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

Buy BRADY, But Don't Be Like Brady

9/24/2022

4 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

Tom Brady is one of few professional athletes who transcend their field.  While many football players and fans revere him, even those who pay little attention to sports know his name.  In a new video ad, Brady surprisingly suggests that aspiring athletes shouldn’t aim to be like him.  That advice sounds self-effacing, but how does it fit with other messaging surrounding Brady’s brand?
 
Sports analysts love to debate who’s the GOAT—greatest of all time.  When talking football, it’s easy to make a case that it’s Tom Brady.  No one has come close to his seven Super Bowl wins in what might be the most challenging position in all of sports, NFL quarterback.  He’s also the all-time leader in passing yards, completions, and touchdowns.  Then there’s his incredible longevity—still going strong at age 45.
 
It’s not surprising that Brady, like other top-tier athletes, has also been a prolific product endorser.  He’s promoted brands that include, but aren’t limited to, Beautyrest, Disney, Snickers, UGG, and Visa.  Most Brady ads garner little extra exposure, but his most recent commercial for Under Armour has captured added attention.
 
The ad includes another legend, actor Morgan Freeman, who reads a letter that Brady has purportedly penned to a hypothetical football prodigy who some are calling “The Next Tom Brady.”  Brady says to reject any such associations and instead to “compare yourself to nobody but the kid in the mirror.”
 
One can imagine at least a couple reasons why the GOAT might give that advice:  1) He genuinely wants young players to chart their own unique course and not be saddled with expectations to be someone they’re not; or, more cynically, 2) He doesn’t want anyone matching or exceeding his accomplishments, thus dimming the light of his star.
 
Each of these motivations is possible, but given that the celebrity friendship and letter are almost certainly contrived, the most plausible motive is the one that drives virtually every commercial — selling product.
 
Both Brady and Under Armour want people to buy the brand’s athletic equipment and apparel.  It’s been their common cause for more than a decade and a partnership that has rewarded Brady handsomely: in the ballpark of $10 million to $15 million a year.
 
In fact, one might even say that NFL quarterback is Brady’s side-hustle and product endorser is his day job, at least in terms of income.  In 2021-2022, Brady’s compensation from quarterbacking was $31.9 million while his endorsement earnings totaled $52 million.
 
To his credit, Brady has positioned himself well for life after football, as an endorser and in other ways.  His ever-expanding business portfolio includes such ventures are TB12, 199 Productions, and Autograph.  There’s also his namesake BRADY brand, which takes us back to the central question of this piece:
 
Does the living legend really want aspiring athletes to avoid comparisons to him?
 
BRADY, which calls itself “The Next Generation Apparel Brand,” seems intent on living up to that label.  From the website’s photos, the brand appears to be targeting young male athletes.

​
Picture

The brand features a wide variety of athletic apparel from underwear and socks, to t-shirts and sweatshirts, to complete training, golf, and lifestyle collections.  The common component on each article is the BRADY trademark, embroidered on the front panel of hats, heat-pressed on the left shoulder of training Ts, and silkscreened in 4” high letters across the chest of sweatshirts and hoodies.
 
Therein lies the advertising irony.  Through Under Armour's commercial and the BRADY brand, Tom Brady passes mixed messages to young athletes, telling them:
 
“Don’t let anyone compare you to me, but please wear my name across your chest.”
 
Just as basketball players who sport #23 on their jerseys encourage comparisons to another GOAT, Michael Jordan, any high school or college quarterback who wears BRADY emblazoned on his football training shirts invites comparisons to Tom.
 
These associations aren’t unique to athletics; they occur most times famous people put their names on products.  Virtually every celebrity endorsement benefits from such classical conditioning as the admiration that people have for the celebrity transfers onto the product they’re promoting.
 
Whether it’s verbalized or not, the celebrity in the ad suggests, “I use this product, so you should buy it and be like me.”  The consumers' emulation can extend to other products the celebrity endorses as well as to other 
attitudes and actions.
 
When I was growing up, some young basketball players wore white and red Converse sneakers, #6 jerseys, and patterned their game after Dr. J, while others wore similar shoes with green trim, #33, and imitated Larry Bird.  Aspiring athletes have likely been doing the same for more than a century.  So, it’s no stretch to suggest that many young football players who wear the BRADY brand emulate #12 and welcome comparisons to him.
 
It's fine for Tom Brady and other famous athletes to serve as spokespeople for products they genuinely believe in and that benefit those who follow in their footsteps.  However, telling young athletes to buy their branded merchandise but not be like them is disingenuous and a trick play that should be flagged for “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
4 Comments

Should Employees' Looks Matter?

9/10/2022

27 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 
​

Despite her aging appearance, Queen Elizabeth II kept her job for an unprecedented 70 years!  A Canadian news anchor who let her locks go grey wasn’t as fortunate.  Her seemingly heartless dismissal has aroused widespread empathy, including from some of the world’s leading companies, sounding an alarm against ageism.  However, in an era when brand-building is of utmost importance, shouldn’t companies have a say in the looks of those they pay to be the faces of their firms?
 
Before she was “blindsided” by her abrupt termination, fifty-eight-year-old Lisa LaFlamme was “the face of the most-watched nightly news show on Canadian television.”  Her 34-years of industry experience combined with a keen intellect and engaging communication style made her the Canadian equivalent of Katie Couric or Barbara Walters.
 
