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

How Caffeine Can Kill

5/30/2017

3 Comments

 
Picture

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

“Teen died from drinking too much.”  Unfortunately, this recent, tragic headline from USA Today probably didn’t surprise many.   Underage drinking is linked to the deaths of thousands of young people each year.  This situation was different, however, because the teen wasn’t drinking alcohol.  His death was caused by caffeine.
 
Davis Allen Cripe was a 16-year-old student at Spring Hill High School in South Carolina, who was described as a great son and a passionate person who loved music.  He also had no known health problems.  On April 26, Davis drank a McDonald’s café latte, a large diet Mountain Dew, and an energy drink within a two-hour timeframe.  Soon after, he collapsed in a classroom.

Sean Cripe, Davis’s father, blamed the energy drink for his son’s death:
"Like all parents, we worry about our kids as they grow up. We worry about their safety, their health, especially once they start driving. But it wasn't a car crash that took his life. Instead, it was an energy drink."

It’s understandable for Davis’s father to be heart-broken over his son’s terrible and untimely death.  It’s also reasonable for him to want to lay blame for his son’s senseless passing.  However, is Sean Cripe justified in levying that level of responsibility squarely on the energy drink maker, particularly given that his son drank two other caffeinated drinks in a relatively short period of time?  
 
Energy drinks in the U.S. represent a multibillion dollar market that is expected to hit $61 billion in sales by 2020.  According to 2015 revenue reports, the leading players are Red Bull ($4.55 billion), Monster ($3.69 billion), and Rockstar ($820 million).
 
Among the reasons so many people purchase energy drinks are that they provide fast caffeine delivery, they come in a variety of flavors, they’re cold, refreshing, and convenient (they don’t need to be heated, like coffee), and they come in zero-calorie options.  The previous stats and these benefits suggest that millions of people enjoy energy drinks with little or no ill effect, but that’s not the whole story.

According to the Mayo Clinic, most healthy adults can consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine a day: the equivalent of 10 cans of cola, four cups of brewed coffee, or two “energy shot” drinks.  By comparison, a 1.6 oz. Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bar contains just 9 mg of caffeine, and a 12 oz. Mountain Dew has 55 mg.  Several of the energy drinks with the highest caffeine content come close to the 400 mg limit, for example:
  • Rage Inferno – (24 oz.) 375 mg of caffeine
  • Spike Energy Drink – (16 oz.) 350 mg of caffeine
  • Wired X344 Energy Drink – (16 oz.) 344 mg of caffeine

Consuming too much caffeine can result in side effects like migraines, insomnia, nervousness, irritability, muscle tremors, and fast heartbeat.  Caffeine overconsumption also can lead to stroke, cardiac arrest, and death.  According to the coroner who examined Davis Cripe, he died from “a caffeine-induced lethal cardiac arrhythmia.”

But, maybe Davis’s death was an anomaly.  Are there really that many others who suffer serious consequences from energy drinks?  Unfortunately, the answer is ‘yes.’  In 2016, “there were more than 20,000 emergency room visits attributable to the ingestion of energy drinks,” which represented a doubling of the number of reported cases over the last decade.  In other words, the problem is increasing.
 
What makes matters worse is that young people disproportionately endure the negative impact, partly because energy drink makers often target younger demographics, as evidenced by the use of neon colors, sensational names (Rockstar, Full Throttle), and edgy promotion (“Red Bull Gives You Wings”).
 
It’s estimated that 30 to 50 percent of children, adolescents, and young adults consume energy drinks and that “almost one-third of teens between 12 and 17 years drink them regularly.”  They are “the most popular dietary supplement consumed by American teens and young adults” next to multivitamins.
 
Of course, young people are physically and developmentally different than fully-grown adults, meaning added risks from consuming energy drinks, which have no nutritional value and are high in calories and sugar.  In fact, “the World Health Organization has stated that energy drinks ‘may pose a danger to public health,’ and the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that ‘children should not consume’ these drinks.'”

Unfortunately, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate or even evaluate the safety of energy drinks because most manufacturers don’t label them as food but rather as dietary supplements, sidestepping the agency’s scrutiny.  It’s shocking to realize that for these reasons there are no health warnings, and “energy drink companies don’t even have to reveal how much caffeine each drink can contains.”
 
