Blog Archives

Are People as Important as Puppies?

1/31/2015

It’s time for the most anticipated ads of the year! We’ll watch them during Super Bowl XLIX, then talk about them for days, months, and sometimes even years to come. One ad we won’t be seeing during the game, however, is GoDaddy’s now infamous puppy commercial.

GoDaddy and puppies? It’s not a typo. The web firm famous for very racy ads had decided to replace scantily-clad models with cute canines. It seemed like GoDaddy was cleaning-up its act, but that wasn’t the way everyone saw it.

The commercial’s storyline featured one particular pooch that was lost, found, then put up for purchase by the puppy’s owner. In light of this plot, some people felt the commercial condoned puppy mills, which led to backlash against the ad, and caused GoDaddy to suspend the spot.

I can’t believe I’m saying it, but “Way to go, GoDaddy.” The company can be commended both for trying to sell its services using something other than sex and for showing sensitivity, albeit under pressure, to individuals concerned about the puppy mill suggestion. GoDaddy appears to be making some movement toward “Mindful Marketing.” Of course, the ad the firm uses to replace the puppies remains to be seen.

In this case, what’s more troubling than GoDaddy’s recent actions is consumers' relative apathy about GoDaddy’s previous ads and others like them. Individuals are distressed about the implication of cruelty to puppies, so why aren’t we equally disturbed about the actual denigration of people?

Many GoDaddy commercials, as well as those by certain other Super Bowl advertisers over the years, have featured women in extremely sexualized situations, including varying states of undress. Such ads objectify women, i.e., strip away their personhood and relegate them to a mere set of stimulating body parts—objects of sexual gratification. Here are some of those ad examples: GoDaddy 1, GoDaddy 2; other firms' ads.

This over-sexualization is hazardous in its own right; however, it becomes even more dangerous when recognized for reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes, promoting unrealistic body image, and encouraging sexual addiction. These connections are relatively easy to project. Other outcomes, such as violence against women and sex-trafficking, are more complex and indirect but not unreasonable to relate to such public over-stimulation.

Of course, we must value all life, including that of animals, but something is wrong when our collective concern for people fails short of our corporate concern for puppies. Where is our comparable backlash against ads that endanger the well-being of our sisters, daughters, wives, and mothers, not to mention the health of our society as a whole?

Specific marketers are the ones who create such commercials and deserve ultimate accountability. However, in this instance, by not voting against them with our dollars or making our voices more loudly heard, we as consumers bear some responsibility for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

"I Have a Sale"?

1/24/2015

Mention “Martin Luther King, Jr.” and many powerful words come to mind, for instance: equality, freedom, and justice. A thought that probably doesn’t occur . . . “deep discounts on treadmills and ellipticals.”

A few days before this past MLK Jr. Day, I received an email with the subject line “Martin Luther King Jr. Day Sale.” The email was from NordicTrack, the popular purveyor of a wide variety of exercise equipment. Through Monday the 19th, the company was offering a special sale on select treadmills, exercise bikes, incline trainers, and more.

Within the email were several pictures of NordicTrack machines, as well as photos of two equipment users: well-proportioned young women in snug-fitting sports bras and short-shorts. There was also a quote from Dr. King:

“If you can’t fly then run, if you can’t run then walk, if you can’t walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

We live in an age in which celebrity endorsements are commonplace. Athletes and entertainers lend their names to everything from sneakers to SUVs. And, sometimes even after a very famous person has passed, his/her image continues to be used to market products. Should there be bounds to such sponsorship, particularly when making a connection to a person of great social, political, or spiritual significance?

Whatever those limits are, NordicTrack crossed them by using Dr. King’s persona to sell treadmills. Some people, institutions, causes, and events are just too important to be co-opted for relatively trivial commercial purposes. That’s why no retailer should ever hold a “9/11 Sale,” or any manufacturer offer a “Pope John Paul II Promotion.”

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Dachau, the site of the Nazi’s first concentration camp in Germany and the place where thousands of people were wrongfully imprisoned and killed. Unlike most places tourists visit, there were no souvenir shops to purchase Dachau memorabilia. Such commercialization would disrespect the memory of all who suffered there and would detract from the solemnity of what has become a kind of sacred place.

