. A proponent of capital punishment might argue it’s right to execute murders but not others; however, murders aren’t a distinct, demographically identifiable people group. Also, unlike Scots, Irish, and Swedes, murderers have done things that arguably warrant differential treatment.

3. Don’t imply permission. People expect consistency. If a parent tells one child they can stay up late, their sibling will expect the same privilege. So, if it’s acceptable to mock Scots, some people will deduce that it’s okay to mock Indians too. The safest approach is to not offer any basis for making that inference by maintaining that it’s inappropriate to mock the speech of any people group.

When we open our mouths to speak, funny things sometimes come out. It’s okay to laugh about those silly sounds and statements with people we know, in the right context, and with pure intent.

However, the standards that fit individual incidences cannot be morally stretched to cover broad cases involving the accents of entire people groups. Although it may seem funny and be effective, advertising that mocks the speech of any race, ethnicity, or other demographic should be considered “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Does Selling Love Risk Relationships?

6/4/2024

1 Comment

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

Love, exciting and new . . . come aboard, we’re expecting you. Those lyrics from one of the most popular TV sitcoms of the 1970s – ABC’s The Love Boat – are a reminder that people have long-been fascinated with others’ romances. Offering entertainment that people enjoy is a good thing, but are new marketing strategies for monetizing love courting immorality?

A former student of mine, Kaylee Enck, recently messaged me to ask my opinion about a rom-com. I’m not the best person for questions about romantic cinema, but Kaylee wasn’t really interested in my perspective on the movie, Anyone But You; she wanted to know my thoughts about a very unconventional tactic used to promote the film, as she explained:

“The movie went viral because everyone thought the two leads had fallen in love with each other off-screen---even though both were in serious, committed relationships with other people at the time. They played the ruse really well. It's hard to know if it was the pretend relationship or something else, but the male lead's real-life finance actually called off their engagement. A few days ago, it was revealed that the whole thing was a marketing ploy invented by Sydney Sweeney, the lead actress and an executive producer on the film.”

With Kaylee’s clear event summary and some additional background from a link she provided, I was glad to offer my perspective:

Thank you for sharing this story. It seems like a very lowly strategy both because of the wide-spread intentional deceit and the negative impact on real relationships. As I think of broader issues involved, the strategy may reflect a growing tendency to put work ahead of the people in our lives and a willingness to do anything for money or fame.

Kaylee thanked me for my reply, and we could have been done there, but her question got me thinking . . . the markets for products related to love are many and huge! Besides certain movies genres, there are dozens of other products that are often, if not always, connected to love, for instance:

Television shows: old ones e.g., the Love Boat, the Dating Game, soap operas, and new ones e.g., 90-Day Fiancé, the Bachelor, the Bachelorette, Golden Bachelor, Love Island
Plays/musicals
Songs: so much music has been written about love
Books: romance novels
Dating apps
Greeting cards
Flowers
Candy
Romantic dinners
Jewelry: particularly engagement rings and wedding rings
Clothing: wedding apparel, lingerie
Wedding venues
Wedding photography
Honeymoons
Perfume and cologne
Toothpaste and mouthwash
Teeth whitening
Makeup
Hair and skincare products
Cosmetic surgery

There are likely more, but this is at least a good start for a list that can be categorized in several different ways e.g., goods vs. services, romantic love vs. friendship love. Another way to slice it is products that offer a direct, personal love benefit vs. a vicarious one i.e., enjoying someone else’s love experience. Dating apps and wedding rings are the former, while rom-coms and romance novels are the latter.

Is one of these value propositions (direct or vicarious) more moral than the other? Probably not. Just as it’s great that resorts offer honeymoon vacation packages for newlyweds, it’s nice that people who enjoy romance novels can read about couples going on their honeymoons. Buyers and sellers of both benefit without anything being inherently unethical.

Then, what’s wrong with a business model based on love?

That’s not a rhetorical question – There are, unfortunately, many specific ways such a model can be misappropriated, but the general downfall is when profit takes precedent over people and individuals are injured physically, emotionally, or relationally.

