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

Elder Abuse?

8/29/2015

13 Comments

 
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Picture
As we grow older, it’s comforting to know that some cultures revere their elders (e.g., China, Korea, and Japan)—they see seniors as sources of wisdom, they appreciate the experience of the aged, and they hold their elderly in high esteem.  Unfortunately the United States is not one of those societies. 

America values youth.  We dote over our infants and acquiesce to our adolescents.  Of course, favorable treatment can be a good thing.  What’s problematic, however, is when a specific segment is treated contemptously, which often is the experience of American elders.

So, if a society spurns senior citizens, what should its marketers do?  Unfortunately German carmaker Volkswagen appears to follow the “When in Rome . . .” philosophy, at least as evidenced by its recent U.S. ad campaign.

The television commercials feature Mary, Josie, and Teresa, the three “Golden Sisters,” who have become documentary stars on the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN).  Although the three older women are ostensibly shopping for a new car in the ads, their attention more often focuses on the attractive young men who share the spots.

In one ad the sisters ogle the posterior of a handsome car shopper.  As he bends over to checkout a Passat, the women make socially awkward and sexually suggestive comments such as “Year end, rear end, check-it-out,” “talk about turbo charging my engine,” and “gorgeous.”  One of the sisters also asks him a question overladen with innuendo: “What kind of car do you like: new or many miles on it?”

Serious flirtation continues in a second ad that finds the three older women seated in a new Jetta with a good-looking car salesman riding shotgun.  One of the ladies kisses her index finger and touches it to the lips of the young man as she asks him, “What about a deal?”  The theme then shifts from sexuality to senility, as the ad’s dialogue suggests that the women are forgetful and confused:

“We’re twins, so could you give us two for the price of one.”


“Come on, give us a deal.  Look at how old I am.”

“Do you come here often?”

“He works here, Terry.  You work here right?”

“Okay, let’s get to the point.  We’re going to take the deal.”

So, what’s the problem?  All of us do and say silly things at times.  It’s also true that many media, from internet ads, to TV sitcoms, to newspaper comic strips, poke fun of people in good taste.  There are a few factors, however, that move the Volkswagen ads from funny to offensive.

First, the elderly ladies are the only ones made to look foolish in the ads.  Besides being attractive, the young male actors are calm, cool, and collected.  Meanwhile, each of the ad scripts leads the older women to act like bumbling idiots.  The same selective satirizing is also evident in a recent Rent.com commercial in which a film crew surprises an elderly man taking a shower.  Partially nude, he then toddles with a walker across a room in full view of a half dozen young people as he exclaims “I’m wet.”

Second, the Volkswagen ads reinforce negative stereotypes about older adults, i.e., that all are doddering and disoriented.  While it’s true that our bodies and minds eventually give ground, many older adults remain physically fit and mental sharp for a very long time.  And, even if individuals’ physical and mental faculties have begun to fail, is it right to ridicule them for such deficiencies?

Third, it’s worth asking how the Volkswagen ads would be viewed if actors from different demographic groups filled the roles.  For instance, what if the first ad featured three young men doing the same ogling and bantering with a female car shopper?  We’d call it sexual harassment.  The Volkswagen ads, therefore, appear to portray older individuals as harassers.         

In light of these selective, negative portrayals, Volkswagen fails to support important societal values such as respecting older adults and displaying sexual decency.  But, does VW’s ad campaign represent effective marketing that creates stakeholder value?  Or, more specifically, are the ads likely to move viewers through AIDA, from attention and interest, to desire and action?

I’m not sure of the age range of the target market for Passats and Jettas, but I doubt it includes older adults.  Rather, VW probably targets individuals who could be the grandchildren of the Golden Sisters.   Granted, effective advertising doesn’t always feature target market members, but the key question here is whether the ads convey enough compelling benefits to make a younger demographic, or anyone, want a VW.  I don’t think so.  Furthermore, even if there were a clear unique selling proposition, the idea of one’s grandmother making overt sexual advances might be off-putting enough to overshadow such motivation to buy.

So, what’s the bottom line?  Volkswagen’s lampooning of older adults fails at both upholding societal values and creating stakeholder value, making it another 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!
13 Comments

Should Advertisers Shun Celebs?

8/22/2015

5 Comments

 
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Picture
By now you’ve heard the disturbing news about iconic Subway spokesman Jared Fogle, who has admitted to possessing child pornography and soliciting sex with minors.  Not surprising, Subway quickly ended its relationship with Fogle, saying “Jared Fogle’s actions are inexcusable and do not represent our brand’s values.”

