Blog Archives

Three Years of Mindful Marketing

9/30/2017

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

After a TV show has been on-air for a while, the producers pull some of the best clips and create one of those retrospective episodes. Three years might not be a long time for television, but it’s a pretty significant stretch for a weekly blog about marketing ethics. So, after over 150 posts, it’s time to reflect and, most importantly, ask for your input into Mindful Marketing.

Live Q & A would be a great approach for this retrospective, but since I can’t take call-in questions, I’ll try to anticipate what’s on people’s minds. By the way, if you would like to offer feedback and are pressed for time, here’s a link to a brief survey, which I’ll share again at the end:
MindfulMarketingSurvey2017

Q1: When and why did you develop Mindful Marketing?
A1: After nearly 25 years working in marketing-related positions in business and in higher education, I felt compelled to do something more to encourage ethical behavior in the field. At its core, marketing is morally sound. Its aim to bring about mutually beneficial exchanges (win-win outcomes) is truly honorable. Unfortunately, though, some so-called marketers abandon those central tenets, hurting consumers and tarnishing the discipline. I want to change that behavior and restore a reputation of respect.

I developed the Mindful Marketing concept and related branding (logos, website, etc.) a little over three years ago, during the summer of 2014. The core of Mindful Marketing has been the Mindful Matrix, which visually captures the movement’s central concept: that good marketing is both effective and ethical. Although this model is admittedly simple, it took some time to develop each of the categories. Special thanks in that process to my wife Lili and to Nick Shulgach, who continues to be a great sounding-board and source of Mindful Marketing ideas.

Q2: When did the blog begin?
A2: The first Mindful Matters blog post came on September 27, 2014: "CVS Quits Smoking," which determined the retail chain’s decision to drop tobacco products from its stores was “Mindful Marketing.” I had never blogged before but thought such a social media presence could be a good way of spreading the Mindful Marketing concept.

Q3: Where do you get ideas for the blog?
A3:   I love news, especially business/marketing news. Whenever I hear a story that I think has potential, I add it to a growing list. I also regularly receive suggestions from friends, family, colleagues, etc. Some of the people who have made recommendations that I’ve used, with links to the respective posts, include: Alan Adler, Randy Basinger, Michael Boyles, Allison Grindle, Daniel Hagenbuch, Leah Hagenbuch, Vince LaFrance, Keith Quesenberry, and Dwayne Safer.

I’ve also appreciated having a couple experts write about their ideas. Both Laureen Mgrdichian and Keith Quesenberry have composed several great guest posts, for instance: Birthday Cheer or Profiteer? and Sex in Advertising: Touchdown or Fumble?

Q4: Have you missed any posts over the last three years?
A4: No! Thanks to an unending supply of ideas and several guest posts, there’s been an entry every week. That’s 158 posts, including this one, about topics ranging from diversity in advertising, to slackfill in product packing, to RFID chips in employees.

In terms of the Mindful Matrix categories, here’s how those evaluations have played out:
    60 - Mindful
    50 - Single-Minded
    11 - Simple-Minded
37 - Mindless

Q5: Do you have a favorite post?
A5: Of course, I like them all! One that I’ll always remember, though, I wrote on October 24, 2015, titled “Fantasy Sports Ads Mislead and Violate the FTC.” The online news magazine Quartz ran a version of the post on its site. Later, I received a phone call from a reporter for the Boston Globe, who interviewed me for an article he then wrote on fantasy sports ads. Someone from FTC Watch also spoke with me. If you’ve seen any fantasy sports ads lately, you’ll notice they’re no longer emphasizing atypical results. Maybe that blog post had an impact.

When writing each post, I also try to come up with a catchy title and an interesting picture. One of my favorite titles and pictures was for a piece I wrote about Animal Planet’s new TV program “My Fat Pet,” which is about the ‘trials’ of pet owners whose animals are overweight. I titled my post “My Pooch is Too Plump” and photo shopped french fries in front a picture of a rotund beagle. Well, it still makes me laugh.