What’s worse, energy drink makers often position their products alongside exercise and other physically demanding activities, which is especially enticing to active and competitive young people.  In reality, energy drinks and exercise don’t mix, as the highly-caffeinated beverages have a diuretic effect that causes dehydration.  Even worse, energy drinks’ have a propensity to increase one’s heart rate and blood pressure at the same time that high caffeine levels “may reduce arteries’ ability to increase the blood flow necessary to bring more oxygen and nutrients to the heart.”  Teaming such outcomes with exercise can be fatal.
 
Another potentially lethal energy drink additive is alcohol, which, of course, impairs judgment.  Diminished sobriety is always dangerous, but that risk is magnified when an intoxicated person also feels an extra rush of adrenalin.  A lack of life experience may make the energy drink/alcohol combination an even more volatile cocktail for young people, thereby putting themselves and others at risk.

Although extremely high, the caffeine content of energy drinks is not always the highest among commonly consumed beverages.  For instance, several Starbucks’ coffees contain over 300 mg of caffeine, and one specific brew is especially egregious: A Starbucks Blonde Roast, venti (20 oz.), has a whopping 475 mg of caffeine.

So, energy drinks aren’t the only offenders, but a major difference, again, is that their makers often target young people and position the drinks as complements to strenuous physical activity, without offering adequate warning of the potential risks.

Davis’s dad is justified, therefore, in implicating an energy drink in his son untimely passing.  Optimistically, energy drink makers will do some serious soul-searching related to their roles in such tragedies.  More realistically, regulatory agencies need to intervene and exert their influence on this very serious “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!
3 Comments

Alexa, is this Marketing Mindful?

5/26/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture

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

“Do these pants look good on me?”  If you’ve ever asked a question like that, which most of us have, you probably posed it to a sibling, roommate, spouse, etc.  In other words, you asked a real person, not a digital device.  Well, technology is tired of being kept out of those conversations; it now has something to say about our fashion sense, or lack thereof.
 
Amazon, the giant etailer and purveyor of just about everything, recently added to its line of artificial intelligence products a new piece of hardware called the Echo Look, which is able to tell people what to wear, or not wear.  The company’s succinct description of the device is it’s a “hands-free camera and style assistant.” Amazon also offers a fuller account of features and benefits on its website:
 
“With Echo Look, you can take full-length photos of your daily look using just your voice. The built-in LED lighting and depth-sensing camera let you blur the background to make your outfits pop, giving you clean, shareable photos. Get a live view in the Echo Look app or ask Alexa to take a short video so you can see yourself from every angle. View recommendations based on your daily look and use Style Check for a second opinion on what looks best. And, because Alexa is built in the cloud, she’s always getting smarter—and so will Echo Look.”
 
Amazon already boasts a burgeoning family of Alexa-enabled Echo products ranging from Echo Dots, to the standard Echo, to a new Echo Show.  For over two years, hands-free functionality and voice recognition technology connected to the cloud have allowed users to get answers to questions like “Is it going to rain?” and “What’s on my calendar?”  So, what’s so special about asking about style?
 
The big difference is that most, if not all, of the questions Alexa accepts on other devices can be answered with objective information.  Reporting the current outside temperature or one’s afternoon appointments doesn’t take judgment; it just requires rapid retrieval of information and accurate regurgitation of facts.  However, giving fashion guidance, or any advice for that matter, is a "whole nother ballgame."
 
Advice is subjective; it’s primarily based on opinion.  Granted, that opinion can take factual information into account—the best advice usually does—but the bottom-line is always a judgment call.  In terms of clothing, it’s relatively easy to answer objective questions, e.g., “Is this shirt blue or green?”  It’s much more challenging to answer subjective ones like “Which shirt looks better on me, the blue one or the green one?”  So, how do Amazon and Alexa do it?
 
