Blog Archives

Holiday Greetings Guile

12/26/2015

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

Imagine you open a holiday card from a friend that reads: “Wishing you joy and peace during this special season.” Also inside the card is a small flyer showing several types of cutlery and a hand-written note: “Carve-Co is having some great sales on knives for all of you holiday cooking needs. Please call me to set-up a time to discuss.”

What would you think of your friend’s communication? If you’re like most people, you’d probably have mixed feelings about the card. On one hand, you appreciate your friend sending the holiday greeting. On the other hand, you’re taken aback by his/her promotion of the knives. You may not have minded the sales pitch in another context; in fact, you may have even appreciated it. But you probably found the combination of commercial and personal messages off-putting.

The chance of you receiving a mixed holiday message like that one from a friend is pretty slim. The probability that you’ve received such a message from a company is likely 100%, at least if your experience is like mine. Here are some examples of communication, camouflaged as Christmas greetings, that have made their way to my email inbox:

Pier 1 Imports: Merry Christmas! Our Gift to You . . . today only FREE SHIPPING ON YOUR ENTIRE PURCHASE

Dick’s Sporting Goods: Merry Christmas from everyone at Dick’s Sporting Goods. We’re Open Today Online! Stores Open Tomorrow at 7 am.

Bon-Ton: Merry Christmas! TAKE UP TO AN EXTRA 30% OFF YOUR PURCHASE**

Kohl’s: Merry Christmas from our family to yours. With the warmest of wishes, All of us at Kohl’s. P.S. Enjoy 25% OFF online today only (you know, just in case).

NordicTrack: Merry Christmas from NordicTrack. Free shipping on machines over $399. See our Christmas specials. Give the gift of good health.

In the spirit of some recent Geico commercials, you might be thinking that these types of messages are to be expected from companies, i.e., “If you’re a corporation, that’s what you do”—try to sell while wishing people well. However, as with all ethical issues, just because people or organizations do something doesn’t mean that they should. Here’s a pair of reasons why companies shouldn’t mix holiday greetings with commercial content, using two of the five societal values that Mindful Marketing often mentions:

1. Honesty: When we receive a card in the mail that says “Seasons Greetings” on the front, or an email that has “Happy Holidays” as the subject line, we may begin to read it only because we think it’s a genuine expression of well-wishing. Mixed holiday messages, however, fall short on honesty as they try to trick us into taking a first step (ready this email) with the hope that we’ll overlook the deception and continue to process the commercial content.

2. Respect: Of course, it’s inherently disrespectful to deceive people; however, there’s more here being disrespected than just the message’s recipients. The camouflaged communication also disregards the meaning and worth of the holiday. Instead, it uses the holiday as a means to an end; for example, it implies “Our company doesn’t really care what Christmas means to you, but we know we can use it as a way of getting your attention and possibly making a sale.”

Lest we become cynical and think that all companies’ holiday greetings are duplicitous, here are a few other emails I recently received that are not infused with blatant commercial content:

Founders Inn and Spa: The end of the year brings no greater joy than the opportunity to express to you season's greetings and good wishes. May your holidays and New Year be filled with joy! [email included an outside photograph of trees covered in white lights]

American Marketing Association: HAPPY HOLIDAYS from the American Marketing Association. [email also included a personalized note, appreciating me for being a member]

Michaels: Merry Christmas [email did include a small link to the weekly ad, but that was all]

Align: Happy Holidays from Align. Season’s Greetings [this first part of the message appeared on a picture of a snowy landscape with trees and two cardinals]. During this holiday season, Align is proud to support the Muscular Dystrophy Association on behalf of our clients and partners.

So, why do some companies choose to conceal their promotional messages as holiday greetings while others don’t? The main reason is that the former group has a short-term outlook, i.e., “We need to sell product now.” Of course, members of the latter group also want to secure sales; however, they have a proper perspective of marketing: “If you put the needs of people (namely your customers and employees) first, sales will follow.”

Commerce is a good thing, but there are certain places and times when people need a break from business. As such, they appreciate companies that care enough about them as people to put their commercial content on pause. Organizations that choose to ignore this basic human need not only compromise important societal values, they ultimately jeopardize stakeholder value, which makes them merchants of “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!

6 Comments

Pretentious Presents

12/19/2015

3 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

What if Bill Gates were your brother, Warren Buffet were your grandfather, or Mark Zuckerberg were your friend--What would you give them for a gift this holiday season? Billionaires are notoriously difficult to buy for, but fortunately there’s help . . .

