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

Targeting Teens for E-Cigarettes

11/30/2018

37 Comments

 
Picture

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

Remember when teenagers would rush from high school so they could light a cigarette?  Some would even try to sneak a smoke in the bathroom between classes.  Those days are now back with a 21st century twist.  Like many other things, cigarettes have gone high-tech, which makes them more appealing to minors, but has the biggest e-cigarette maker intentionally targeted teens? 
 
During a recent marketing class, our discussion turned to e-cigarettes and one student, who was just a year or two removed from her own secondary education, mentioned that e-cigarette use is rampant in high school.  I didn’t realize that lighting up electronically had become such an obsession for adolescents.  A little online research, however, quickly supported the student’s claim.
 
According to the National Institute on Drug abuse, 16.2% of 12th graders used e-cigarettes in the past month, with the rate among boys being twice that of girls.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reported that more than 2 million middle schoolers and high schoolers regularly used e-cigarettes in 2017, making e-cigarettes “the most commonly used form of tobacco among youth in the United States.”
 
Some describe an “epidemic” of e-cigarette use among adolescents.  In fact, certain high schools, like Plainedge High School in New York, have installed special chemical detectors in bathrooms to sense changes in the air and notify administrators when students are “vaping.”  All of this is happening despite the fact that FDA regulations prohibit minors from buying e-cigarettes in stores and online.
 
For those who find a way to purchase e-cigarettes, there are plenty of choices--over 460 different brands are competing for consumers.  However, the biggest brand by far is Juul, which has about 72% of the market.  Juul Labs, soared past $1 billion in sales after just its third year in business.
 
As might be expected, Juul has drawn special scrutiny when it comes to young people’s use of e-cigarettes.  This past September, the FDA warned Juul and four smaller competitors (Vuse, MarkTen, blu, and Logic) that they had “60 days to convince the agency that they have adequate plans to stop kids from vaping with their products.”  If Juul and the others can’t show how they’ll do a better job keeping minors from vaping, they will need to cease selling.
 
When e-cigarettes first hit the market in 2004, there was a sense of optimism:  ‘Here’s a safer way for smokers to satisfy that desire and hopefully kick the habit entirely.’  So, what happened to that prediction, and why are so many teens, most of whom never smoked before, such a significant part of the e-cigarette market?
 
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “e-cigarettes are not an FDA-approved quit aid, and there is no conclusive scientific evidence on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for long-term smoking cessation.”  In fact, for teens, the relationship between e-cigarettes and cigarettes seems to be the opposite.
 
Of teenagers who use e-cigarettes 30.7% start smoking regular cigarettes within 6 months, compared to just 8.1% of those not using e-cigarettes.  Similarly, a study found that “students who had used e-cigarettes by the time they started 9th grade were more likely than others to start smoking cigarettes and other smokable tobacco products within the next year.”
 
Plaintiffs have brought several lawsuits against Juul specifically, alleging that its products’ high levels of nicotine caused the users to become addicted.  Ironically, some of them choose to use JUUL because they thought it would help them quit smoking.

E-cigarettes are addicting because, just like traditional cigarettes, most contain nicotine.  Juul’s products’ have especially high levels of the chemical:  A single JUUL pod contains “as much nicotine as a pack of 20 regular cigarettes.”  In addition, Juul’s particular formulation of nicotine salt  “increases the rate and amount of nicotine delivered into the blood, compared with other formulations.”
 
Nicotine is particularly detrimental for young people because it can impede brain development, which is critical in the teen years.  In addition, adolescents who are exposed to nicotine are at greater risk of future drug addiction.
 
One good thing is that e-cigarettes don’t have as many harmful chemicals as burned cigarettes.  However, e-liquids still contain “at least 60 chemical compounds.”  One study found that the vapor from some e-cigarettes carried toxic chemicals and known carcinogens, while the devices themselves contained “potentially toxic metal nanoparticles.”  Also, unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are susceptible to explosion, given that they are electronic devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid.
 