Q6: Who is Mindful Marketing reaching and what is its impact?
A6: Two key target markets for Mindful Marketing are marketing students and practitioners. Hopefully students will embrace the idea that all marketing should be both effective and ethical, then carry that belief with them into their careers, which will eventually lead to positive change for the discipline.

Another important target market is ‘people who care,’ i.e., others who realize the nearly unparalleled influence marketing has on our world and want to see that impact be more consistently constructive.

I use the Mindful Marketing concept (Matrix) in classes almost every day. Other faculty across the country and abroad also use Mindful Marketing with their students to varying degrees, such as Vahagn Asatryan, Laurie Busuttil, Geoff Lantos, Laureen Mgrdichian, Keith Quesenberry, and Mike Wiese.

In addition, I’ve had the opportunity to share the concept with other audiences ranging from elementary school students to Ph.D.s. It’s amazing how quickly people pick-up the paradigm and start to apply it: “That’s Single-Minded,” “That’s Mindless,” etc.

By the way, Mindful Marketing isn’t about agreeing on the ‘right’ answer; it’s about giving people a common framework for discussing important moral issues and encouraging ethics conversations that otherwise won't occur.

Every week, hundreds of people read the Mindful Matters blog through posts in social media like Twitter and LinkedIn, and MindfulMarketing.org gets thousands of page views each week from people around the world. In addition, Mindful Marketing periodically receives other publicity, such as a presentation at the American Marketing Association’s Marketing & Public Policy Conference and opinion articles:
- What Super Bowl ads can teach entrepreneurs about marketing
- Here's what Super Bowl advertisers need to do to win the big game

What’s most motivating is the positive feedback users often offer, such as one student who said:

“I love how accessible and interesting it was. It made all of the concepts in class much easier to relate to, as it showed a real-life application of those concepts. I also liked having a simple model to work from; I will definitely be thinking of the matrix in the future whenever I see ads!”

Q7: What does the future hold for Mindful Marketing?
A7: The big audacious vision for Mindful Marketing is that the paradigm will became part of every marketer’s decision-making: Each time they develop a new strategy or tactic, they will ask if it’s both effective and ethical, in other words, “Is it Mindful Marketing?”

For this vision to take shape, it will mean many more people playing active roles, e.g., using the Mindful Matrix in their classes and businesses, writing articles, and providing leadership in other ways that I haven’t even imagined. That’s a good segue back to the survey and my request . . .

I would love to hear your thoughts about Mindful Marketing, including ideas that might help Mindful Marketing more effectively fulfill its mission and realize the vision I just described. When you're able, please complete the brief survey that’s available through the following link:
MindfulMarketingSurvey2017

Thank you in advance for your input and for sharing the desire to see more “Mindful Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

1 Comment

Employee Upgrade

9/22/2017

13 Comments

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

Many employees have to take work home with them: It’s reality for a great many jobs. One company, however, is eroding the personal/professional boundary even more. Wisconsin-based Three Square Market, also called 32M, is asking its employees to take work home “in” them.

32M is the first U.S. company to “chip” its employees. Workers who agree to the anatomical upgrade, have a grain-sized microchip implanted under the skin on the back on their hand, between the index finger and thumb. A CNBC video gives a great visual of the chip and how it’s injected.

Not long after the company had made the chip available, 50 of 80 employees had volunteered for the insertion. Software engineer Sam Bengtson explained his reason for accepting the chip:

“It was pretty much 100 percent yes right from the get-go for me. In the next five to 10 years, this is going to be something that isn’t scoffed at so much, or is more normal. So I like to jump on the bandwagon with these kind of things early, just to say that I have it.”

For employees, the value of the implant is mainly convenience. The RFID-enabled chip allows workers to swipe into buildings, pay for food in cafeterias, and log onto computers, all with the wave of a hand—no need to pull-out ID cards or type in passcodes.

