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

Bowing Out of Bowl Games

12/30/2016

7 Comments

 
Picture

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

Given the growth in college football bowl games over the past decade, even the most passionate fans must decide which of this season’s 41 post-season contests they will watch on TV and which they will forgo.  However, fans aren’t the only ones making tough choices about bowl games.  Even some players are deciding whether or not they will participate in their own teams’ games.

Aside from the very few NCAA Division I programs that can compete for a national championship, winning a bowl game is the pinnacle accomplishment for most college football teams.   In the past, players, would never miss their bowl games, unless they were kept out, for instance, because of injury, violation of school policy, etc.  Furthermore, most elite athletes love to compete.  Whether it’s preseason or the playoffs, if there’s a game going on, they want to be part of it.
 
Why, then, would some of college football’s top players choose to sit out their teams’ bowl games?  To understand, one needs to consider the two most notable cases: Running backs Christian McCaffrey of Stanford Leonard Fournette of LSU have opted to sit out of the Sun Bowl and Citrus Bowl respectively, saying they want to start preparing for their likely NFL careers and avoid the risk of injury that comes with bowl game competition.
 
In its analysis of the 2017 NFL Draft, Sports Illustrated has estimated that Fournette and McCaffrey will be chosen second and third among all eligible running backs.  In the 2016 NFL Draft, only one running back was chosen in the first round.  He was Ezekiel Elliott, who the Dallas Cowboys took with the fourth overall pick and signed to a four-year, $24.9 million contract.  In a recent 2017 NFL mock draft, CBS Sports predicted that the Indianapolis Colts would take Fournette 13th overall, while the New England Patriots might choose McCaffrey with the 31st pick of the first round.  However exactly the draft plays out, both young men are looking at sizeable paydays.

Most of us haven’t had the opportunity to land jobs that pay many millions of dollars a year or to reach the pinnacle of our professions while still in our twenties, so we probably shouldn’t be too quick to judge these young men’s decisions.  Likewise, football is a dangerous sport in which players often get hurt.  Some injuries are minor, but others can end a player’s season or even his playing career.

For example, in the first quarter of the 2016 Fiesta Bowl, Notre Dame linebacker Jaylon Smith suffered serious tears to two knee ligaments, which ended his college career and caused his draft stock to slip from a likely top-five pick to a second round choice, where the Dallas Cowboys selected him.  While it’s still questionable whether Smith will ever reprise his former dominance, the Cowboys do expect him to play next season.
 
All said, it’s understandable that players who have the potential to play football professionally don’t want to take any unnecessary risks.  On the other hand, by forgoing their teams’ bowl games, there are other consequences these talented athletes may not be taking into account that could both impact their future football careers and carry significant negative consequences for others.
 
While these players are safeguarding their physical well-beings,  they may not be fully considering how their decisions are shaping their personal brands, which are increasingly important for professional athletes.  Others may start to see the bowl-bystanders as individuals who think of themselves first, who are inclined to dial back effort when personally advantageous, and who won’t sacrifice self for the interest of the team.  All of these are undesirable reputations, especially when competing in team sports at a professional level.  In fact, such perceptions of a player could easily raise red flags for prospective NFL front offices and coaches.

There’s also the impact that the players’ nonparticipation has on others.  Division 1-A football teams often have 85 or more players; although, on average about 55 see playing time.  Still, that’s many young men depending on others to excel at their positions.  With 11 players per side on every down and positions as specialized as left tackle and strong safety, football is in many ways the quintessential team sport, in which substitutions across positions are usually very hard to make.

As mentioned above, most of these elite college athletes want nothing more than to win, especially in the last game of their season, which for some is also the final contest of their football careers.  After starting in a Pop Warner league and practicing faithfully throughout middle school and high school, they made it to the top of the college ranks, where they again worked hard for years, for their own love of the game, but also for the benefit of their teammates and schools.  The final wish of virtually all of these players is to leave the game on top—to go out a winner, which is not easy when competing against another outstanding team, especially in the absence of one of your team’s best players.
 
