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

NFL Trades Touchdowns for Putdowns

10/31/2015

4 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
In what seems to have become standard procedure, the NFL again finds itself on opposite sides of an important social issue.  On one side of the field the league has assembled a formidable defense against physical and verbal abuse--NFL Characters Unite (NCU).  This roster of 19 past and present NFL greats, including Richard Sherman, J.J. Watt, and Mario Williams, forms the core of a special team tasked to sack bullying.
 
On its website, NCU players and coaches share their own growing-up struggles, like overcoming stuttering and learning disabilities, while supporting today’s young people in surmounting their social stigmas.  The NCU Playbook’s “End Bullying Zone” also diagrams specific plays parents can use to block abuse like looking for specific warning signs.
 
It wouldn’t be NFL football, however, if there wasn’t another team pursing the opposite goal.  No, the league hasn’t officially fielded a team to bolster bullying, but the latest DirecTV ad campaign for NFL Sunday Ticket comes close.
 
Each of the new commercials features a well-known NFL player who appears in the ad both as his cool, DirecTV-watching self and as a cable-constricted alter ego—some socially strange version of the man, made as unappealing as possible.  The cast of contrived characters includes Arts & Crafty Tony Romo, Out-of-Control Beard Andrew Luck, Bad Comedian Eli Manning, Petite Randy Moss, and Really High Voice Payton Manning.  Of course, the NFL Sunday Ticket ads are knock-offs of another celebrated DirecTV campaign that recently featured Rob Lowe and ten of his own alter egos.
 
All of these ads are examples of comparative advertising, the practice of disparaging a competitor’s offering in one’s own ad.  Although somewhat uncommon because of its risky nature, the promotional approach is especially evident around election time when many politicians find it effective to put down their opponents in order to elevate their own campaign stock.
 
As the FTC’s 1979 “Statement of Policy Regarding Comparative Advertising” suggested, truthful comparative advertising can benefit consumers.  Companies often leverage classical conditioning to extend the positive characteristics of people, including celebrities, onto their goods and services.  For example, a 30 second TV spot for Insperity transfers the trustworthiness of renowned sports broadcaster Jim Nance to the lesser-known HR services provider.  Unfortunately, however, it’s become common for companies to use comparative ads to extend the negative qualities of “undesirable” people onto competing brands.
 
This genre of people comparison is not new.  Apple famously analogized actors in its iconic Mac vs. PC ads in which a hip Justin Long epitomized the cool and consistent Mac, while a frumpy John Hodgman personified the unpredictable and pretentious PC.  More recently, a similar-looking ad for HomeAdvisor featured a tall and fashionably dressed blond woman maintaining the merits of the focal brand, while a shorter brunette actress, outfitted in passé apparel, argued futilely for the key competitor: Angie’s List.
 
People comparison commercials like those for DirecTV’s NFL Sunday ticket land laughs, but they also imply a dangerous message: that it’s okay to pick on people because they look and/or act differently.
 
Granted, the DirecTV ads are intended to be over-the-top exaggerations that viewers would not take seriously, but the examples may not be that far flung.  For instance, perhaps no one is as unusual as “Arts & Crafty Tony Romo,” but there are plenty of people who prefer creativity to competition and who don’t deserve to be the object of a cutting caricature.  In fact, those types of caricatures historically have helped to perpetuate negative stereotypes harmful to specific people groups. 
 
At least one of DirecTV’s demeaning ads isn’t hyperbole at all.  In his 14-year career as an NFL receiver, Randy Moss benefited from his 6’ 4” stature.  Given that the average height for American men is 5’ 9 ½”, there are also many men who are much shorter than the mean, some of whom struggle with insecurity about their height.
 
Philadelphia Eagles running back Darren Sproles, who stands about 5’ 6”, has been one of the league’s most exciting players for a decade.  He also is part of the NFL Characters Unite team, tasked with stopping shaming.  One might wonder how the smaller-than-average Sproles feels about NFL Sunday Ticket’s parody “Petite Randy Moss” whose feet can’t touch the coffee table and whose arms can’t reach the higher shelves in the grocery store.
 
The NFL once again finds itself in a formation of contradiction.  On one side of the line NCU players battle bullying.  On the other side top NFL talent endorses derision of people who are different.  It seems like there could be a more sensitive and effective way for DirecTV to promote NFL Sunday Ticket, perhaps, for instance, by actually showing football!  Although these ads may be memorable, it’s unlikely that they really persuade people about DirecTV, or create long-term stakeholder value.
 
