Blog Archives

The Wrong Place to Race

4/28/2017

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

When you’re in the market for a new car, what do you want: good gas mileage, safety, reliability, style? How about acceleration from 0 to 60 in 2.3 seconds and speed of 140 mph? You may be thinking, “I want to get to work fast, but not that fast.” Well, you could carve minutes off your commute with the new Dodge Demon.

Dodge, a division of Fiat Chrysler, recently announced the Demon, an 840-horsepower ultimate muscle car it calls “A Beast Unlike Any Known to Man.” That extreme title is more than puffery. The bold claim is backed by an array of outrageous automotive features that together produce such superlatives as:

Highest horsepower of any production car
Fastest 0-60 time of any production car: 2.3 seconds
Fastest 0-100 time of any production car: 5.1 seconds
First wheelie by a production car

What’s a production car? They are “mass-produced identical models, offered for sale to the public, and able to be legally driven on public roads (street legal).” In other words, they’re the vehicles in front of and behind us on highways. They’re the ones pulling up next to us at stop lights. They’re the cars that any of us can buy and drive around town.

So, why does someone need a ‘monster’ like the Dodge Demon to drive back-and-forth to school or work? It seems like using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. Of course, a similar question can be asked about other cars, e.g., Does anyone really need a Lamborghini, a Lincoln Navigator, or a Lexus to get from point A to point B?

There is a key difference, however: Dodge has designed the Demon for one specific purpose—drag racing. That’s the reason for the “superlatives” listed above and the reason the company’s own website says:

“Race-Ready”
“Every feature was chosen to optimize drag strip performance. That’s why the Dodge Challenger SRT® Demon is equipped with 315/40R18 Nitto NT05R™ drag radial tires.”
“Built for the drag strip”
“Designed with drag races in mind”
“The Dodge Challenger SRT® Demon is designed for one thing: dominating the quarter mile. These essentials will help ensure you get to the stripe first, win some trophies and put the other guy on the trailer.”

Of course, other companies also make dragsters, and some of those cars are much faster than the Demon: “Top Fuel dragsters are the quickest accelerating racing vehicles in the world and the fastest sanctioned category of drag racers, with the fastest competitors reaching speeds of 335 miles per hour (539 km/h) and finishing the 1,000 foot (305 m) runs in 3.7 seconds.”

Again, however, there’s an important difference: You can’t take these Top Fuel cars or most other dragsters onto the street, but you can easily do so with the Demon. This Dodge car can run legally on regular roads. Therein lies the problem. Public streets in cities, towns, and even rural areas, aren’t meant for solo vehicles traveling over a hundred miles per hour, let alone a couple of cars racing each other. What’s more, other vehicles and pedestrians inevitably cross paths with street racers, resulting in disastrous outcomes.

A quick web search of “street racing accidents” produces images of some of the most mangled automobiles you’ve ever seen, as well as continuous stories of people tragically impacted by races gone wrong. Here are some of those headlines:

“Arrest made in street racing accident that killed 3.”
“Father, daughter killed in street racing accident.”
“More than 60 people witnessed fatal L.A. street race.”
“2 Killed, 1 Injured in Fiery Street-Racing Crash.”

But, does Dodge or any automaker deserve blame for these foolish accidents? After all, individuals with more bravado than brains use all sorts of tricked out cars for street racing, especially Honda Civics and Toyota Camrys, which happen to be the top selling sedans in America. These car companies don’t make or promote their vehicles for street racing, yet some consumers go to great lengths to use them that way.

Dodge, however, is no innocent bystander to street racing. As described above, the company purposely manufactures and promotes the Demon for drag racing, which could just mean the relative safety of closed-course stadiums, but it doesn’t. Consider some of Dodge’s other messaging that is specific to street racing on the site www.dodge.com/en/ifyouknowyouknow/:

An initial video clip briefly shows a young man waving what appears to be a starting flag on what looks like a nighttime street.
Even less subtle, Tim Kuniskis, Head of Passenger Car Brands for Dodge, introduces the Demon by saying: “We have a duty . . . to literally leave our mark on the strips and streets of America,” and “This is the most technologically-advanced, street-legal, production drag car ever.”

One can argue that those words and images are fanciful, not intended to be taken literally, or that they’re inconsistent with the corporation’s culture, but even the mission and values of Fiat Chrysler advocate “competition” and taking “risks.” These principles take on an eerily ‘demonic’ meaning when considered in the context of street racing.

Finally, there’s the car’s name and related branding. Most car names have a positive or neutral connotation, e.g., Accord, Daytona, Envoy, Expedition, Explorer, Focus, Malibu, Odyssey, Park Avenue, Pathfinder, Sedona, Tacoma, etc. “Demon,” however, carries a decidedly negative and even evil association, which Dodge reinforces with the car’s logo and other visual identifiers.