However, those talents and experience didn’t stop Bell Media from firing LaFlamme from CTV News.  Mirko Bibic, the president and CEO of BCE and Bell Canada, denied that hair color had anything to do with LaFlamme’s release, but LaFlamme’s stunned reaction along with CTV News head Michael Melling’s question of who approved the decision to “let Lisa’s hair go grey,” suggest that hair color was at least part of the reason.
 
Known for speaking out on body image-related issues, Dove, subsidiary of the Dutch conglomerate Unilever, shared its opinion of the incident:  Just a week after LaFlamme’s release, Dove Canada unfurled a #KeepTheGrey social media campaign that included the greying of its iconic logo across social channels “to show support for older women and women with grey hair who may face undue workplace discrimination.”
 
Fast food chain Wendy’s also took up the mantle, temporarily turning grey the red pigtails of its namesake logo.
 
It’s nice that brands like Dove and Wendy’s care enough to stand against apparent ageism—an often-overlooked issue, especially in societies that tend to glorify youth.  But, what about the companies paying, in some cases very significant sums, to people to represent them and, in some cases, to be the faces of their franchises?  Shouldn’t these organizations have a say in how their employees look?
 
When thinking of organizations that dictate their agents’ appearances, one of the first that comes to mind is Disney.  At its theme parks, the company carefully curates a wholesome, family-friendly image that stems in large part from the looks and actions of its staff.  Personal branding that’s edgy and provocative may have its place in other firms but not at Disney.
 
Picture

Is it legal for Disney to be so prescriptive with its employees’ looks?  Yes, since “no federal law bans employment decisions based on appearance in general.”  However, employers must ensure that their looks-related rules don’t intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against people because of their race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.
 
Even then, though, there are legally acceptable exceptions if a case can be made that a specific personal trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).  For instance, a film studio can exclude adults from auditioning for children’s roles, and a synagogue can stipulate that rabbi candidates must be Jewish.
 
As in these examples, for a BFOQ argument to be successful, the required personal characteristic must be essential to job performance.  If it is, the discrimination is likely legal.
 
Of course, just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral, but legislation related to employee looks does do a pretty good job of supporting values of decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility.  For instance, if a certain personal characteristic is critical to job performance, it wouldn’t be fair to those hired or to those who rely on their work (coworkers, customers, shareholders) to disregard the criterion. 
 
To determine what’s fair, honest, etc., organizations should consider three questions:
 
1.  Are the firm’s performance assumptions accurate?  A company hiring for a web development position might assume that only those 30 years old or younger have the skills and understanding needed to do the work effectively.  It could be, though, that the best candidate is a 60-year-old who has many years of industry experience and has kept themself on the cutting edge of their field.
 
Similarly, corporations fail when they misinterpret what consumers really want.  First, it’s important to emphasize that companies are under no legal or moral mandate to cater to customers’ discriminatory and irrational tastes, like only wanting a Caucasian waiter. 
 
Firms sometimes wrongly assume how customers expect employees to look.  Disney recently walked back its longstanding policy of no visible tattoos and now permits employees to display “appropriate” ones — an implied admission that it had fallen out of touch with what its customers viewed as family-friendly physical appearance.
 
2. Are their double standards?  Even as America aspires for equality, there are sometimes conflicting norms for different people-groups, e.g., women vs. men, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, Black people vs. white people.
 
LaFlamme’s termination is a case-in-point.  If she were a man, would it have mattered that her hair was gray?  Men may face some stigma for coloring their hair, but when they go grey, they’re often described as looking mature, sophisticated, and wise.
 
Women with the same hair color enjoy few such positive associations; rather, like LaFlamme, they’re more likely to be the victims of age discrimination: “Because of ‘lookism,’ women face ageism earlier than their male counterparts.”
 
3. Can the firm help precipitate social change?  Given that cultural values and norms are much bigger than any one organization, it’s understandable that companies often believe there’s little they can do to have a social impact, particularly with an issue as far-reaching as people’s appearances.
 
However, even small businesses can help move the needle on such perceptions with their affirming employment practices (e.g., hiring and retaining older workers), as well as by voicing their disapproval if/when their customers discriminate.  Global brands like Dove and Wendy’s can have an even greater impact by virtue of their scale and scope.
 
In the end, the workplace should be a two-way street:
  • Employees should appreciate that they’re agents of the organizations for which they work and as such, need to respect reasonable appearance-related requirements, for their own benefit, as well as those of their coworkers and the organization on whole.
  • Organizations should treat their employees with respect and try to truly understand what appearance characteristics are critical to job performance and which are not, while also refusing to cater to customers whose tastes are discriminatory.
 
There could be a case in which a certain hair color is a BFOQ that a company could legally and morally require.  However, that likely wasn’t true in LaFlamme’s situation.  She could have reported the news just as effectively with grey hair, and although certain viewers may not have liked her look, many others probably appreciated her authentic appearance and would have welcomed the network’s support of her and other older women.
 
“Queen of England” shouldn’t be the only occupation accepting of grey hair.  Looks matter to individuals and organizations, but requiring employees to change theirs for less-than-compelling reasons appears to be  “Single-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
27 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