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

Seedy Slogan

2/27/2016

10 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
I love a good slogan—that concise, clever expression of what makes an organization or its products unique. If you like slogans/themes too, you’ll enjoy a little quiz:  Name the companies that used these classic slogans.  The answers come later in the blog.
 

1.  Like a good neighbor
2.  Melts in your mouth, not in your hands
3.  Can you hear me now?
4.  Where’s the beef?
5.  When you care enough to send the very best
  
One of the best slogans I ever heard was for a Catholic school that said: “Put faith in the future.”  The slogan is effective partly because it is short, alliterative, and memorable.  It also contains an appropriate play on the word “faith,” which conveys two equally impactful messages:
 
- Students’ faith-based education stays with them throughout their lives.
- The school's service gives us hope for the future.
 
More recently, I heard another slogan that also employed a play on words; however, this one made me wince.  The phrase is for an all-American food product: Ball Park Franks.  The slogan: “Grab life by the Ball Park.”
 
Some may wonder, “What’s wrong with that theme?” After all, it’s concise and clever, and it alludes to several similar expressions that encourage people to take control, e.g., “Grab life by the: horns, reins, and handlebars.”  Of course, there’s another expression that’s even more similar and common, which is also off-color: “Grab life by the balls.”
 
Was this last association the one on which Ball Park was banking?  Even on the surface it would seem so given that balls and ballpark obviously share the same root.  Likewise, the following numbers of Google search results suggest the association that people are most likely to make: handlebars - 82,600, reins - 96,900, horns - 994,000, and balls - 3,760,000.
 
Why would America’s largest hot dog maker, a division of Tyson Foods, choose a slogan that makes a not-so-subtle reference to male genitalia?  Well, the choice has its roots in another decision the company made a decade-and-a-half ago.  As an April 9, 2001 Advertising Age article described, it was around that time Ball Park decided to drop its long-standing, “They plump when you cook them” theme in favor of “Eat like man.”  The purpose was to position Ball Park Franks as a more manly meat and to attract more male consumers.

Then in 2015, the company conducted market research that revealed “eight out of ten men admit to putting off tough talks; 50 percent of them say they delay the dialogue for a month or more; 36 percent have even faked being busy or sick to avoid a conversation.”  From these findings Ball Park surmised that it should tell its male target market to “man up,” and tackle tough topics, thus the “Grab Life by the Ball Park” motto was born.
 
Encouraging anyone to engage in constructive conversations is certainly commendable.  It’s questionable, however, how many people might look to a hot dog maker for such relationship counsel.  Ball Park’s motives in making the new theme also should be scrutinized in that there’s no evidence that the company is any way enabling this sort of social support.  For instance, a review of Ball Park’s website reveals no such programs, and searches of the site for the words “conversations,” “discussions,” “talk,” and “difficult” deliver zero results.
 
Given that the pretext of helping men become more mature conversationalists seems sketchy at best, we’re left to assess the slogan on its own merits, i.e., to ask if it’s an effective theme.  As mentioned above, “Grab Life by the Ball Park,” is clever and concise.  The slogan misses the mark, however, in reflecting a compelling reason why a consumer would want to buy Ball Park Franks.  Sure, Tyson Foods would like all of us to grab a pack of Ball Park franks, but what exactly are the distinct advantages of choosing Ball Park over a competitor?
 
The fact that it’s difficult to answer this question suggests that “Grab Life by the Ball Park” fails to encapsulate the brand’s unique selling proposition.  In contrast, consider Ball Park’s classic theme “They plump when you cook them.”  That theme told consumers that if they bought Ball Park, they’d enjoy a hot dog that was bigger and juicier.  People wanted that outcome, the slogan reminded them of it, and Ball Park sales soared.
 
Are there other firms whose themes have effectively summarized their unique selling propositions?  Yes, the answers to the earlier slogan quiz are some of those companies: 1) State Farm, 2) M&Ms, 3) Verizon, 4) Wendy’s, 5) Hallmark.  For instance, other insurance companies might offer a low rate for auto insurance, but when you’ve had an accident and you need an agency that will really help you, then, “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is There.”

It seems that Ball Park
was at a loss for crafting a truly creative and compelling theme/unique selling proposition combination, so it’s taken the low road, trying to use sex to sell.  Granted, Ball Park’s “Grab Life by the Ball Park” isn’t bad compared to some of the highly sexualized things we see and hear in the media.  Still, the company’s not-so-veiled reference to male genitalia gives people one more gratuitous trigger to entertain indecent thoughts, even as many people in our society suffer from sexual addictions.

