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

Divine Humor

4/19/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture

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

On March 15, a gunman killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.  During two weeks in late March and early April, a suspect set fire to three churches in Louisiana.  While most people denounce such religious violence, some seem to suggest, ‘If only people would lighten up and not take faith so seriously, there wouldn’t be such incidents.’  Perhaps that reasoning was behind a television series that gets a laugh over God.
 
Based on Simon Rich’s book “What in God’s Name,” Miracle Workers tells the story of two low-level angels, Craig and Eliza, who try to save humanity from God, who has grown “frustrated with the current state of Earth.”  The seven-episode TBS series, which aired this past February and March and is still available for streaming online, summoned considerable star power, namely Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame, who plays an angel named Craig, and Golden Globe winner Steven Buscemi, who plays God and who has appeared in a wide variety of TV shows and films, including Fargo and Reservoir Dogs.
 
At first glance, the premise of Miracle Workers seems like it could be biblical.  Those familiar with the book of Exodus may recall an exchange between God and Moses after he returned from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments to find the Israelites worshipping a golden calf.  Ironically, the first and second commandments on the stone tablets were “You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall make no idols.”  God wanted to “destroy” the Israelites and make Moses into a great nation, but Moses seemingly convinced God to relent, and the Israelites were spared.
 
Compared to the gravity of that scriptural account, Miracle Workers casts God and religion in a much less serious light.  Admittedly, I’ve only seen the trailer, watched some online segments of the show, and read reviews, but it quickly becomes apparent that the series presents a less-than-complimentary perspective of the Divine.
 
For instance, in just the first few minutes of episode #1, the series shows God dressed in sweatpants, an unbuttoned shirt, and sandals with socks, lounging purposelessly on a couch, as he scrolls through TV channels.  Suddenly, an assistant appears to call him to a 1:00 meeting, which he hopes is for a “fantasy football draft,” but she reminds him he is to present his “plan to end all pain.”  He obviously isn’t ready, by virtue of his response, “That was today?”
 
Fast forward in the show, and an even more unkempt-looking God finishes swigging a beer, wipes his mouth with his hand, and launches the empty bottle through the air toward a small round trashcan.  The bottle misses the basket and shatters on the floor, leading him to let loose an expletive.  In another episode, assistants find God brushing his teeth with foot cream, apparently because he can’t read the labeling on the tube.
 
As tensions related to religion rise around the world, maybe Buscemi’s portrayal of God is what’s needed:  a deity who’s more approachable—one we can relate to and laugh about.  After all, “laughter is the best medicine.”
 
Interestingly, I’m currently working with two colleagues on a research project that’s investigating how advertising humor might support reconciliation.  I’m a big believer that laughter goes a long way in breaking down social barriers and developing interpersonal rapport.  I’m also a big proponent of humor in the classroom, which students seem to appreciate. 
 
Of course, there’s a difference between laughing with people and laughing at them.  There’s also a difference between good-natured, two-way teasing in which people playfully pick on each other, and one-way, vicious skewering of others.
 
For instance, if a friend shows up at an event with his hair wildly wind-blown, others might joke, “Joe, did you just wake up?”  People actually appreciate that kind of benign ribbing because it shows they’re liked and considered part of the group.  On the other hand, few would think it’s funny to say, “Don’t be an idiot, Joe.  Wear a hat next time or the wind will blow away the little hair you have left.”  The latter “humor” feels much less friendly and more malicious.
 
As the earlier examples suggest, the humor in Miracle Workers makes God out to be a bumbling buffoon, i.e., an idiot.  But, does it matter?  God is big; He can take it.  That’s true.  He certainly doesn’t need human approval to build His self-esteem or validate his existence.  The problem, however, is in how people perceive the show’s humor.      
 
So, what do viewers think of Miracle Workers’ unconventional comedy?  Some people love the show.  For instance, one reviewer said, “This by far, is the funniest comedy I have ever seen. I cannot wait to watch more.”  Another offered similar praise, “I think this is a creative and fantastic TV show which will be one of the greatest sitcoms.”
 
Other opinions are more tempered, for example: “The comedy was pretty decent but nothing I'd consider really, really funny.”
 
Then, there were those who saw a comedic catastrophe: “I was hoping the show would be better than the promos. It wasn’t.  It felt like a high school play. The writing was bad without one good joke. It needs help from God.  A miracle.”  Another offered a similar critique, “This show is not even remotely funny. It borders on pathetic.”
 