On the other hand, the commercials do succeed in encouraging derision of those who are different, which certainly is not a desirable societal value.  Perhaps if advertising focuses more on comparing products and not people, we’ll sooner abandon such “Mindless Marketing” and arrive at a place where it isn’t acceptable to putdown people, period.


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!
4 Comments

Fantasy Sports Ads Mislead and Violate FTC

10/24/2015

39 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Thanks to the ubiquitous ads of Draft Kings and FanDuel almost everyone knows that you don’t need to be a professional athlete or coach to enjoy firsthand the thrill of elite sports competition.  This increasingly popular past-time has also garnered great media attention, however, as many are asking whether fantasy sports equal gambling.

While the gambling question is a very good one, overlooked is another important issue involving many fantasy sports ads: The commercials often convey atypical results that make the promotion illegal as well as unethical.

If you’re new to fantasy sports, here are the basics:  You choose, or “draft,” players from a professional sports league like the NFL, NBA, or NHL in order to form your unique fantasy sports team, which competes against other teams in a fantasy sports league.  Your team’s success depends on the real players’ statistical performance in their actual games.  Football players, for instance, typically earn you points for things like yards rushing, yards passing, and touchdowns.

In some fantasy sports leagues those points just translate into victories and bragging rights.  In other leagues, however, real money is wagered and won/lost, giving rise to the gambling issue.  That issue is escalated by the fact that fantasy sports have become a multi-billion dollar industry that continues to grow even as it already engages about 50 million Americans a year.

While the competition in some fantasy sports leagues spans the entire professional sports season such that your team’s ultimate results are not known for many months, other options have evolved to satisfy the need for instant gratification, namely Draft Kings and FanDuel.  These firms offer daily payouts for one-day contests.  Here also is where other important legal/ethical issues arise.

As of October 10, 2015, Draft Kings and FanDuel reportedly spent over $200 million in advertising.  Although the frequency of the ads has annoyed some viewers, the real problem lies in the payouts that many of their ads suggest.  For instance, the following are verbal quotes and visual text from several of their most common commercials:

Draft Kings:
“And best of all, you could win a ship-load of money.”  “Be crowned a fantasy football millionaire.”  

“Pete Jennings won over 2 million bucks playing fantasy sports at DraftKings.com.  He’s off living the high life now . . . “  “You know, you can even play Draft Kings one-day games with your season-long team for even bigger prizes.”   “Being super rich is awesome.”  “Yep, and DraftKings.com makes it possible to get your share of giant cash prizes and huge contests.”  “DraftKings.com—bigger events, bigger winnings, bigger millionaires.”    

“Get to DraftKings.com right now for one-day games that let you win daily, plus huge cash prizes every week and a shot at that juicy multi-million-dollar main event.” 

“That’s the guy that won a million dollars on Draft Kings.”  “Watch your points pile-up and collect your cash.  Welcome to the big time.” 

FanDuel:
FanDuel’s one-week leagues are paying out $2 billion this year--more money to more winners than any other site.”  Wesley M.—Winnings: $9,264; Mike B.—Winnings: $49,893; JP M.—Winnings: $3,725; Scott H.—Winnings: $2,136,431; Bradly C.—Winnings: $349.  “My third week of playing, I won $15,000 off of a $5 entry.”
 
“I’ve deposited a total of $35 dollars on FanDuel and won over 2 million.”

“Gil O.—61 wins, $1,297 winnings; Paulo H.—264 wins, $5,427 winnings; Chris P.—3,516 wins; $492,692.    

“Mike Schmalfeldt won $3,500 in a $10 league.”  “On FanDuel I’ve won over $62,000.”

Watching these commercials could easily lead one to conclude two things: 1) that people playing Draft Kings and FanDuel never lose and 2) that those who win typically score thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of dollars.  Of course, after briefly thinking through the business model, it’s also easy to establish that neither of these promotional posits could be true: The only way firms can be paying out big winnings to even a few participants is if many more people are losing loads of cash.   

The silliness of the suggestion that everybody wins big hasn’t been lost on some creative copywriters who have posted comical FanDuel commercial parodies like this one on YouTube.  It’s also telling that the NCAA has recently decided to ban Draft Kings and FanDuel ads during NCAA championship events, including the NCAA women’s and men's basketball tournaments.

What’s surprising is that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has yet to crack down on these ads.  For many years weight loss ads and others had benefited by describing just the best scenarios of their most outstanding consumers.  The advertisers would then protect themselves legally by adding a disclaimer to the ad “Results Not Typical.”  In 2009, the FTC targeted this practice with a new mandate:

“Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor."
 
