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

Barbie's New Bodies

1/30/2016

14 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
For more than a half-century, Mattel’s iconic Barbie Doll has been a favorite toy for millions of children.  As the world has changed and kids’ tastes in playthings have evolved, Barbie generally has kept pace; for instance, she has taken on a wide variety of:
 
  • Racial identities (e.g., African American and Hispanic Barbies were introduced in the 1980s)
  • Nationalities (e.g., Chilean, Moroccan, Indian, French)
  • Careers (e.g., surgeon, veterinarian, business executive, racecar driver)
  
However, despite the many culturally-sensitive product-line additions, Barbie sales “dropped 16% in 2014, marking Barbie’s third consecutive year of falling earnings.”  Many factors could potentially explain the doll’s faltering financial performance, but one feature that has increasingly come under scrutiny has been Barbie’s body.
 
Some have meticulously measured Barbie, comparing her abnormal proportions to those of real women.  For instance, while the average woman has a waist to hip ratio of about .80, Barbie’s is a mere .56.  Likewise, while most women’s legs are about 20% longer than their arms, Barbie’s are 50% longer and much thinner. 
 
Of course, many toys, from cars to stuffed animals have dimensions that differ from reality.  What makes Barbie’s proportions problematic, however, is the negative influence that they may have on young people who play with the dolls.  For example, a study published in Developmental Psychology found that girls who were exposed to Barbie dolls experienced lower body esteem and wanted to be thinner.
 
Meanwhile many have opined of the need for more realistic role models--a challenge that a few tiny toymakers have embraced, e.g., Tree Change Dolls and Lammily.  Their creators have intentionally designed dolls to more positively reflect human reality, trading glamour for genuineness.
 
Finally, a half-century after Barbie’s birth, the world’s second biggest toymaker has decided to follow suit and give consumers what they’ve long desired: dolls that look a little more realistic.  Mattel has recently introduced an extensive line of “Fashionista” dolls, as its website details: “Releasing over time throughout the year, the line includes 4 body types, 7 skin tones, 22 eye colors, 24 hairstyles, and countless on-trend fashions and accessories.”
 
More specifically, Barbie now has three new body types: tall, petite, and curvy.  As the names suggest, young people will be able to play with Barbie dolls that look more like them or the women they know, whether that’s lanky, little, or not so lean.
 
Public response has been overwhelmingly positive, particularly for Curvy Barbie.  For example, some have celebrated the potential “end of the road for the thigh gap,” while others have outwardly wished that such a doll would have been theirs when they were growing up.  One curvy celebrity, Queen Latifah, called the new dolls “incredible” and “ground-breaking.” 
 
So, it seems that Mattel’s long-overdue new products are poised to create considerable stakeholder value, which might make one wonder why the company waited so long, as well as why it’s decided to keep making its “Original” unrealistic-looking Barbie.  Well, old habits are hard to break, both for the companies that make iconic products and for the people that buy them.  As case studies like New Coke suggest, it’s often better to ease into big changes rather than to suddenly can a “Classic.”
 
It’s also worth noting that Mattel’s new Barbies still don’t truly represent human anatomical reality.  Even with the positive changes, the dolls continue to look more pristine and perfect than almost any person does.  Most of us have blemishes or we are misshapen in ways that no Barbie embodies.  Does that mean that Mattel’s new Barbies are bad?  No, the company still has taken a big step in the right direction by beginning to acknowledge and respect common physical differences.  For these reasons, Mattel can be commended for its decision to stop playing around with Barbie and instead make her a role model for “Mindful Marketing.”
​

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

Dining with Dignity

1/23/2016

13 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Food is a necessary and enjoyable part of our lives.  It’s satisfying to eat a favorite dish and to share a meal with others we know.  Unfortunately, however, the simple act of eating can be an ordeal for some people. 
 
Of course, there are individuals who struggle with making the right food choices and others who have difficulty digesting specific foods, but there’s another group of people who contend with an even more basic challenge that most individuals would never even imagine—getting the food into their mouths.
 
About 10 million Americans, and millions more around the world, suffer with a condition called essential tremor (ET), “a neurological condition that causes a rhythmic trembling of the hands, head, voice, legs or trunk.”  People often associate such symptoms with Parkinson’s disease; however, tremors from Parkinson’s tend to occur when one’s hands are at rest.  Essential tremors, in contrast, happen when the hands are in use, which can be especially trying for people attempting basic activities like eating. 
 