So, e-cigarettes are dangerous in more ways than one, but did Juul really take any specific steps to target teens?  This is where analysis becomes complicated.  Despite an organization’s sharpest marketing strategies and best intentions, consumer behavior sometimes goes in directions that are very hard to predict.  Take Tide Pods.
 
Perhaps Proctor & Gamble, maker of Tide, could have anticipated the candy-like appeal its colorful, round detergent balls would have to consumers.   However, it’s hard to imagine anyone predicting the viral rise of the ill-advised Tide Pod Challenge in which young people put pods in their mouths, sometimes ingesting them.  P & G certainly did not encourage that behavior.
 
Are e-cigarette sales to teens Juul’s equivalent of the Tide Pod Challenge—an unfortunate, unforeseeable happenstance?  Probably not.  For one thing, young people’s use of e-cigarettes has proven to be much more than a fad.  Moreover, unlike P & G, Juul employed several specific strategies that made its marketing attractive to teens.                                                                
 
For example, Juul used young, attractive models in its ads, who might appeal to anyone but would be especially alluring to image-obsessed teens.  On its website, the company surrounded its product with “luscious-looking images of fruit.”  It also chose youth-friendly flavor names like crème brulee and mango.  In addition, Juul designed its products to be trendy and sleek, like flash drives, which could be accessorized with colorful skins.
 
Despite this circumstantial evidence, there doesn’t appear to be any ‘smoking gun,’ i.e., a Juul executive’s on-the-record admission or a leaked internal document outlining intentional targeting of teenagers.  Does that lack of explicit evidence of clear intent absolve Juul?  It should not, for two main reasons:

First,
marketers at Juul should have realized that their tactics would have significant teen-appeal.  If Juul really wanted to convert seasoned smokers to e-cigarettes, not enlist teens, it would have taken a different approach, like featuring older, former tobacco smokers in its ads.  Interestingly, Juul initially did take that tack, but when it “failed to gain traction on social media and failed to gain sales,” it switched to the more kid-friendly strategy.  Juul has since returned to its original adult approach, but only after considerable external pressure.

Second, Juul knew who was using its products, even though Juul executives have denied knowing how many teens were buying Juuls—a claim that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has called “incredulous.”  Even if Juul somehow didn’t have access to accurate retail sales data, it could have easily seen the multitude of young people posting pictures of themselves using Juul products on social media.  These users even coined a company-specific term to describe their actions: “Juuling.”  That kind of branded verb creation is typical of teens and only tends to happen for the biggest social phenomena, e.g., Photoshop, Google.
 
Regardless whether Juul intended to target teens, its strategies encouraged their action, catching many in an unwitting cycle of addiction, which fits the description of an unfortunate legal/ethical concept:  adverse impact.
 
Pressure from the FDA and the Massachusetts attorney general has compelled Juul to drop most of its kid-friendly tactics, but at this point, it will be difficult to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle.  Juul and other e-cigarette makers who ‘inadvertently’ targeted teens may continue to deny responsibility, but they will always be known for their “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!
37 Comments

Starbuck's Learns Sign Language

11/16/2018

19 Comments

 
Picture

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

If you’ve gone to a really loud concert, gotten a bad ear infection, or had a clogged ear canal, you know a little about hearing loss.  Over five percent of the world’s population has permanent “disabling hearing loss,” yet few organizations consider those consumers’ special needs.  One multinational corporation, however, has embraced this unique group of customers in a way that should make every company listen.
 
A few weeks ago, Starbuck’s opened its first Signing Store in the United States.  Located at 6th and H Street in Washington, D.C., the store first appears to be a typical Starbuck’s, but a closer look reveals a unique coffee house, specially designed for those who are deaf or hard of hearing.
 
For instance, the store features a more open layout and low-glare surfaces in order to facilitate visual communication.  Store employees, 20-25 of whom are themselves deaf or hard of hearing, are fluent in American Sign Language (ASL).  Deaf baristas wear “ASL aprons embroidered by a Deaf supplier,” while those who can hear sport “I Sign” pins.  The store also contains some high-tech advancements to ease ordering, such as “digital notepads and a console with two-way keyboards for back-and-forth typed conversations.”
 