Bloomburg Business has come out with “The Billionaire’s Shopping Guide: 13 Gifts for the Person Who Can Buy Anything.” As the title suggests, this gift-giving resource is aimed at helping the friends and family of the ultra-rich pick the perfect present for that person who already owns almost everything he/she needs or wants. You can read the full list with the complete descriptions, but here’s a summary:

A Meal at Every Three Michelin Star Restaurant: $274, 983
A 1962 Aston Martin DB4/GT: $15, 000,000 - $17,000,000
The First Omega Speedmaster Watch: $100,000 - $150,000
Original Art from 'Where the Wild Things Are: $200,000 - $950,000
Rodin’s 'Eternel Printemps': $489,000 - $597,000
Hang Out at the Edge of Space: $90,000
A 1978 Luke Skywalker Action Figure: $12,000 - $18,000
A Hand-Painted Dress by Holly Fowler: price upon request
Marc Newson 'Extruded Table 3': $100,000 - $150,000
A Wine Château in Saint-Émilion: $5,190,424
Chalcedony Bracelets Owned by the Duchess of Windsor: $400,000 - $600,000
The Chance to Live Like a Spy for Two Months: $11,300
A Trek Through Untouched Rivers and Mountains in Papua New Guinea: $15,000

Although Bloomberg has compiled this list, it isn’t the one selling these items; rather they’re available through a variety of vendors, including Sotheby’s and Christies auction houses, and web-based businesses VeryFirstTo.com and TrulyExperiences.com. Another of the suppliers is luxury retailer Neiman Marcus, which curates its own unique collection of “Fantasy Gifts” that can be found within the pages of its annual Christmas Book. Here are a few of its 2015 Fantasy Gifts, which Neiman Marcus describes as “Eye-Popping, Jaw-Dropping Dreams Come True”:

Arch Motorcycle & Ride Experience: $150,000
World View Exploration at the Edge of Space: $90,000
Italy Tour with Ippolita & Artemest Craftsmen: $150,000
Neiman Marcus Limited-Edition Mustang Convertible: $95,000
Texas Guitar Trio Gift: $30,000 each
Couture Diary: $10,000
His & Hers Ultimate Children’s Costumes in Mackenzie-Childs Trunks: $5,000
12-Day Dream Trip to India: $400,000

Can such extraordinary purchases be justified? Well, one way may be to look at them as investments. For instance, cars generally depreciate in value, but perhaps a Limited Edition Mustang Convertible will appreciate if it’s not driven but rather is garage-kept in mint condition. In that sense, buying a rare car or piece of original artwork is not unlike holding stocks with the hope of a favorable return on investment.

Most of the gifts listed above, however, aren’t items that will increase in value over time, and others aren’t physical assets at all; they’re intangible experiences. Take the Ultimate Children’s Costumes in Mackenzie-Childs Trunks. It would be cruel to buy a child that special costume she really wants, then tell her that she can’t put it on and play in it. At the same time, if she does wear Cinderella’s Ball Gown and play with the custom trunk, is it possible for her to realize $5,000 worth of benefits before becoming bored with them or outgrowing the dress? Probably not. The same is also likely true of the 12-Day Dream Trip to India. Speaking from firsthand experience, India is an incredible country that everyone should visit if they have the opportunity, but to drop almost a half million dollars on a less-than-two-week trip seems extravagant, to use an understatement.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with owing things or doing things. We need certain material goods just to function in our world, and some experiences provide real physical, emotional, and other benefits. Beyond such practical value, possessions can provide a “sense of self” as well as offer “stability and continuity in our lives” (Belk, 2011). As we grow older and wiser, though, we realize that there’s a limit to these benefits and that consuming too much of even a good thing is wasteful (Chan & Tong, 2006).

But, maybe it’s different with gifts: Don’t people appreciate expensive gifts more than less costly ones? Not according to Flynn and Adam’s (2009) study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. While this research revealed that gift-givers thought their more expensive gifts would be appreciated more, gift-recipients did not make the same association. These finding are consistent with those of Richins (1994) who concluded that people ascribe value to possessions not based on their cost but on the meaning they provide. In terms of gift-giving, therefore, maybe it really is the thought that counts.