The Echo Look website gives some clues, as it says that the device’s Style Check feature “combines the best in machine learning with advice from fashion specialists.”  A somewhat more technical explanation is that Style Check uses algorithms.  Dataconomy.com provides some helpful explanation of how machines use algorithms to learn, or develop artificial intelligence:
 
“Machine learning is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) where computers can essentially learn concepts on their own without being programmed. These are computer programmes that alter their “thinking” (or output) once exposed to new data. In order for machine learning to take place, algorithms are needed. Algorithms are put into the computer and give it rules to follow when dissecting data.”
 
Granted, this description still doesn’t quite explain how technology translates factual information into opinion, but one can imagine that the application of enough decision rules and processing power can eventually allow for the formation of limited expert advice, aimed at a narrow range of easily observable behavior, such as the clothes on our backs.
 
So, that’s a little about what the Echo Look does and how Amazon does it, but another very compelling question remains—Why?  The company offers the Echo Look, with all the features of the standard Echo, for just $20 more ($200 vs. $180).  That’s not much more revenue for some significant functionality.  Likewise, it seems that the Look could easily cannibalize the standard Echo, i.e., people choose to buy the former instead of the latter.  So what’s the rationale for Amazon’s strategy?
 
As the Wall Street Journal suggests, it’s all about the potential to sell more clothes.  Sure, the earnings from the sale of thousands of new hardware devices will be nice, but Amazon is interested in continuing to crack a much bigger nut—the $2.4 trillion global clothing market.
 
Having purchased online footwear icon Zappos and introduced its own private label clothing, Amazon is already the leading fashion retailer.  Last October, Cowen & Co. reported the Amazon was about to surpass the former leader, Macy’s, which has had declining sales.  What’s more, there’s potential for Amazon to growth is market share of clothing much, much bigger.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the Echo Look also recommends new clothes to its users, which they can buy from Amazon using just a voice command.
 
Currently, Amazon accounts for a whopping 43% of all online retail sales in the U.S; however, it’s market share of clothing is ‘just’ 6.6%.  Analysts at Cowen & Co. expect that share to increase to 8.2% in 2018 and to 16.2% in five years.  The Echo Look will likely help drive that growth and perhaps more.
 
This sales data, past and projected, is informative, but it still doesn’t answer the moral question:  Should Amazon or any other clothing retailer market a technology that tells people what to wear?  Is the Echo Look and its cloud-based Style Guide software ethical?
 
Understandably, privacy is a primary concern, especially given the nature of the device: taking rather personal pictures of people, in their homes, and storing them in the cloud.  All of this information can be very enticing to hackers, some of whom would even have the potential to commandeer the device’s video camera.  An article by Business Insider, however, allays some of these concerns, noting that Echo Look has an easily accessible off-switch, and even when powered on, the device does not listen until it hears a specific “wake” word.
 
Besides such concerns of creepiness, another problem some may have with the Echo Look is the idea that it’s replacing people:  We are not interacting with family and friends if we’re asking a digital device what to wear.  That’s a legitimate concern, though, it’s nothing new—for a long time, technology has and will continue to shape our interpersonal interaction.  Tech can hurt or help such communication, depending how it’s used.  Actually, the Echo Look might alleviate some angst in relationships by handling uncomfortable questions like “How do I look in this?”
 
Amazon is already very big, and it’s poised to become even bigger with an increased focus on fashion.  The firm’s growth has been due to many factors, including that it consistently offers consumers good value.  Given an aggressive price point and a feature/benefit bundle that will only get better, the Echo look is likely to continue that tradition, without posing any significant societal concerns.  In short, Alexa can call her own style sense a model 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!
1 Comment

Carl's Jr. Says Goodbye to Sex

5/19/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture

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

Some things in life are certain: death, taxes, and super-sexualized ads from Carl’s Jr.  Surprisingly, one of the three is changing, and it’s not death or taxes.  Yes, Carl’s Jr. has finally decided to put an end to erotica and curtail its notoriously risqué commercials.
 
If you haven’t experienced firsthand the chain that claims to be “the Pioneer of the Great American Burger,” you might be familiar with its sister brand, Hardee's, or you may have seen one of the many Carl’s Jr. ads that have aired nationally.  More than burgers, Carl’s Jr. has become known for very sexually provocative TV commercials that show significant skin of young, attractive women, and little food.
 