Marketing itself is not the issue. The point is to understand that there are proper times and places for everything, and there are commercial connections that should and shouldn’t be made. The association of Dr. King’s legacy with the sale of exercise equipment is one such misguided match.

Was NordicTrack’s MLK Sale a success? I don’t know. Given that some people have off work that day and may spend time shopping on-line, perhaps the company sold more ellipticals than usual. In that case, the promotion may have generated some stakeholder value. That value, however, would have come at the expense of important societal values, making NordicTrack’s tactic “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

Should Plus-Size Women Pay More?

1/17/2015

People expect to pay more for larger things, whether it’s a venti coffee or a king-size comforter. It costs more to make bigger products, so producers need to price larger items accordingly. The same principle applies to clothing. However, should one gender pay more than the other for plus-size pants?

Old Navy has sparked a size/gender controversy with its jeans pricing. While the cheap-chic retailer typically sells a pair of its “big” men’s jeans for the same price as the standard-size pants, it charges considerably more for plus-size women’s jeans than it does for the same style of regular-size ones. For instance, here are some specific examples from the company’s website:

- Regular Men’s Premium Loose Fit Jeans $39.94
+ Big Men’s Premium Loose Fit Jeans $39.94
- Women’s Regular Rockstar Midrise Skinny Jeans $30.00
+ Women’s Plus-Size Rockstar Midrise Skinny Jeans $44.00

As you can see, that’s a 0% difference for larger men and a 46.7% difference for larger women. This significant discrepancy has not gone unnoticed by consumers. Many have criticized Old Navy’s pricing practices, including over 95,000 who have signed a Change.org petition. Although the petition claims victory, at the time of this post the retailers’ web pricing remains imbalanced, as reflected in the example above.

An Old Navy representative has responded to consumers’ discontent saying that its women’s plus-sized clothing contains special curve enhancing features not typically found in men’s garments. As a result, the design and manufacture of larger women’s clothing necessitates higher costs that must be covered by higher prices.

That explanation does have merit—special features and designs certainly can increase product costs. What’s hard to reconcile, however, is the magnitude of the price difference. Give that they’re jeans, not smartphones, what product enhancements could account for a difference of nearly 50%? By comparison, Macy’s sells its line of women’s Levi’s 512 jeans at a list price of $54 for regular sizes and $58 for plus sizes—a difference of just 7.4%.

It also may be worth noting that Athletica, which like Old Navy is also owed by the Gap, Inc., sells its plus-size pants for the same price as its regular size pants. Of course, Athletica’s active wear is different than jeans. Still, one would think that there would be some price difference between the women’s regular and plus sizes given the large variation in Old Navy’s prices.

Short of a production audit, it’s hard to categorically condemn Old Navy’s jeans-pricing-policies: we just don’t know the products’ actual cost structure. What can be chastised, however, is the firm’s tactical inconsistency—pricing that is out-of-step with that of its men’s lines, its competitors’ products, and its sister company’s apparel.

If nothing more, this pricing inconsistency gives Old Navy the appearance of impropriety on an issue of great social concern—women’s body image. As a result of missing the mark both in terms of marketing efficacy and values encouragement, Old Navy’s plus-size pricing can be deemed Mindless Marketing.

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

Not Feeling Well? Better Go to the Mall

1/10/2015

For some people shopping is a form of therapy, which I do not recommend, but that’s not what this article is about. Increasingly people are going to malls and other retail store locations when they are physically sick.

The evidence of this trend is the growth in retail health clinics, which have increased by 20 percent over the last five years and now total more than 9,400. These clinics are located in malls, plazas, and other convenient places that people tend to frequent for typical shopping needs.

Big and small firms have capitalized on this trend, the largest being CVS, which operates more than 900 of its “Minute Clinics” in over 30 states. The company anticipates having 1,500 clinics by 2017.