Of course, the football programs and their schools also suffer when they don’t win or they get badly beaten in a bowl game.  High school recruits watch these games, which help them decide for whom they want to play.  Likewise, although every season is different, bowl selection committees probably remember from year to year which teams tend to bring their ‘A-games’ when invited to play on a national stage.  With that consideration also comes the fact that college bowl games are significant sources of revenue for the conferences that participate in them.  For instance, conferences receive “$4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl.”

One also can’t help but wonder what the fate of college football will be if opting out of bowl games becomes a trend.  These contests will really lose their luster if more and more top players decide not to participate in them.  And, the temptation to sit-out could extend even earlier, for instance, players pulling out of conference championships or final regular season games for similar self-centered reasons.  If the level of competition declines, so will fan and advertiser interest, which is the death knell for any major sport.
 
Given this likely fallout for their teammates and their schools, as well as because they are grateful for the scholarships they’ve received, some players believe they have a duty to play in their teams’ bowl games.  One such player is Clemson safety Jadar Johnson, who says:
 
“A school gives you an opportunity to play football and gives you an education for free, and you’re already worrying about the next level? I just feel like that’s just thinking too far ahead,” he said. “It’s really a privilege to play college football. There’s a lot of people who wish they were in your situation. I’ve got people I played with in high school who didn’t get a chance to play college football at all. They still dream about it every day. They go into work every day dreaming, wishing to play college football.”
“No matter how big the bowl is, that’s still a big game,” he said. “You win that as a team, and you’ll still celebrate it like it’s the biggest game of your career. You just say you don’t want to play in it? That’s not me.”

 
Johnson, by the way, will be playing in at least one post-season contest this college football season.  His second ranked Clemson Tigers take on #3 Ohio State in the PlayStation Fiesta Bowl, one of the semifinal games of the College Football Playoff.  Also, CBS Sports predicts that Johnson will be the 11th strong safety chosen in the 2017 NFL Draft.

Most of us market ourselves in one way or another.  Elite college athletes about to enter the NFL draft certainly do, which also comes with tough decisions about their football futures.  It’s tragic when any one of these young men suffers a serious injury ahead of a promising professional career.  However, they also need to consider the consequences their decisions have for their personal brands as well as the impact on many others.  For these reasons, the choice to opt out of a college bowl game isn’t a play that’s fair to others; rather it’s a personal foul worthy of a flag for “Mindless 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!
7 Comments

Sexy Claus

12/23/2016

3 Comments

 
Picture

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

When you think of  “Santa Claus,” what Saint Nick pic comes to mind?  Maybe it’s the cherry-cheeked Santa drinking a Coca-Cola, the stately Miracle on 34th Street Santa, the bird-legged cartoon Santa from “Rudolph,” or even Tim Allen in “The Santa Clause.”  Whatever your preferred picture, you probably don’t think of Santa as sexy—at least not until you’ve seen Fiat’s new ads.
 
To promote its Black Friday event a few weeks ago, Italy’s largest automaker began airing commercials that cast Santa Claus as “a playa.”  The ads feature a slimmed-down, suave-looking Santa, sporting a chic haircut and a manicured beard.  The forty-something Santa is decked out in a red blazer with pocket kerchief, white shirt, and black slacks.  A red-checked scarf flows from his shoulders.

“So, they’ve updated Santa’s image,” some may be thinking.  “It’s about time Kris Kringle got a makeover.”  There’s much more to the ads, however, than just Santa’s new look.  Accompanying Santa are two attractive, twenty-something female elves.  The tall and shapely sidekicks wear matching, form-fitting red dresses with scoop necks.  Black stilettos and an amble layer of red lipstick accessorize their outfits.
 
The lady elves don’t speak.  Rather, they simply saunter around the showroom, sensually stroking  vehicles they pass.  At the end of one of the ads, with no apparent concern for Mrs. Clause, the women lock elbows with their boss, solidifying the arm-candy stereotype and making one wonder in exactly what sense they are Santa’s little helpers.
 
Yes, the ad looks very alluring, but that’s not all.  In an uncharacteristically deep and raspy voice, Santa delivers several sultry and suggestive one-liners:
 
“That’s too hot for the North Pizzle.” 
“That’s naughty and nice.”
“You better not be jingling my bells.”