Sometimes called “the oldest profession,” prostitution is the classic example of such harm and the reason why historically most societies have considered harlotry immoral. Even if there are two ostensibly willing parties, this selling of “love” causes relational harm to family members of those involved in the act, as well as broader harm to the family as a societal institution.

Movie and TV show sex scenes are another example of potential harm. Even if camera angles and editing suggest more to physical intimacy than actually occurs, the actors involved in the loveless, commitment-less contact expose themselves to what may be lasting emotional harm, as Nedra Gallegos, an instructor at the Los Angeles Campus of the New York Film Academy, implies: “The narrative may be fictional, but the contact is real.”

Unlike the previous two examples, the issue with Anyone But You was not overtly sex but rather the costars putting the success of their movie ahead of their own real relationships/significant others. In this instance, the relational harm was direct, as suggested by the breakup of actor Glen Powell and his girlfriend Gigi Paris.

I'd shared with Kaylee my opinion of the movie’s marketing tactics, but I really wanted to hear hers, since she’s a communications and marketing professional who knows more about the rom-com genre than I do. Here’s her perspective, which is influenced by her Christian faith:

“What marketing really boils down to providing value to the consumer. What is more valuable to us as humans than love, though? When tapping into that sacred emotion, one has to do so cautiously, because no matter how hard we try, no product/service we offer can actually bring someone lasting love---only our relationships, especially our relationship with Christ, can provide that. Transparent, honest advertising, even if not as monetarily successful in the here-and-now, will always win out in the end.”

Her admonitions for transparency and not allowing anything to replace real relationships are great ones for everyone. Coincidentally, they are also consistent with some other Love Boat theme song lyrics that identify love as “life’s sweetest reward,” and that prioritize love that “won't hurt anymore.”

There are good ways that marketing can help start, strengthen, and celebrate real relationships, as well as provide edifying relationship-focused entertainment. However, even effective strategies that place profit ahead of people are “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics

5/3/2024

6 Comments

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

New technology has enabled people to do previously unimaginable things: mass-produce books, illuminate homes, communicate across continents, fly through the air. As amazing as these advances were, artificial intelligence (AI) offers an even more incredible ability, one on which humans have held a uniquely strong hold – thought.

Allowing AI to drive information gathering, analysis, and even creativity can be very helpful, but without a heavy human hand on the wheel, is society on a collision course to moral collapse? Avoiding such an outcome will involve many intentional actions; a main one must be asking the right questions.

People sometimes ask me the question, “Did you always want to be a teacher/professor?” My answer is easy, “Absolutely not.” For most of my early life I was terrified of public speaking.

However, I’ve always had one trait that serves educators well – curiosity. Even at a young age, I was very inquisitive, often wanting to know how and why. I remember one day, when I was four or five my loving mother, fatigued by all my inquiries, exclaimed with some exacerbation, “David, you ask so many questions!”

Curiosity has served me well in business roles and in higher education, where I tell my students asking good questions is one of the best skills they can develop. Among other things, the right questions clarify needs and spur creative solutions. Questions are also critical for challenging potential immorality.

Effective use of AI often depends on a person’s ability to ask the right question of the appropriate app. Those inquiries can involve literal questions, e.g., asking ChatGPT, “Who is the best target market for gardening tools?” Questions also can be framed as commands, e.g., if someone wants to know what an eye-catching image for a gardening blog might be, they ask Midjourney to complete a specific task, “Create an image about gardening tomatoes.”

It was a question I heard while watching Bloomberg business one February many years ago that helped inspire me to write about ethical issues in marketing. As the two program anchors bantered about the recent Super Bowl, they asked each other, “Which commercial did you like best?” Each answered, “the one with the little blue pill,” which both thought was for Viagra. Unfortunately, their recall wasn’t close; it was a Fiat ad.

If a company spends $7 million on 30 seconds of airtime, they should want to know: “Was the ad effective?” Also, given that 123.7 million people, or more than a third of the U.S. population, ranging from four-year-olds to ninety-four-year-olds, watched the last Super Bowl, everyone should be asking, “Are the ads ethical?” Those two questions create the four quadrants of the Mindful Matrix, a tool that many have used to frame moral questions in the field.