For instance, there’s nothing complicated about scooping applesauce with a spoon and lifting it into one’s mouth; it’s an act most two-year-olds have mastered.  This same action becomes exceedingly difficult, however, when one’s hands shake violently and uncontrollably.  Food simply will not stay on the utensil under those circumstances.  As a result, those with ET may be forced into an infant-like existence in which they either grab what food they can with their trembling hands, or they ask others feed them.
 
Certain companies have noticed this pressing need and have developed somewhat effective solutions to this basic human problem.  For instance, some have created weighted utensils, which lessen the intensity of the tremors.  While helpful, these utensils still do not work for individuals whose tremors are especially severe.  Fortunately one company has leveraged cutting- edge research to develop a very innovative, high-tech solution  

Gyenno Technologies is a Chinese company that is “inspired by extraordinary technology” that “makes our daily life better.”  While the firm may be best known for wearable technology, specifically its “One” wristband, a smartspoon Gyenno has developed may make the biggest impact on individuals’ lives.
 
The Gyenno Spoon is a “smart tableware device” that is capable of “offsetting 85% of unwanted tremors.”  How does such a small device make such a big difference?  In short, it does so through a unique blend of advanced mechanics, complex algorithms, and internet connectivity.  More specifically, the spoon contains “two intelligent real-time, high-speed servo control systems,” the kinds that “are generally only used in large robot systems.”  The spoon’s specially designed operating system directs these control systems based on the user’s unique tremor patterns, which it uploads to the Cloud.  There, a self-generated algorithm signals the spoon to counterbalance according to the user’s specific needs.
 
Hopefully the preceding paragraphs have helped explain what the Gyenno Spoon is and how it works.  No verbal description, however, can compare to seeing the Spoon in action.  Watch the less-than-one-minute video found at this link and first see how difficult it is for those suffering with hand tremors to eat using a conventional spoon; then see what a huge difference a Gyenno Spoon makes.  The transformation is inspiring.  
 
You might be thinking, “It looks and sounds great, but how much does it cost?”  Gyenno CEO Kang Ren says that his company is currently selling the device for $300.  At first that seems like very significant money for a spoon; however, given the product’s sophisticated technology and high-end construction, the markup probably isn’t all that much.  More importantly, however, when one considers the challenges the tool enables its users to overcome, as well as the independence and dignity it affords them, the Gyenno spoon becomes an exceptional value.

 
So far Gyenno has not sold many Spoons, but given the millions of people who suffer from ET and other types of hand tremors, there appears to be great market potential that promises to deliver significant stakeholder value by offering users empowerment and respect.  As a result, Gyenno Spoon serves a heartfelt helping of “Mindful Marketing.”
​
​

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

Leave it to Bieber

1/16/2016

9 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Individuals and organizations often have messages they want to share with large groups of people.  So, they post, tweet, and email, and if they have the means, they may pay for mass media, e.g., magazines, television, billboards.  What people don’t do is scrawl their promotions on public property, unless they’re Justin Bieber.
 
As many know, the Canadian-born mega-popstar is no stranger to scandalous headlines, including ones involving vandalism:  In July of 2014 he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor for egging a neighbor’s house.  Now, however, Team Bieber’s activities have ascended to another level of illegality: defacing public property.
 
Residents of San Francisco have been among those most directly affected.  Bieber’s record company is reportedly responsible for scrawling on sidewalks around the city messages aimed at promoting “Purpose,” the singer’s latest album and corresponding concert tour.  The choice of graffiti to advertise Purpose was very purposeful as “all of the track titles were released via photos of elaborate graffiti artwork on the star's Instagram page.”
 
However, the cleverness of the album/graffiti tie-in was lost on San Francisco residents who found their city littered with pavement promos like “Justin Bieber Purpose #Nov13.”  Also, because the perpetrators used paint instead of chalk, the words wouldn’t simply wash away, which forced the city’s attorney Dennis Herrera to take legal action.  He demanded that Bieber’s record label (Def Jam) and the distributor (Universal) help clean up the writing or face $2,500 in fines per graffiti site.
 
Actually, what Bieber’s promoters propagated in San Francisco and other select U.S. cities is not unprecedented.  Certain other marketers also have resorted to similar tactics of placing unusual promotional messages in public places.  These unconventional approaches are more broadly known as guerilla marketing and include tactics such as the following:
 
  • For its annual “Shark Week,” the Discovery Channel placed on certain beaches surf boards that had large shark bites taken out of them.
 
