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

Making Sport of More Women

2/24/2017

11 Comments

 
Picture

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

Inclusion is a good thing.  People shouldn’t be bypassed for jobs, kept out of college, or otherwise be excluded just because of their race, gender, etc.  However, it’s also wrong to include people when doing so harms them and others.  Why, then, are many celebrating Sports Illustrated’s new inclusiveness, which hurts the very women it pretends to promote?
 
For the past 53 years, the iconic athletics magazine has published a special issue dedicated to “swimsuits.”  More accurately, the annual edition has literally exposed supermodels who, in minimal attire, have struck sexy poses on sandy beaches and in a variety of other seductive settings.
 
Some have rightly wondered how such images even represent sport:  What exactly is the game?  Wherein lies the competition?  Nevertheless, the annual spectacle of skin has continued, probably because the magazine’s largely male target market also enjoys sexual stimulation.
 
Surprisingly this year, Sports Illustrated has altered its strategy.  Rather than limiting layouts to the stereotypically beautiful (e.g., young and slim), the magazine has adopted a more inclusive approach.  The newest issue embraces women who vary much more in shape and size, as well as age.
 
One of the women featured is “plus-size” model Hunter McGrady, who some are calling Sports Illustrated’s “curviest model ever.”  The issue also includes veteran super model Christie Brinkley, a very young-looking 63.  In addition, tennis star Serena Williams makes an appearance, adding both physical and racial diversity.
 
Many have commended Sports Illustrated’s efforts to dispel stereotypes.  In an era of rampant body-shaming, it’s refreshing to see a popular periodical actively support a broader standard of beauty.  Such compliments would be well-deserved, if Sports Illustrated portrayed women in ways that preserved their personhood.  Unfortunately, however, the magazine seems determined to blur the lines between popular press and pornography. 
 
In many shots, models wear very little or nothing at all, which is ironic since the issue bills itself as the “swimsuit edition.”  Several of the women go topless, barely concealing their breasts with their hands or other creative coverings.  For her photos, McGrady wore nothing at all, save a layer of body paint.  She was, in her own words, “100% naked.”
 
In addition, the positions in which many of the women pose appear aimed at erotica.  One shot of Hailey Clauson shows her in a see-through top, lying on her back, on an animal skin, with legs spread open toward the camera.  Another has her stretched-out, stomach-down, on a beach, her buttocks bare as she pulls at the bikini bottom wrapped around her ankles.
 
These images aren’t unusual; they’re typical of the shots Sports Illustrated selects, most of which oversexualize and objectify women.  The magazine might argue that it’s celebrating beauty and the female form, but that pretense is as much a perversion as the pictures themselves.
 
Realistically, most men who buy the magazine or view the photos online aren’t admiring women as whole persons (body, mind, and spirit); rather, they’re ogling them as sex objects (breasts, legs, and bottoms).  Given the great personal and social costs of pornography and other sexual addition, SI is not doing these men or anyone else a favor.
 
Equally concerning are the damaging perceptions of women that these pictures promote.  Reducing women to body parts undermines their personhood, intellect, and abilities.  It’s hard to think of others as colleagues worthy of equal pay and promotions when they’re simply seen as a sex objects.
 
So, is Sports Illustrated’s new inclusiveness benefiting women who are bigger, older, or otherwise more diverse?  Absolutely not.  The swimsuit issue is now just sexually objectifying a wider range of women—doing to them the same thing it has done to a smaller sample for decades.  However, this oversexualizing of women of all shapes and sizes is even more troubling.  Framing certain types of women as sex objects was bad enough; seeing all women through a purely sexual lens further democratizes the dehumanization and promises even more widespread gender inequality.
 
At a time when many people rightly reject locker room talk and take stands for the fair treatment of women, it’s amazing that Sports Illustrated’s popular press flesh-peddling endures unscathed.  More people should be concerned about the impact such pervasive images have on both sexes.  Inclusion is generally good, but equal exploitation makes 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!
11 Comments

The Price of Happiness

2/17/2017

18 Comments

 
Picture

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

If Disneyland is “The Happiest Place on Earth,” the price of happiness has just gone up. The Walt Disney Company recently announced that it would increase the cost of admission to its theme parks.  Price hikes are rarely popular, but this latest round of increases seemed to elicit an especially grumpy reaction as some have wondered if the family entertainment icon has gotten too caught up in its own magic.

About two weeks ago, Disney enacted the increases, which averaged around $5 for each one-day adult ticket.  In Orlando that means a peak-time time ticket for either Animal Kingdom, Epcot, or Hollywood Studios now costs $114 per day.  That price is low, however, compared to tickets for the Magic Kingdom and Disneyland in California, which now set a park-goer back $124 each.