It’s been almost seven years since I first asked questions about the ethics of AI. Business Insider published the article in which I posed four questions about artificial intelligence:

Whose moral standards should be used?
Can machines converse about moral issues?
Can algorithms take context into account?
Who should be accountable?

I didn’t know very much about AI then, and I’m still learning, but as I look back at the questions now, it seems they’ve aged pretty well. Those four queries have led me to ask many more AI-related ethics questions, which I’ve posed in nearly a dozen Mindful Marketing articles over recent years, for instance:

I’ve also gone directly to the source and asked AI questions about AI ethics. More than once, I spent hours peppering ChatGPT with ethics-related inquiries. During one lengthy conversation the chatbot conceded that “AI alone should not be relied upon to make ethical decisions” and that “AI does not have the ability to understand complex moral and ethical issues that arise in decision-making.”

ChatGPT’s self-awareness proved accurate when just a few weeks later I again engaged in an extended conversation with the chatbot, asking it to create text for a sponsored post about paper towels for Facebook and to make it look like an ordinary person’s post rather than an ad. My request to create a native ad would give many marketers moral pause, but the chatbot didn’t blink; instead, it readily obliged with some enticing and deceptive copy.

These experiences have led me to wonder:

Even if AI is able to answer some ethical questions, who will ask ethical questions?

Over the years, many people have asked me questions about ethical issues. A few months ago, I wrote about an undergraduate student of mine, “Grant,” who asked me about an ethical issue in his internship. His company wanted to create fake customers who could pose questions related to products it wanted to promote.

On the other end of the higher ed spectrum, I recently served on the dissertation committee of a doctoral student who asked me to help her answer a question related to my earlier exchange with ChatGPT, “Does recognition matter in evaluating the ethics of native advertising?” Turns out, it does.

Business practitioners also have often asked me about ethical issues. One particularly memorable question came from a building supply company where male construction workers would sometimes enter the store without shirts, making female employees and others uncomfortable. I suggested some low-key strategies to encourage the men to dress more decently.

I’ve also had opportunities to answer journalists’ questions about moral issues in marketing, such as:

Do Barbie dolls positively impact body image? The New York Times
How can toys be more accessible? National Public Radio
Is pay-day lending moral? U.S. News & World Report
Should sports teams have people as mascots? WTOP Radio, Washington, DC
Are fantasy sports ads promising unrealistic outcomes? The Boston Globe

And, in my own marketing work, I’ve sometimes encountered ethical questions, such as during a recent nonprofit board meeting. We were brainstorming attention-grabbing titles for an upcoming conference, when one member somewhat jokingly suggested including the F word. Fortunately, the idea didn’t gain traction, as others indirectly answered ‘No’ to the question, “Is it right to promote a conference with an expletive?”

These experiences, along with my research and writing, lead me to conclude that people are who we can depend on to ask important ethical questions, not AI.

So, if it’s up to us, not machines, to be the flag bearers of morality, what should we be wondering about AI ethics? Here are 12 important questions marketers should be asking:

1) Ownership: Are we properly compensating property owners?
Late last year, the New York Times filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and ChatGPT, alleging that the defendants’ large language models trained on NYT’s articles, constituting “unlawful copying and use.” Now eight more newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the New York Daily News, have done the same.

2) Attribution: Are we giving due credit to the creator?
In cases in which creators give permission for their work to be used for free, they still should be cited or otherwise acknowledged – something that AI is notorious for neglecting or even worse, fabricating.

3) Employment: What’s AI’s impact on people’s work?
In one survey, 37% of business leaders reported that AI replaced human workers in 2023. It’s not the responsibility of marketing or any other field to guarantee full employment; however, socially minded companies can look to retrain AI-impacted employees so they can use the technology to “amplify” their skills and increase their organizational utility.

