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

Making Pirates Prettier

7/28/2017

7 Comments

 
Picture

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

The words “human trafficking” likely bring to mind some unsettling images.  It’s doubtful that one of those associations is Disney; still, the world leader in family-friendly entertainment has felt the need to distance itself from such debased behavior, in a move that seems too politically correct to some.
 
Most people are familiar with “Pirates of the Caribbean,” and if you’ve visited the Magic Kingdom or Disneyland, you probably rode the namesake ride.  If not, here’s a short summary: A boxy boat, drops down a small waterfall, into the pirates’ world, then meanders through a nighttime setting in which animatronic buccaneers can be seen doing what they do best: fighting, raiding, and plundering, often to a music bed of “A Pirate’s Life for Me.”
 
While all of the featured pirate behavior is bad, Disney has finally decided to strike an especially offensive part of the attraction: the auction of women.  Just past the ride’s midpoint, one prominent pirate, “Red Beard,” stands over a line-up of nicely-dressed women at the Mercado, where a large banner reads “Auction: Take a Wench for a Bride.”  He tells one of the women to “shift” her “cargo” so buyers can get a better view of her backside, and he makes a crude comment about purchasing by the pound.
 
As a flute plays a jolly version of the theme music and nearby chickens cluck, some of the women being bartered don’t seem particularly upset about their dire predicament.  In fact, the lady atop the auction block at the time appears kind of excited to be sold.  The segment lasts for just 30 seconds, and most onlookers chuckle as the boat cruises under a bridge and into the next part of the attraction.
 
Disney has done with the Pirates ride what it’s adeptly done for decades: presented a sanitized, family-friendly version of a harsher reality, which is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, recall some classic Disney movies:  No parents wanted their five-year-old to watch Nemo’s mother actually get eaten by a barracuda, or to see Simba’s father bruised and bloodied after being stampeded.  In fact, when you think of what real pirates actually have done to their victims and their property, the whole Pirates of the Caribbean franchise represents a very sterilized version of reality.
 
It’s not that surprising, therefore, that Disney decided to do even more clean-up of the ride and remove the women’s auction entirely.  When announcing the change in its Parks blog on June 29, the company downplayed the removal and rather focused on what it was adding to the ride: new characters and a fresh scene featuring pirates selling their stolen goods.  Despite the positive spin, social media erupted like the Black Pearl in battle, with many readers blasting the change, for instance:
 
“Please don’t do this. It would break my heart. I was already hurt when you added Disney film characters to It’s a Small World and honestly wasn’t too keen on the first update to Pirates adding Capt. Jack Sparrow (although I love Johnny Depp). Is nothing sacred?”
 
“So disappointed you will be changing the pirates ride at Disneyland. I’ve always been fond of that ride, it’s a Disneyland Icon & should stay as is.”
 
“No!!!! Please do not do this!! It’s awesome the way it is and is a classic ride!”
 
Of course, some people have difficulty dealing with change of any kind, even when it’s for the better, and such transitions are even harder to handle when they upend a long history.  The Pirates ride has shuttled Disney visitors through the same basic story for fifty years.
 
However, many other critics of the change have a broader axe to grind.  They’re tired of what they believe has become an ever-increasing onslaught of political correctness, feeling that no matter how accurate something may be, you can’t say or show anything that might cause someone to be offended, for example, other readers responded:
 
“Please don’t keep changing the theme of the ride to make it more politically correct. Some have said it’s not alright for children to think it’s ok for auctioning the women. These are important conversations to have, being a pirate is not ok! This is a way to have conversation with children.”
 
“Where does the PC police stop? The ride depicts drunkenness, theft, murder, and arson. That’s what pirates did.”
 
“Please don’t let a handful of people who can’t separate a ride from reality subtract from this iconic ride, one of the last Walt Disney worked on.”
 
Does all of this negative feedback mean that Disney’s alteration of the attraction is a big marketing mistake?  No.  One reason is that it’s hard to imagine that many people, if any, will refuse to go on the ride because it doesn’t have the auction of women scene.  In fact, the publicity the change has generated will probably stir additional interest in the ride and attendance at the attraction. 
 