On one hand, a name is only what you make of it. On the other hand, if you call your son Spike, you’re charting his path for him. Similarly, naming a car “Demon,” suggests some disregard for law and morals.

I must admit: I’m not a car guy; my knowledge of things automotive is limited. However, a more expert source has offered a similar opinion. In a recent editorial, Automotive News has called for a ban on the Demon saying that “Dodge is wrong to offer a purpose-built drag racer as a road-legal automobile.” The piece goes on to suggest that the company “places bragging rights ahead of public safety.”

Unfortunately, even with such significant safety concerns, Dodge will likely find owners for all of the 3,000 Demons it plans to offer for the 2018 model year at a price of nearly $100,000 each. As Forbes suggests, “Speed always sells in the new-car business, and being able to boast having the ‘world’s fastest production car’ guarantees Dodge magazine covers and millions of fanboy followers.”

So, in the end, Fiat Chrysler wins, as do the adrenaline-seeking street racers who buy Demons. Meanwhile, the general public bares the risk of the “Beast,” suffering Dodge’s decision to use “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!

6 Comments

Eating Out at IKEA

4/21/2017

1 Comment

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

“It’s a big country. Someone’s got to furnish it.” If you remember that slogan, you’re either an advertising geek, a big fan of IKEA, or both. Recently the Sweden-born company known for its simple-design furniture, sold in airport-hanger-sized stores, made a surprising announcement—It’s considering opening standalone restaurants. Add a new slogan: “It’s a big country. Someone’s got to feed it.”

Seventeen-year-old Ingvar Kamprad founded IKEA in Sweden in 1943, as a mail-order business. He began selling furniture in 1948, opening his first physical store ten years later. The company, now headquartered in the Netherlands, owns and operates nearly 400 stores in 48 countries and has annual sales of about $39 billion, making it the world’s largest furniture retailer.

With so much experience in furniture over the company’s 74-year history, why would it now want to start focusing on food? Yes, people use some kinds of furniture to store food, and we often sit on furniture while we’re eating, but beyond those things, what’s the connection?

In his classic business book, In Search of Excellence, Tom Peters (1982) concluded that companies should “stick to the knitting,” or focus on doing what they know best and not become too far flung in their operations. Perhaps IKEA execs never read Peters.

However, IKEA already has restaurants in its stores, which are pretty popular. In fact, some people go to IKEA just to eat, which almost sounds like going to a baseball game to get a couple of hotdogs. Actually, it’s quite different.

IKEA’s restaurants are popular for some good reasons. While the menu is understandably small, it offers a nice selection of Swedish-inspired, yet American-friendly, dishes that are apparently very tasty. I’ve never eaten at IKEA, but I’ve often been tempted by the enticing pictures and smells.

Equally important, IKEA prices its restaurant fare very reasonably, just as it does its furniture. For instance, one can buy a plate of Swedish meatballs with lingonberries, seasonal vegetables, mashed potatoes and cream sauce for just $4.99, hot smoked salmon for $6.99, and Swedish waffles for only $1.99. There’s also a kid’s menu with a variety of options for $2.49 each.

“So, the furniture retailer sells some meatballs”—not exactly. According to Fortune, 650 million people in 48 countries ate at IKEA in 2016, generating revenue of $1.8 billion. For comparison sake, that’s about the same as T.G.I. Friday’s total sales U.S. in 2011. In addition, IKEA already has some standalone restaurant experience via pop-up stores it has temporarily run in London, Paris, and Oslo.

The reason IKEA would want to sell food within its furniture stores is fairly obvious. The longer people stay in a store, the more they buy, and a café located inside the store keeps them from leaving when they get hungry. Or, as Gerd Deiwald, head of food operations for IKEA’s U.S.A., says, "We’ve always called the meatballs ‘the best sofa-seller.”

But, why would an expert sofa-seller want to take the risk of peddling food in standalone restaurants? The short answer is “because it can.” More specifically, the company has the wherewithal to do food service well, so it can capitalize on the market opportunity, which will provide another source of revenue and profit.

The move also would help diversify the firm’s product portfolio somewhat, giving it a valuable buffer in the competitive retail furniture market. Globally, much growth in that market is likely to come in China and India—two countries that are often difficult for foreign retailers to penetrate.

Another advantage that IKEA might realize in running standalone restaurants is cross-promotion. It would be shocking if the furniture retailer didn’t use its own tables, chairs, and other dining accessories in its restaurants. So, as you’re eating Swedish meatballs you’re imaging your home with a new IKEA kitchen table set.

