Blog Archives

Should People Have to Pay to Play?

5/30/2015

Claire is playing Candy Crush Saga on her smartphone and is “in the zone.” The pieces seem like they’re moving in slow motion. Never has she scored so many points so quickly. Suddenly she's on the verge of entering a new episode, but she’s faced with a decision. Does she stop where she is, abruptly ending her successful run, or does she purchase the ability to keep playing?

Given that each day over 93 million people play Candy Crush Saga, the widely popular mobile game for iPhone and Android, Claire’s dilemma likely duplicates itself thousands of times a day. Of course, King Ltd., the maker or Candy Crush, wants many more of those millions of people to plunk down cash to play, but should people feel compelled?

In 2015, mobile is expected to become gaming’s biggest market, worth an estimated total value of more than $25 billion a year. By 2017 that global revenue will likely be $60 billion. With so much money being made, why should game makers need people to pay more? Aren’t they just being greedy?

True, those are significant sales, but it’s worth noting that they’re spread over a growing number of mobile game developers in an increasingly competitive industry. GameSalad, a company that develops the developers and claims more than 80 of the top 100 games in the U.S. App Store, reports that it has helped over 750,000 developers publish more than 65,000 games. At the same time, a relatively small number of mobile companies in the U.S. (247 to be exact) can claim revenues of more than $1 million. Meanwhile, “the 10 highest-grossing games rake in 43% of world-wide mobile-game revenue.”

So, what about Claire? There she is, engrossed in the game when her enjoyment is cut short. Is it right for mobile game companies to lure consumers with free play, then monetize their motivation to expand their experience.

The key to answering this question is to know whether any of the following are at play:

Deception: Does the company mislead players in terms of what’s free and what’s not?
Coercion: At a key moment, does the firm somehow force players to purchase extended playtime or other benefits?
Manipulation: Has the company concocted an elaborate scheme that leads players unwittingly down a plan toward payment, which is virtually impossible to avoid?

If the answer to each of these questions is “No,” i.e., there is no deception, coercion, or manipulation, then it’s likely that the company’s approach is ethical. Furthermore, in such situations Claire and other game players have reaped benefits from their time of open access. Even if play doesn’t continue beyond that point, they still have had an inexpensive and enjoyable experience.

Players, therefore, are under no compulsion to continue playing at a cost. Yes, they may experience some disappointment if they quit, but they still are able to walk away without any really negative repercussions and without needing to forfeit the gratis gratification they’ve already received.

This ability to walk away satisfied seems validated by the stat that “less than 3% of all mobile-game players make any in-game purchases.” At the same time, those who do pay to play spend $5-$25 a month on average, and a very small number of heavy users (“whales”) spend $50-$100 a month.

Is it wrong for these players to pay to play? Not as long as they are doing so voluntarily with a realization of how much their spending, and with discretionary income that can support the habit. While $1,200 a year seems excessive to me for mobile gaming, there are people who spend ten times that amount annually on other forms of recreation.

Given the tremendous growth of mobile gaming via the "freemium" model, it appears that the play-a-little-for-free approach creates stakeholder value. Likewise, there’s no inherent compromise of societal values, which makes giving Claire and others the option to pay to play “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!

2 Comments

Where Did Rob Lowe Go?

5/23/2015

0 Comments

If you watch any television you probably saw one of DirecTV’s ads featuring the well-traveled and debonair actor Rob Lowe. In the campaign, Lowe played himself as well as a series of less appealing versions of himself. The ads were all over TV; then suddenly they were gone, leaving some of us to wonder why.

The reason DirecTV closed the campaign is somewhat debatable. What’s even more surprising, however, is that in creating the campaign the company ignored a whole set of socially objectionable outcomes.

First, though, for those who missed the ads, here’s a general summary of the dialogue between regular Rob Lowe (+) and his uncool counterpart (-).