A more important reason that Disney Parks are unlikely to suffer is that the motive behind the change seems pure.  Human trafficking is much more than a societal blemish from centuries gone by.  It’s a significant modern day problem that’s bigger than most of us would imagine, for instance:
 
  • Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion-a-year industry in the U.S., that is on the rise in all fifty states.

  • As of 2012, there were 20.9 million victims of trafficking world-wide; 1.5 million of those victims were in the U.S.
 
  • Human trafficking has surpassed the illegal sales of arms and is expected to surpass illegal drug sales within a few years.
 
So, even as you read this blog, tens of millions of people around the world are being held against their will, forced to work in sex trade and sweatshops, among other forms of enslavement.  Given that global reality, it’s in poor taste to present human trafficking as part of an amusement ride that makes light of its very serious consequences.
 
There are those who understand the gravity of trafficking, yet they want the Pirates ride to stay the same because they believe the auction can serve as a springboard for discussion, as one of the comments above suggested.  Another person shared a similar reaction to Disney’s announcement:
 
“Yes, selling women into slavery was and is horrible. Let’s not hide it from public view. Let’s depict life as it was so that we can have a discussion about how it should be.”
 
Again, however, the ride portrays human trafficking in a humorous way, which sends the wrong message and serves as a bad starting point for any serious discussion.  Plus, how many families have finished the Pirates ride, when the parents pulled their children aside to say, “Now let’s analyze what we just saw and understand the true evils of human trafficking”?  If there are such parents, I’d love to learn from them!     
 
So, to summarize, Disney has made the right decision to remove the auction of women from its Pirates ride.  The bigger issue that remains is whether the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise on whole is both effective and ethical, but that question will have to wait for a future blog post.  In the meantime, we can credit Disney for making a sensible switch and for executing “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!
7 Comments

Fun for All

7/21/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture

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

“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”  Most of us ignore this well-known proverb because we can find many ways to have fun.  But, what if you didn’t have the physical or cognitive abilities that are prerequisites for the play that most people enjoy.  Life could be pretty dull.  Fortunately, a Texas amusement park believes that everyone should have access to fun, even when wet.

Gordon and Maggie Hartman built Morgan’s Wonderland in San Antonio in honor of their daughter Morgan, who often inspired others with her smile, despite facing physical and cognitive challenges.  The park opened in April of 2010, as the “the world’s first theme park designed with special-needs individuals in mind and built for everyone’s enjoyment.”  Morgan’s is “completely wheelchair-accessible” and free of charge to anyone with a special need.
 
What makes such a park so significant?  Individuals with disabilities can easily find themselves on the sidelines because their opportunities for recreation are much more limited than those for most of us.  Many of the leisure activities the general populace takes for granted require abilities that some people don’t possess, e.g., complete mobility, fast reflexes, vision, hearing, etc.
 
Some may be thinking, “But, doesn’t the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demand accessibility for people with disabilities?”  Yes, the law passed in 1990 and modified several times since, “prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities” and “requires that all new facilities built by public accommodations, including small businesses, must be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.”  As of 2010, the act even pertains to specific recreational categories, including amusement rides, play areas, swimming pools, and wading pools.
 
However, ADA accommodation doesn’t extend particularly far when it comes to providing equal amusement opportunity.  For existing structures, businesses only need to remove architectural barriers when doing so is “readily achievable,” which means "easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense”—a measure that’s relative to the firm’s size and resources.
 
For newly built or altered facilities, the law is somewhat more stringent, demanding that such new construction is “accessible to individuals with disabilities."  Still, there are limits to what businesses need to do.  Companies are required to make “reasonable modifications” to serve people with disabilities, but businesses aren’t obligated to adapt in ways that would disrupt their normal customer service or otherwise create an “undue burden.”
 
Now, back to “play.”  How might ADA requirements impact people with disabilities who would like to enjoy the wet and wild time of a waterpark?  In most cases, not very well.  For instance, the park might build ramps or install lifts to give people with wheel chairs access to play areas, but that entry is irrelevant if waterproof wheelchairs aren’t available or if the placement of water jets isn’t friendly to wheels.
 