Somehow Draft Kings’ and FanDuel’s advertising has been allowed to side-step this very specific FTC ruling.  By highlighting only their best client outcomes with no clear recognition of the much more typical consequences (monetary losses), these fantasy sports leagues violate both pre- and post-2009 advertising law.  Beyond the legality, however, it’s also easy to imagine how such deceptive promotion might mislead people to think that they’ll be the next big winner, even though the odds are invariably against them.

Given the unusually high frequency of these ads, as well as the rapid growth of fantasy sports, it’s very likely that Draft Kings’ and FanDuel’s commercials are effective marketing that’s creating stakeholder value for those firms and many others.  The promotion’s deceptive content, however, compromises a very important societal value: honesty.  As a result, the call on the field should be that these fantasy sports ads are “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!
39 Comments

Do Athletes Really Run on Donuts?

10/17/2015

29 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
It’s Saturday, and you’re watching the marquee college football matchup.  State calls a timeout and onto the field comes the equipment crew ready to reenergize the players: “Who wants cream-filled?”  “How about glazed?”

Of course, it would be crazy to see players eating donuts during the middle of a football game.  Is it also crazy to envision them eating donuts off the field, as they condition for their next contest?  Apparently Dunkin Donuts doesn’t think so.

The iconic purveyor of pastries uses creative cobranding campaigns with a variety of well-known sports teams, placing the team’s trademark in tandem with the Dunkin brand mark.  At times the promotion also involves an adaptation of the firm’s famous tagline, “America Runs on Dunkin.”

I noticed this advertising recently when I picked up a box of Dunkin Donuts, which I like but rarely eat.  It was surprising to see on top of the box a very large Penn State Nittany Lion logo that dwarfed the Dunkin Donuts brand mark above it.  Even more intriguing, however, were the words that appeared below the navy and white lion head: “Penn State Athletics.”  Also, on the box’s front lip were four tiny icons and the tagline, “Nittany Lions Run on Dunkin.”
Picture
Every year athletes seem to become stronger, faster, and better at their sports.  A large part of that improvement is likely due to enhancements in technique and training, i.e., the skills the athletes develop and how they prepare for competition.

Top athletes also appear to be taking more seriously than ever what they eat, even as most of us also are increasingly aware that our physical performance is related to what we ingest.  Penn State is one place where people are paying more attention to player nutrition.  For instance, the University recently launched a Nutritional Health Program for Student Athletes, which gives the school’s 31 athletic teams and 850-plus student athletes “access to healthier and sport-specific meals at fueling stations located in athletic facilities throughout campus.”

Like a car, the mileage we get out of our bodies is at least somewhat dependent on the fuel we put in them.  So what should athletes feed their bodies?  As might be expected, there’s a wide variety of specific recommendations.  However, most experts concur on a balanced diet rich in protein, fiber, and the right kinds of carbohydrates.

In contrast, athletes, and basically everyone, should avoid heavy, regular intake of things like sodium nitrate (used to in preserve lunch meats), fried foods (high in fat and calories), and simple carbohydrates, which include “most baked goods” and “basically anything that contains sugar.”

A Dunkin Donuts Toasted Coconut donut, for instance, contains 420 calories, 24 grams of fat, 47 grams of carbohydrates, and 27 grams of sugar, with just 2 grams of fiber and 4 grams of protein.  For a 20-year-old, highly active male weighing 175 lbs., Penn State Hershey Medical Center suggests a daily diet of 3,226 calories, 108 grams of fat, 484 carbohydrates, and 81 grams of protein.  That means one donut represents 13% of recommended daily calories, 22% of the fat, and 10% of the carbs, and just 5% of the protein.

Of course, athletes and others also should stay well-hydrated.  In terms of beverages, the antioxidants in coffee likely have some health benefits, but there are also negative side effects associated with too much caffeine including nervousness, upset stomach, insomnia, rapid heartbeat, and muscle tremors.  In any case, a large Dunkin Donuts French Vanilla Swirl Iced Coffee with Cream contains 350 calories, 12 grams of fat, 56 grams of carbohydrates, and 48 grams of sugar, without any fiber and just 5 grams of protein.  I’ll let you do the math versus the recommended daily allowances.

You can see where this is going.  From a nutritional and performance perspective, it’s very hard to support that any athlete, or individual for that matter, should “Run on Dunkin.”  To say that a person or a machine “runs on” something means that that thing is their fuel, or primary sustenance.  It's probably fine to have a donut or specialty coffee as an occasional indulgence, or a diet “cheat.”  There may even be some psychological benefits to doing so.  It’s another thing altogether, though, to make high-calorie, high-fat foods a dietary staple.  People don’t run effectively or efficiently on that kind of fuel, especially not serious athletes.  To suggest that they do is deceptive and forwarding a very false association.