Coming full circle, it’s interesting to note that Bloomberg Business, the curator of "The Billionaire’s Shopping Guide” outlined at the onset of this post, also recently ran a piece titled “Most billionaires can’t stay that rich after 20 years.” A key statistics in the article is “of 289 billionaires in 1995, only 126 still have $1 billion.” Having money now is no guarantee that one will have money in the future. So, maybe even a billionaire would be better off with a gift that’s low on cost and high on sentimental value.

Do ultra-luxury retailers like Neiman Marcus create stakeholder value? If they sell the extravagances they advertise, they undoubtedly make money, but as discussed above, it’s questionable whether their customers reap proportional benefits. In fact, an even better question might be “At what point does one stop owning such expensive possessions and they start owning you? Furthermore, as we become more aware of the negative impact that the overconsumption of a few has on the rest of our world, it becomes apparent that such extreme indulgence doesn’t represent good stewardship, rather it symbolizes “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!

3 Comments

Barbie Can't Keep a Secret

12/12/2015

6 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

Remember that toy you really wanted as a child? You could hardly wait for your birthday or holiday to come so someone could give it to you. Depending on your age, it might have been a Nintendo Wii, a Cabbage Patch Kid, or even “an official Red Ryder carbine-action two-hundred-shot range model air rifle,” with a compass in the stock.

For some children this holiday season, the toy they covet is a very unique doll—one that talks. Of course, dolls have been talking for decades, so what makes this one special? The difference is that this doll also listens and offers relevant responses. Her name is “Hello Barbie,” and she’s being billed as the “World’s First Interactive Barbie Doll.”

Mattel, the planet’s second biggest toy producer and the maker all things Barbie, started selling the iconic doll in 1959. Since that time, Barbie has fascinated many generations of children, as the brand’s namesake doll has taken on a variety of ethnicities and numerous occupations including doctor, astronaut, and NASCAR driver.

How is Hello Barbie able to interact? Mattel has built into Barbie WiFi receptivity and speech recognition technology, which a parent initially activates using a smart device (phone, tablet, etc.) and a downloadable Hello Barbie app. Setup also involves establishing an on-line account with ToyTalk, a third-party service provider that handles the recording and uploading of conversation with Hello Barbie to the Cloud, where the information is processed and fed back down to Barbie in the form of a relevant response.

Here’s some of what Mattel says on its website to promote the new product to on-line shoppers:

“Now, you can chat with Barbie®! Using Wi-Fi and speech recognition technology, Hello Barbie™ doll can interact uniquely with each child by holding conversations, playing games, sharing stories and even telling jokes . . . She's ready to discuss anything in an outfit that blends trendy and techie for a cool look. Use is simple after set up -- push the doll's belt buckle to start a conversation, and release to hear her respond. More than 8,000 lines of recorded content means countless hours of fun! Just like a real friend, Hello Barbie™ doll listens and remembers the user's likes and dislikes, giving everyone their own unique experience.”

She sounds like fun, so why has the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood chosen Hello Barbie as its “Worst Toy of the Year,” and why are some news media saying she may be the worst toy ever? It’s because Hello Barbie can be a bit of a blabber, i.e., what’s shared with Hello Barbie doesn’t necessarily stay with Hello Barbie.

ToyTalk’s privacy policy says that the company collects parents’ email addresses for purposes of consent, that it may automatically capture recordings of children under the age of 13, and that it may collect certain “advertising identifiers,” which “may be considered personal information under COPPA,” the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The company acknowledges that children may “provide additional information” during their interactions and promises to delete such content; however by virtue of their parental accounts, parents also have access to these recordings and may even share them on third-party sites.

How will ToyTalk use the information it collects and keeps? The company first says that it will use it to “to provide, maintain, and analyze the functioning of the Service, to develop, test or improve speech recognition technology and artificial intelligence algorithms, and for other research and development and data analysis purposes.” ToyTalk adds that it won’t use the recordings to “contact children or to advertise to them”; however, it also says that it may use identifiers for “contextual advertising” as well as to “determine the popularity of certain content.”

Based on these policies, there should be a least some suspicion of how much Hello Barbie can be trusted, but these aren’t the only concerns. Perhaps an even bigger worry is the security of the system. For one thing, the doll uses a digital ID that’s susceptible to spying by anyone who can hack into the toy/server connection—a vulnerability of both the Android and Apple versions of the Hello Barbie app. In addition, researchers at Bluebox, a San Francisco-based security firm, “found that phones with the app will automatically connect to any Wi-Fi network that includes “Barbie” in its name.” Furthermore, the server/doll connections are vulnerable to an encryption-busting bug called Poodle.