 
This isn’t the first time Fiat has used sex to sell cars.  You might remember the firm’s ‘little blue pill’ ad that aired during the Super Bowl a couple of years ago.  Although, if you’re like many others, you may have thought it was an ad for Viagra.

In any case, what’s the big deal?  So what if a car company offers a more adult-friendly Santa?  It’s all in good fun, and, by the way, **SPOILER ALERT** Santa isn’t real.  Yes, there was once an actual Saint Nicholas, a venerable man, but the modern-day Santa is a fanciful holiday add-on who has no historic connection to the events of the first Christmas.
 
These points have merit, but there’s still the fact that Fiat has sexualized Santa!  Even though he doesn’t actually exist, many still respect the kind-hearted altruism Santa symbolizes and appreciate his promotion of that same holiday spirit.  Kids, of course, are the ones who love Santa most, which is understandable given that the legend is specially intended for children.  That’s why kids look forward to sitting on his lap at the mall and leaving milk and cookies for him Christmas Eve.  That’s also why Fiat’s sexualized Santa is so misguided.
 
If you haven’t noticed, for many years there’s been a trend toward sexualizing asexual things: everything from food to fitness have been made in some way to be sexual stimulating.  It’s bad enough to feed this frenzy; what’s even worse is to sexualize things intended for children, like Santa.

It’s true that humans are sexual beings and children at some point need to understand that facet of life, but it can prove costly to prematurely end their innocence, especially when leading kids to believe that their sexual identity is their entire identity.  In the current cultural context, young girls are particularly at risk with such mistaken messages about sex and are likely to live with the consequences for years to come.

“But wait,” you may be thinking, “elementary schoolers don’t drive cars, adults do, so Fiat can’t be targeting kids with its ads.”  That’s probably true, but television commercials are often susceptible to spillover such that individuals outside the target market see the ads: think of Sunday afternoon football games, beer commercials, and all the families seeing both.  For that reason, it’s especially perilous to market an adult product using a character that captivates children.  R.J. Reynold’s Joe Camel did so until the company bowed to public pressure in 1997 and settled a lawsuit that alleged that use of the character was turning kids onto cigarettes.

Granted, these two examples aren’t exactly alike.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with cars, but there’s much to dread about cigarettes.  On the other hand, a cartoon camel isn’t intrinsically bad, but an oversexualized Santa is, for the reasons mentioned above.
 
Despite its prior use of sex in ads, Fiat probably isn’t trying to push a sexual agenda.  Chances are it just wants to sell cars and believes that it can use sex as a means to that end.  The sex appeal probably does work to a certain extent: It grabs people’s attention and keeps their interest—the first two steps in AIDA. Unfortunately for Fiat, however, such a gratuitous use of sex is unlikely to spur desire for cars or to stimulate action, i.e., purchases.  The fact that many Super Bowl viewers forgot that the “little blue pill” ad was for a car, let along for Fiat, is a classic case in point.
 
So, Fiat’s use of a sexy Santa and two enticing elves is unlikely to better its bottom-line.  Instead of creating a desire for its cars, the company is more likely stimulating unhealthy views of sex that potentially harm children and definitely objectify women.  For these reasons Fiat’s campaign ends up on the “naughty list” with other examples of  “Mindless 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!
3 Comments

Resting Stars

12/17/2016

2 Comments

 
Picture

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

Imagine you’re a twelve-year-old basketball fan who loves LeBron James.  Living in St. Louis you’ve never gotten to see him play in-person; in fact, you’ve never even gone to an NBA game.  You notice online, however, that the Memphis Grizzlies will host the Cleveland Cavaliers on December 14, so many months ahead, you ask if the game could be a birthday gift.  Memphis is a four-hour drive from St. Louis, and the tickets will cost over $100 each, but your parents graciously agree.  You can hardly wait.

December 14 comes, and you and your dad set-out from St. Louis.  Many miles and a couple of stops later, you arrive at a packed FedExForum.  The atmosphere is already electric, as you settle into your seats.  Scanning the court, you see a variety of NBA players engaged in their pregame rituals, but no LeBron.  The crowd quiets as the announcer introduces the Cavaliers starting line-up.
 