4) Accuracy: Is the information we’re sharing correct?
Many of us have learned from experience that the answers AI gives are sometimes incorrect. However, seeing these outcomes as much more than an inconvenience, delegates to the World Economic Forum (WEF), held annually in Davos, Switzerland, recently declared that AI-driven misinformation represented “the world’s biggest short-term threat.”

5) Deception: Are we leading people to believe an untruth?
Inaccurate information can be unintentional. Other times, there’s a desire to deceive, which AI makes even easier to do. Deepfakes, like the one used recently to replicate Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will become increasingly hard to detect unless marketers and others call for stricter standards.

6) Transparency: Are we informing people when we’re using AI?
There are times, again, when AI use can be very helpful. However, in those instances, those using AI should clearly communicate its role. Google sees the value in such identification as it will now require users in its Merchant Center to indicate if images were generated by AI.

7) Privacy: Are we protecting people’s personal information?
I recently asked ChatGPT if it could find a conversation I had previously with the bot. It replied, “I don’t have the ability to recall or retain past conversations with users due to privacy and security policies.” That response was reassuring; yet, many of us likely agree that “Since this technology is still so new, we don’t know what happens to the data that is being fed into the chat.” Is there really such a thing as a private conversation with AI?

8) Bias: Are we promoting bias, e.g., racial, gender, search?
For several years, there’s been concern that AI-driven facial recognition fails to give fair treatment to people with dark skin. Women also are sometimes targets of AI bias such as when searches for topics like puberty and menopause overwhelming return negative images of women.

9) Relationships: Are we encouraging AI as a relationship substitute?
Businesses like dating apps, social media, and even restaurants can assist people in filling needs for love and belonging. However, certain AI applications aim to replace humans in relationships entirely. After talking with a 24-year-old single man who spends $10,000/month on AI girlfriends, one tech executive believes the virtual-significant-other industry will soon birth a $1 billion company.

10) Skills: How will AI impact creativity and critical thinking?
The title of a recent Wall Street Journal article read, “Business Schools Are Going All In on AI.” It’s important that future business leaders understand and learn to use the new technology, but there also naturally should be some concern, e.g., When it’s so easy to ask Lavender to draft an email, will already diminishing writing skills continue to decline? Or, with the availability of Midjourney to easily produce attractive images, will skills in photography and graphic design suffer?

11) Stewardship: Are we using resources efficiently?
Some say AI’s biggest threat is not immediate but an evolving one related to energy consumption. Rene Haas, CEO of Arm Holdings, a British semiconductor and software design company, warns that within seven years, AI data centers could require as much as 25% of all available power, overwhelming power grids.

12) Indecency: Are we promoting crudeness, vulgarity, or obscenity?
For many people, AI’s impact on standards for decency may be the least of concerns; however, it also may be the moral issue that needs the most human input. An AI engineer at Microsoft intervened recently by writing a letter to the Federal Trade Commission expressing his concerns about Copilot’s unseemly image generation. As a result, the company now blocks certain terms that produced violent, sexual images.

Microsoft’s efforts to uphold decency remind me of something my father would do for our family’s promotional products company forty or fifty years ago. Long before the Internet, let alone AI, most major calendar manufacturers included a few wall calendars in their lines that objectified women by showing them wearing little or nothing, strewn across the hoods of cars or in other dehumanizing poses.

So, each year when the calendar catalogs arrived, before giving them to the salespeople, my dad would cut-to-size large decal pieces and paste them over every page of the soft porn pictures. Some customers paging through the catalogs and seeing the pasted-over pages would ask, “What’s under this?” to which my dad would answer, “That’s something we’re not going to sell.”

Long before the customers had asked their question, my father had asked his own question, “Is it right to sell calendars that oversexualize and objectify women?” and answered it “No.” Hopefully, fifty years from now, regardless the role of AI, there will still be people thoughtful and concerned enough to ask ethical questions.

To hold ourselves and AI morally accountable, we don’t need to have all the answers. We do, though, need to be thoughtful and courageous enough to ask the right questions, including, the most basic one “Is this something we should be doing?” Asking questions is key to Mindful Marketing.

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

6 Comments

Has Gatorade Diluted its Brand?