That’s where Morgan’s Wonderland is different.  Rather than resting on the laurels of its already significant service to those with special needs, the company has decided to keep innovating and expanding.  So, just last month, it opened Morgan’s Inspiration Island, “the world’s first ultra-accessible splash park where guests of all ages and abilities can get wet and have fun together.”
  
For instance, Inspiration Island features Rainbow Reef, a splash pad with heated water, specially created for people who cannot tolerate regular temperature water.  There’s also Shipwreck Island, which boasts an accessible pirate ship.  In addition, the park provides “three types of waterproof wheelchairs that fit a variety of heights and sizes.”
 
What do these unique amenities mean in terms of Morgan’s marketing?  While other companies make basic changes to their facilities just to comply with minimal ADA requirements, Morgan’s Wonderland intentionally targets individuals with disabilities and their families, significantly adapting its marketing mix for their benefit.  Morgan’s mission is to serve and satisfy these special customers.
 
All that may sound good, but is operating an amusement park for underserved consumers just a work of charity?  Is there really potential in the amusement industry for this market?  Apparently there is, given that Morgan’s has completed such an ambitious expansion just seven years after the main amusement park opened.  Morgan’s also has struck a smart strategic alliance with Toyota.  The global automotive giant has been “a leader in mobility solutions for drivers with disabilities,” making it a natural fit to become the park’s presenting sponsor.
 
It’s also worth noting that individuals with disabilities represent more than a niche market:  50 million Americans, or 18% of the population, have disabilities.  Most organizations would be thrilled to have that many potential customers.
 
Meeting the needs of any target market is tough.  Satisfying the special needs of those with disabilities requires even greater resolve, but Morgan’s Wonderland has shown itself more than worthy of such challenges, similar to the courageous individuals it serves.  For this reason, Morgan’s is an inspiring example 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

E*Trade Encourages Envy

7/14/2017

3 Comments

 
Picture

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

People often point to advertising as the main influence on individuals’ buying decisions.  Certainly ads can be effective, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many of them; however, another major influence on what we buy is other people, e.g., "keeping up with the Jones."  E*Trade’s new ad campaign leverages the persuasive power of peers, but is the firm’s two-pronged promotion effective and ethical?
 
E*Trade bills itself as “the original place to invest online” and “the first to give Main Street the chance to trade like Wall Street.”  The company has become well-known for empowering ordinary people to trade like professional stockbrokers.  Instead of paying costly commissions, individuals who open E*Trade accounts put down just $6.95 per trade of stocks, bonds, and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and that fee drops to just $4.95 after 30 trades in a given quarter.
 
Do E*Trade and similar on-line trading platforms (e.g., Ameritrade and Scott Trade) work?  They can, if you know what you’re doing.  Online trading is much like do-it-yourself (DIY) home projects.  Getting the tools to renovate your own kitchen is easy; using them properly is the hard part.  Some, however, have been very successful using online trading tools, like the New Jersey high school student who turned $10,000 into $300,000 in about a year, by buying and selling on E*Trade.
 
This information provides an important backdrop for E*Trade’s new advertising campaign, as each spot features an unambiguous attempt to pit poor against wealthy.  The commercials entice the “have nots” to long for the lifestyle of the “haves.”
 
For instance, in one commercial a young cubicle-dweller gets blown-off by his much more affluent boss, which launches the young office worker into imagining the extraordinary lives of the exceptionally well-to-do: lounging around lavish pools, hitting golf balls off yachts, doing donuts in super cars, feeding exotic pets, waterskiing behind helicopters, having food fights with expensive edibles.  A music bed of “If I were a rich man” from Fiddler on the Roof plays beneath these and several similar clips, all culminating with an arousing call to action: “Don’t get mad, get E*Trade.” 
 
The campaign’s other spots feature different video footage and music but suggest the same problem/solution:  Your life is lacking because you don’t have what the rich have, but you can get it all with E*Trade.

What’s been the reaction to E*Trade’s campaign?  Adweek gave it the designation of “Ad of the Day” for June 19, 2017, describing the ads as “remarkable,” while adding that the company “stokes rage at the 1%.”
 
Fast Company’s take was more critical:  “By using opulence to sell its investment services, the online broker patches together a plutocratic vision of the American dream, ignoring how entrenched inequality is–and how much more difficult it is to overcome.”
 