Although it seems like the ads have been airing forever, Carl’s Jr.’s foray into promotional profanity began in 2005 with a 60-second spot that featured Paris Hilton in an extremely revealing bathing suit, washing a Bentley, while taking a brief bite out of a spicy barbecue burger.  Over the next twelve years, dozens of other women reprised the same stereotypical role of sex object in a variety of settings, such as a volleyball court on the U.S.–Mexico border, a farm, and a football stadium.  While some of the women were celebrities (e.g., Kate Upton, Heidi Klum, and Kim Kardashian), others were less famous women put in the same sorts of compromising positions.
 
As recently as this past fall, Carl’s Jr. was still airing sexually explicit ads.  One of the last spots was for its Bacon 3-Way Burger, which featured three, similar-looking, bikini-clad, blond models, seductively cooking and feeding each other bacon.  Meanwhile, background music set a very lascivious tone, including super-suggestive lyrics: ‘’Hey, girls whatcha doin’ this weekend?  We should stay in and have us a threesome.”

Then, out of the blue, Carl’s Jr. did an about-face: no more sex in ads.  When a friend of mine first told me of the change, I couldn’t believe it.  I clicked on the link he sent me to a new 3-minute Carl’s Jr. commercial that presents a fictionalized reason for the reversal.  To summarize the supposed story, Carl Hardee Sr. returns to the business, cleans up Carl Jr.’s philandering, and resumes control of the business with a back-to-basics focus.
  
Even after watching this spot, I was still incredulous, thinking that the new Carl’s Jr. promotion was probably just a ploy.  However, I’ve since done more digging and found it’s true:  The company has decided to stop using sexually explicit ads and to start emphasizing its products.  The change is certainly a welcome one, but it also left me wondering ‘why'?  More specifically, what caused Carl’s Jr. to make such a drastic course-correction? 
 
I hoped to hear that the restaurant chain had realized the error of its ways—that it now understood the need to respect women rather than objectify them and that it no longer wanted to lead its largely young male target market into self-destructive and relationship-wrecking lust.  Unfortunately, however, the motives for the change appear to be more self-seeking than other-oriented.
 
A recent Washington Post article shared excerpts of an interview with Jason Norcross, executive creative director and partner in 72andSunny, the agency responsible for Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s advertising over the past eight years.  In the interview, Norcross explained, “It was time to change. Those [sexually-charged] ads just weren’t driving business as they once did.”  Norcross added that the chain, which had become better known for its advertising than for its food, needed to compete more effectively against companies like Shake Shack and Habit Burger Grill.
 
Carl’s Jr. and its ad agency can be commended for making a data-driven, results-minded business decision.  Organizations need to consider relevant consumer behavior and competitive forces, then act strategically in order to stay afloat; otherwise, there are no products for customers or jobs for employees.
 
What’s disheartening, however, is that the company hasn’t shown any regret for its past, longstanding and destructive indiscretions.  Yes, the fictionalized return of Carl Hardee Sr. is somewhat redemptive, but the ad’s humor (e.g., “then that lady got in there and her clothes flew off”) makes light of a truly reprehensible, twelve-year run of dehumanizing women and misguiding men.
 
What’s worse, there’s no indication, from Norcross’s comments or from the new commercial, that Carl’s Jr. would refuse to return to its prior salacious promotion if it appeared at some point that sex could again be used to sell hamburgers.  If/when racy ads once more become effective in “driving business,” it looks like Carl’s Jr. would be back on board with super-sexed ads.
 
It’s good that the airwaves and other advertising spaces will be free of smutty spots from Carl’s Jr. for the foreseeable future and that there will be a proper focus on product, which may help the chain regain market share.  It would be even better if the company had articulated genuine and serious support for societal values like decency and respect.  It’s a tough call, but in lieu of such a commitment, Carl’s Jr. current strategy stays in the category of “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

Jeans with a View

5/12/2017

12 Comments

 
Picture

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

Everyone who wears jeans is entitled to their favorite cut and color, whether they’re relaxed fit or skinny, midnight black or sky blue.  For clothing in general, and especially jeans, beauty is on the waist of the wearer, but does that belief apply to jeans cut out of clear plastic?
 