Ball Park obviously has done many things right to have risen to the top of the U.S. hot dog market.  It’s doubtful, however, that the company’s new slogan will do much to help it retain that position.  Meanwhile, in a market that sees about $2.5 billion of its sales come through supermarkets, the frankfurter maker is building a brand image that is not so family-friendly.  For these reasons, what Ball Park has grabbed and grilled up is a case of "Mindless 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!
10 Comments

Closing the Creativity Gap

2/20/2016

8 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
​Did you ever make your own toys?  Most of us haven’t had that experience, since over the last 50+ years almost any plaything imaginable has been available for retail purchase.  How wise is it, then, for the world’s second largest toymaker to bet that today’s boys and girls will want to create?  
 
The risk-taking toymaker is Mattel, which is introducing to its product line a 3D printer designed for young people age 13 and up.  Named “ThingMaker,” the new product pays homage to a 1960s Mattel invention by the same name that allowed children to “create their own toys by pouring liquid plastic into metal molds.”
 
Not surprising, the 21st century version of ThingMaker is considerably more advanced.  For instance, it has fast forwarded to the digital age by working wirelessly with iOS and Android apps so users can design and print directly from their mobile devices.  The printer also supports safety by boasting a print head that retracts when inactive so not to burn users.  How is the maker of Barbies and Hot Wheels able to manufacture such a technologically sophisticated product?  Mattel has partnered with Autodesk, “a leader in 3D design, engineering and entertainment software” that aspires to make 3D printing more accessible.
 
Of course, little from the preceding paragraph matters to kids—they want to know what they can make, which includes things like jewelry, scorpions, skeletons, and other figurines, many of which have ball-and-socket joints that allow for further customization.  What matters to most parents is the price.  Surprisingly the printer will only set them back $300, a low price compared to other 3D printers, which can reach thousands of dollars.  Like other 3D printer makers, Mattel also stands to make money on consumables, i.e., sales of the PLA plastic filament needed to do the printing.  
 
Maybe 3D printers are important for industrial companies, but do 13-year-old kids really need them?  No, they don’t, in as much as toys in general are not “needed”; however, for parents who are willing and able to spend $300 on a plaything, as many are, the ThingMaker may be a relatively small price to pay to cultivate creativity -- a trait that may be disappearing in children, even as employers increasingly desire it.
  
A study published in Creativity Research Journal, for instance, found a decline in creativity in students’ fictional writing over a recent twenty-year period.  Likewise, in 2010, the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, a well-known measure of creativity, discovered that scores of U.S. respondents had been decreasing regularly.  In addition, in a wide survey of adults in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, Adobe found that only 52% of Americans and 39% of global respondents considered themselves creative, while three-quarters of respondents felt they were not fulfilling their creative potential. 
 
The bitter irony is that businesses and other organizations are increasingly eager to hire individuals with creative skills.  For instance, IBM’s Institute for Business Value surveyed 1,500 chief executives and saw them identify creativity as “the most important leadership competency for the successful enterprise of the future,” because creative people are capable of disrupting: the status quo, existing business models, and organizational paralysis.  Similarly, Careerealism has identified that creative employees tend to offer: 
  • Solutions for difficult problems
  • New opportunities for their organizations
  • The right questions
  • Broader outlooks and approaches
  • Enthusiasm to learn

Can a 3D printer for kids move the needle on creativity in our world?  Not by itself, but it may be a meaningful step in the right direction, particularly toward the goal of fostering more creative play among children.  As PBS points out, creative experiences for kids shouldn’t be limited to just drawing or painting, they also should include building and making things.  PBS also encourages parents and teachers to “buy and use equipment in ways that encourage the use of imagination” and to “avoid toys and activities that spell everything out for the child and leave nothing to the imagination”—sounds like things a 3D printer could support.
 
It remains to be seen how successful Mattel’s foray into do-it-yourself toys will be.  Older and more innovative children may find the capabilities of the company’s initial offering somewhat limiting.  However, as the ThingMaker evolves, as it likely will, it should not only cultivate creativity but provide valuable experience with the same technology that more and more people will find themselves using in the workplace (i.e., 3D printing).  So, the ThingMaker seems poised to create stakeholder value while also upholding societal values, making Mattel a manufacturer 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!
8 Comments

Super Insult Advertising

2/13/2016

13 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
​After working in advertising and teaching marketing for many years, I’ve seen firms use a wide variety of methods to motivate consumers: everything from client testimonials to product demonstrations.  One tactic that never crossed my mind was to insult customers.  Apparently that approach has potential--at least that’s what one well-known Super Bowl 50 advertiser seems to believe.
 