It’s important to note that these rates represent the upper end of the price range.  Because the company utilizes variable pricing, off-peak midweek tickets run about $17 less in Orlando and $27 less in California.  Also, tickets for children between the ages of three and nine cost a few dollars less.

In addition, Disney offers a variety of deals that provide discounts for multiday passes and hotel-park packages.  For instance, a five-day pass to Walt Disney World can come in as low as $74 dollars per day.  Similarly, one specific vacation package promises the following:
 
“Enjoy a wide range of must-do experiences at all 4 Walt Disney World theme parks with a 4-Park Magic Ticket and 4-night accommodations nearby at select Walt Disney World Good Neighbor Hotels, packages starting at $1,675 for a family of four.”

Granted, Disney is promoting the entry-level package, but still, that breaks down to about $105 dollars per day, per person, for park admission and overnight accommodations.
 
So, there are some options that are cheaper than paying $124 for a one-day park pass, yet there’s no getting around the fact that a Disney park experience demands a considerable chunk of change, which leads to the question:  Should Disney be charging so much for family-friendly entertainment?
 
The first consideration in answering this question is supply and demand.  When organizations produce goods or provide services that are very unique and very desirable, people will really want to purchase them, which puts upward pressure on prices, especially when supply is very limited.  Shouldn’t, then, Disney increase supply in order to help itself and consumers?
 
Actually, Disney has done that.  Over several decades in Orlando, the company has added three major theme parks (Epcot, Hollywood Studios, and Animal Kingdom) as well as Downtown Disney and a variety of smaller attractions.  All the while, demand for Disney entertainment has continued to grow.  Price increases, then, are another way of keeping demand in check:  Some people will not want to pay the higher prices, leading them to opt out, which makes waiting times, etc. more manageable for those still visiting the parks.
 
Certainly, Disney’s Parks and Resorts bring in a boatload of money: $16.97 billion in revenue, according to the company’s 2016 annual report.  Providing so much magic, however, comes at considerable cost, including expenses for things like employee wages, property maintenance, energy, and insurance.  Those costs and others totaled about $13.68 billion for the same fiscal year.

“But, wait a minute,” some may be thinking.  “That leaves operating income of around $3.29 billion.  Why do Disney Parks and Resorts need to make that much money?”  Well, exactly how much this business unit needs to make is debatable.  The thing, though, is that the Walt Disney Company as a whole has 1.58 billion shares of stock outstanding, with a market cap of over $175 billion.  As a publicly-traded company, Disney must provide an adequate return on investment for its shareholders, which means being more than marginally profitable.
 
It also can be helpful to look at Disney park prices in comparison to other entertainment costs.  The price of a one-day adult ticket to Universal Studios in Orlando is $105, while a children’s ticket costs just $5 less.  If one is more interested in sports, tickets for section 106 of the Amway Center, home of the Orlando Magic, range from $129.50 to $337.25 each.  Or, tickets for a concert by Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons at the Dr. Phillips Center for the Performing Arts in Orlando start at $59.
 
Of course, there are many other types of entertainment that cost considerably less.  Catching a movie or playing mini golf might come in under $10.  Ultimately, the question becomes one of costs versus benefits.  Although a Disney park ticket might cost 10 times the price of mini golf or a movie, it could easily produce more than 10 times the benefits because of the very unique things one can see and do at Disney, not just for a couple of hours, but for an entire day.
 
It’s also important to remember that paid-for entertainment is not a necessity.  People can survive without any entertainment, although it does make life much more enjoyable.  Moreover, there are plenty of recreational things that can be done for free, e.g., a stroll through a park or a conversation with friends.  So, Disney can’t be accused of price gouging.
 
Speaking of free, I know from personal experience that it’s possible to enjoy Disney parks without paying anything.  A few years ago our family visited Disney World in Orlando for several days and experienced all four of the major parks at no cost.  We got all of our tickets for free thanks to a Disney cobranded credit card we used to save Disney reward points for several years before redeeming them on the park passes.  Enjoying Disney and paying nothing is truly magical.
 
Price increases are something that consumers almost never want, but we should realize that companies need to cover rising costs, provide adequate returns to investors, and manage demand, especially for very unique goods and services that are in limited supply.  Yes, a visit to the Magic Kingdom, etc. can be expensive, but the fact that so many people are eager to pay those prices suggests that Disney parks continue to be a great value.  Creating happiness at a relatively high price is still “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!
18 Comments

A Dirty Mr. Clean

2/4/2017

5 Comments

 
Picture

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

Falcon fans watching Super Bowl LI wished they’d never seen some things, like the incredible catch by Patriots receiver Julian Edelman and the winning touchdown run by James White.  Some other viewers also saw something they wish they’d never seen: a super sensual ad featuring a sexed-up Mr. Clean.

