Blog Archives

Marketing Kindness

12/27/2014

A great part of the Holidays is a renewed focus on values such as peace, love, and generosity. We hope to see ourselves and others act more kindly, but is such an expectation realistic for marketing? A unique news story recently provided an excellent answer to this question.

Like most contractors, Lacy Construction needs to make money in order to stay in business. In a competitive and cost-driven industry, choosing to take-on profitable jobs is critical, which made owner Scott Lacy’s actions all-the-more surprising.

When Jonell Patterson, a senior citizen living in Crosby, TX experienced water leaking into her home, she first tried to correct the problem with tarps and then paid another contractor to fix her roof, but he made things worse, causing considerable damage to the home’s interior.

Enter Scott Lacy who, realizing Patterson’s desperate need and inability to pay, brought his crew to her home and spent the weekend before Christmas fixing the roof . . . for free. In an interview with ABC TV 13/KTRK, Lacy said “I'm in business to make money, but you've got to give back sometimes."

To help a person in serious need is certainly a noble deed that exemplifies many values that are good for our society. However, how does such benevolence with no measurable return on investment represent anything more than Simple-Minded Marketing?

The significant publicity that Lacy’s kind-hearted act garnered likely has created promotional value for his company, which may lead to future contracts. But what if no such business materializes or brand-building occurs? Does Lacy’s act represent a very kind gesture, but not very good marketing? Not necessarily.

Business owners have the prerogative to determine what creates value for them as stakeholders. Granted, giving away one’s products or services is not a long-term sustainable strategy for most for-profit companies, but if a measured amount of philanthropy brings owners satisfaction, as it should, it’s their choice to pursue it.

Scott Lacy performed a very gracious deed that certainly benefited another and will likely benefit him, even if that was not his intent. As a result, he can be credited with committing a holiday-inspired act of Mindful Marketing.

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

Was "The Interview" a Mindful Movie?

12/20/2014

We all know that hindsight is 20/20. After the most costly cyber-attack in history and its unprecedented fallout, Sony may be wishing now that it hadn’t made its highly controversial film “The Interview,” staring Seth Rogen and James Franco.

For those arriving late to the scene . . . Sony Pictures, a subsidiary of Sony Entertainment, Inc. a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Sony Corporation, produced The Interview, an action comedy in which Rogen and Franco (Tabloid TV show producer and host) secure an interview in Pyongyang with one of the shows biggest fans, North Korean ruler Kim Jong-un. Seeing an opportunity for a political coup, the CIA asks the duo to assassinate the ruler, a request the pair agrees to undertake.

The Interview was scheduled to premiere this past week; however, Sony chose to cancel the openings after some credible physical threats; it then decided to pull the movie altogether. President Obama criticized Sony Pictures for its response; however, Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton retorted that his company had no choice when movie theaters refused to show the film. Although North Korea has denied responsibility, saying it’s been framed, it has reportedly called the computer hacking a “righteous deed.”

Many have decried Sony’s purported self-censorship, saying that no company or country should give-in to threats of terrorism. Such arguments have merit: A society can’t afford to allow a few persons with violent motives to curb free expression or control others’ lives.

However, the issue of post-production censorship should not overshadow another very important question: Should Sony have made The Interview in the first place?

Given the cyber-attacks, serious physical threats, and millions of dollars of lost revenue, it’s convenient to say “no.” But what if these negative consequences hadn’t occurred? Would the movie still have been ill-advised? The answer is “yes.”

To make a movie about the assassination of another nation’s sitting head of state is in poor taste, not to mention diplomatically insensitive. “But shouldn’t others understand that the movie was a comedy, meant to be funny?” Perhaps; yet, we’ve all experienced others making light of things that we believed to be serious. Furthermore, when the relationship between two people, or two countries, is already strained, it’s good to avoid actions that may intensify tensions, particularly noncritical actions.

“But what about other movies made about the assassinations of real political leaders, e.g., Lincoln and JFK? The big difference was timing. These films recounted historic events—actual occurrences that already happened. They didn’t paint a picture, however ridiculous it might be, of how a specific, current leader might be killed.

“Do onto others as you would want them to do onto you”--it’s worth noting that every major world religion has its own version of the Golden Rule. So, we should ask: Would we want a movie made about the assassination of our president or another current political leader? Unfortunately some might respond “yes” to this question, but they shouldn’t.

Whether or not we like them or agree with their policies, our leaders deserve civil treatment and our respect—the same things we want and deserve from others. More specifically, no living person should have a movie made about his/her murder.

Freedom of expression is an important, necessary right. It’s also important to recognize that not everything that can be said or done needs to be said or done, or should be. Likewise, we should remember that the exercise of our freedoms sometimes infringes on the freedom of others. When such violations are thought to occur, however, violence or the threat of violence is not the answer.

Despite its social and political insensitivity, if The Interview had been released, it’s likely that the film would have been a box-office success. As such, it’s fitting to label Sony’s production of The Interview “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Postscript: Since this blog was written, Sony has reversed its earlier decision and will have a limited release of The Interview in select theaters on Christmas Day.

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

Do We Really Want to Know How Many Calories?

12/13/2014

“Ignorance is bliss”—for decades that’s been the motto for many of us as movie-goers when indulging in tubs of buttered popcorn, extra-large sodas, and various other cinematic snacks.