In addition, CNET succinctly summarized the campaign’s ironic prescription: “The rich are awful, so use ETrade to become one of them. That seems to be the logic behind the company's new ad campaign.”

I tend to agree with these analyses and draw my own conclusion about the campaign’s mindfulness through a combination of these points and several new ones.  Here are the five unfortunate outcomes I believe E*Trade’s ads inspire:
 
1.  Unrealistic expectations.  Certainly people can go from rags to riches by trading stocks, but how likely is it to happen?  Making a fortune in the stock market requires considerable skill and some luck—much more than just opening an online account.
 
2.  Envy:  Benchmarking helps businesses get better by showing them how they might improve their products and processes.  Personal comparisons, however, are often problematic, especially when they involve wishing for what others have.
 
3.  Terminal Materialism:  Money isn’t inherently bad; it depends on what one does with it.  Many of its uses in the E*Trade ads, however, suggest owning for the sake of owning, vs. buying practical things (instrumental materialism), or using money to help others, e.g., paying for education, creating jobs.
 
4.  Poor Stewardship:  Beyond being impractical, much of the behavior the campaign glamorizes is overindulgent and outright wasteful.
 
5.  Inaccurate Perceptions:  While some extremely rich people live lives of ridiculous luxury, most are not so crass and careless with their spending.  The way they became wealthy was not by being frivolous but frugal.  Also, many use their money in ways that benefit others.
 
Against these points, some may argue that the ads are puffery, i.e., extreme exaggerations meant to be funny and not taken seriously.  While some of the scenes are over-the-top, e.g., the all-out food fight among elites, most of the cuts are realistic and certainly could happen, if they haven’t already.  For instance, a Google search of “helicopter water skiing” produces over a million hits, including a variety of real pictures and the story of a father who towed his son on water skis with a copter, to the chagrin of others.
 
Will the E*Trade ads be effective?  Probably.  As mentioned at the onset, the desire to emulate others, especially in terms of their possessions, is a very powerful one.  Consequently, E*Trade’s appeal to become one of the very rich will strike a nerve with many, and the oversimplification of achieving the dream will help induce people to try online trading.  As suggested above, however, the campaign rests on a foundation of deception, disrespect, and excess, among other indiscretions, which results in E*Trade earning this return: “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

Hotdog Heroes?

7/7/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

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

What did you enjoy eating during your recent 4th of July celebration: a burger, some watermelon, a side of potato salad?  How about 72 hotdogs?  If you’re competitive eater Joey Chestnut, that’s exactly what you downed on Independence Day, in just ten minutes.
 
According to Nathan’s Famous, people have been gathering at its first hotdog stand on Coney Island, NY every July 4th since 1916, to see who could devour the most dogs.  The first recorded contest came in 1972.  Since that time, Nathan’s has built the event into a media spectacle that attracts contestants from around the world, draws over 40,000 spectators to Coney Island, and engages nearly two million viewers on the ESPN broadcast.
 
Yes, ESPN televised the event live, and SB Nation provided a thorough recap of the action.  Does that mean that eating qualifies as athletics?  If so, the United States, which ranks as the 12th most obese country in the world, might also be one of the most athletic!

Although we shouldn’t expect eating to become an Olympic event anytime soon, it’s helpful to understand exactly what competitive eating is and why it’s so popular:
 
“Competitive eating, or speed eating, is an activity in which participants compete against each other to consume large quantities of food in a short time period. Contests are typically eight to ten minutes long, although some competitions can last up to thirty minutes, with the person consuming the most food being declared the winner. Competitive eating is most popular in the United States, Canada, and Japan, where organized professional eating contests often offer prizes, including cash.”
 
Beyond individual participants, there are actual organizations whose mission is consumption as sport, most notably Major League Eating (MLE), “the world body that oversees all professional eating contests.”  Its logo features a hand holding a fork.  MLE’s website lists dozens of official eating contests ranging from oysters to ice cream sandwiches, with prize purses between $1,750 and $40,000.  Chestnut has won many of these events, including Nathan’s contest 10 times, which gives new meaning to the saying “eat to live.”
 