The latest Super Bowl contained many memorable commercials, but the Mr. Clean spot may be the most difficult to forget. In the ad, a wanton woman imagines an unusually buff animated spokesman strutting about her home in a skin-tight white t-shirt and form-fitting pants.  Carefully cropped camera shots capture the brand icon flexing his biceps and swaying his hips to the sound of a sexy R & B song with the lyrics “Got what you want, got what you need.  Be your dreamboat be your fantasy.  I'll be your ecstasy.”
 
Throughout the ad, the actress leers lustfully and dances suggestively with the cartoon character, who gives new meaning to the term “all-purpose cleaner.”  Then suddenly she comes back to reality when her husband/partner emerges from the animation asking, “Sara, Sara?  Clean enough?”  By that time her libido has gotten the best of her and she tackles him over the back of the couch in a lip-locked embrace.
 
Like the spot itself, on-line reaction to the ad has been very ‘animated.’  On YouTube, one reviewer feigned worry, “I have no doubt my girl will leave me for Mr. Clean,” while another exclaimed, “that moment where you actually want to watch an ad.”  Overall, reaction to the promotion was positive:  So far, almost 28,000 YouTube viewers have given it a thumbs up, and only about 3,100 have voted it down.
 
It’s hard to say whether the ad will increase sales of the cleaning solution, but there is potential.  Unlike many other Super Bowl spots that left us asking “What was that for?”, the Mr. Clean commercial was unmistakably tied to cleaning, which was a step in the right direction.  A shopper in a grocery store, scanning the shelves for cleaning supplies, might at least think, “Mr. Clean, I’ve heard of that.” 
 
So, if the majority of people like the Mr. Clean commercial, and there’s potential that the ad will increase sales, Procter & Gamble (parent of the brand) must have made a good creative decision, right?  Not so fast.
 
First, it will be interesting to see the long-term impact that a sexy Mr. Clean has on the brand.  P&G is a diverse corporation whose holdings include the likes of Bounty, Charmin, Crest, Dawn, Luvs, Oral-B, Pampers, Swiffer, Tide, and Vicks.  Other than a couple of unusual exceptions like Old Spice, which targets young males, most P&G brands are wholesome and family-oriented—an image that the new Mr. Clean doesn’t uphold.  P&G as a whole is protected, however, because it doesn’t place everything under the same corporate label, like Apple and Nike do.  Instead, P&G uses individual branding, which helps separate people’s perceptions of each P&G product.
 
In any case, once a company uses sex to sell, it’s hard to reestablish a wholesome image—just ask GoDaddy, which several years later is still remembered for its series of sexually explicit Super Bowl ads.  More specifically, will we ever be able to think of the Mr. Clean character the same way again?  He’s gone from being an unemotional symbol of practical cleaning strength to a sexy ‘player’ who will potentially put the moves on any woman he desires.

Such sexualized branding is not family-friendly.  Although, children aren’t the target market for cleaning supplies, there are spillover effects, especially when the advertising occurs in widely-viewed broadcasts, like the Super Bowl.  Also, the ad in question ironically inferred that women like men who clean, but it’s unlikely that most men will be captivated by Mr. Clean’s new image.  At least I’m not, and I’m a man who cleans.
 
Also not family-friendly is the ad’s promotion of unhealthy sexual fantasies.  It’s always dangerous to substitute desire for a husband or wife with someone or something else.  “But wait a minute,” you may be thinking, “He’s just a cartoon.  It’s supposed to be funny.”  That’s true, yet there’s an anatomical realism and life-likeness to this Mr. Clean that makes the lusting much more legitimate than if it were for, say, the Michelin Man.
 
Similarly, the ad tries to sneak-in sex by having a woman ogle a man.  More people would likely be put-off if the roles were reversed and it were a man mentally undressing a woman.  The act of sexual objectification should be offensive no matter who’s doing it.  Yes, it can seem kind of funny when women objectify men (e.g., “Look at that set of guns”), because it usually doesn’t happen that way.  However, the acceptance of such female-male objectification desensitizes people to all forms of sexual objectification, and makes the more common male-female kind seem okay.

A final irony involves the perceptual disconnect between a product that aims to make things clean, and a spokes-character that acts ‘dirty.’  Granted, his actions aren’t dirty in a grease and grime sense, but they’re still easily perceived as impure and adulterated.  That’s close enough to being a direct contradiction that most brands wouldn’t want to risk the association.
 
As mentioned above, this Mr. Clean commercial might help stimulate short-term sales.  It’s doubtful, however, that the sexualization of the animated character will produce long-term benefits for the brand, even as it puts a stain on society.  For these reasons, sexy Mr. Clean 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!
5 Comments

Super Bowl Ads Should Do More Than Entertain

2/3/2017

3 Comments

 
Picture

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

What’s widely considered advertising’s greatest work is again on display: Super Bowl ads.  These over-the-top commercials come with huge costs, which can make anyone wonder if they’re worth the price, as well as whether the unique content is appropriate for all viewers.
 