Those adaptations sound nice, but should a global icon do so much to accommodate a relatively small number of people who tend to be scattered throughout the population?  With over 28,000 retail stores, Starbuck’s is by far the “largest coffeehouse company in the world,” as well as the third largest fast food restaurant, behind only McDonald’s and Subway.  The firm employs about 277,000 people and has annual revenues of over $24 billion.  In light of such scale, isn’t it an unnecessary distraction to design and operate a solitary store that’s so specialized?
 
First, it’s important to note that Starbuck’s Signing Store is strategically located near Gallaudet University, “a federally chartered private university for the education of the deaf and hard of hearing.”  Gallaudet enrolls over 1,100 students, and if they are like other college students, which they undoubtedly are, most probably love to drink coffee.  So, Starbuck’s has a ready-made, geographically concentrated target market, within a short walk of its store.
 
A second consideration is that a customized coffee shop is something that’s replicable.  In fact, the Washington, D.C. outlet is Starbuck’s second Signing Store.  The company opened the first one in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2016.  Perhaps there are suitable spots for similar stores in other parts of the U.S. or the world.  In American alone, there are nearly 50 residential schools for the deaf. 
 
Likewise, there may be opportunities to develop customized stores for individuals with other special needs.  For instance, there are nearly 40 schools for the blind in the U.S.  It also may be possible to tailor stores for certain fields of study, e.g., music or visual arts.

Third, Starbuck’s Signing store has produced some very positive PR for the company.  A Google search of “Starbuck’s Signing store” returns over 8 million hits, including many complimentary news pieces in major media like USA TODAY, CBS News, Fortune, and the Washington Post.  The National Association for the Deaf also has praised the company's efforts to educate and enrich the lives of its constituents and many others.
 
Fourth, and perhaps most important, the Signing Store fits squarely within Starbuck’s mission, values, and goals.  The company claims an “ongoing commitment to inclusion, accessibility and diversity,” which is broadly reflected in its mission statement: “To inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time."  More specifically, the first of Starbuck’s four core values encourages “Creating a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome.”  This value is evident in the company’s 2018 goals, which include ongoing global social responsibility that creates “meaningful impact in the communities it serves.”

Although it’s unlikely that customized stores will ever be profitable on the scale of its traditional outlets, Starbuck’s should still be able to leverage the specialized model for meaningful growth.  Moreover, with every store opened to serve disadvantaged people groups, the company builds tremendous community goodwill and gains very positive global publicity.  For all these reasons, Starbuck’s Signing store is an emblem 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!
19 Comments

Killer TV

11/2/2018

25 Comments

 
Picture

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

"In the future everybody will be world-famous for fifteen minutes."  Social media has made Andy Warhol’s words at a 1968 Stockholm art exhibit more prophetic than ever.  Notoriety for all seems nice, until we remember that despicable acts like mass murder also gain fame for those who do them.  Avoiding identification of killers may be impossible, but should television shows capitalize on their criminality? 
 
A week ago, America suffered yet another incident of mass murder.  This time the tragedy took place in Pittsburgh, where a gunman entered the Tree of Life Synagogue and took the lives of 11 people, while also wounding several others.
 
Just a day after the shooting, the killer’s name, which I won’t mention here, was already approaching 30 million hits in a Google search, and detailed background information about him filled articles including ones in the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post.  That’s already much media exposure for a murderer, but his ‘15 minutes of fame’ is just beginning.
 
In the days and weeks to come, many more details of the massacre will surface, and analysts will paint a clearer picture of who the gunman was and what caused him to act.  However, even those news accounts probably won’t end the perpetrator’s publicity.  It’s very likely that the killer will eventually become the focus of at least one made-for-television documentary.
 
Why does such programming seem so certain?  At least three networks now have television series dedicated to detailing the actions and lives of well-known murderers:
  • Netflix’s I am a Killer features death row inmates giving firsthand accounts of their crimes.
  • CNN’s How it Really Happened describes “some of the most notorious crimes, mysteries, trials, and celebrity tragedies of our time.”
  • Oxygen’s It Takes a Killer examines “the world's most notorious murders and takes you inside the minds of the killers.” 
 