It’s hard to remember now, but when Fogle first became a pitchman for the sandwich chain in 2000, he wasn’t famous but a rather average American who had lost an exceptional amount of weight (245 lbs.) thanks to a diet steeped in Subway.  Fogle’s story was perfect promotion for the restaurant, which for many years used his example to position itself as the healthier, good-tasting alterative to typical fast food.

Not that Fogle deserves all or even most of the credit, but before he became the chain’s main spokesperson, Subway had around 14,000 stores worldwide.  Fifteen years later its store total had ballooned to over 43,000, making it the world’s largest restaurant chain in terms of number of locations.  Meanwhile, like certain other current celebrities of note, Fogle had become famous for being famous.

Of course, Fogle is not the first celebrity spokesperson to fall precipitously from grace, much to the chagrin of their corporate sponsors.  A few other celebs who reputations and endorsement deals have taken dives not long ago include sports stars Adrian Peterson, Tiger Woods, and Michael Phelps.  Fogle’s failing will likely eclipse all three of these, however, putting him on par with the likes of OJ Simpson.

Given that Fogle has been the face of Subway for 15 years, it will be hard for even the most forgiving folks to forget his insidious acts when thinking of Subway.  That negative association could lead to backlash against the chain, the extent to which is difficult to estimate.  Such potential fallout makes it fair to ask whether it’s worth it; that is are companies better off not using celebrity endorsers?

First, there are many product categories that have no compelling need for celebrities, for a variety of reasons, like low potential for good product-personality fit (e.g., copy paper), little affinity among target market members for those who are famous (e.g., Matures, 68+), and lack of scale or scope (e.g., a local grocery store).

Still, there are certain situations in which celebrity endorsements do seem to make a difference.  For example, star athlete signings apparently have paid off for several major sports apparel companies.  In a recent court case, for instance, the market value of the Jordan name was reported to be worth at least $480 million to Nike.  Also, a few weeks ago Adidas stole Houston Rockets star James Harden away from Nike with an endorsement deal worth $200 million over 13 years, which also suggests that such sponsorships offer stakeholder value.

When a celebrity like Fogle falls, however, his public flailing bruises the reputation of his corporate sponsor, to at least some degree.  So, should Subway have steered clear of Fogle in the first place?

Subway likely had little reason to doubt the integrity of Fogle when the company came across his unique weight-loss story 15 years ago.  Fogle had recently been a student at Indiana University in America’s heartland, and at the time may or may not have practiced the behavior that will likely land him behind bars.  In any case, it would have been virtually impossible for Subway to know such details of Fogle’s private life, especially when one considers that Fogle’s wife, who shared the same house, said that she was “extremely shocked and disappointed by the recent developments involving Jared.”

It’s very upsetting that Fogle apparently used the status and wealth he gained from endorsement fame to commit such unspeakable acts.  Subway, however, appears to have acted in good faith.  The company could not have reasonably known about Fogle’s well-concealed, dark secret.  However, it did establish that his experience of dramatic diet-induced weight loss was legitimate, and the restaurant chain responsibly shared that story in its promotions, which helped revolutionize thinking about healthy eating—an important societal value.

Despite their larger than life personas, celebrities are humans and equally susceptible to sin.  That potential to fail, however, does not absolve them or any of us from trying our hardest to avoid objectionable acts, particularly the kinds that have devastating impact on others.  Likewise, companies that use celebrity endorsers need to exercise due diligence in screening their spokespeople.

All that said, in its dealings with Fogle, Subway twice demonstrated “Mindful Marketing”: first by identifying him as a credible spokesperson in 2000 and second by decisively ending their endorsement relationship a few weeks ago.


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!
5 Comments

Toys Just for Boys?

8/15/2015

2 Comments

 
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Picture
What did you like to play with more as a child: dolls or trucks?  If you said the former, you’re probably female; if the latter, you’re likely male.  Of course, not everyone follows these gender patterns, so to what extent should retailers reinforce them?

Full-line discounter Target hit this question head-on several weeks ago when one particular “guest,” Ohio Mom Abi Bechtel, took exception to the retailer’s in-store signage that distinguished “Girls’ Building sets” from regular “Building Sets.”  Her Twitter post set-off a social media firestorm that Target recently sought to extinguish by removing gender-specific signs from its children’s bedding and toy areas and by promising to avoid stereotypical colors like pink and blue on walls and shelves.

In a world that seems eager to abolish traditional gender labels and norms, it’s not surprising that many people have applauded Target’s efforts.  For instance, Dr. Christia Brown, the author of Parenting Beyond Pink and Blue and a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, commended the retailer for taking action consistent with gender research that suggests that boys and girls are not born with predilections for certain colors and types of toys; rather they are socialized into these preferences.