These fatal flaws haven’t gone unnoticed. In fact, attorneys recently filed a class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Mattel, ToyTalk, and kidSAFE, an organization that’s supposed to ensure that toys comply with COPPA. A key point of the legal action is that “there aren’t enough protections in place to be sure that the voice coming from Barbie is that of the actual toy and not a predator who has hacked it.” That should be a very scary thought for any parent.

In sum, there’s little hope that what young users share with Hello Barbie will stay a secret between them and their toy. That lack of privacy should be a big concern for any consumer group, but especially for one that's very vulnerable to abuse, like children. Given the considerable risk involved in using such a toy, it’s doubtful that Hello Barbie will see significant sales, or create much stakeholder value. Likewise, because of its disregard for privacy and lack of fairness to children, the toy compromises key societal values. As a result, Hello Barbie has earned another dishonor, that of “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!

6 Comments

Soft Drinks for Adults Only

12/5/2015

23 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

A family with an elementary-age son is having lunch at a local eatery . . .

- Waitress: “What would you like to eat, young man?”

- Billy: “I want the smiley face pancakes.”

- Waitress: “Good choice. How about a drink?”

- Billy: “Pepsi!”

- Waitress: “Okay, but I’ll to need to see ID.”

Would a restaurant really card a kid for ordering cola?” Of course not, but some well-known restaurant chains have taken a significant step toward controlling children’s soft drink consumption. Both Applebee’s and IHOP have dropped soda from their children’s menus.

It’s no coincidence that these two iconic American eateries have made the same decision. Each is owned by the California-based corporation DineEquity, which franchises more than 3,600 of the stores in 20 countries. What was the reason for the company’s bold move? DineEquity ha cited concerns about juvenile obesity and a desire to promote better health, in addition to forwarding the following statement:

“We believe in having a broad variety of selections so our guests have a choice that best meets their needs. While soft drinks are still available by request, we believe this is a small step in assisting parents when dining out, as parents are in the best position to determine the appropriate food and beverage choices for their children.”

So, it’s not that kids can no longer drink soda in these stores. Parents who want their children to have Pepsi products, which is the brand that both these restaurants serve, can still request them. However, instead of soft drinks, the children’s menus will list healthier options like white and chocolate milk, hot chocolate, and juice.

Actually, Applebee’s and IHOP aren’t the only restaurant chains that have made such a move. Others that earlier cancelled colas from their kids’ menus include Burger King, Chipotle, Dairy Queen, McDonald’s, Panera, Subway, and Wendy’s. So, these latest players are just extending the trend of pushing Pepsi and similar products out of children's reach.

It’s easy to argue that steering away from soft drinks is desirable, especially when one considers the well-being of children. America has an obesity epidemic, given that “more than one-third of adults and 17% of youth in the United States are obese.” Unfortunately, obesity is associated with “heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, [which are] some of the leading causes of preventable death.” There’s also much evidence to suggest that “rising consumption of sugary drinks has been a major contributor to the obesity epidemic,” not to mention tooth decay. By the way, it’s estimated that each year soft drink producers spend about a half billion dollars marketing their products directly to young people age 2-17.

So, less soda seems like a good thing, but will restaurants’ removal of soft drinks from their kids’ menus make a difference? Here are a few related questions to consider:

Given the nutritional profile of the food found on kids’ menus of most of the aforementioned restaurants, is soda really the biggest problem? For instance, at Applebee’s the kid’s grilled cheese on sourdough bread has 1430 milligrams of sodium and 620 calories.

Do people really use beverages as a criterion in choosing a restaurant?

What kind of a message do kids receive if their parents still drink soda at these restaurants while the kids can’t?

Is taking soda off kids’ menus much different than if a grocery store placed an “Adults Only” sign over the candy in the checkout aisle?

In sum, the actions of Applebee’s, IHOP, and the other chains are well-intended: They uphold societal values like respect for people’s health and stewardship of financial resources. However, the restaurants’ soda restrictions are unlikely to make a significant marketing impact, or to create any additional value for the companies, the customers, or other stakeholders. As such, striking soda from kids’ menus seems like “Simple-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!

23 Comments

Holiday Greetings Guile

Pretentious Presents

Barbie Can't Keep a Secret

Soft Drinks for Adults Only

Editor

Archives

Categories