  • Bounty Paper Towels placed gigantic spilled coffee cups and huge melting popsicles on city streets along with the message “Makes small work of BIG spills.”
 
  • Beau Rivage Resort Casino made airport baggage carousels look like streams of water with people swimming in them.
 
  • To promote its new grip bottle, Coca-Cola created bus stop ad panels that grabbed people’s clothing when they stood near the signs.
 
  • The Copenhagen Zoo used bus art that looked like a giant boa constrictor was wrapped around the bus.
 
So, if some large and well-respected companies use guerilla marketing tactics, what’s wrong with Justin Bieber’s crew painting promotions on sidewalks?  Here are some possible reasons:
 
  • No one sought permission:  Even if an action isn’t inherently wrong, you need to ask first, especially when dealing with things like city ordinances and outdoor advertising.
 
  • Eyesores:  Even aesthetically appealing advertising can be off-putting if there’s too much of it or if its placements detracts from other environmental elements.
 
  • One-sided benefits:  Advertisers typically pay media to have their messages placed in public view.  In this case, Bieber got all the benefits while the cities received none.
 
  • Hazard:  The Bieber promos didn’t appear to be shocking or pose any psychological harm to viewers; however, depending on exactly where they were placed, some of the messages may have created distractions that could have caused people to do things such as stumble, collide with other pedestrians, or inadvertently step into traffic.
 
Has this guerilla marketing been effective for Bieber?  Unfortunately, it probably has.  Of course, there are other factors, but Purpose has seen 17 of its tracks make it into Billboard’s Hot 100 in a single week, which eclipsed a 51-year-old record previously set by the Beatles.  Likewise, Biebers song “Sorry” recently unseated Adele’s “Hello” atop the same list.  In addition, the graffiti tie-in has likely bolstered Bieber’s brand, including his bad-boy image, which many “Beliebers” seem to embrace.
 
Bieber’s graffiti promos have not, however, upheld societal values.  Instead, the unauthorized guerilla tactics have demonstrated disrespect for public property and the taxpayers who finance it.  Meanwhile, other graffiti producers are probably emboldened by Bieber’s example.
 
Ironically, the title track from Purpose includes the following lyrics:
I don't know if this is wrong
Because someone else is telling me that it's wrong
But I feel this so let me just like, try my best not to let this happen again
We weren't necessarily put in the best position to make the best decisions.

  
Those decisions represent a clear case of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

Plastered People Prefer Pedialyte

1/9/2016

8 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
It’s nice sometimes to step back in time and taste the food you enjoyed as a child, for instance: Pop-Tarts, Pez, Fruity Pebbles, . . . Pedialyte.  Well, you probably didn’t “enjoy” Pedialyte if you took it for the reasons most kids do—to help them recover faster from the flu.  Some adults, however, are appreciating Pedialyte for a more mature reason—to overcome hangovers.

That’s right, people who’ve gotten sloshed are picking up bottles of Pedialyte to help them pull through the day-after effects.  How did someone discover that Pedialyte could serve this other purpose?  It’s hard to know, but perhaps some inebriated parent still had the wherewithal to see the similarity:  “Pedialyte makes my kid feel better when he throws-up from the flu, so it should help me feel better after vomiting because of my bender.” 
 
It’s not uncommon for consumers to find alternative uses for products and for companies to capitalize on them.  For instance, most of us wouldn’t have thought that soda used for baking could also deodorize refrigerators and keep swimming pools clear, but somebodies found these applications, and Arm & Hammer has marketed them, as well as a variety of other brand extensions.
 
However it was discovered, celebrities Pharrell Williams and Miley Cyrus can be credited for disseminating Pedialyte as a hangover cure to the masses, by highlighting their own use in social media.  Williams says he drinks Pedialyte nearly every day, and Cyrus reportedly posed for a picture with a bottle of the remedy.
 
Thanks to social media and old school word-of-mouth, Pedialyte’s alternative use has ballooned, becoming big business for the medicine’s maker, Abbott Laboratories.  Since 2012, adult usage of the elixir has increased by nearly 60%.  While adult use historically had accounted for 10%-15% of Pedialyte sales, it now represents over 33% of total revenue, or upwards of $102 million.
 