The veil of ignorance is being lifted, however, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has decided to require calorie counts for prepared food, not just at movie theaters but also at amusement parks, restaurant chains, and grocery stores, as well as from large vending machine operators.

Leveraging arguments from economics, some have questioned whether more nutritional information is better. For instance, the new ruling clearly will impose added costs on businesses that are required to comply. Another economic argument dealing with the notion of “lost pleasure” is less intuitive but even more interesting . . .

If people see that a large tub of movie theater popcorn contains as many as 1,200 calories (a huge portion of a 2,000 calorie-a-day diet), they may forgo the popcorn, or whatever other prepared food they were planning to eat, which would result in reduced pleasure, or in economic terms, a “loss of consumer surplus.” Some have estimated that this lost pleasure could total $5.27 billion over 20 years.

Of course, the FDA is not a marketer but a regulator of marketers. Still, it’s important to ask whether the FDA ruling will result in more Mindful Marketing. Despite what the preceding arguments suggest, the overall, long-term answer is “yes.”

When it comes to making purchase decisions, having more information is almost always better for consumers than having less information. In the case of deciding which food to eat in a restaurant, movie theater, etc., publishing calorie counts can’t hurt. If people want to ignore that information, they can. Otherwise, they can decide whether or not they want to sacrifice some short-term pleasure for other long-term benefits.

Will the FDA requirement lead people to eat less high calorie food? It probably will. Will people also eat less food overall? Probably not, or at least not that much less. Instead we’ll be looking for new food options that are lower in calories and still taste good, i.e., the best of both. The end result should be a positive influence on our society’s health, as well as new opportunities and incentives for innovative food producers to practice more Mindful Marketing.

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

Only a Game?

12/6/2014

People’s preferences for entertainment are about as varied as they are for food. And like our food choices, others generally don’t question our recreational pursuits—everybody has their own entertainment tastes, which others should respect, right?

What happens, though, when one’s taste is for games that glamorize activities that are both explicitly illegal and extremely violent? In Australia, discount retailers Target and Kmart recently decided to stop selling one such video game--Grand Theft Auto V.

If you’re not familiar with the multibillion dollar video game industry, this decision might elicit a “so what” response. You should understand, however, that Grand Theft Auto V, the latest in Rockstar Games’ extremely popular series , is not only the best-selling video game ever, it is the “the fastest-selling entertainment product in history, passing $1 billion of sales in the first three days.”

To put this success into further perspective, Forbes estimated sales of Grand Theft Auto V to be nearly $2 billion in May 2014. If the game were a movie, that would put it third on the list of highest grossing films of all time, only behind Avatar ($2.78 billion) and Titanic ($2.18 billion). Suffice it to say, Grand Theft Auto V is no niche market product.

What led to Target’s and Kmart’s decisions to pull the highly popular game from Australian stores? Three women, Nicole, Claire, and Kat, started a Change.org petition calling for Target to stop selling Grand Theft Auto V because it encouraged sexual violence against women, including murder. As of this writing, the petition has garnered over 47,000 signatures. Kmart, which is owned in Australia by the same retail group as Target, Wesfarmers, followed suit and also pulled the game.

Here are excerpts from Common Sense Media’s review of Grand Theft Auto V:
“Grand Theft Auto V is an M-rated action game brimming with gang violence, nudity, extremely coarse language, and drug and alcohol abuse.”
“Playing as hardened criminals, players kill not only fellow gangsters but also police officers and innocent civilians using both weapons and vehicles while conducting premeditated crimes, including a particularly disturbing scene involving torture.”
“Women are frequently depicted as sexual objects, with a strip club mini-game allowing players to fondle strippers' bodies, which are nude from the waist up.”
“None of the main characters in the game makes for a decent role model. All of them are criminals who think of themselves first and others rarely at all.”

As the sales data suggest, not everyone has agreed with the two retailers’ decisions. Another individual, Brett Herbert, has authored a countervailing Change.org petition that has gained over 18,000 supporters. Herbert argues that the game is restricted to people 18 years and older, that the violence is equal opportunity, i.e., players earn points by killing men as well as women, and that the connection between video game violence and actual violence is tenuous.

Herbert is right that research results linking video violence to actual violence have been mixed: some studies have found a connection, while others have not. Part of the unpredictability of this relationship has to do with other key factors that are at work, e.g., individuals generally will not commit acts of violence without a specific motivation, a clear opportunity, and the necessary resources. It’s very difficult for a research study to take into account in a realistic way all of these factors.

Even if it’s difficult to conclude that video games cause people to act more violently, it’s not hard to imagine that violent video games desensitize people to violence, which studies have found and which is also very problematic. Even if people do not commit violent acts themselves, what are the societal implications of citizens who are increasingly less concerned about others’ acts of violence, not to mention other forms of abuse and acts of crime? Are these the predispositions we want in individuals who might be serving on our juries, teaching our children, or patrolling our neighborhoods?

Although highly profitable, games like Grand Theft Auto V that intentionally glamorize violence and other destabilizing behavior do not uphold important societal values such as peace, respect, and decency. Target and Kmart in Australia should be commended for pulling the game from their shelves and for taking a stand against “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

Marketing Kindness

Was "The Interview" a Mindful Movie?

Do We Really Want to Know How Many Calories?

Only a Game?

Editor

Archives

Categories