Surprisingly, Chestnut, Miki Sudo, who ate 41 hotdogs to take the women’s title, and most other competitive eaters are not big people; they’re average-size, and some are even very fit.  So, how do they eat so much?  Here’ the basic strategy:

“Many competitive eaters, like those competing in the Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest, practice stretching out their stomachs for the main event by drinking gallons of milk or water very quickly, or by downing lots of filling, fibrous foods like watermelon and oatmeal in a matter of minutes.”
 
Nathan’s website goes on to explain the exercise and eating regimens of many of its contestants:

“Despite consuming mass quantities of high-calorie foods during competition season, most professional competitive eaters are very fit. Many contestants weight train and exercise vigorously to build muscle and increase their metabolism. Most also eat healthy, low-calorie diets after competitions. Why? Because their stomachs are so stretched out, they can no longer tell when they’re full!”
 
So, maybe competitive eaters are athletes who deserve more recognition for their accomplishments.  Not so fast.  It’s also important to consider the ‘damage’ they do to themselves and potentially others through their day-of-event activities.
 
For instance, Chris Weller of Business Insider wrote an article titled “The terrifying totals of calories, fat, and sodium consumed at Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest,” in which he presented the nutritional numbers for the 72 Nathan’s Famous skinless beef franks (4 kg) and 72 Ball Park hot dog buns (3 kg) that Chestnut quickly consumed this past July 4.  Here are some of those statistics, which include the metric weights and their respective percentages of daily nutritional values:
  • Fat: 1 kg, 1606%
  • Saturated Fat: 360 g, 1800%
  • Cholesterol:  2 g, 667%
  • Sodium: 46 g, 1917%

To help put these numbers into perspective, that’s about 16 days’ worth of fat, 18 days’ worth of saturated fat, and over 19 days’ worth of sodium, all packed into a ten-minute timeframe.  Of course, Chestnut and his colleagues aren’t downing those kinds of calories (19,433), every day, but if competitive eating is their job, they’re engaging in similar indulgence more than a few times a year.  Even if someone exercises regularly and maintains a trim physique, it’s hard to imagine that kind of extreme consumption doesn’t take its toll over time.
 
Such overeating reminds me of a now-defunct television show I watched several times, not without misgivings: the Travel Channel’s “Man vs. Food.”  In each episode, host Adam Richman visited a different city where he interacted with locals at a couple of their favorite restaurants and eventually took on a mammoth eating challenge, like a 5 lb. sandwich.
 
After four seasons of such extreme consumption, Richman retired from the popular series without offering a specific reason; although, some suggested there were “concerns over ensuring Adam Richman's health if the show had continued in its previous format.”  Richman has since lost about 70 lbs.
 
Some may argue personal choice: “If people want to tackle food challenges as TV show hosts or as competitive eaters, it’s their prerogative.  They’re only affecting themselves.”  Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
 
While an individual’s gluttony does primarily impact him/her, it also affects others by virtue of the fact that we’re social beings who often learn from and emulate the behavior of others.  That influence is greatly magnified when mass media share the actions, and it’s even worse when the destructive behavior is presented in a positive light.
 
The bottom-line is competitive eating glamorizes gluttony.  Chestnut and other eating contest winners receive prize money and they’re lauded as champions.  There’s nothing praiseworthy, however, about stuffing oneself with 72 hotdogs in ten minutes. 

True, few rational people will attempt to consume the quantities of food that competitive eaters do, but they’re still teaching wrong attitudes toward food, e.g., that eating is sport and that it’s okay to continue consuming even after you’re full.  Those are likely the kinds of beliefs that have helped place America 12th on the list of the world’s most obese nations.
 
Competitive eating comes into even poorer taste when one considers the hundreds of millions of people around the world who don’t have enough to eat.  “The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 795 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2014-2016.” 

According to Poverty.com, it’s estimated that “a person dies of hunger or hunger-related causes every ten seconds.”  That means about 60 people passed away during the time it took the Nathan’s competitors to each down several dozen calorie-heavy hotdogs.
 
Competition is generally a good thing that brings out the best in people.  Competitive eating, however, showcases an unseemly side of humanity—one that’s harmful to its participants, as well as to hosts of others.  Given the great attention it receives each year, Nathan’s Famous Hotdog Eating Contest appears to be effective promotion, but the bad behavior it encourages makes the competition an example 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!
0 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