Not all science, however, supports this notion of socialization.  Other studies have suggested that male- and female-specific hormones are what determine gender tendencies.  For example, a 2009 study from Texas A&M University found that 3- and 4-month-month-old boys’ interest in toy trucks (vs. dolls) was positively correlated with the infants’ testosterone levels.  Likewise, researchers studying vervet monkeys found that when given an option, females chose dolls, while males selected wheeled vehicles like trucks.

So, while the nurture vs. nature debate over gender identity rages on, retailers like Target are left to decide whether to take a gender-specific or -neutral approach to their merchandising.  From a marketing perspective, the right answer is likely “both.”

For instance, for products like toys, there’s little reason to use gender-specific signage or stereotypical colors, as it’s unlikely that either significantly helps consumers find or choose the right product.  If other shoppers are like me, they’re peering down aisles and scanning shelves, rarely noticing signs.  Colors can be important visual cues; however, it’s probably more important that wall and shelf shades aid in product presentation and overall store atmosphere than that they denote masculinity or femininity.  In the end, a Pirates of the Caribbean building block set doesn’t care if the builder is a boy or a girl and neither should Lego or Target.

Of course, there are certain products that must consider gender because men and women are anatomically different, e.g., many types of clothes, from bathing suits to blazers.  It’s important that such items are manufactured with gender in mind, and it’s helpful that most stores merchandise these items in ways that aid gender-specific selection.  Furthermore, those gender references are even more critical for directing consumers' on-line shopping, where they often cannot see items until they’ve completed a search for them.


So, Target’s decision to make its toy and children’s bedding areas more gender neutral probably didn’t diminish stakeholder value, and perhaps it increased this value somewhat by removing the seeming gender constraints on certain items.  At the same time, the retailers’ response also demonstrated important societal values like kindness and inclusiveness, without diminishing the beauty of gender differences.  For these reasons, Target’s choice to merchandise toys neutrally for both girls and boys can be considered “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

Footwear that Gives Freedom

8/8/2015

3 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Remember going back-to-school?  For some of us it’s been decades, for others, just a year.  Either way, it’s hard to forget the excitement of reuniting with friends, and the anxiety of returning to classes.

Shopping for back-to-school also can be both an exhilarating and debilitating experience.  While clothing marketers see back-to-school as the second biggest selling season of the year, students know it’s when their wardrobes get refreshed, which is not always an easy endeavor.

Choosing the right shirts, jeans, and sneakers that will get you recognized and not ridiculed can be a difficult thing.  However, what if you not only need help picking out your clothes but also putting them on?  Such reliance is enough to strip away anyone’s self-esteem, especially an adolescent's.

Entering his junior year of high school, Matthew Walzer needed such help.  Because of cerebral palsy, “one of the most common forms of childhood disability,” Walzer only had flexibility in one of his hands, which made it impossible for him to tie his own shoes.  The future looked bleak for Walzer, who worried how he’d ever get by in a few years in college—he didn’t want his parents to have to be there to tie his shoes for him.

So, Walzer wrote a letter to Nike CEO Mark Parker and posted it on social media.  Nike responded with compassion.  Using technology already created for an employee who had suffered a stroke, Nike designer Tobie Hatfield led the development of a new sneaker with “Flyease,” a cutting edge wraparound zipper system.  With Flyease, individuals who have limited use of their hands can easily slip their foot in and out of the shoe from the back, thanks to a unique closure system that opens wide like a door.

After putting on the new sneakers for the first time, Walzer said: “I just felt this wave of independence that I never got to experience before.”  Nike also surprised Walzer by arranging a meeting with his basketball idol and the new shoe’s namesake, LeBron James.

Nike certainly made one young man very happy and even changed his life.  The company and several of its employees showed great empathy and compassion for a teenager with a condition that many others don’t understand, or they even try to avoid.  It’s a great thing to meet the needs of persons who our world often neglects.  In this sense Nike supported several important societal values.

But, was Nike’s development of Flyease a good marketing move?  From a PR perspective it probably was.  After three weeks, Nike’s YouTube video featuring Walzer has garnered over 1,046,800 views.  Also, a Google search of “Nike Flyease” reveals that the video is being shared frequently across the web.

To stay in business and otherwise satisfy shareholders, however, companies like Nike need to sell sneakers.  By that measure, expending considerable resources to produce a single set of shoes seems irrational.  However, Nike isn’t producing just one pair of sneakers.

As might be expected, the sporting goods giant has partnered with basketball giant James to mass market Flyease, which is found in the Nike Zoom LeBron Soldier 8 Flyease.  The shoe is available on the company’s website in three different color combinations for $130/pair.  Knowing Nike, it won’t be long before Flyease can be found in a wide variety of other footwear.