But, what’s the big deal?  Is anyone really impacted by this “playful promotion”?  Such advertising would be less problematic if it were isolated, but it’s not.  Unfortunately, it’s easy to find examples of top athletes endorsing foods that they obviously don’t regularly eat.  For instance, in a recent interview on ESPN, mixed martial artist Rhonda Rousey described the great dietary control she exercises; however, she shows no such restraint in a TV commercial for Carl’s Jr. in which clips of her obliterating a Cinnamon Swirl French Toast Breakfast Sandwich are interspersed with ones of her destroying opponents. 

Similarly, cameras caught LeBron James in an awkward contradiction when he suggested that one key to performing at a high level while growing older was giving up meals at McDonald’s, which until very recently he has endorsed.  The fast food giant and the King have since parted company.

It’s the aggregation of disingenuous endorsements like these that start to lead people to believe that it doesn’t matter what you eat.  Such impact is particularly troubling when one considers this country’s obesity epidemic and the tremendous influence that athletes have on our children, especially their food choices, as a 2013 study in Pediatrics found.

Dunkin Donuts is likely selling more Chocolate Long Johns and Caramel Iced Coffee thanks to its promotional partnership with Penn State, and the university probably benefits from the advertising exposure.  Likewise, thousands of PSU fans undoubtedly enjoy carrying home donuts with a Penn State Athletics emblem on the box.  To further propagate the myth that elite athletes can eat anything, however, is deceptive and unfair, especially to aspiring and impressionable young athletes.  Consequently, "Nittany Lions Run on Dunkin" represents another 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!
29 Comments

Outrageously Priced Prescription

10/10/2015

19 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Most of us limit what we’ll pay for certain things.  For instance, we might spend up to $20 for lunch, or no more than $100 for a pair of shoes.  It’s relatively easy to cap these kinds of costs because if we don’t like one product’s price, we can shop around and find another option that better fits our budget.  Unfortunately, the same is not true for everything we buy, for instance, prescription medicine.
 
If you regularly take a prescription drug, how much more would you be willing to pay for it?  If the cost goes up by 5 percent, you barely flinch.  If it increases by 10 percent, you’re disappointed, by 25 percent, you’re disturbed, by 50 percent, you’re dejected, and by 100 percent, you’re distraught.  Still, you continue to purchase the medicine because you have no other choice.
 
But, what if the price rose by over 5,000 percent?  You may be thinking that’s impossible, not to mention outrageous.  Unfortunately, however, the scenario is all too real, thanks to the actions of a former hedge-fund manager who some are calling “the most hated man in America."

 
Martin Shkreli is CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, a company he founded in February 2015 that claims to be “dedicated to helping patients, who often have no effective treatment options, by developing and commercializing innovative treatments.”
 
Shkreli’s approach to “helping” has come under intense scrutiny, however, due to one specific business move.  This past August Shkreli raised the price of one of Turing’s drugs, Daraprim, from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill, an increase of 5,455 percent.  Patients use Daraprim “to fight a common parasite that is found in more than 60 million Americans and can be deadly to pregnant women as well as both cancer and AIDS patients.”  In short, Daraprim is a very important drug for people with dire medical conditions.
 
Some pharmaceutical companies have argued that their products’ high prices reflect the considerable cost of research and development.  That rationale doesn’t work in the case of Daraprim, however, since Turing did not develop the drug; it simply bought the rights to market Daraprim from Impax Laboratories.  Turing could get away with such an excessive price increase because although the patent for Daraprim expired in 1953, no other U.S. company is currently making the generic drug pyrimethamine.

 
If R & D costs had long-been recouped by the original manufacturer, why did Turing raise the price of Daraprim so drastically?  “Shkreli initially defended the decision to hike the price of the drug, saying the profits could be reinvested into research to develop new treatments, but later reversed course.”  Similarly, in the face of the social media firestorm that followed the price increase, Shkreli vowed to lower Daraprim’s price, but more than two weeks later there’s still been no reduction.
 
So, Shkreli’s promise of using profits from Daraprim to help individuals suffering from other maladies seems like nothing more than a pretense for the extreme price increase.  Meanwhile, “a monthly course of Daraprim will now cost consumers $75,000.  And even with insurance, patients would have to lay out an enormous co-pay to keep the Toxoplasma parasite from killing them.”
 