“Hi, I’m Rob Lowe, and I have DirecTV.” (Rob +)

“I’m [some unappealing characteristic] Rob Lowe, and I have cable.” (Rob -)

“DirecTV [is great because . . .]" (Rob +)

“Cable [is terrible because . . .]" (Rob -)

“Don’t be like be like this [unappealing characteristic] me. Get DirecTV.” (Rob +)

Over the course of a few months, DirecTV aired ten different versions of the ad, featuring the following Rob Lowe personas: Painfully Awkward Rob Lowe, Creepy Rob Lowe, Total Deadbeat Rob Lowe, Peaked in High School Rob Lowe, Poor Decision Making Rob Lowe, Overly Paranoid Rob Lowe, Scrawny Arms Rob Lowe, Meathead Rob Lowe, Crazy Hairy Rob Lowe, and Fair-Less Attractive Rob Lowe.

No commercial campaign lasts forever, so maybe the Rob Lowe ads had simply run their useful life. DirecTV claims that it intended to end the ads after the first quarter of 2015, then replace them with a new campaign featuring Hannah Davis and a talking horse. There’s compelling evidence, however, that DirecTV pulled the ads, not because of consumer fatigue (the campaign was still very popular) but because of a complaint from a competitor.

Cable giant Comcast filed a complaint about some of the ads’ specific claims, for instance, that DirecTV had “better signal reliability” and “shorter customer wait times” than cable. The National Advertising Division of Better Business Bureau judged these claims to be “unsupported” and recommended that DirecTV refrain from using them.

DirecTV’s decision to stop running the Rob Lowe ads was the right response; however, the unsubstantiated claims were not the campaign’s only flaw. The ads harbored another precarious practice that our society increasingly scorns, but for some reason it overlooked in these ads: shaming.

Shaming is “a technique used by abusive people to divert attention away from their own behavior and issues by putting pressure on a victim so they can maintain control.” It’s important to note that not all criticism constitutes shaming. While it may be appropriate to call-out someone for doing something bad, it’s not okay to label the person as bad.

“Blaming someone tells you that you did something bad, in shaming someone tells you that you are something bad.” Unfortunately, what’s become particularly prevalent is shaming people about their bodies, which is one of the “things of which we should be unashamed.”

Were all the Rob Lowe ads guilty of shaming in this sense? Probably not. Actually, a couple of the ads somewhat successfully satirized certain socially detrimental behavior, e.g., “Creepy Rob Lowe,” who went to the rec center to watch people swim and who enjoyed smelling strangers’ hair.

However, many of the ads picked on people for physical characteristics that are largely out of their control, e.g., “Scrawny Arms Rob Lowe, Crazy Hairy Rob Lowe, and Fair-Less Attractive Rob Lowe.” Yes, the ads were over-the-top exaggerations, which made them funny. However, their reproach also was not that far removed from the realities that many people face with their physiques, through no fault of their own and even after their best efforts to change their appearance.

Unfortunately it’s okay to ridicule people who are abnormally skinny or excessively hairy. How would people perceive ads, however, with less politically correct targets? Would individuals tolerate mockery of a “Full-Figured Rob Lowe” or a “Dark-Skinned Rob Lowe.” Hopefully not. The point is that these “protected” physical traits are not that different than the ones the ad campaign criticized. A blurry line separates acceptable and intolerable lampooning of personal characteristics.

No one deserves to be shamed for who they are or criticized for characteristics they can’t really change. In fact, Disney’s animated classic the Hunchback of Notre Dame taught what our society really needs: people who will do the exact opposite of shaming and instead embrace the “outcast.”

CBS called DirecTV’s campaign with Rob Lowe “entertaining and effective.” In light of the ads’ unsubstantiated claims, however, it’s unclear whether the ads really delivered enough motivation to move consumers from attention and interest to desire and action. So, if the campaign didn’t create significant stakeholder value, but it compromised society values through deception and shaming, DirecTV’s Rob Lowe campaign can be considered 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!

0 Comments

Makeup Names That Will Make you Blush

5/16/2015

4 Comments

Naming is one of the most interesting aspects of marketing. Choosing the right moniker is a creative and strategic exercise that’s crucial to branding. While some product names make immediate sense, others make you ask, “Exactly what kind of brand are they trying to build?”