Yes, you heard right.  One trendsetting retailer, Topshop, has decided to market clear plastic jeans.  You can click here for  more pics of the disappearing denim, which kind of seems like wearing a giant, form-fitting Ziploc bag.  In this case, not seeing is believing.
 
If you’ve never heard of Topshop, you may be like me, plodding a good distance behind cutting-edge style.  Those familiar with the high-end fashion world, however, know that Topshop is an avant-garde “multinational fashion retailer of clothing, shoes, make-up and accessories.”  Based in Britain, Topshop has 510 store locations in 37 countries, as well as a significant online presence.   

The retailer is known for displaying designer brands, such as those of supermodel Kate Moss and ultra-celebrity Beyoncé.  These high-fashion collections, in turn, help drive foot-traffic to flagship stores in places like New York City, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas.  A few of these locations even offer Topshop Personal Shopping, “a premium, complimentary shopping service” that gives patrons “one-on-one style advice and access to the latest arrivals in the comfort of [their] own private dressing suite.”
 
So, why does a retailer of such exclusive style decide to come out with clear plastic jeans?  It’s hard to say for sure, but the best guess is that Topshop is just doing what other fashion-forward companies regularly try: to push the envelope of clothing design.  We’ve all seen video of runway models wearing designers’ latest creations, some of which seem completely crazy—“There’s no way anyone would wear that in public,” you’ve probably thought.
 
My suspicion is those ridiculous apparel innovations are often just for effect: to get a designer recognized and hopefully remembered.  Sometimes, however, certain styles stick and become a fad, or even a trend, for instance, bell-bottom, or flare, jeans.  Interestingly, the Gap is currently positioning another novel pair of pants as the new must-have fashion for men: wader jeans.  The mid-market retail icon describes the denim as “ankle-length jeans you can wear all-year long.”  Think capris for guys, only a little longer.
 
So all of this analysis takes us right back to the beginning:  Style is a subjective and personal thing.  But does individual fashion preference mean there should be a place for clear plastic jeans?  I’d like to suggest ‘no.’  Others probably can offer even better rationale than mine, but here are my reasons for pooh-poohing clear plastic pants:
  • No Coverage: A fundamental function of attire is concealment.  In other words, we wear clothes to cover, or hide, what’s below them, i.e., our undergarments and naked bodies.  What’s the point, then, of wearing something that doesn’t serve that basic purpose? 
  • Invisibility:  We also wear clothes for less practical and more aesthetic reasons, i.e., we like the way certain colors complement our complexions or accessorize with other clothes we wear.  This purpose of attire is also largely missed by clear clothing. 
  • Uncomfortable: The words ‘plastic’ and “comfort’ are hard to put together.  The thought of sitting on plastic is less-than-desirable for most people.  Why would you want to have your whole bottom half encased in a material that tends not to be very soft or breathable?
  • Health Threat:  There is evidence that plastics may be harmful to humans: “Chemicals added to plastics are absorbed by human bodies. Some of these compounds have been found to alter hormones or have other potential human health effects.”  Perhaps plastic is not something that should be constantly pressing against our skin.
  • Environmentally Unfriendly: Most of us have heard that plastics are notoriously slow to biodegrade, especially when buried in landfills, out of range of sunlight.  Over time, therefore, plastics pose an increasing environmental problem for our planet.

Will plastic jeans become the next bell-bottoms or any significant fashion fad?  Probably not . . . hopefully not.  Just like “The Emperor's New Clothes,” most people will ultimately see the silliness of wearing clothes that you can’t really see, and they’ll show concern for the other problems described above.  In sum, few people will pull out their plastic (credit cards) to buy plastic clothes, making Topshop’s transparent pants a clear 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!
12 Comments

Coliving after College

5/5/2017

2 Comments

 
Picture

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

With the beginning of May comes the culmination of many college careers and an occasion to ask, “What did you like best about college?”  Some may say the social life or athletic events.  I’d suggest the academics and instructors, but I’m biased.  Did  you think of dorm rooms?
 
The thought of college dormitories may draw a sneer from those who remember cramped quarters that looked and smelled questionable.  Of course, people’s perspective of college dorm life is largely a function of their own experience, which can vary greatly based on the time and place.  Over recent years, college dorms have gotten much nicer.  In fact, some “luxury” dormitories now include outdoor gourmet grilling kitchens, infinity pools, and 55” smart TVs—a pretty cushy experience.
 
No matter how nice the residences, after spending several years in dorms and finally finishing college, do new graduates really want to continue living in a single room and sharing common spaces with strangers?   That’s the time in life when you’re finally able to truly be on your own and enjoy expanded freedom and space.  Surprisingly, however, there is significant demand for “adult dorms,” and several companies are capitalizing on the “coliving” craze.

I should preface the rest of this piece by saying that “adult dorms” is the term that many different media have used to describe dorm-like living after college.  As someone who works regularly with college students, I certainly believe the term shouldn't imply that college students aren't already adults, because they are.
 
Although the coliving concept could potentially appeal anywhere, the configuration makes the most economic sense in big cities, where apartment rent is astronomical.  For example, the median monthly rent for a 1 bedroom apartment in New York City is $3,400, while San Francisco is a staggering $3,560.  It’s not shocking, therefore, to realize that rent as a percentage of income averages 65% in the Big Apple and 78% in the City Bay the Bay.
 
Companies tapping into the demand for coliving in major U.S. markets include Stage 3 (NYC), Open Door (San Francisco), and WeLive (NYC and Washington, DC). WeLive is a $1.4 billion new venture of WeWork; the company known for shared office space has decided to diversify into shared living space.
 
What exactly does coliving look like?  The description of one market participant’s property provides a window into the world of adult dorms:  Common offers “Shared housing for those who live life in common” in three different neighborhoods in Brooklyn, NY, with another planned for Crown Heights, and more on the way for San Francisco and Washington, DC.   The company paints the following picture of its Havemeyer housing in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn:
 
“Everything you need to instantly feel at home is included in your membership including fully furnished rooms, linens, free onsite laundry, every kitchen appliance imaginable, weekly cleaning services, high-speed wi-fi, shared kitchen and bathroom staples, all utilities and great friends.”
 
“We have everything you need to live in community. Head downstairs to our wellness studio to unwind from the day, then to one of our communal living rooms for book club and potluck dinners or sit back and enjoy movie night in the entertainment room. For those quiet moments and stunning sunsets, lounge in one of our outdoor patios or on one of the four rooftop decks.”
 
Rooms at Havemeyer are not cheap.  They start at $1,800/month, which includes all furnishings and utilities, and residents supposedly do not incur any extra fees.  When the company talks about sharing, that refers to everything else, including bathrooms; although, for many the ability to easily connect with others is undoubtedly a big part of the appeal.
 
Stage 3’s Ollie property located on 27th St. in NYC promises “hotel-style conveniences” and has most of the same amenities mentioned above plus butler services from a home manager named “Alfred” who does things like drop off dry-cleaning and pick up prescriptions.  Rooms at Ollie rent for about $1,600/month, which reportedly is lower than the areas average studio apartment, which go for $2,000/month.
 
So, what’s driving demand for adult dorms?  There are likely several factors at play.  Price appears to be one; although, as the descriptions above suggested, these one-room rentals aren’t exactly inexpensive.  However, compared to other housing alternatives for young people trying to make their way in major metropoles, the cost is competitive, especially when factoring in the supplementary services received.
 
Of course, there’s also the community appeal.  For millennials who are used to dormitories and open work spaces at their places of employment, coliving is nothing new.  More importantly, many relish the ability to easily meet and socialize with others, which the common living spaces facilitate.  A typical apartment renter, in contrast, can feel very isolated.  The bottom line is that for most, coliving with peers is a much preferred alternative to moving back into mom and dad’s basement.
 
So, adult dorms seem to offer a worthwhile value proposition for the right renters.  Coliving also appears to be a viable business model, based on the success of the aforementioned companies, as well as their forecasts:  The Wall Street Journal reports that WeLive plans to open 70 locations for more than 30,000 residents by 2018. (1)  With its community ethos, the coliving concept also seems to support societal values like respect for individuals and stewardship of resources.  In sum, this professor gives adult dorms an ‘A’ for “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!
2 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