Shkreli’s “drug abuse” certainly is a case of unconscionable behavior.  More specifically, it’s an example of consumer exploitation that’s often called price-gouging.  As this post described at the onset, in most circumstances people have the ability to search for the products/prices that best meet their needs.  Sometimes, however, this freedom is severely restricted, for example, because of a natural disaster.  In such cases consumers are often at the mercy of a single supplier who, unrestrained by competitors, has the freedom charge people whatever they are able to pay.  It’s like the car repair scene in National Lampoon’s Vacation:  Clark Griswold asks the mechanic the cost for the emergency fix in the middle of nowhere and the mechanic, with large wrench in hand, threateningly replies “How much you got?”
 
Raising the price of Daraprim by over 5,000 percent to $750/pill should produce more than abundant profit for Shkreli and Turing Pharmaceuticals, provided that insurance companies absorb much of the excessive cost and that desperate patients mortgage their lives for the remainder.  This stakeholder value, however, is largely asymmetrical, unless one puts a price tag on a life, as Shkreli has purposed to do.  Either way, the depraved pricing strategy shows callous indifference to societal values of fairness and respect.  As such, Shkreli has provided one of the clearest cases 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!
19 Comments

Prankvertising: Fun Taken Too Far?

10/3/2015

15 Comments

 
Picture
by Keith Quesenberry, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Messiah College
Imagine you’re at a job interview, a stressful situation in of itself, when you see something startling in the window behind the interviewer. Falling out of the sky is a giant object covered in smoke and fire. To your dismay, it looks like a huge meteor has hit the ground.  

There’s a giant explosion and debris starts raining down.  You scream and immediately seek cover, cowering on the floor. While crawling towards the door, people rush in with cameras and say, “surprise,” it was just a joke.  The window was really a TV screen and your reaction has just been filmed for an LG ad.

This “so real it’s scary” LG Electronics' video prank has racked up nearly 20 million YouTube views, on top of the nearly 24 million views from a similar video the consumer products producer created the year before. For that prank unsuspecting elevator riders were shocked when the elevator stopped suddenly and the floor, cleverly constructed of LG TVs, made it look like the bottom fell out, leaving a terrifying drop down the elevator shaft.

Pranks that get such genuine, emotionally-charged reactions can make for some very funny videos and draw a great deal of attention, but are they right?  As more and more brands use this technique it’s gained its own name: “Prankvertising.”  Dwayne W. Waite Jr. of the advertising creative recruiter Talent Zoo defines Prankvertising, as advertising that singles out or takes advantage of certain audiences for the sake of advertising its good or service.  In a blog post on the subject he questions whether this type of advertising is creative or exploitive? 

USA Today describes this new form of advertising as a technique for attracting Millennials with an “outrageous form of digital Candid Camera-on-steroids pranks,” the aim of which is “to catch and film folks in the most embarrassing, degrading or — in this case — scary-as-hell situations.” Is Prankvertising “reality TV gone nasty,” or is it a new way to advertise effectively?


In an Adweek article many advertisers say it’s hard to draw direct links between stunts and sales. Most marketers seem to be happy with generating high levels of sharing and online views while saving money over paid media. “From our perspective ... it will more than pay for itself in earned media and ‘share of conversation.’ That, in turn, translates into brand worth, which in turn drives sales,” says Thomas Moradpour, VP, Global Marketing at Carlsberg. 

Carlsberg created a prank where someone calls a friend at 3 a.m., telling them he’s lost $400 in a back-room poker game and needs the money now or he can’t leave. Arriving in a sketchy neighborhood the friend has to get past bouncers to drop off the money. Then the promotion for Carlsberg is revealed as everyone raises a glass to true friendship. The video drew a frightful reaction from unknowing participants, but also 1 million views in its first four days online.

Are these pranks what’s needed to get views these days?  Perhaps Prankvertising is what marketers and their advertising agencies must do to grab attention in an ultra-competitive, extremely cluttered environment.  What if the participants sign a release and say they are fine with the joke?  Does that make it right?  Do the ends justify the means? 

AIDA, a model that suggests how advertising and selling work, proposes that consumers pass through five distinct stages:  Attention must first be captured, followed by Interest, Desire, and finally Action.  The shock of Prankvertising may get views (i.e., attention and interest), but that doesn’t mean it’s generating interest and desire for the product, particularly the final act of purchase. 


Similarly, a study published by the American Psychological Association found that violent and sexual media content may impair advertising’s effectiveness and ultimately deter purchasing.  Ads with violent or sexual content (shock) decreased advertising effectiveness measured by brand memory, brand attitudes, and buying intentions.

In the end these viral videos may garner views, but what's the cost to marketers who are not actually increasing stakeholder value?  Likewise, what's the impact on societal values and the people who are the brunt of the jokes?  If this "Mindless Marketing" continues, to what extremes will promotional pranks eventually go?

 
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!
15 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