But isn’t that a sneaky way of selling furniture—get people to try it out, so they’ll want to buy it? No. That kind of trial is exactly what helps consumers make informed buying decisions. What better way to decide if you’ll like a particular chair than to sit in it for a couple of hours. People aren’t going to buy any furniture they don’t really want, and the restaurants are a good way for customers to get a better idea of what will work well for them.

Should IKEA, then, open a hotel chain so people can try out its bedroom sets? Probably not—at least not until it gets some experience accommodating customers overnight. In the meantime, the company’s significant food service experience and strong brand equity should give it confidence to jump with both feet into the restaurant industry.

It won’t be easy for IKEA. There’s much more culinary competition outside the walls of a big box furniture store. The company also likely will need to make its menu broader and continually update it. Still, if IKEA does open standalone restaurants, they’ll stand a good chance of success, and offer a fine example of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Soda Diplomacy

4/14/2017

1 Comment

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

Gifts are important parts of relationships, whether they’re a diamond solitaire for engagement or a gold watch at retirement. Such presents communicate commitment, kindness, and appreciation. So, why has Kendall Jenner’s gracious gifting during her recent Pepsi ad received such an icy response?

The two-and-a-half-minute video depicts some kind of protest—it’s hard to tell what. A throng of broadly diverse, yet uniformly young and attractive, activists take to the streets carrying signs with such ambiguous messages as “Love” and “Join the Conversation.” They look more amiable than angry.

The growing crowd captures Jenner’s attention even as she’s immersed in a photoshoot. Eventually the populace appeal becomes too great: She pulls off her bleach-blond wig, wipes off a layer of red lipstick and joins the people in protest.

As she strides in solidarity, an idea strikes her. She grabs a can of Pepsi from a conveniently located container and confidently approaches a handsome young policeman, standing guard during the dispute. The officer accepts Jenner’s gesture, cracks open the can, and takes a swig. His smile and “awe shucks” reaction causes the crowd to erupt in elation. Problem solved, the commercial closes with the Pepsi logo and the tagline “Live Bolder. Live Louder. Live for Now.”

Pepsi’s ad appeared well-intended, so why the strong social media backlash and the skewering on Saturday Night Live? By handing the can of Pepsi to the policeman, Jenner seemed to be extending an olive branch. Many people and entire nations have used gifts in similar ways to promote peace, e.g., China’s gift of giant pandas Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing to the U.S. in 1972; the U.S. reciprocated with a set of musk oxen.

Of course, there’s a big difference between a pair of majestic animals and a can of cola, but Jenner’s ad wasn’t the first advertising that presented soda as a means of mending. In the classic 1979 Super Bowl commercial that ranks as one of the best of all time, a young Pittsburgh Steelers fan innocently offered an injured “Mean Joe Greene” his bottle of Coke, lifting the dejected defensive tackle’s mood and leading him to toss his jersey to the elated lad: “Hey, kid; catch.”

That iconic and still very popular ad ended with the tagline “Have a Coke and a Smile,” which is exactly what millions of people did. Coca-Cola saw a 19.2% increase in sales from 1979 to 1980, not all due to the commercial, but the ad undoubtedly played a part.

So why did people spurn Pepsi’s Jenner ad when Coke’s Mean Joe commercial was so successful? There are two related reasons:

1. Believability
The storyline of the Mean Joe ad was plausible and its filming was realistic. Granted it was still somewhat of a fantasy—not every fan who approaches a famous athlete receives such a generous response; yet, even today, we hear of instances in which kind-hearted sports stars very pleasantly surprise their followers. For instance, at the recent Masters tournament, Matt Kuchar hit a hole-in-one from the 16th tee, signed the ball, and gave it to an ecstatic young fan.

In contrast, so much about the Jenner ad seemed implausible or looked unreal: What are the chances that Jenner would be doing a street-level photoshoot exactly where a protest pops up? How likely is it that someone of Kardashian fame would spontaneously join the march because a passerby caught her attention and motioned her in? What’s the probability that a police officer in such a tense situation would accept a soda from a stranger, drink it, and flash that kind of silly smile? Plus, there’s the inauthentic appearance of the protesters and their peculiar signs.

2. Reasonable Purpose
Certainly, both Coke and Pepsi wanted their commercials to sell soda. Whether or not it was intended, the Mean Joe ad also served to promote empathy and kindness, even between individuals of different ages and races. Initiated by an innocent child, that purpose was plausible. Even now, if any of us would politely offer a cold drink to a thirsty stranger, we’d probably receive a similar warm response.