So, what are the benefits of this technology to 32M? The main advantage would seem to be that the technology relates directly to the company’s product. The B2B firm sells self-service micro-markets to other organizations: miniature convenience stores where employees can purchase food and drink without anyone helping them. Although there are other ways for shoppers to “check-out,” an implanted chip may be the way people buy potato chips in the future.

Another reason for 32M chipping its own employees could be that it’s trying to better meet their wants and needs, which is sometimes called “internal marketing.” The basic premise is that a firm needs satisfied employees in order to have satisfied customers because the former serve the latter.

Perhaps there are also some cost savings that will accrue to 32M, either because the technology will prove cheaper over time than existing security systems or because employees will save time, which means money. Beyond these possible reasons, 32M’s motivation becomes even more speculative. CEO Todd Westby claims that the RFID technology will become the standard for using all manner of security-driven devices, but those are the same employee convenience reasons mentioned above.

It’s interesting that of the many news articles written about this story, none that I’ve read talk about specific benefits for 32M. That curious omission makes it even more tempting to imagine unscrupulous reasons why a company might want to chip its employees.

Along those lines, one of the most compelling concerns the chips present is privacy. For instance, will companies be able to track their chip-toting workers wherever they go? The simple answer is “no” because the chips do not have GPS technology.

That fact, however, doesn’t preclude firms from installing RFID readers throughout their own facilities to see how much time people are spending in the breakroom or how often they’re using the bathroom. Dr. Alessandro Acquisti, a professor of information technology and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University echoes this concern: “Once [the chips] are implanted, it’s very hard to predict or stop a future widening of their usage.” Just like marijuana can be a gateway drug to heroin, companies’ use of embedded RFID chips to track employees’ snack purchases could easily lead to all kinds of other monitoring.

Related to privacy is the issue of security. 32M claims that the chip’s data is "encrypted," but that term has a wide range of meaning, similar to “biodegradable.” Dr. Acquisti explains that encrypted is "a pretty vague term . . . which could include anything from a truly secure product to something that is easily hackable." No information is safe if hackers can crack the encryption key, and shorter encryption keys are easier to decipher than longer ones.

Another concern surrounding the chips is safety. Fortunately, implantation is relatively painless—“Just a little prick” and a “brief sting.” Also, the FDA approved the technology about 13 years ago, which is somewhat reassuring. It’s hard, however, to know the long-term impact of a foreign object placed in the body. Thirteen years is not that long a track-record, especially given limited trials.

Furthermore, what happens when a chip goes bad or becomes obsolete and needs to be replaced? Or, what if an employee leaves to work somewhere else that uses its own RFID chip? There’s also the possibility of other organizations, like airlines and athletic clubs, asking us to insert their own chips into us so they too can track our consumption. Pretty soon people become human pin cushions.

For those and other reasons, it’s good that 32M has made the chips optional: “For employees not prepared to implant a chip in their bodies, the company is offering two other options – the same technology, placed in a wristband or a ring.” One has to wonder, though, how much freedom of choice 32M employees actually have.

How would you feel to be one of only a few people in your office wearing a special wristband or ring? What do those very visible accessories say about you in terms of how much you embrace technology, support your company’s new initiatives, and trust your employer? A strong argument can be made that 32M employees don’t truly have informed consent. In other words, although they may have a fairly good idea of how the chips will be used, their desire to stay gainfully employed can compel them to choose something they don’t really want.

Organizations have to be especially careful when marketing to their own employees. Unlike external customers who can freely tell companies what they like and don’t like, employees usually can’t afford to be so frank. Although the RFID chips may produce some benefits for 32M and its people, asking them to put the tracking devices under their skin is not a fair request; rather, it’s “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

13 Comments

Hurricane Heist?

9/15/2017

35 Comments

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

As Hurricane Irma turned toward Florida, an angry consumer shared a screen shot of a 24-pack of 16.9 ounce bottled water that Best Source Office Supplies was selling on Amazon for $99.99. Inflating the prices of necessities ahead of an impending natural disaster is a tactic that most people find deplorable, but not everyone. Of course, companies taking that tack rationalize their actions, but certain others also make a compelling case for such price hikes.