In fact, Oxygen has much more than one TV show focused on killers.  Oxygen Media, which is part of NBC-Universal, describes itself as “a multiplatform crime destination brand for women” that is in over 77 million homes.  The network also airs a show called Method of a Serial Killer, and it has a webpage titled “Martinis and Murder.  In other words, whether on TV or online, Oxygen is all crime, all the time.
 
You may be thinking, “Television based on crime, even murder, isn’t anything new.”  That’s true; however, the newer genre of crime TV is different than past TV series.  For instance, writers scripted the crime in classic shows like Columbo, Matlock, and Murder She Wrote, i.e., the programs weren’t based on real murders.  Furthermore, the focus was on solving the crime not on the gruesome act itself or on the life-story of the person who did it.
 
On the other hand, shows like America’s Most Wanted and The Hunt with John Walsh did feature the crimes of real killers, but the reason was to gain the public’s help in finding the fugitives so they could be brought to justice.  These shows gave enough information about the murderers to facilitate their capture; they certainly didn’t glamorize the killers.
 
Of course, it’s unlikely that the creators of I am a Killer or any of the other new shows have an agenda to idolize murderers.  The producers probably just want to satisfy viewer desires, and unfortunately many people have an appetite for information about killers.
 
For instance, just two days after the recent tragedy in Pittsburgh, a Google search of “synagogue shooting” produced 19.9 million hits, while a similar search of “synagogue shooter” yielded 82.7 million—over four times more.
 
So, why not give people what they want?  If TV viewers are fascinated by murderers’ methods and bios, what’s wrong with letting them watch those things?  Actually, when it comes to murder, there are several reasons why it's best not to give consumers what they want, but rather to give society what it needs.
 
First, it’s important to recognize that unlike America’s Most Wanted, TV series like I am a Killer do little to improve anyone’s safety.  The serial killers the latter show highlights are already behind bars and no longer a threat, whereas those in the former were still on the lam and needed to be caught.
 
One might argue that I am a Killer could help others identify unbalanced individuals and perhaps prevent future slayings, but the program seems just as likely to motivate people on the cusp of violence to act out their hostilities, partly because of the recognition they will get.  Fame could very well be an extra incentive for them to kill.
 
Consistent with that thought, it’s notable that networks have long-since stopped broadcasting people who trespass on the field or court during sporting events.  Even though many TV viewers are probably curious and would like to see the spectacles, the live shows’ producers quickly select other camera shots, as announcers divert attention from the unseen disruption.  The reason:  Networks don’t want to give the interlopers the undeserved fame they seek or encourage others to follow suit.
 
Second and closely related to the first point, unstable individuals might see a show like I am a Killer as a kind of ‘how-to guide’ for committing murder.  True-crime programs often recount killers’ tactics in considerable detail.  Most people watch these
exposés with unsettled interest—like a roadside car accident from which we cannot avert our gaze.  Potential killers, however, might pick up tips and envision how they could use them on specific people.  Needless to say, educating for mass murder is not a desirable thing.
 
Third, and perhaps most important, shows like I am a Killer demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to murder victims’ loved ones.  A few years ago, I was scrolling through TV channels, when a documentary about the Unabomber caught my attention.   I watched for 30 minutes or so with uneasy interest.  Now I ask myself, “How would I feel about that show if the terrorist's bombs had killed one of my family members or friends?”
 
I probably wouldn’t want to see his image anywhere, let alone watch him receive hours of network television exposure.  For many people, the Unabomber is an unseemly fascination, but for those impacted by his violent acts, his likeness is likely a painful reminder of how their loved ones were lost.
 
It’s bitter irony that the perpetrators of mass murder tend to receive inordinate media attention while their victims are often barely acknowledged as individuals; rather, their identities are lumped together in the massacre’s death toll, e.g. “11 Killed.”  TV series that focus on real killers perpetuate that injustice, perhaps even incentivizing and encouraging more murder.  Such true-crime shows are guilty 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!
25 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