Surprisingly, James’ name is not called.  You look to the bench, but he’s not sitting there either.  Then you hear a couple of fans behind you grumbling:
 
“I can’t believe the Cavs aren’t playing LeBron tonight.”
 
“Yeah, and Love and Irving [two of the team’s other best players] aren’t here either.”
 
“Where are they?  They can’t all be injured.”
 
“No, they’re fine.  I heard the Cavs are ‘resting’ them tonight.”
 
“What a rip-off.”
 
Such a scenario would be frustrating for almost any NBA fan.  For the twelve-year-old described above, it would be more like devastation.  Unfortunately, the situation is not fiction.  A few days ago, this scenario actually played out in Memphis.  Even more unfortunate is the fact that the same thing is occurring across the league with increasing frequency:  Teams selectively sitting out their star players, not because of injury or illness but to “rest” them, has become an epidemic of sorts.
 
But, doesn’t everyone deserve time-off?  Plus, basketball is a physically demanding and exhausting sport.  If you’re competing at its highest level against players who are among the best athletes in the world, you’re going to get tired.  Over the course of a long season, NBA players may need a rest, especially the best ones who tend to play the most minutes.
 
There’s some truth to all of those points.  With games beginning in October and ending in June (for those who make the Finals), the NBA has one of the longest seasons in professional sports.  Also, unlike NFL teams that play once a week, NBA teams often have 3 or even 4 games in the same span, some of which are on consecutive nights.  Granted, basketball players don’t take the beating that football players do, but they still experience some significant physical contact, on top of constant running, jumping, stopping, and starting.
 
On the other hand, isn’t that what these elite athletes are trained for and paid millions of dollars to do?  Yes, basketball can be physically taxing, but probably not as much as many other jobs, for example: farmer, lumberjack, miner, etc.  Most of these workers do their jobs eight hours or more a day, five days a week, fifty or so weeks a year, for decades.  They don’t get a day off during the middle of the week to “rest” even though their schedules add to up to many more hours than the 36.7 minutes per game that James averages.  Meanwhile these other workers make only a small fraction of The King’s $30.9 million annual salary.
 
But, LeBron is probably not to blame--the decision might not even be his to make.  Rather, it’s likely that the team’s coach and/or management decides to rest a superstar like LeBron.  Usually owners and fans want the same thing—to see ‘their’ team win.  But fans also want to see a star play when they pay a hefty price for a ticket.  Owners, on the other hand, aren’t as interested in single-game success as in the team’s performance over the entire season, which will hopefully end in a championship.  To even make it to the Finals, however, they need to ensure that their players, especially the top ones, stay strong and injury-free.
 
Shouldn’t fans understand and embrace that same long-term perspective?  Yes and no.  First, fans of opposing teams don’t care if their adversaries win a championship, but they still want to watch the other teams’ stars.  That’s why Michael Jordan filled NBA arenas a couple of decades ago and why LeBron James does so today.
 
Second, any professional sport is first and foremost entertainment.  Yes, being able to root for a winning team, or even a championship team, adds extra value to the experience, but in entertainment, it always about the individual game, concert, or show, after which all entertainers should be asking, “Did we give the audience an outstanding experience that was well worth the price of admission?
 
If asked to answer the preceding question, it’s likely that the twelve-year-old basketball fan mentioned above would say “no.”  Such perceptions of unfairness are not unfounded.  The average NBA ticket price is $96.57.  When you add-in the cost of food, drink, and parking, the total comes to $442.28 for a family of four.  Again, that’s the average.  In New York and Los Angeles, those totals come to $878.20 and $789.20, respectively.  Anyone paying those prices, or even the $262.50 total family cost for an Indiana Pacer’s game, deserves to see the stars play, provided that they’re healthy.

So, in marketing terms, the NBA might need to make changes to its product.  If the season is too long or there are too many games in a week, the league should take action and streamline the schedule.  Concert promoters probably have similar considerations in deciding how many performances their stars can do well in a given week, month, or year.  You never go to a concert and not see the headliner.  If the star gets sick, etc. the concert is cancelled and refunds are paid.  The NBA shouldn’t be very different.
 