Price gouging is "the practice of raising prices on certain types of goods and services to an unfair level, especially during a state of emergency." Although it’s not uncommon for companies to increase prices on goods and services to levels that consumers think are too high, price gouging is different.

Consumers are price gouged when the item in question is something they must have (e.g., food, water), but the product’s supply is severely restricted, often to a single seller, so consumers have no choice but to pay the exorbitant price. In contrast, although the new iPhone X starts at a staggering $999, Apple is not guilty of price gouging because it’s possible to survive without the newest iPhone.

In the case of Hurricane Irma, certain sellers reportedly gouged consumers for water, ice, food, and fuel. One Orlando Shell station supposedly sold regular grade gas for $5.99/gallon and premium for $6.99. Even Disney got into the act: A Twitter user posted pictures from Disney’s Art of Animation Resort, which offered small bottles of water for $2 and juice boxes for $2.69 each. A Disney spokesperson later said that the situation was an isolated incident that had been rectified.

To document such abuse, Florida’s attorney general Pam Bondi set up a hotline that received over 8,000 calls about price gouging, which violates Florida law and is subject to “civil penalties of $1,000 for each violation, and up to $25,000 for several violations within a 24-hour period.” Beyond the legal penalties, Bondi promised violators personal retribution: “I will be saying your name all over national television and telling people not to go to your business ever again if you’re stealing from Floridians and taking advantage of Floridians in a time of need.”

Despite the fact that certain states have made price gouging illegal and most people consider it immoral, some claim that capping prices actually makes situations, like those surrounding hurricanes, worse. Writing for Forbes, Adam Millsap argues that pricing gouging laws are what empty store shelves, not natural disasters. The best thing, Millsap contends, is to let supply and demand determine prices like they normally do.

Similarly, in a New York Times article, Andrew Ross Sorkin states that “several respected economists from the Milton Friedman school of free-market theory” support the argument against price gouging laws because artificially low prices “remove the incentive for consumers to conserve essential supplies,” and they discourage sellers from increasing stock.

So, maybe Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is the best way to determine supply when natural disasters strike. That belief aligns well with an increasingly popular pricing strategy, dynamic pricing, in which firms like airlines use algorithms to quickly increase prices to whatever level the market will bear. Unfortunately, such approaches also tend to have some very undesirable side effects.

For one thing, higher prices naturally favor the wealthy. That advantage is understandable under normal circumstances: People with more money should be able to buy higher-priced items. In the case of natural disasters, however, it doesn’t seem right to price anyone out of the market for food, water, or other basic survival needs.

Also, there’s no reason retailers can’t impose limits on how much or how many of an item customers can buy. Stores successfully ration items all the time. For instance, a grocery store runs a sale on granola and dictates: “Limit, two boxes per customer.” Likewise, arguments against price gouging laws don’t give people much credit. When asked to conserve, most individuals will limit their consumption for the sake of others.

In addition, the notion that businesses should maximize profits at their customers’ expense is both antiquated and short-sighted. Sure, people may have no choice but to pay ridiculously high prices when they’re put between a rock and a hard place, but they won’t soon forget what it felt like to be treated as a means to an end. Firms that price gouge run a great risk of alienating consumers and ruining their reputations.

On the other hand, companies that show restraint and price “to create shared value,” generate considerable goodwill, especially in the face of a natural disaster. A few firms that bolstered their brands by taking this more enlightened and socially responsible approach when Irma struck were JetBlue, Airbnb, AT&T Wireless, and Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe.

It’s hard for most people to know how they will react in the face of life-threatening natural disasters like hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Businesses, however, should know not to take advantage of people in such vulnerable states. Companies that do are guilty of various offenses, and one of them is “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!