Is there a big enough market, though, for sneakers that swing open from the back?  One estimate suggests that over 750,000 U.S. children and adults have cerebral palsy, which affects the body in different ways—some of those with the condition have good use of their hands.  There are many other individuals, however, who also might benefit from Flyease technology: people who have suffered strokes, certain injured individuals (e.g., some disabled veterans), those with rheumatoid arthritis, and others with any one of a wide variety of other hand disorders.   

Of course, there’s also the condition that affects all of us eventually—old age, which may lessen our manual dexterity for a variety of reasons.  Hatfield articulates this eventuality well, stating, “At some point, some people become less able sooner than others.  But eventually we all become less able.”


So, although, there may not be a huge market for $130 Flyease LeBron James basketball shoes, there is likely a large untapped market for Flyease footwear in other forms.  Nike, therefore, stands poised to generate considerable stakeholder value while upholding important societal values, which creates another case 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!
3 Comments

Followers for Sale

8/1/2015

2 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
Picture
MasterCard swiped our attention in the late 1990s with its “Priceless” ad campaign that touted, “There are some things that money can’t buy.  For everything else, there's MasterCard.”  Unfortunately it seems today that “everything has a price,” given that it’s possible to pay for things as unbelievable as prison cell upgrades and human organs. 

Thanks to the digital age and the desire to make big online impressions, there’s a new unseemly item available for purchase: social media followers.  Yes, web fans are now for sale.

I first encountered this phenomenon on Twitter.  As I began to use the platform more, I noticed that my followers numbered far fewer than those of several other Twitter users who recently followed me.  Now, I’m not talking about people like Katy Perry and Justin Bieber, whose followers number over 73 million and 65 million, respectively.  It’s understandable why these global celebrities would have more followers than the populations of the United Kingdom, Italy, and the vast majority of the world’s other countries, even though I’m not one of their followers.

No, the individuals I’m talking about just seemed like ordinary people, certainly not like anyone who could draw a following of tens or hundreds of thousands.  Then I started to notice that some of the people who started to follow me had similar ads in their header photos, like the one shown above, for instance:

- 5,000 Followers,  $29

- 10,000 Followers, $39

- 50,000 Followers, $119

Surprised by these offers, I did some searching on the web and found other options that were even more startling.  For example, the website buyfansmedia.com promises to “help your business get all the ‘Fans’ and ‘Followers’ it needs.”  More specifically, it explains the reason why one should buy Facebook Likes:

“In this crowded and competitive online marketplace, you simply cannot afford to not have a high number of Likes on your Facebook page.  You will come off as unpopular, and visitors will potentially find your page unworthy of their attention and – by extension – unworthy of their business!  The obvious problem here is that it can take months of promotion on Facebook to garner even a handful of Likes . . . That is why many people – especially those who understand the impact of Likes – will buy Facebook Likes.”

Buy Fans Media charges a “cheap” $14 for 500 worldwide Likes and goes up to $1,325 for 20,000 U.S. Likes.  The company claims that the process is safe and says for some of the packages that there are “no bots or fake accounts.” 

Jaqueline Simard, Key Accounts Supervisor for BLASTmedia, however, warns against “Buying Your Friends.”  She argues that purchasing followers is unwise because:

  • An organization’s number of followers will spike in one month, but decline in subsequent months.
  • The web increasingly recognizes and rewards sites that have real, engaged followers, not high numbers of fake ones.
  • Firms receive skewed and misleading audience insight.
  • An organization’s brand will take a hit if it’s discovered to have purchased followers. 

These are all good, practical reasons for not buying followers or Likes, but they miss the most important motive: a purchased social media presence is unethical.  Here are two reasons why:

It’s Deceptive:  Just as Buy Fans Media suggested, people draw conclusions about individuals and organizations based on their social media following.  For instance, when we see many Facebook Likes for a restaurant, we assume that it’s very popular, has great food, etc.  However, purchased Likes hold no such meaning.  Even if the people related to those Likes really exist (i.e., they’re not fake email accounts), they’ve probably never been to the restaurant, so the endorsements are meaningless.  We’re being deceived.

It’s Unjust:  Justice suggests that people's outcomes should be proportional to their inputs: they should reap what they sow.  When organizations purchase Twitter followers, for instance, they receive returns (e.g., notoriety, brand equity) that are disproportionate to the effort they put in: a firm doesn’t deserve to have 10,000 Twitter followers because it forked out forty dollars.  Such a payout is unjust.

The buying and selling of social media followers compromises at least two societal values (honesty and justice), maybe more.  Given the ploy that they are, it’s also doubtful that these practices create long-term stakeholder value—eventually people will see around the façade.  So, there’s little question that the sale of social media followers represents “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!
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