Ultimately, it’s unfair to deny fans, who have paid a pretty penny, a potentially once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see their favorite player, simply because someone decided to rest him.  That approach may work in the short-run, but it’s not a long-term strategy that fans will continue to tolerate.  A little rest is usually a good thing, but in the entertainment industry, sidelining stars, without any consideration of the audience, can only count as “Mindless 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!
2 Comments

Rent-To-Owe

12/10/2016

1 Comment

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence
Where do you go to find great deals on furniture, electronics, and appliances?  You might shop at popular big box retailers like Ashley Furniture, Best Buy, or Home Depot.  When some people want these same items, they go to an entirely different set of stores, e.g., Aaron’s, Buddy’s, and Rent-A-Center, where they’re not getting great deals, the deals are getting them.
 
These latter retailers are part of the $7 billion+ rent-to-own (RTO) industry.  As the name implies, such stores don’t specialize in selling products outright, like most retailers do.  Instead, RTO stores allow people to pick-out the product they want along with a financing plan that involves making relatively small weekly or monthly payments over many months or even years.  Customers get to start using the products immediately, but they don’t actually own them until the last payment is made.  In other words, if a customer makes every payment but the last one, they can lose the product and everything they’ve paid up to that point.
 
In some ways RTO retailers provide a helpful service.  There are times when we want use of something for a short period of time but don’t want to buy it, e.g., movies, tuxedos, carpet cleaning machines, etc.  In such instances, opportunities to rent or lease can be very helpful.
 
There also are times when we want to own certain things, but the high cost of the items prohibits us from buying them outright, e.g., cars, houses, yachts (I have no personal experience with the last one).  Again, it’s a great benefit that many organizations offer financing options in the form of rental agreements, leases, and mortgages.
 
RTO stores offer both of these benefits.  Unfortunately, however, people who use these retailers usually end up paying many times what the products would have cost if they had saved their money and waited until they could buy them outright.
 
For instance, a Buddy’s flyer I came across promotes a Maytag Bravo Series washer and dryer set (MVWX655DW/MEDX655DW) that one can rent-to-own for $34.99 a week.  “OWN IT IN 100 WEEKS,” the flyer exclaims.  At first glance, that may sound like a good option.  A family can own a high-quality washer and dryer set in a little less than two years, without needing to plunk down a large piece of cash.
 
Some simple math and a couple of online price comparisons, however, reveal how horrible the deal actually is.  After 100 weeks, the renter will have spent $3,499 for the set.  At Home Depot, what looks to be the same Maytag Bravo washing machine costs $589, and a comparable Maytag Bravo Dryer costs the same.  So, that’s a total of $1,178 at Home Depot, or $2,321 less than the cost of rent-to-own through Buddy’s.

“But,” you might be thinking, “people always pay more for things when they don’t buy them outright.  That’s the cost of financing a purchase, the nature of interest, and the time value of money.”  Although all that’s true, people don’t usually pay such high rates on their borrowing.
 
Buddy’s lists the “cash price” for the Maytag washer-dryer set as $1,749.99, which is about $572 dollars more than the price through Home Depot (practically enough for another appliance); of course, the big box retailer probably can buy such manufacturer’s brands for less.  Still, someone who rents-to-own the washer-dryer set through Buddy’s pays at least $1,749 dollars in interest over the life of the contract ($3,499 -$1,749.99 = $1,7490.01), or $17.49 in interest per week.  That amounts to an annualized interest rate of 70.17%.
 
Almost anyone who hears an interest rate of 70% knows it’s extremely high, but to put it into perspective, the current rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is 3.63%; the rate for a 60-month new car loan is 4.27%; and in 2015 the average credit card interest rate was 12.09%.  So, if this RTO example were classified as a loan, it would most likely be considered usury: “the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest.”
 