The preceding perspectives were solely about the show’s humor.  How did people perceive the comedic portrayal of God?  As might be expected, some took exception to the divine representation saying, for instance, “I don't like that God is portrayed as a maniacal sociopath who manipulates angels into  doing horrible things to people on Earth whom he decides he doesn't like,” and “[I] don't like God being portrayed as a slovenly, self-centered maniac,” and “Our God is perfect in All Ways.  This show portrays God as being a bumbling idiot unable to make a decision . . . Nothing but blasphemy.”
 
However, others were quick to discount such ‘biased’ interpretations, many making the same plea to not take the series too seriously because “It’s just a TV show.”
 
That is a good point.  Miracle Workers isn’t part of the K-12 public school curriculum.  Still, is it fair to dismiss anything as “just a  ____” until we see its impact?  When it aired, Alex Haley’s Roots was “just a TV show,” but it had indelible social influence.
 
Of course, Miracle Workers is a comedy, not a critically-acclaimed drama, so does that mean its cultural impact isn’t serious?  Probably not—just look at sitcoms over the years that have helped shape society like All in the Family, The Jeffersons, and The Cosby Show, to name a few.

So, if TV shows, even sitcoms, have social impact, a final question seems to be:  Is any topic fair for them to ridicule?  People increasingly agree that it’s wrong to tease people about things like their race, their gender, and their body shape/size.  Beliefs, however, appear to be held to a different standard, and perhaps they should.  We are born as a certain race and gender, whereas our beliefs are things we choose and can more readily change.
 
However, not all beliefs are equal.  For instance, I’m a big Pittsburgh Steelers fan, but I don’t mind getting teased about that team loyalty, or about my beliefs about my field—marketing.  I should also be able to take teasing about my Christian faith, as others have endured far worse. 
 
It’s different, though, when the butt of the joke isn’t me, but God.  It’s hard to explain why other than, for a person of faith, God is ‘the ultimate’ and therefore deserving of the utmost respect.  There’s also probably a connection to the third of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,” which any unflattering or derogatory portrayal of God seems to violate.
 
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, which allows Miracle Workers to lampoon God.  However, just because an organization or an individual has a right to do something doesn’t mean that they should.


I once heard a joke about a man who wanted to know if there would be golf in heaven.  Sometime later, I remembered the joke and told it to two Christians I was with at the time.  The joke didn’t make fun of God, but one of the people kindly expressed that he didn’t think any humor involving God was appropriate.  The other individual defended my choice.
 
Although I still believe the joke is fine, I appreciate that first person’s beliefs and wouldn’t want to cause him angst by using similar humor around him.  A little laughter is not that important.  Sometimes the best thing to do is to not exercise our rights, out of respect for others.

 
When it comes to not caring for the humor in Miracle Workers, I know I’m in the minority.  More people like the show and don’t take issue with it taunting God.  So, the series seems to be a success, and it will likely continue to attract viewers online and perhaps continue  into a second season.  However, the show’s insensitivity toward one of many people’s most strongly held beliefs makes Miracle Workers “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!
1 Comment

Preying on Older People

4/5/2019

3 Comments

 
Picture

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

As I chatted with prospective students and their parents at a luncheon in our college’s cafeteria, I suspected that something wasn’t going well for one of the families.  While others talked and laughed around the table, one mom seemed distracted, checking her phone and whispering with her daughter.  Then suddenly she stood up, apologized for needing to make a call, and walked quickly from the room, leaving us to wonder what was wrong.
 
Sometime later, she returned to the table with a look of relief.  After others left, she told me what had happened.  Her own mother, a senior citizen, had received a ‘distressed’ phone call from someone claiming to be her grandson, who said he was sick and needed money.  Confused but ready to act, the grandmother called and left messages for her son and for her daughter, the mom at our table, who fortunately was able to explain to her mother that someone was trying to trick her.
 
I told the mom I was very sorry to hear what had happened and was glad she was able to intervene.  I also said I could empathize because the same thing had happened to my mother just a couple of years before!  Then the real irony of the situation hit me.  Here was a family, attending a luncheon to talk with a professor about marketing, all while they became the victims of a ‘telemarketing scam.’  How could their college visit and any interest in marketing be redeemed?
 
People do some terrible things under the auspices of “marketing.”  Granted, most people are probably quick to differentiate this type of telephone scam from any legitimate business; still, these calls and others involving more or less manipulation form a continuum that many likely lump together as telemarketing.  Allow me to paint a picture of that spectrum as I see it, then I’ll return to the targeting the older consumers.
 