The company that ran two different abusive ads was none other than Anheuser-Busch, the sultan of Super Bowl spots and the parent of the King of Beers, Budweiser.  Forgoing its classic Clydesdales, Budweiser instead featured British actress Helen Mirren in an ad that was ostensibly less about selling beer and more about discouraging drunk driving—a very laudable goal.  It was the means to that end, however, that likely led more than a few Super Bowl viewers to blush.
 
After introducing herself as “a notoriously frank and uncensored British lady,” Mirren describes any individual who drives drunk as “a short-sited, utterly useless, oxygen wasting, human form of pollution; a Darwin award-deserving selfish coward.”  To this putdown she adds “if your brain was donated to science, science would return it.”  The latter part of the spot has Mirren making amends by reassuring the target of her attack that he/she is likely a “fun, solid, and respectable human being.”  Those compliments, however, are largely overshadowed by her initial verbal barrage.
 
The other Anheuser-Busch brand to employ insult was Shock Top, a craft beer and Belgian white wheat ale.  This ad featured comedian T.J. Miller trading jabs with Shock Top’s animated brand icon—a sunglass-wearing, Mohawk-sporting, trash-talking orange wedge.  Among other taunts, Shock Top tells Miller: “You look like you’re on a cleanse that doesn’t work”; “I feel like you peaked in middle school”; “You look like an out-of-work magician”; and “I got a movie idea for you—this loser walks into a bar; it’s called ‘right now’.”  Like the Mirren ad, Shock Top makes up at the end as he and Miller share a laugh despite, their corrosive banter.
 
Anheuser-Busch obviously spent big bucks on these spots, as much as $10 million total, which should cause the company and others to ask if the ads were effective.  According to the USA Today, “Simply Put” with Mirren came in at #9 on its annual Ad Meter, while Shock Top’s “Unfiltered Talk” entered at just #42.  It’s hard to know the efficacy of the ads from this metric alone, however, since Ad Meter results seem to be based on what respondents like the most, and liking is no guarantee that one will remember who or what an ad was for, case in point, last year’s Fiat ad, which some people thought was for Viagra.
 
However, more significant than a short-term surge in beer sales is the long-term impact that these ads may have on the Budweiser and Shock Top brands.  In particular, Anheuser-Busch has gone to great lengths to build a positive brand image for its signature Budweiser brand using, for instance, the majestic Clydesdales.  Should Budweiser risk its brand equity by associating itself with the negativity and mean-spiritedness of insult advertising?  Probably not.
 
For instance, Campbell and Warren’s (2012) research published in Social Influence found that celebrities’ negative associations were more likely to transfer to the brands they endorsed than were their positive associations.  So, in terms of its Super Bowl ad with Helen Mirren, viewers might be more likely to think of Budweiser as cutting, unkind, caustic than as straightforward and socially responsible.
 
Organizations and their agents brand themselves in many different ways, including by what they say.  Even if they’re speaking about someone or something else, their choice of words and tone paint a picture of who they are.  So, if an agent uses vulgarity or profanity to describe another person, there’s a good chance hearers will remember the agent as being vulgar or profane as much as they’ll remember what the agent said about the other party.
 
Efficacy, however, is not the only quality of insult advertising that should be questioned.  The practice’s ethicality also deserves debate.  For the Budweiser ad, decreasing drunk driving is certainly a worthy goal, but does that end justify any means of mitigation?  It’s ironic that Mirren skewers those who drive drunk for physically disrespecting others, while her own caustic tirade verbally disrespects all of the ad's viewers, including those who don’t even drink.
 
Beyond the inconsistency of disrespectfully demanding respect, there’s also the danger that the language of the Budweiser and Shock Top ads will inspire imitation.  Do people really act out ads?  Yes, some do, especially young, impressionable persons who value risk more than restraint.  Mumbai, India, for instance, experienced ad imitation after TV commercials showcased motorcycle riders performing amazing stunts.  Police called for a ban of the ads because young imitators were endangering themselves and others.
 
It’s easy to imagine middle school students and others taunting their peers with jabs borrowed from Anheuser-Busch’s ads like “a loser walks into classroom . . .” and “if you donated your brain to science . . . .”  Schools are trying to combat that kind of verbal abuse, which is often called bullying.  They don’t need a beer company to provide their students with more material for mockery.
 