4/1/2024

1 Comment

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

For companies thirsting for earnings, new product lines and brand extensions are often great sources of cash flow. The world’s foremost sports drinks maker has won with such strategies for decades, but does adding bottled water to its product mix develop or dilute Gatorade’s iconic brand?

Over the last 10 years, the market for sports and exercise-related rehydration has burst open. Dozens of companies have added new pre- and post-workout drinks infused with everything from electrolytes, to minerals, to protein. Among the leading competitors are Body Armor, Powerade, PRIME, and Electrolit.

Still, in the saturated sports drink market, Gatorade’s annual revenue of $7 billion represents five times the sales of its closest competitor. Much of that success comes from the company’s skill in creating new products labeled with its valuable Gatorade name. Among its branded offerings in the sports drink category are:

Gatorade Thirst Quenchers
Gatorade Zero Sugar Thirst Quenchers
Gatorade Thirst Quencher Powder Packets
Gatorade Electrolyte Beverages
Gatorade Fit Electrolyte Beverages
Gatorade Protein Shakes

In addition, the company has attached its world-renowned name to a number of non-liquid, or solid, goods including:

Gatorade Protein Bars
Gatorade Sports Bottles
Gatorade Shaker Bottles
Gatorade Sports Towels
Gatorade Bottle Carriers
Gatorade Bottle Carts
Gatorade Ice Chests
Gatorade Coolers
Gatorade Cups

Despite all the hydration help Gatorade has offered athletes and others since its invention at the University of Florida in 1965, the company hasn’t had a Gatorade-named offering in the most basic thirst-quenching category – water.

The global market for bottled water is already voluminous and is expected keep growing: Some estimated it to represent $302 billion in revenue in 2022 and anticipate an increase to over $503 by 2032.

Why wouldn’t Gatorade want to take a sip of those sales? Plus, Gatorade’s parent company, PepsiCo, is familiar with bottled water, producing the very successful brand Aquafina. Its annual U.S. revenue of $1.3 billion make it the best-selling non-private-label brand water in the nation.

So, given the massive market opportunity and the company’s great familiarity with food and beverages, it seems to make sense for Gatorade to lean again on its staple strategy of brand extension. But by naming the new entry “Gatorade Water,” has the company gone to the well once too often?

There were some good reasons that PepsiCo called its bottled water Aquafina and not Pepsi Water. First, Aquafina is a creative name that evokes relevant positive perceptions for the brand. Perhaps more important, though, Pepsi Water would be a branding oxymoron – a contradiction in terms and problem for value proposition perceptions.

When people hear “Pepsi,” they probably think of words like cola, soda, sweet, fizzy, and caffeine. They might also associate Pepsi with parties, special occasions, and splurging. All of these adjectives and nouns are pretty much the opposite of what most people associate with water.

The same perceptual disconnect likely exists between water and Gatorade. When people hear “Gatorade,” they probably think salty, sugary, energy, and colorful (yellow/green, blue, red). Again, words that are pretty much the opposite of water.

H2O was around before human beings were. Ever since, people have been hydrating rather successfully with water. Still, researchers at the University of Florida created Gatorade because they believed they had improved on the classic element by developing “a drink that contained salts and sugars that could be absorbed more quickly [than water].”

Since its invention, Gatorade’s unique value proposition has been its relative advantage over water, as the sports drink’s development affirms:
“Drawing on research into rehydration, the team developed an electrolyte-carbohydrate solution, a mix of salts and sugars designed to provide the athletes with energy and necessary chemicals for physical and mental performance. Plain water could not move through the body quickly enough, nor restore its chemistry.”

So, Gatorade Water should make one wonder, “If water works, is traditional Gatorade really necessary?” Or, the new product may create the cognitive dissonance for consumers suggested above and lead to the philosophical question: “What exactly is Gatorade?”

To be fair, Gatorade Water isn’t just H2O. It also contains electrolytes, but the company’s own website suggests the purpose isn’t performance, rather its water is “electrolyte infused for great taste.”

To avoid possible brand confusion, marketers might suggest that PepsiCo should have used individual branding, which gives significantly different product lines their own branding, rather than family branding, which puts the family name on all a company’s products.