For instance, I recently came across two different brand names, in the same product category, that took me aback. Both were for lines of makeup. Admittedly, I know very little about eye-liner and lip-gloss, still I believe that these names offer cause for concern.

The first is for a line of eyeshadow called “Nude Dude.” Although some labels can be misleading in terms of what the products actually involve, Nude Dude’s name is not. The product consists of a palette of about a half dozen skin tone colors ranging from light to dark, each color represented by its own semi-naked male model.

Fortunately, the makeup trays mask the men’s private parts. Suggestive poses, however, urge users to imagine the hidden details. Likewise the names of the individual colors are intentionally evocative, for instance: flawless, flirty, and firm.

While some probably find Nude Dude’s sexual imagery objectionable, others may argue it’s not that bad and might even call it playful—“It’s just for fun.” That debate notwithstanding, consider the second makeup name: a line of lip color, illuminator, and blush called “Orgasm.”

The maker of Orgasm is NARS Cosmetics, which “makeup artist, photographer, and iconoclast” Francois Nars founded in 1994. The company markets a wide range of cosmetics for face, lips, cheeks, eyes, and nails. Many of NARS’s product names are benign, e.g., “NARS Skin Purifying Foam Cleaner and Velvet Lip Liner. With its Orgasm line, however, NARs seems intent on pushing the envelope of evocative imagery as far as possible.

This desire to sexualize is evidenced not just in the Orgasm line name, but also in many of the individual product names that comprise the collection. For instance, there is “Super Orgasm” blush and “Orgasm The Multiple,” a “multipurpose stick for eyes, cheeks, lips, and body.” Still, if there’s any doubt about the sexual experience the company is aiming to exploit, one need only consider the collection’s overall tagline: “NARS Orgasm: There’s No Faking It.”

You likely realize we live in a hypersexualized society. Yes, humans are sexual beings, and the act of sex is an important part of life—a beautiful gift in the right context. Still, some organizations and individuals seem intent on infusing sexual imagery and innuendo into every aspect of our existence.

This sexual imposition is particularly problematic when it trickles down to the youngest members of our society, as seen even in the toys that our children are invited to play with (e.g. a pole-dancing doll) and the clothes they are asked to wear (e.g., high heels for babies). Some believe that this oversexualizing takes a toll on our young people over time and results in mental health problems that manifest themselves through self-destructive behavior such as anorexia and bulimia.

Will product names like Nude Dude and Orgasm lead to these outcomes? Not necessarily, but those potential consequences are not the only reason for concern. Also at issue is the ongoing erosion of important societal values like modesty, decency, and decorum. We’ve become a rather debased people when we need to attach graphic sexual imagery to products like makeup that have at best an indirect connection to sex.

Based on their web presence, it seems that the Nude Dude and Orgasm product lines are popular among targeted consumers and , therefore, probably create stakeholder value. Still, for condoning crudeness while trivializing the place and importance of sex, both brand names should be seen as examples of “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!

4 Comments

Compassionate Carpentry

5/9/2015

4 Comments

If you’re not sitting on a piece of furniture right now, you’re probably near one. How that chair feels or table looks may make a difference to you, but does it matter who made it? More often than not we don’t even think about a cupboard’s creator, but maybe we should.

Based in Union Bridge, Maryland, Hometown Hope creates a custom line of rustic furniture: tables, shelves, mirrors, as well as a few other decorative pieces—not that remarkable in itself—many other manufacturers boast a broader product mix and more peculiar pieces.

One thing that makes Hometown Hope unique, however, is who makes the furniture. The company partners with the Westminster Rescue Mission in Carroll County, MD to teach the trade of carpentry to some of the mission’s men, who in turn assist with the furniture’s fabrication. To be engaged in creative and productive work is fulfilling for anyone. The men from WRM realize special satisfaction, however, as the carpentry work contributes to their recovery from past struggles and addictions.

As encouraging as this partnership is, it’s actually only part of the story of hope. The company also actively engages in upcycling, or “the process of converting old or discarded materials into something useful and often beautiful.” More specifically, Hometown Hope uses materials such as pallets and old barn wood to craft its custom furniture pieces. As such, the enterprise offers an added element of sustainability.