Abbott Labs is also pleased with the new-found adult market because it breaks the bounds of seasonality.  Normal Pedialyte sales peak during the cold and flu season and at other times remain stagnant.  However, since people have hangovers all year-round, the adult market represents an even more reliable source of revenue, as well as one that promises double digit sales growth.
 
Given the momentum of Pedialyte sales to those who party hearty, one may wonder if Abbott Labs aims to put some perceptual distance between the two markets.  For instance, it could rename and otherwise rebrand the liquid for the adult market in order to avoid the disconnect of giving the same Pedialyte to a baby fighting the flu and a dude trying to bounce back from a binge.  Apparently Abbott Labs has no such plans.
 
Instead, the company will simply add “larger powered-stick packs for adults,” and it will offer “adult friendly-flavors” including strawberry lemonade and orange.  Meanwhile, the Pedialyte name and most other branding will remain the same for both markets. To promote Pedialyte to adults, Abbott Labs has been using a campaign called “See the Lyte,” which suggests the drink as an antidote to too much alcohol, such as from a Cinco de Mayo celebration.  The company also plans to promote to the adult market through social media and online advertising as well as by sampling the product at music festivals and sporting events.
 
So, whether you’re a kid fighting the flu or an adult battling a bender, there’s only one product you need to know—Pedialyte.  Of course, Abbott Labs isn’t using the preceding as advertising copy, yet it’s essentially suggesting the same thing by not renaming and rebranding  Pedialyte for the adult market.  So far this lack of separation doesn’t seem to be hurting sales in either market, but eventually it may, particularly as Pedialyte-the-hangover-cure becomes better known.  At that point parents may feel funny giving their sick toddler the same thing that recently intoxicated grown-ups take.
 
Potentially even more problematic, however, is the association that’s being built between Pedialyte and the overuse of alcohol.  On one level, it’s dangerous to connect something meant for children with something else intended only for adults—remember cartoon character Joe Camel selling cigarettes?  What makes things even worse, though, is that “adult” Pedialyte is not just associated with alcohol but with alcohol abuse.
 
It’s not people who drink a glass of wine with dinner or who have a couple of beers before bedtime who need Pedialyte.  It’s those who exceed moderate alcohol intake and become wasted.  Of course, drinking to the level of intoxication is potentially harmful physically, mentally, and socially to those doing the drinking.  Furthermore, consequences like broken relationships and drunk-driving accidents suggest that alcohol abuse also is not good for society as a whole.
 
What makes the Pedialyte’s adult branding even more perplexing is the fact that the parent company, Abbott Laboratories, seeks to position itself as an organization that helps people “Live Healthy.”  Abuse of alcohol certainly does not constitute healthy living.  But, by promoting its product as a cure for the common hangover, Abbott Labs diminishes one of the main deterrents to drunkenness and suggests that it’s okay to get smashed.
 
Given the sales success that Abbott Labs has enjoyed in the adult Pedialyte market, it seems the product’s alternate use is creating stakeholder value, at least for now.  Supporting alcohol abuse, however, compromises important societal values such as decency and respect: intoxicated individuals are prone to do things that are indecent and that place themselves and others at risk.  Marketing Pedialyte to adults, therefore, represents “Single-Minded Marketing.”


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

College Bowl Game Bloat

1/2/2016

5 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Remember the generation of kids that played youth sports when everyone received an award just for showing up?  “Congratulations, here’s your participation trophy,” said soccer, T-ball, and countless other coaches.  Well, that cohort is now playing Division I College Football, and it appears the NCAA has adapted post season play to meet those same childhood expectations.
 
This year’s NCAA Division I college football season has culminated with a record number of bowl games.  The first of 40 post-season contests kicked off on December 19, pitting Arizona against New Mexico in the New Mexico Bowl.  The final bowl game takes place in Phoenix on January 2, when West Virginia plays Arizona State in the Cactus Bowl, a little more than a week before the National Championship game, which is not included in the bowl total.
 
To appreciate the rise to 40 games, it’s helpful to see the historic trend.  In 1955 there were just six bowl games.  Over the years, that number has steadily increased: to 11 games by 1975, 18 by 1995, 35 by the end of the Bowl Championship (BCS) era in 2013, and 40 by 2015.  That’s an increase in bowl games of about 567% over 60 years.
 