Apple is a great example of family branding: It leverages its highly esteemed name and graphic icon for its AirPods, MacBooks, and iPhones, among other products. In contrast, Procter & Gamble (P&G) may be the biggest consumer products company that most consumers don’t recognize because it individually brands its products, including Pampers, Bounce, Downy, Tide, Bounty, Gillette, Head & Shoulders, Pantene, and Old Spice.

Should PepsiCo have individually branded its sports water instead of family branding it? Actually, the company already tried the individual branding strategy, which is why there’s Propel.

Propel is an individually branded PepsiCo line of “fitness water” that contains vitamins B3, B5, B6, C and E. What makes its branding even more interesting, if not confusing, is that Propel is also infused with “Gatorade Electrolytes.”

Gatorade in Propel represents another branding strategy – ingredient branding. It’s what Duncan Hines uses when it promotes that its cake mixes contain Hershey’s syrup, or what Dell uses when it says its laptops have Intel chips inside them.

Ingredient branding is a very viable branding strategy, but in the case of PepsiCo, it just ads to the bottled water brand confusion. For instance, it may be clear why some consumers would choose Propel instead of Aquafina, but why would they chose Gatorade over Propel when Propel ‘contains Gatorade’?

It seems like its countervailing branding strategies have set up PepsiCo to be an example of another not-so-favorable marketing concept, cannibalization, which is when a corporation’s own brands compete with each other more than they do with the brands of other companies. General Motors experienced this problem many decades ago with brands like Buick and Oldsmobile.

Gatorade is one of the world’s most highly regarded brands in any category, especially in hydration. However, on this particular play-call, the sports drink icon and its parent PepsiCo seem to have dropped the ball. Though well-intentioned, ‘video evidence’ will likely later confirm that Gatorade Water was “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Getting Marketing Decency Done

3/3/2024

14 Comments

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

“When is it okay to swear in an ad?” This headline from one of my favorite marketing publications surprised me as I thought, ‘Isn’t the answer obvious?’ The article’s lead-in question was a quick reminder, though, that everyone’s not on the same page for many communication tactics, including the use of profanity, which may spell trouble for marketers and many others.

Discussions of ethics sometimes identify actions considered blatant wrongs, e.g., it’s never right to murder or rape. Other actions like lying and stealing elicit less unanimity, mainly because it’s possible to point to circumstances in which they might be okay, for instance:

Lying to protect a friend from physical harm
Stealing food to save starving family members

There probably always have been diverse perspectives about swearing; however, over the past several years, maybe because of social media or other factors, opinions about cursing appear to be coalescing: More people seem okay with the use of profane language.

One prominent recent example reflecting a broadening tolerance of curse words is the edgy slogan adopted by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro: “Get sh_t done.” Shapiro certainly is not the first politician to employ profanity; although, his formalization of it as a political slogan is rather unique.

Politicians are far from the only professionals who have seen their vocabulary become more curse-word-inclusive. A 2016 study found that compared to other industries, healthcare workers used the most expletives. Also surprising, another study identified individuals in accounting, banking, and finance as the most foul-mouthed professionals.

Maybe the saying, ‘swears like a sailor’ will give way to ‘cusses like a comptroller.’

A 2023 study that surveyed 1,500 residents of the 30 largest metropolitan areas about their swearing habits found that respondents swore an average of 21 times a day, with men swearing more than women, Gen Zs swearing more than Baby Boomers, and people in Columbus, OH swearing more than those in any other U.S. city.

These studies and their statistics are eye-opening for me. I don’t encounter much swearing in my day-to-day, but I’m realizing that many other people do. From a recent personal experience, I also know the field of marketing isn’t immune.

I was meeting with a group of marketing professionals who wanted to create an attention-grabbing title for a coming event. As we brainstormed ideas, someone suggested a full-out profanity approach: “Get the f-ing most out of your marketing.” The suggestion, which was somewhat serious, received brief consideration from the group before dismissing it as too edgy and risky for branding.