As Hometown Hope’s website describes, the symbolism of the men and the materials is strikingly similar. Both have been battered in life. Both tend to be discarded in a society that favors new and unblemished. Yet both are reclaimed in spirit and in form and rebuilt into something, or someone, of great beauty. “Just as this material has value left, so do these men.”

Think about some of the bigger purchases you’ve made, or about a few of the products you buy on a regular basis. How many of those acquisitions cause you consternation? For example, “I love drinking this _________, but all this plastic can’t be good for the environment.” Or, “I like wearing _________, but I’d be afraid to find out who’s making it and in what conditions they’re working.”

Purchases from Hometown Hope neutralize this kind of negative impact. Moreover, the business model goes one big step forward and actually helps to restore broken lives—something that very few for-profit companies can claim.

It’s not surprising that Hometown Hope won the inaugural Impact Venture Challenge, held a few weeks ago on the campus of Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, PA. Although the competition can be compared to Shark Tank, the IVC didn’t just reward viable business concepts; it also required each business plan to have integrated within it a clear and consistent component of social responsibility. Six finalist teams presented their approaches for strategic business benevolence. All were good, but the judges rightly awarded Hometown Hope the top prize.

Both creating stakeholder value and upholding societal values--Hometown Hope’s entire business model is based on this two-pronged approach. It’s corporate social responsibility at its best. It’s also an excellent 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!

4 Comments

Advertising Adultery

5/2/2015

2 Comments

Looking for a really unique Mother’s Day gift? “A gift certificate from Ashley Madison” may sound sublime, until you realize what Ashley Madison is . Then you hope the service is nothing that Mom or Dad will ever try.

Ashley Madison’s promise of “discreet encounters” subtly suggests the company’s purpose. For those who are incredulous (“That can’t be what I think it is”), the company’s registered tagline clarifies its mission: “Life is Short, Have an Affair.” If you still don’t believe it, allow me say it directly: Ashley Madison’s business is based on helping married people cheat on their spouses.

Started in 2001, the Toronto-based firm has about 30 million regular users in over 30 countries, which leads it to boast of being “the most famous name in infidelity and married dating,” as well as “the world's leading married dating service for discreet encounters.” Of course, people have been having affairs for millennia, but Ashley Madison employs the Internet to make infidelity even more effortless.

Apparently, here’s how it works (I have no firsthand experience, nor do I plan to). A person sets up a profile on Ashley Madison’s website and adds up to 12 photos. The user can then select a variety of search features to identify members in whom he/she might be interested, while waiting for inquiries from others. So, in many ways the service is similar to other popular internet dating sites. The difference, however, is Ashley Madison targets individuals who espouse infidelity and aim to engage in adultery, all without their companions’ comprehension.

How can such a scandalous business concept succeed? It boils down to basic economics: uninhibited supply (companies like Ashley Madison willing to offer the service) and unabashed demand (millions of people wanting to use the service). What’s more, some pundits even argue that investors should embrace a potential London IPO for Ashley Madison “because ‘sin’ stocks have traditionally performed very well; and because our definition of what is “sinful” and what isn’t varies so much over time, [therefore] there is little point in drawing a line in the sand here.”

So, what’s to stop the extramarital economy?—morally grounded individuals and organizations that understand both the importance of commitment and the tremendous toll that infidelity takes on our society. Ironically, even the creator of Ashley Madison, Noel Biderman, acknowledges the havoc that an affair enacts on a household: In an interview the “‘happily married’ father of two [said he] would be ‘devastated’ if his wife cheated on him.”

With revenues of around $115 million and the potential for a $200 million IPO, Ashley Madison regrettably has capitalized on a market opportunity and created stakeholder value. That success, however, comes at a great cost to individuals, families, and institutions by undermining values such as trust, loyalty, and integrity. In sum, Ashley Madison’s encouragement of adultery represents one of the clearest cases of “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!

2 Comments

Should People Have to Pay to Play?

Where Did Rob Lowe Go?

Makeup Names That Will Make you Blush

Compassionate Carpentry

Advertising Adultery

Editor

Archives

Categories