Apparently, these retail health clinics are good for CVS and the other players that are rapidly opening them, but is storefront healthcare a good thing for consumers? Several issues threaten to infect the clinics, for instance: Can for-profit providers like CVS be trusted to provide good quality care, and can they avoid a conflict of interest when they also sell the pharmaceuticals that their healthcare practitioners prescribe?

Well, people generally don’t visit these retail clinics for treatment of serious health concerns; rather they typically receive care from nurse practitioners and physician assistants for more routine problems like sprained ankles and the flu. As Bloomberg reports, “For customers, the clinics fill a gap. Patients who can’t get a last-minute appointment with their doctor or don’t have one can turn to urgent care instead of overcrowded hospital emergency rooms.”

People don’t have to go to these retail clinics, but the fact that so many are going to them suggests satisfaction with the quality of the service they are receiving. Furthermore, the clinics seem to offer additional customer value in the form of greater convenience and lower costs than typical options, such as hospital emergency rooms.

But what about the potential conflict of interest? Won’t patients who visit a CVS or Walgreens clinic be led to buy pharmaceuticals from those retailers? First, the healthcare practitioners should be trusted to be true to their personal/professional ethics and do what’s in their patients’ best interest. We afford similar trust to other professionals on whom we rely to advise us.

Second, just as people have the option to go or not go to these clinics, they also can choose where they’d like to have a prescription filled—it doesn’t have to be from the associated pharmacy. Still, there is the very convenient option of buying one’s medications where one is seen, which is particularly valuable for those pressed for time or who would go to the same pharmacy anyway.

So, what’s the final diagnosis? Retail clinics represent sound marketing that is also good for society’s collective health. They’re another case of Mindful Marketing.

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

Would You Eat at a "Breastaurant"?

1/3/2015

If you’re not sure what a “breastaurant” is, you’re not alone. After hearing an example like “Hooters,” though, many people quickly understand the term. These specialty restaurants, where diners can eat, drink, and ogle scantily clad wait-staff, represent the fringe of society for most people. A popular primetime television show, however, recently brought these erotic eateries into the mainstream.

“Undercover Boss,” is a CBS reality TV series in which top leaders of real organizations’ don disguises and reenter their own companies as line-level employees in order to see operations from the bottom-up. For many of these execs the experience is eye-opening and transformative. The show’s latest episode was apparently just eye-opening.

This past Sunday the program featured Doug Guller, Founder and CEO of Bikini’s Sports Bar and Grill, an eight-restaurant chain located in Texas, whose theme is “Sports with a View.” As the name and slogan suggest, waitresses are hired for their looks and are required to wear a standard uniform, namely a bikini top.

During the episode, which I haven’t watched, Guller reportedly became upset with one particular waitress who insisted on wearing a t-shirt instead of a bikini top. Although she didn’t oppose the required attire under normal business circumstances, she didn’t want to wear the bikini top while a TV camera crew was filming. Unsympathetic to her concerns, Guller fired her.

Social media and other news media lit-up in response to Guller’s decision, rightly decrying what many people felt was a heartless action. Beyond Guller’s cruel treatment of this waitress, however, are more fundamental questions: What about the ongoing sexist treatment of all of the other servers? Should restaurants that require servers to bare their bodies even exist?

Unfortunately there does appear to be a market for such restaurants, as evidenced by the success of Guller’s Bikini’s Sports Bar and Grill chain as well as Hooters, Inc., which has hundreds of locations throughout the U.S. and around the world. Of course, the fact that “breastaurants” are successful doesn’t mean that they should be.

In short, these restaurants objectify and sexually exploit women. They take a whole person (a wonderful combination of body, mind, and spirit) and reduce her to a few anatomical parts, put on display for unseemly public consumption. Furthermore, it’s unfortunately not just the women who serve in these establishments who are affected. Ultimately the promotion of these sexual stereotypes impacts an entire society.

So, would you eat at a “breastaurant”? Hopefully you say “no” to this and other forms of "Single-Minded Marketing."

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

Are People as Important as Puppies?

"I Have a Sale"?

Should Plus-Size Women Pay More?

Not Feeling Well? Better Go to the Mall

Would You Eat at a "Breastaurant"?

Editor

Archives

Categories