The cost of Super Bowl ads has increased steadily over the last few decades.  In 1993, a 30-second spot cost $900,000.  This year, a commercial of the same size is going for as much as $5 million.  That’s just the price for running an already-made ad in a specific commercial cluster; i.e., it doesn’t include hiring actors, paying directors, or other productions costs.

Who in their right mind would pay $5 million-plus for 30 seconds of anything?  Well, certain advertisers will, knowing that their message will be seen by one of the largest TV viewing audiences ever.  It’s estimated that 111.9 million people watched Super Bowl 50 in the United States alone.  What’s more, social media has extended the life of the commercials beyond the game itself thanks to the popularity of pre-releases of ads on sites such as superbowlcommercials.co and after-the-fact views on YouTube.

Still, not every organization that can afford a Super Bowl ad should buy one.  Conventional wisdom suggests that a spot may be a good investment for a firm that’s targeting a nationwide, if not global, market for consumables such as fast food, soft drinks, or snacks.  There also can be an advantage for such products in that they fit the context in which people see the ads:  People often eat snack food during the Super Bowl, so they’re more likely to pay attention to and remember ads for tortilla chips, salsa, etc.
 
Who has no business advertising on the Super Bowl?  Organizations that market to other businesses, i.e., B2B firms.  Yes, the decision-makers for these products may be somewhere among 100 million-plus viewers, but even if they are, they probably aren’t thinking about a new sprocket supplier for their firm.  Furthermore, B2B products are often more complex than products for end-consumers, which means B2B communication doesn’t lend itself to short television spots.  Instead of advertising, a more effective and efficient way to reach a relatively small number of potential B2B buyers is personal selling.
 
However, a good target market fit alone will not make for an effective Super Bowl ad or other promotion.  Advertising ultimately needs to move people through AIDA: attention, interest, desire, action.  Here’s where so many Super Bowl ads miss the mark.  For instance, their use of celebrity actors is attention-getting, and their ability to tell a compelling story in 30 seconds keeps our interest, but they don’t instill a desire to fulfill a specific need or move us to action (e.g., to go to the company’s website, purchase the product, or recommend it to others).  In other words, the ads are entertaining, but not particularly effective.

A classic example of entertainment over efficacy was the “little blue pill” ad from a few Super Bowls ago.  The ad captivated viewers, who watched a love-stricken older man drop his last testosterone enhancing tablet, only to see it bounce around an Italian village and end-up in the gas tank of a small red car.  The problem with the ad was that many people who saw it couldn’t remember afterward what it was for; some thought it was an ad for Viagra.  They had entirely missed or forgotten that it was a car ad for Fiat.  Yes, the ad entertained, but it’s highly unlikely that people who couldn’t remember what the ad was for would have gone out to buy a Fiat.
 
Effective ads, especially ones for specific products, communicate a clear unique selling proposition (USP)--the special set of benefits that consumers enjoy in using them.  Likewise, effective ads contain a compelling call-to-action, which can be tangible, like visiting a website or buying the product, or it can be more intangible, like adopting positive beliefs about the brand.  Neither of these two critical components of AIDA (desire and action) can happen, however, if people don’t remember the product a given ad promoted.
 
Effectiveness isn’t enough, however, especially when considering mass communication that reaches one of the most demographically diverse television viewing audiences ever.  For this reason, it’s very important that Super Bowl ads are also ethical—that they support societal values such as decency, honesty, respect, and stewardship.
 
Thankfully, the over-sexualized spots that GoDaddy ran for several years, which were especially demeaning to women, are largely a thing of the past.  Still, there are always a few ads the minimize morality.  Last year, Budweiser’s ad against drunk-driving had good intent, but Helen Mirren’s caustic rant set a bad example for children and others in a culture that’s battling bullying.
 
This year, a contender for most unethical ad is Squarespace’s spot featuring John Malkovich, who lets loose a profanity-laced tirade against another John Malkovich who took his domain name.  Like Budweiser and Mirren, Squarespace and Malkovich set a very poor example in a world wanting of civility and restraint.  Again, however, such morality-challenged ads are fortunately the exception rather than the rule.

So as you watch this year’s Super Bowl ads (before, during, or after the game), ask yourself if the commercials have just entertained, or if they’ve truly tapped into needs that will lead to action.  It’s nice that some advertisers are willing to spend millions of dollars to make us tear-up or laugh, but such entertainment is an insufficient return on a very significant investment.  In other words, it’s “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!
3 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