35 Comments

Tinder-garten

9/9/2017

15 Comments

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

It’s great to watch kids grow and mature, for instance, as they take their first steps, attend their first day of school . . . have their first hook up?! Most parents don’t want to imagine that last experience, especially if their children are still young; yet, some companies are making meeting apps that many are calling “Tinder for Teens.”

If you’re not familiar with Tinder, that’s not a bad thing. It’s one of the seemingly hundreds of dating apps that have hit the market over the past few years, helping people find significant others. However, there are big differences between Tinder and some of the more traditional dating sites.

For instance, eHarmony users answer a lengthy set of probing questions, aimed at finding one’s true soulmate, which takes over an hour. The cost for one month is $49.95. A Tinder profile, on the other hand, is free at the basic level and takes only a few minutes to setup: “You simply download the app to your smart phone, link to your Facebook account, choose up to six photos of yourself, and write a brief bio. That’s it!”

The use of Tinder is equally easy, and as many would say, pretty superficial. Even though bios are available “it’s all about the photos.” Users review others’ pics, and if they see someone they like, they swipe right, while everyone unattractive gets swept left. If two people swipe right on each other, the app invites them to start chatting.

This quick and easy vetting reflects the way many users regard the people they meet through the platform, i.e., users turn to Tinder to find candidates for casual sex, i.e., one-night stands, i.e., “hook ups.”

Sexual intimacy without commitment tends to end badly for people of any age. It’s especially abhorrent to encourage lascivious behavior among adolescents, who are even less cognizant of the consequences of their actions. Some teen-targeting apps are doing just that, however. What’s more, there can be other consequences for these young people that are even worse than those of casual sex with their peers.

Probably the most popular friend/dating app for teens is Spotafriend, which describes itself as “the hottest teen swiping app for meeting new friends.” The company’s website goes on to claim that it is “not a teen dating app, it’s a new way to make friends.” However, that self-assessment is quickly questioned as Spotafriend’s own LinkedIn site says: “Meet teens near you with Spotafriend, the Tinder alternative for people ages 13-19.”

But, maybe Spotafriend’s comparison to Tinder is just puffery; or perhaps it’s only referencing the more demure uses of the adult app. It’s hard to make those interpretations, however, after reading one of the featured posts on Spotafriend’s blogsite titled “5 Major Hook-Up Ground Rules.” Here are a few excerpts from the article:

“Hookups in high school and college are exciting, and can be your first real meeting with the issues of love and sex, issues that most of us don’t really understand in our teenage years.”

“If you’re just kissing, or going all the way, make sure both participants are comfortable and willing to continue with the interaction.”

“Do Whatever Makes You Comfortable”

“Many acts that people consider “hooking up” carry the risk of infectious diseases being spread from person to person.”

Unfortunately, the possibility of reckless sex with someone the same age is not the only serious risk to teens using Spotafriend. Given that the app’s parameters are “for people age 13 to 19,” there’s built-in potential for 18 or 19-year-old men, legally adults, to interact with 13-year-old girls. What’s even worse is the ease with which even older adults can access the app and join the mix.

Lisa Schmidt, a 42-year-old dating coach and matchmaker, was curiously concerned about the rise of dating apps for teens, so she decided to check-out Spotafriend. In her guest blog post on Global Dating Insights, she recounts how easy it was for her to access the app and pose as a 15-year-old girl. It was even easier for her to change her birthday once inside.

As Schmidt’s experience suggests and leading child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg confirms, apps like Spotafriend are “‘on-line playgrounds’ for paedophiles.” Carr-Gregg adds, “All it would take is a smooth-talking paedophile to send some silky little messages to these kids and away we go.” The fact that such apps are location-based and work seamlessly with messaging apps like Snapchat makes teens all-the-more vulnerable to predators.

It’s great when people use social media to build friendships. Spotafriend’s name and promotion, however, are misleading. The app’s real aim appears to be more about helping teens “hook up,” while providing few safeguards against sexual predators. Unfortunately, many innocent young people fall victim to the appeal, making Spotafriend an example of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

15 Comments

Should Donations Be Discreet?