Jenner kindly offered a cold Pepsi, but the viewing audience overwhelming rejected her efforts—why? Part of the reaction stems from the spot’s farfetched features, described above. Moreover, the ad tried to do too much. Soda can legitimately support positive interpersonal interaction, as it did for Coke. Pepsi, however, seriously over-projected its influence, thinking that a cola could curb civil unrest or enact social justice. Such issues are too big and complex, even for Mean Joe to tackle in an ad.

Those who see Pepsi’s failed ad as an ill-advised attempt to profit from the struggles of real protestors can rightly call the company’s advertising “Mindless.” However, if we give the cola maker the benefit of the doubt and believe that it really wanted to support positive change, we might view the ad as an ineffective yet well-intended example of “Simple-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!

1 Comment

My Pooch is Too Plump

4/5/2017

4 Comments

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

You’ve heard of first world problems (FWP), for instance: “My toaster doesn’t have a bagel setting” and “My wallet is too small.” Well, add another trivial trouble to the list: “My pet is too fat.” The difference with this FWP is that Animal Planet is turning it into a TV show.

Yes, the network known for such shows as "River Monsters" and "Tanked," is planning a program about pets that have packed-on the pounds, hence the name of the new show, “My Fat Pet.” US Weekly aptly describes the new series as “The Biggest Loser makes its way to the animal kingdom.” In other words, for everyone who has grown bored of watching just people shed pounds, it will now also be possible to see pets slim down.

More specifically, “My Fat Pet” will feature animal trainer Travis Brorsen, who “will work with families and their pets to create individualized exercise and diet plans” aimed at making the animals thinner and healthier, all within a period of about four months. Along the way, Brorsen promises to employ some unconventional motivational tactics like making owners wear weighted vests so they can experience the extra weight that their chubby canines, felines, and other animals are carrying.

Although the idea of furry friends shedding fat may seem kind of funny, obesity is a serious problem for all those who suffer from it, humans and animals alike: “Obesity increases an animal’s chances of getting diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease, just like in humans.” Overweight pets are also prone to pancreatitis and joint disorders. Ultimately, these animals are “risking their lives at their current weight.”

It’s also important here to recognize the positive impact that pets have on many people’s lives. In the United States, about 62% of households have pets, which often provide companionship and are sometimes seen as family members. In addition to this social good, certain health benefits also can accrue to animal owners, such as reduced: blood pressure, anxiety, cholesterol, and depression.

So, there’s truth to the idea of “man’s best friend,” and there's something to be said for keeping furry friends fit. Does that mean, though, that there should be a TV show about fat pets? As important as the wellness of our creature companions may be, and notwithstanding their positive impact on people, there are good reasons to not sit around watching others’ plump pets battle the bulge.

Overweight pets really are a first-world problem. We live on a planet where one in nine people (11.1%) suffer from chronic undernourishment. Individuals who can’t find enough food for themselves probably aren’t pet owners, and they certainly aren’t overfeeding animals. Of course, those struggling to survive aren’t the audience for “My Fat Pet,” but in light of their plight, it seems insensitive for the other 88.9% of us to enable animal obesity and elevate it to TV show status.

Granted, the apparent purpose of “My Fat Pet” is not to celebrate overweight creatures but to trim them down. Still, in a media-crazed society in which so many people are looking for “Likes” and seeking their 15 minutes of fame, it’s unfortunately possible that at least a few unbalanced people will find owning an overweight pet a way of gaining recognition. If you think such speculation is silly, checkout My Fat Pet on Facebook.

Moreover, there are undoubtedly more efficient, effective, and discrete ways for the owners of heavy hamsters and other animals to get help, e.g., on websites like bestfriends.org and from veterinarians.

There’s also something sadly ironic about a television audience sitting around on recliners and couches, watching other people’s pets try to lose weight. Sedentary lifestyles and lack of exercise are a big part of the obesity problem for humans and animals. Whether one is an overweight pet or a person, replacing TV time with more active interests can be a significant contributor to weight loss.

Finally, some may be thinking, as I am, “Who are you to tell people what to watch?” Chances are, some would find the sports or other programs I like to watch unenjoyable or unedifying. People do have widely different tastes in entertainment, and for the most part, we should respect those preferences. Still, that doesn’t mean that any slice-of-life that can be produced for television, should be. Some topics are just too trivial or tactless, even though there are people willing to watch them.

Despite satisfying some demand, I doubt that “My Fat Pet” will attract an adequate long-term viewing audience. There probably are not that many owners of obese animals who are serious about solving their pets’ weight problems, and I suspect that the vast majority of pet lovers will have more discriminating TV viewing tastes. As a result, Animal Planet’s “My Fat Pet” seems like a cancellation in-waiting and a case of “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!

4 Comments

The Wrong Place to Race

Eating Out at IKEA

Soda Diplomacy

My Pooch is Too Plump

Editor

Archives

Categories