So, it shouldn’t be surprising that a marketer would write an article asking when it is and isn’t okay to swear in an ad.

Over the years, I’ve taken a rather hard stance against the use of profanity in marketing, arguing back in 2017 that swearing can damage one’s personal brand and in 2021 that it can be harmful to others’ mental health.

Given the study statistics and findings referenced above and other signs of increased swearing, my hot take on the use of crude language hasn’t aged well! Still, I’m not ready to back down.

Like most people, I’ve said and written things that in retrospect I’d retract or reframe; however, those two articles aren’t among them. After rereading each piece, I believe their arguments are still sound, and I encourage others to read them.

I can't add a lot more to my case for countering cursing, but I would like to introduce one additional thought by asking a question:

What will be the cumulative effect of increased profanity and its ultimate impact?

To try to answer that question, a metaphor may help. A few years ago my wife and I decided to try eating more vegetables and less meat, which unexpectedly turned into vegetarianism. When people ask why I’ve chosen such a diet, I tell them that while I appreciate other reasons, the main one driving my eating behavior is sustainability.

From the documentaries I’ve watched and articles I’ve read, it’s very difficult for our world to support current levels of livestock and poultry production, and it’s impossible for our planet to provide a meat-centric diet to billions more people. Such a future is not sustainable.

Does one person eating black bean burgers instead of beef burgers make a difference? Not really, but it’s about offering a small contribution to the cumulative positive effect. An individual eating more vegetables and less meat alongside similar diets of millions or billions of other humans does make a difference and will produce a positive impact for our world.

I have to admit, suggesting that swearing is unsustainable sounds kind of silly at first. After all, all words, including curse words, are in infinite supply. However, projecting forward the trend of ever-increasing cursing, it's not hard to imagine some pretty unpalatable norms, for instance:

Doctors and patients swearing at each other during healthcare visits
Profane language becoming common at graduations, wedding ceremonies, and funeral services.
Three and four-year-olds using the f-word in conversations with their parents and others

For some, a loss of decency and decorum may not matter. Some might even prefer a culture characterized by crudeness.

Others might rationalize that normalizing swear words would be a good thing because then they’d no longer be offensive. It is true that over time some words once considered bad, like “bloody” and “bugger,” stop being shunned, but new swear words always emerge. Moreover, there’s another potentially greater problem.

Individuals who suggest benefits of cursing tend to offer two basic arguments: 1) it helps the swearer in some way (e.g., by allowing them to off steam), and 2) it builds social bonds between the swearer and others (e.g., by showing their real self to others).

Perhaps there’s some truth to these arguments, but they probably only hold true if it’s swearing about something and not swearing at someone. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the first use easily leads to the second, and when people start cursing at others, situations rapidly degenerate.

Think of social media altercations, sports fights, and road rage. Most of us have probably heard or read of situations in which conflicts intensified then went off the rails after one person swore at another or otherwise flipped them off.

Are people capable of compartmentalizing their cursing and swearing about things that happen to them but not swear at others? Most people probably can. However, in a world that desperately needs to dial back both individual and organizational conflicts, is it worth the risk to further normalize the behavior?

Advertising is one of the world’s most pervasive and influential forms of communication. One ad with a single curse word won’t make much difference, but like one person eating less meat and more vegetables, it’s about the cumulative effect: If more and more advertising includes curse words, more people will follow suit, and some will not separate swearing about things from swearing at people.

In short, profanity-laced promotion is not sustainable.

Those who work in advertising are some of the brightest and most creative people on the planet. Most are very capable of crafting engaging and effective strategies that don’t use swear words, which is why including profanity in ads is “Mindless Marketing.”

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

14 Comments

<<Previous

Can AI Advertising be the Real Thing?

Does Human-Made Matter?

A Decade of Very Demure, Very Mindful Marketing

How Should Companies Handle Underconsumption?

How to Talk Appropriately About Pooping

Making Money from People Who Talk Funny

Does Selling Love Risk Relationships?

Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics

Has Gatorade Diluted its Brand?

Getting Marketing Decency Done

Editor

Archives

Categories