On one end of the scale, call it the left, are calls like the one described above, or worse.  Some extremely ruthless individuals conduct “virtual kidnappings” in which they contact victims by phone or social media messaging and pretend they have abducted one of their loved ones in order to collect a ransom.  Kidnapping is illegal and considered immoral by most rational people, so it’s nonsensical to support it as legitimate business or valid telemarketing.  The practice also involves blatant deception and coercion in that the perpetrators lie to their victims and exert pressure to try to force them to act.
 
On the opposite, or right, end of the continuum are examples like this one:  Your bank calls to ask if you’d be interested in a home equity loan or a great rate on a certificate of deposit, etc.  You may or may not appreciate such calls, but you do know your bank is a legitimate business that can follow through fairly on its offerings.  Furthermore, if product descriptions are accurate and you don’t feel forced to accept them, there is no deception or coercion.    
 
Occupying the middle of the spectrum are a variety of other phone calls with different degrees of deception or coercion.  For instance, at our home we regularly receive calls “about our electric bill.”  The voicemail messages are vague enough to make me wonder if they’re from our current utility provider, wanting to correct some kind of billing mistake.  However, I realize it’s actually some other company, hoping to gain our business. 

Those types of calls are probably not coercive, i.e., if I ever spoke with one of their representatives, I could freely choose whether or not to make a switch.  The initial calls, however, are deceptive and, therefore, unethical, which is not a good way to begin a business relationship or any other relationship.
 
Also in the middle of the scale are calls that say your computer’s software is out of date or it memory is running low, etc.  Most of us recognize that those claims are untrue and there’s no way such outsiders could know if they were.  So, most people see through the deception, ignore the coercion, and dismiss the calls as scams.  However, not everyone does.
 
Not as technologically savvy as those in the younger generations, many older folks are unsure if the supposed computer issues are real or how serious they may be.  So, their relative lack of knowledge makes them more easily deceived.  Furthermore, concern that something bad may happen to their computer can coerce them to take unneeded action.  Fortunately, however, many senior citizens will first call one of their children, grandchildren, or other trusted individual and ask their advice.
 
Any of us can be duped about products/services that we don’t know well.  For older individuals, there’s the added challenge of declining mental and physical faculties.  Their minds often aren’t as sharp as they once were.  They may not process information as quickly or remember as many details, both of which can negatively affect their decision making.
 
In addition, declining physical skills further complicate decreased cognitive capabilities.  As we age, our vision and hearing decline, which can prevent us from doing things like reading small print on product packages or catching every word a phone caller says.  For these reasons older people are particularly vulnerable to illegitimate forms of telemarketing.
 
That last sentence and my earlier bank example point to my opinion that, despite the many bad examples, there are legitimate forms of telemarketing, namely ones that provide a fair value to consumers, that use honest communication, and that allow freedom in response, all while respecting individuals’ home lives.  For instance, someone in need of extra money may appreciate a phone call from their bank informing or reminding them that it offers a good rate on home equity loans.
 
In contrast, telemarketing that’s fraudulent is against the law.  Title 18 of U.S. Code § 1343 identifies such illegal activity as wire fraud, which involves any interstate or foreign commerce that uses electronic communication to gain “money or property by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”   Using the phone to scam people is a “common example” of wire fraud.  Those found guilty of wire fraud are subject to fines as high as $1 million and up to 30 years in prison.
 
However, fraudulent telemarketing is not just illegal, it’s also unethical.  It’s deceptive to mislead others about who’s calling and the nature of the call.  Similarly, it’s coercive to play on people’s emotions and/or to apply unnecessary time pressure in order to force quick action.  It’s especially abhorrent to do those things to individuals who are more vulnerable to such tactics.
 
So, how did this professor try to help marketing save face with a family and young person considering a career in the field?  I explained that such occurrences of coercion and deceit don't represent marketing's core tenet of mutually beneficial exchange.  At the same time, such examples are good reminders that those of us in marketing need to work harder to distance such illegitimate behavior from proper practice of the discipline.
 
I also mentioned Mindful Marketing and the possibility of writing a piece related to the incident for the blog.  We talked about more typical college visit items afterward, but as the family was leaving, the mom’s attention returned to the telemarketing scam, and she suggested it would be good if I’d write about those issues.
 
When Gallup presents its annual research about the honesty and ethical standards of various professions, telemarketers typically rank near the bottom of the results.  There are legitimate forms of telemarketing, but phone scams aimed at our moms, grandmas, and other older people certainly aren’t among them.  Given that these practices hurt those targeted and can land the perpetrators in jail, such schemes make it easy to call them “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!
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