Enabling more college football players to perform in the national spotlight is nice; however, the NCAA understandably also has more material motives, i.e., ticket sales and TV viewing.  Fortunately fans turned out in mass for last season’s marquee matchups; for instance, 74,682 attended the Allstate Sugar Bowl and 91,322 packed into the Rose Bowl.  Most other contests, however, drew much more modest numbers, as the average attendance of 44,365 per game suggests.  Likewise, the attendance for returning bowls declined by 4%, and five bowls drew less than 25,000 people.  The Bahamas Bowl had just over 13,000 attendees.
 
In keeping with ticket trends, television viewership of the premier bowl games also was very strong.  In fact, the 2015 Sugar Bowl garnered 28.27 million viewers, making it “the second-most viewed telecast in cable TV history,” while the Rose Bowl, with 28.16 million viewers was not far behind.  Such media deals represent a huge revenue source for college football and its member institutions; for example: “ESPN pays the College Football Playoff about $470 million a year for the media rights to the three playoff games and four other bowls and most of the money is distributed to the 10 FBS conferences and schools.”  Still, seven of last season’s 39 bowl games attracted less than 2.1 million viewers, and 16 games garnered a household rating of less than 2.1.
 
In short, while top-tier bowl games are going gangbusters, lower level ones seem to be struggling, even as the NCAA adds more contests to the calendar.  But, what could be wrong with more football, especially for college football fans?  If a little football is good, more must be better.  That logic holds until one looks at the post season proliferation both in terms of its quantity and quality.  Holding 40 bowl games over a 15-day period amounts to 2.67 games per day.  True, that average is lower than that of the regular college football season; however, bowl games should be different.  In decades gone by these crowning contests were reserved for teams that truly distinguished themselves, earning the right to represent themselves and their conference by virtue of their outstanding winning ways.
 
Unfortunately, as of late, winning has become less of a prerequisite for earning a bowl bid.  For instance, out of 80 teams playing in this year’s bowl games five have losing records:  San Jose State, Georgia State, and Utah State ended their seasons with records of 6-7, while Nebraska and Minnesota finished at just 5-7.  Furthermore, nine bowl-bound teams did only slightly better, posting records of 6-6: Connecticut, Washington, Indiana, Tulsa, Virginia Tech, Nevada, Auburn, Kansas State, and Arizona State.  In sum, 14 of 80 bowl teams (over one-sixth, or 17.5%) compiled records at or below 500.
 
Given that there are 128 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and that 80 teams (nearly two-thirds of the total) are needed to populate 40 different bowl games, it’s not surprising that the NCAA has had to reach deeper into the recesses of team rankings.  In fact, just a few months ago teams with losing records could not have been considered for bowl bids; however, with one tweet, the NCAA amended its policy: “Without enough 6-6 teams, remaining bowl bids will be filled by 5-7 teams based on highest Academic Progress Rate.”
 
So, receiving a bowl bid has lost some of its luster, but why should the NCAA care when overall engagement is still strong?  It should be concerned because oversaturation is often the first step in diluting a strong brand.  Take McDonald’s.  Granted, it’s challenges are multifaceted, but the restaurant chain’s longstanding emphasis on quantity (opening more and more stores) over quality (keeping its menu instep with consumers’ evolving tastes) has seen McDonald’s Interbrand ranking fall from sixth place to ninth place in five years.
 
In contrast, Apple has been a great guardian of its brand.  Of course, the company operates very few of its own outlets, and it carefully chooses its retail partners.  It also introduces a relatively small number of new products annually, each one laser-focused on boosting the Apple brand image: stylish and sophisticated, yet simple technology.  For its efforts, Apple has earned much money and become the world’s most valuable brand.
 
As the NCAA continues to add bowl games with more teams of mediocre merit, Division I College Football bowl games run the risk of going the route of McDonald’s—too much quantity with questionable quality.  In fact, it’s interesting to note that in Orlando alone, there were three bowl games this postseason: Capital One, Russell Athletic, and Cure—seems like McDonald’s-style saturation.
 
Instead, the NCAA should take pointers from Apple’s playbook, being careful to build rather than dilute some of the most prestigious names in all of sports: the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, which one might consider college football’s iPhones.  More intentional branding and selective distribution would serve the NCAA well, much as it has Apple.  Teams should not be rewarded just for “participation” in the regular season.
 
Branding everyone a winner may seem respectful to those who didn’t excel during the regular season, but the resulting dilution of college bowl brands will eventually erode stakeholder value.  Consequently, the NCAA’s bowl game bloat signals a case of “Simple-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
5 Comments
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

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

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

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

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly