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

Inundated with Emails

6/27/2015

3 Comments

 
Picture
There are many things people tend to want more of, e.g., friends, money, recognition, romance . . . .  However, there’s one request I’ve never heard: “I wish I’d get more emails.”

The best thing about email is that it makes it so easy to communicate with others.  The worst thing about email is that it makes it so easy to communicate with others.  Email may be the perfect example of the proverbial double-edged sword.  What has made our lives more effective and efficient has also become the bane of our existence. 

Many people spend several hours each day reading and responding to the deluge of emails they receive.  Besides being a considerable time commitment, there also may be significant financial costs.  For instance, Dr. Ian M. Paul of the Penn State College of Medicine tracked his emails for a year and found that he received 2,035 mass distribution emails.  Estimating 30 seconds to read each email and an average physician’s salary, Paul calculated that the cost of all the emails to be more than $1,600 per doctor and over $1 million for his entire institution.

Some companies have noticed the widespread problem of email overload and sought to be part of the solution by marketing software to help us manage our in-boxes.  Unfortunately, however, an increasing number of other organizations appear apathetic about being part of the problem, as my personal experience supports.

Suspecting that a few companies have been emailing me far too frequently, I did an impromptu, nonscientific study of my email “Deleted Items.”  As you might expect, I found a variety of organizations and email frequencies.  Here are some examples:


  • Infrequent:  once a month or less—Verizon
  • Frequent:  every week or two—NordicTrack
  • Very Frequent:  usually once a day—Amazon
  • Extremely Frequent:  several times a day--Groupon

Of course the nature and relevance of any communication makes a big difference.  When there’s information that we really need to know, we may want frequent updates, for instance, for things like traffic conditions, the weather, or the status of a sick loved one.  However, it’s rare that most people need daily let alone hourly updates about patio furniture or copy paper.

So, who is your worst email offender?  As I suggested above, one of mine is Groupon.  In my personal email study, I found that Groupon has been sending me FOUR EMAILS A DAY.  Here are the times and subject lines just from yesterday, Friday, June 26:


  • 3:55 am       “$1 Deals and More—Today Only!”
  • 12:03 pm     “Frozen Yogurt”
  • 1:39 pm       “Go Wild on Vacation”
  • 4:02 pm       “Thermal Self-Heating Neck Pad, Cartier Swiss Watch Collection, . . .”

To make matters worse, as I scanned my deleted emails over the last couple of weeks, I realized it’s been the same virtually every day—FOUR GROUPON EMAILS.  Don’t get me wrong, I generally like Groupon and appreciate its special deals, mainly for restaurants.  However, I am becoming bothered by the frequency of its contact.

If it were just Groupon inundating my in-box it wouldn’t be so bad, but what some organizations don't seem to grasp is that they aren’t the only company with which I do business.  A host of other organizations are also jockeying to be top-of-my-mind.  For instance, it’s only 9:45 am, and already today I’ve gotten emails from Amazon, Lowes, Local Flavor, Living Social, Newegg, and Staples.

Furthermore, Sears, from which I rarely purchase, has sent me THREE EMAILS BEFORE 10:00 am:


  • “Jump on it! Get $10 off your $20 online purchase”
  • “We're serious, you've been picked to enjoy our FIREWORKS SALE!”
  • “Schedule your annual appliance check-up”

It looks like I could have a new contender for worst email offender.

What if each of the companies that call us customers sent us three or four emails a day?  It would become nearly impossible to cope with all of the communication.

Besides recognizing that they are only one of thousands of companies using direct email marketing, companies like Groupon and Sears also need to understand the law of diminishing returns, i.e., at some point sending customers one more email will be less likely to produce a favorable response.  Of course, if firms' in-box bombardment frustrates or angers customers, additional emails will even become counterproductive.

With so many companies sending so many emails, it’s becoming increasingly doubtful that flooding in-boxes creates stakeholder value.  Furthermore, email inundation threatens to elevate commercial activity over other important facets of our lives such as family and friends, thereby jeopardizing societal values.  In sum, organizations’ excessive direct emailing represents “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

Dumb Dad Ads

6/20/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
Have you noticed an increase in ads featuring dads?  While some kindly affirm fatherhood, e.g., Nissan’s 2015 Super Bowl commercial, many others cast dads as bumbling idiots who desperately need to be saved from their stupidity by their children, spouses, or anyone else with an ounce of common sense.

One such ad is AT&T’s "Piece of Cake" commercial, part of the company’s recent Digital Life campaign.  In the ad, a wife leaves the house in the hands of her largely inept spouse to go on an extended business trip.  As she says goodbye to him and their three children, she asks doubtfully if everything will be okay at home, to which her husband naively replies “Yeah, this is a piece of cake; I got this.”

The rest of the 60-second spot shows the dad making blunder after blunder, for instance, forgetting how to get to the kids’ school, failing to put down the garage door, disregarding the dog walker, letting the kids stay up too late, and forgetting to turn-on the home security system.   Fortunately, mom is able to amend each mistake from afar, using AT&Ts remote monitoring system and digital home controls.

Some are probably thinking “So what?  It’s just one ad.”  After all, other ads and mass media on whole routinely expose the inadequacies of all sorts of people, not just dads.  Plus, you might be postulating, “I bet you’re a dad,” in which event this could simply be a case of sour grapes.

In the spirit of full-disclosure, I am a dad—the father of two wonderful children.  At least, I think they’re wonderful . . . it’s hard for me to know because, after all, I’m a dad (heavy sarcasm intended).  But seriously, dad-bashing ads are quite common.  For example, here are several other TV commercials that seem to intentionally disparage dads:

  • Huggies Dad Test:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7kX8ZKylD4

  • Doritos Princesses:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPtUJHpI3W0

  • State Farm Road Trip:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBRmlVEvQO4

  • Libman Mop Power-washing:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2I02n-vGto

  •  Fidelity My Plan Ping Pong:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJTOZ06BlqU

This tendency to portray dads as dumb is a trend that many have recognized, in advertising as well as in mass media in general.  It’s hard to think of other people groups who are as routinely ridiculed.

Still, some may be thinking, “What’s the big deal?”  Many TV commercials and shows aim to be funny.  It’s hard to have humor if everyone in an ad or sitcom is smart and sensible.  While there’s some truth to this argument, depictions start to become damaging when the same group of people is always made to play the fool.  Such frequency and consistency of negative portrayals rises to the realm of stereotyping.

Most of us recognize the great harm that stereotypes have had on specific people groups over centuries, as well as on our society as a whole.  It’s not to say that the bias dads may encounter equates to other historic prejudices; however, there is legitimate reason to be concerned about what the future might hold if the next generation grows up believing that dads are inherently incompetent.

The challenge is to determine the level at which to place responsibility.  Does the preceding discussion mean that any ad that portrays a dad as less than a genius is guilty of propagating the stereotype?  Normally speaking, no—i.e., it’s reasonable to show that dads, like everyone else, make mistakes.  However, in light of the considerable derision that fathers have faced in the media over recent years, it seems prudent to extend to them a period of reprieve in order for the pendulum to swing the other way and to allow them to regain some of the respect they deserve.  Such restoration is not just important for them but for the health of our entire society.

Unfortunately dad-bashing ads seem to represent effective marketing.  They apparently have worked at some level for those companies that have used them; otherwise it’s unlikely that this promotional tactic would be so common.  The ads probably have created stakeholder value.  However, in light of the negative social outcomes outlined above, due to the aggregation of such stereotyping, ads that intentionally make fun of fathers should be seen at least for a season as “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

Over-The-Top Indulgence

6/13/2015

2 Comments

 
Picture
When it comes to food, do you have a “guilty pleasure”?  Most of us do.  Maybe it’s a large steak, a bag of potato chips, or a chunk of cheesecake.  They’re the foods we don’t eat often because they’re not good for our waistlines or our health, but when there’s a reason to treat ourselves, we throw caution to the wind and indulge.

Many argue that it okay to cave-in to such cravings every once in a while.  In fact, some even suggest that an extreme break from one’s normal diet is desirable as doing so:

- Keeps your body guessing, which boosts metabolism

- Makes you less likely to cheat uncontrollably, if you have a preapproved indulgence

- Helps you maintain a healthy attitude toward food

So, maybe a special splurge is alright, but does that mean that every binge is benign?  Or, is there such a thing as an unacceptable indulgence?  Of course, given the focus of this blog, the ultimate question here is whether marketers have any responsibility for encouraging such overindulgence.

This question reminds me of an article I read recently that recognized the “9 Unhealthiest Restaurant Dishes in America.”  A few of the “winners” were:
  • Sonic’s Pineapple Upside Down Master Blast: 2,200 calories; 61 grams of saturated fat; 29 teaspoons of added sugar
  • The Cheesecake Factory’s Louisiana Chicken Pasta with New Orleans Sauce:  2,370 calories; 80 grams of saturated fat; 2,730 milligrams of sodium
  • Dickey’s Barbecue Pit’s 3 Meat Plate with two sides: 2,500 calories

According to WedMD a moderately active male, age 19-30, should consume 2,600 to 2,800 calories per day, while a similar female should eat 2,000 to 2,200.  So, ladies, that Sonic Master Blast is all of your food for the day, and men, Dickey’s Barbecue Plate is pretty much yours.  Meanwhile, to lose one pound of weight a person needs to burn 3,500 more calories than she consumes, e.g., 500 calories per day over a week.

But, if people want to make one of the aforementioned foods a special indulgence, isn’t that their prerogative?  Ultimately it is their choice, but a case can be made that some splurges are just too much.  A comparison to other consumption might help illustrate.  For instance, a person may rationalize spending $112 on a very special pair of sneakers.  However, what if the price of the shoes were 100 times that, i.e., $11,200?  If you’re thinking that’s impossible, checkout Air Jordan 11 (Blackout).

Most of us don’t have bank accounts big enough to consider such an extreme expenditure, but if we did, the sneakers still would take a significant toll on us financially.  Perhaps even more importantly, such extravagance likely enacts a psychological cost, as such lavish possessions assume at least some control of our lives.

The same type of inordinate influence might apply when the overindulgence is food.  When a single snack represents all or most of one’s daily calorie intake, that splurge has grabbed a place of influence it doesn’t deserve, which may set us up for related physical and psychological failures.  For example, “That Master Blast tasted good, but what nutritional value was there, and how am I going to compensate in the rest of my food consumption for the extra 2,200 calories?”

So, what’s my advice for food marketers?  Don’t do it.  Just because people will eat over-the-top indulgences, doesn’t mean you have to make and/or sell them.  Show restraint, even if your customers are lacking their own.  True, there’s money to be made marketing all types of extravagances, but many are sold at the expense of societal values such as moderation, stewardship, and self-control.  For these reasons, encouraging such extreme excess represents “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!
2 Comments

Is it Okay to Photoshop Diversity?

6/6/2015

6 Comments

 
Picture

By Keith Quesenberry, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Messiah College


Years ago as an advertising copywriter I faced a decision about how to include diversity in an ad. We were working on a new campaign for one of our agency’s biggest accounts, which was merging with another company.  Our idea for the campaign was to use the sport of rowing, or crew, as a metaphor: Two 4-person rowing boats would form a new 8-person boat, representing the two companies joining forces and moving forward together.

In the TV commercial and print ads we cast diverse talent that represented the real make-up of the company and the community that it served. However, the first launch ad had a tight deadline scheduled to run before our photo shoot. This timing forced us to use stock photography, but the only pictures of crew we could find featured all white men. Our client asked us to photoshop diversity into the ad by darkening the skin of some of the people in the boat.

My art director and I said “no” right away and the rest of the ad agency supported this decision. We ran the first ad with the stock photo as is, but made sure the rest of the campaign featured our new, more diverse photos. Did we make the right call? Would anyone photoshop diversity into an ad? An on-line search produced some examples.

In 2000, University of Wisconsin officials added the face of an African American student to an existing photo of students at a football game for the cover of their application brochure. The actual student, Diallo Shabazz, was surprised because he never attended a football game (see photos above).

In 2009, an American Petroleum Institute pamphlet appeared to show oil and gas industry employees as racially diverse. However, when people looked up the original stock photo it revealed that the heads of two white men were altered to make them appear non-white.
Picture
Picture
Also in 2009, Toronto’s Fun Guide photoshopped an African American man into the cover photo. The marketers said their goal was to depict the diversity of Toronto and its residents.
Picture
Picture
More recently BuzzFeed reported that an African American woman was photoshopped into the background of a group picture that appeared at the bottom of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett’s campaign website. The Corbett campaign said the website footer graphic was all a work of Photoshop with both stock photos and actual photos pieced together.
Picture
Before making a judgment we should first consider the motives behind diversity in advertising. In the book “Diversity in Advertising: Broadening the Scope of Research Directions” the authors Lee and Ferle (2004) discuss two main theories behind diversity in advertising. First, diversity in advertising produces positive attitudes among minorities and therefore makes the advertising more effective. Second, diversity in advertising helps promote positive self-esteem among minorities and thus contributes to the social good. Making advertising more effective and contributing to social good both are desirable objectives. Does it matter, however, how marketers achieve that diversity?

To be honest, I wasn’t thinking about theory when we said no to darkening the skin of a white person in a stock photo. It simply felt wrong. Yet, in the examples I found there are various levels of photoshopped diversity from darkening skin and replacing heads to casting staged photos and group photos digitally made from many sources.

Is this Mindful Marketing? In the end I believe, photoshopping diversity into advertising imagery is “Simple-Minded Marketing.” The goal may be noble, but advertisers are taking the quick and easy way out instead of capturing real and genuine diversity at events or setting up new photo shoots to represent real people. The one caveat is that this approach can turn into “Mindless Marketing” if the images of diversity don’t match reality. Staging diversity with paid actors who do not reflect actual diversity could become false advertising if that untrue promise of diversity influences a purchase decision.

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!
6 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