9/2/2017

16 Comments

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

We’ve seen the havoc that Hurricane Harvey has wreaked around the Gulf. We’ve also witnessed an outpouring of physical and financial support for those in need. Such altruism makes me ask: Is it right to recognize those who give, or should such benevolence be anonymous?

Although I’ve considered this question before, the issue struck me more squarely than ever when I received an email a few days ago from the American Marketing Association (AMA). Like several other organizations, the AMA sent a message to its constituents, encouraging them to contribute to the relief effort, in other words, marketing giving.

The email contained a link to an American Red Cross/AMA fundraiser page, powered by Crowdrise. On the right side of the page was a box, listing the amount of money raised--$5,095 at last check. Also in the box was a scrolling list of names and dollar amounts, showing who’s given and how much, for instance:
     Andrew Smith         $50
     Erika Alexander      $10
     Anonymous             $50
     Yanliu Huang         $100
     Gunisha Samir       $50

I never saw anything quite like this revolving list of donors, which made me think: Should I be recognized for my giving?

Of course, Crowdrise didn’t invent the idea of donor recognition. There are plenty of other examples, ranging from acknowledgment pages in high school yearbooks to the names of buildings on college campuses. What’s different with Crowdrise, however, is the unique and unconventional appeal, bluntly stated below the company’s logo: “If You Don’t Give Back No One Will Like You.”

Now, I’m really questioning my motives: Do I give to others because I want to help them, or because I’d like other people to acknowledge and appreciate me. This reflection is personal, but companies wrestle with similar questions, which affects how they handle their giving.

For instance, Houston Texan defensive end J.J. Watt has effectively used his celebrity to raise over $15 million for victims of Hurricane Harvey. Given that more than 152,000 people have contributed to Watt’s fund on YouCaring.com, gifts must be coming in all sizes. Probably the largest contribution has come from retail giant Walmart, which cut a check for $1 million. However, Walmart didn’t make its donation discreetly through Watt’s website. Instead, the company handed a massive 3 ft. x 7 ft. presentation check to Ellen DeGeneres while she spoke with Watt during a taping of her talk show.

Was Walmart wrong to promote its philanthropy on national TV? Probably not. For one thing, the visibility of this very significant gift will likely raise awareness of the need for hurricane relief and encourage others, especially large corporations, to contribute. In addition, given that Walmart is a publicly-traded company, its management is accountable to shareholders, which means announcing material transactions and building goodwill for the firm, which publicizing charitable giving tends to do.

So, should you and I hand an oversized presentation check for our next $100 donation? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to be recognized. At least one of the reasons mentioned above for Walmart can apply to individuals: When others see that we give, they may be inspired to do the same.

There are, however, a few important things to consider, whether it’s an individual or a corporation building its brand. As suggested above, any publicity should be in keeping with the size of the gift. Also, motivation matters. No person or company should give simply because they want recognition. That doesn’t mean forgoing any acknowledgment, but it does mean that recognition should not be the driving force, or the primary motive.

It’s fine to have multiple reasons for doing things. Life is complicated, and our motivations must reflect that complexity. However, as a society we’ve gone askew if we allow promotion to overtake compassion. We need organizations and individuals who genuinely care about others and who are willing to help even if no one else knows they did.

So, while Crowdrise’s tagline, “If You Don’t Give Back No One Will Like You,” is unseemly, there’s not necessarily anything wrong with receiving recognition for giving. In fact, appropriate recognition can be helpful for all involved. Giving for the right reasons, anonymously or with one’s name attached, is always “Mindful Marketing.”

P.S. Helping those impacted by Hurricane Harvey is much more important than a blog about marketing ethics. If you’re thinking of giving, here’s a great list of organizations that can put your donation to good use.

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

16 Comments

Three Years of Mindful Marketing

Employee Upgrade

Hurricane Heist?

Tinder-garten

Should Donations Be Discreet?

Editor

Archives

Categories