Anheuser-Busch is right that it’s a bad idea to combine alcohol and automobiles.  The parent of some of the world’s most iconic brands should also realize that it’s wrong to blend beer with belittlement, both for the benefit of its brands but also for the sake of our society.  As a result, Anheuser-Busch’s insult advertising can be considered “Mindless 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

Guilt-Induced Giving

2/6/2016

4 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

It’ good to hear of hearts going out to the people of Flint, MI, who have suffered greatly from drinking water made dangerous by lead.  It’s also encouraging that many have donated to help mitigate the city’s disaster.  Among those who have graciously given or pledged to give to the needs of Flint are:
 
  • Tom Gores, Owner of the Detroit Pistons - $10 million
  • Aretha Franklin, the “Queen of Soul” – hotel rooms and food for 25-50 people
  • The Game, Rapper - $1 million in bottled water
  • Anheuser-Busch – over 51,000 cans of drinking water
  • AQUAhydrate – 1 million bottles of water
  • Jimmy Fallon - $10,000
  • Madonna - $10,000
  • Detroit Lions Defensive Lineman – 94,000 bottles of water
  • Cher and Glacial – 180,000+ bottles of water
 
In the wake of such a calamity, promotion often plays an important role as both individuals and organizations take up the cause to market the need for relief.  A key question, then, becomes how best to persuade participation.
 
Some believe that a soft-sell works best: simply inform people of the need and allow them to decide if, when, and how they will respond.  Others advocate a more potent appeal, for instance by painting an emotion-evoking picture and pleading with potential benefactors to participate.  Then there are those who take an even more aggressive approach, essentially demanding that others engage, under threat of social sanction or shame.
 
The latter is the tactic that the Game appears to have taken in an attempt to force more support to Flint.  More specifically, the gansta rapper has unambiguously called out comedian Jimmy Fallon and popstar Madonna for each giving “just” $10,000 each to help provide relief to residents.  Here’s the Game’s indictment:
 
"I seen @Madonna & @JimmyFallon's $10,000 donations... that's cute, but not nearly enough.... So I challenge both & anyone else in the world to match me & DONATE $1,000,000 in bottled water to Flint, Michigan & we want proof, shipping order receipts, bank wire receipts, pictures etc........... No more pretending to give a f***..... I donate money all the time & it comes out of my pocket & never once have I written anything off on my taxes because that's not why I do it !!!!!!!! So, if any other celebrity wants to MATCH MY MILLION here's the site where you can donate http://selfmadefoundation.org or pick your own.. JUST MAKE SURE THE WATER ACTUALLY GETS TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT !! & I don't wanna see anyone else using the word "PLEDGE" in their donation or press release because we know that that means. ‘YOU JUST TALKING & TRYING TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A HUMANITARIAN’”
 
So far it appears that neither Fallon nor Madonna has responded to the Game’s expletive-infused and guilt-laden petition.  Does that mean that such shame-based pleas are ineffective?  No, there's actually support for the opposite.
 
Shaming others into action, including to give, often works.  For instance, a frequently-cited 2008 study in Psychology & Marketing found that guilt was a significant, positive predictor of intentions to donate.  Likewise, research has found that punishment tends to be a more effective motivator than reward.  In addition, some argue that in the face of serious human need, like that of Flint, the ends justify the means, i.e., it’s okay to compromise fair treatment and respect for some, if the result is a greater good.
 
So, should individuals and organizations ratchet up the guilt in order to secure money?  No.  Just like it’s criminal for thieves to use guns, knives, or other threats to force their victims to give to them, it’s wrong to wield guilt as weapon to pressure people to donate.  Using coercion of any kind to gain gifts is immoral. Likewise, as Mindful Marketing often expounds: just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
 
It can be tempting to look at the giving of others and conclude that they could give more, but we need to remind ourselves that we really don’t know their situations, including what they might be giving to other causes.  There’s also the real risk that publicly shaming some for offering too little may dissuade others from giving at all, for fear that their gifts will be called too small.  That’s a terrible outcome when every little bit of aid matters.
 
Still, research and anecdotal evidence do suggest that people will give more when made to feel guilty, which makes forceful fundraising, like that of the Game, effective.  That approach also compromises, however, important societal values like fairness and respect for current and potential benefactors.  As a result, anyone who leverages guilt to encourage gifts should be called out for “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!
4 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