Unfortunately, Buddy’s washer-dryer deal is not an anomaly.  It’s typical of the pricing the firm offers for most of its products, including flat-screen TVs, bedroom furniture sets, sectional sofas, and laptop computers.  Furthermore, Buddy’s approach is typical of the rest of the RTO industry, about which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says, “If monthly rental fees were expressed as an annual percentage rate (APR) they could range from about 100% to 350%.”  It’s not surprising, therefore, that FTC calls RTO “A Costly Convenience.”
 
Nevertheless, one might argue that no one is making people rent these products.  They’re entering the RTO arrangements of their own accord.  If someone feels he has to have a Frigidaire 18 cu. ft. stainless steel refrigerator now, and he’s willing to pay $24.99 a week, why shouldn’t he be allowed to rent it?’
 
The argument for freedom of choice is somewhat compelling, but rational people also realize that what consumers want is not always what’s best for them, e.g., cigarettes, pornography, etc.  Sure, an enterprising individual may start a business to sell such things, and some people will buy them, but it’s not doing them or our society any favors.
 
Some may also argue it’s unfair to compare refrigerators to cigarettes and porn.  The latter products hurt people physically, emotionally, and socially, while a refrigerator helps us keep food cold so we can eat and live.  That’s true, but anyone who ends up paying $1,874 for an appliance that should have cost about $690 has been hurt financially.  Tragically, many RTO firms “specifically target low-income and minority communities”--groups that may be more susceptible to the shady pricing tactics and that can ill-afford the exorbitant financing.

Giving consumers what they want is a good thing, provided that those desires are actually in the consumers’ best interest.  Such is seldom the case, however, for RTO products.  The RTO industry succeeds by preying on people who really want nice, new products, but can least afford them.  A strategy that encourages vulnerable consumers to ‘get it now’ and ‘pay forever’ represents “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!
1 Comment

Can You Believe Me Now?

12/3/2016

21 Comments

 
Picture

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

It’s often nice to see a familiar face, even if in a television commercial.  After many years out of sight, one of advertising’s most familiar faces is back, talking about wireless service.  This time, however, Paul Marcarelli isn’t asking “Can you hear me now?” for Verizon.  Surprisingly he’s switched sides, now stumping for Sprint.

In the spots for his new sponsor, Marcarelli proclaims “it’s 2016 and every network is great.”  Consequently, he suggests it’s not worth paying twice as much for a provider that’s only one percent better.
 
Someone recently asked me what I thought of Marcarelli’s less-than subtle shift to one of Verizon’s key competitors: “Is that ethical?” she wanted to know.  To be honest, I didn’t have a good answer at the time.  So, as I often do, I decided to give the issue more thought and write out my response, which is what you’re reading now.
 
First, it’s helpful to have a little context.  Marcarelli is an actor, writer, and producer who has gained recognition for his roles in plays such as The Adding Machine and for his production of Bridezilla Strikes Back!  Before the Verizon ads, he appeared in commercials for companies that included Dasani, Heineken, Merrill Lynch, Old Navy, and T-Mobile.
 
In 2002, Marcarelli began playing the part of the “test man” in Verizon commercials—a role he retained for nearly a decade.  Even as recently as 2011, he appeared in an ad announcing Verizon’s release of the iPhone 4.  Then, in April of 2011, the actor and the advertiser parted ways by mutual agreement, Verizon needing a new campaign and Marcarelli wanting to distance himself from the narrow image.
 
How, then, did Marcarelli end up as the spokesperson for one of Verizon’s main challengers?  In a video interview, he responded to the question of why he changed carriers:
“Sprint asked if I would try the service, and if I liked it, if I would help spread the word, and so, so that’s why I made the switch.”
 
One of the first things people may wonder is if what Marcarelli has done is legal.  Endorsement activities typically aren’t governed by statutes but by contracts between specific parties.  As suggested above, Verizon and Marcarelli had a contract, which ended in 2011.  Still, sometimes such work agreements contain clauses known as ‘covenants not to compete,’ which seek to prohibit employees from going to work for competitors when they leave their employers.

Even when such provisions exist, however, there’s no guarantee that courts will enforce them, especially if they’re deemed unreasonably restrictive.  In any case, Marcarelli was probably not an employee of Verizon but a contractor, and it’s unlikely that his agreement contained such a provision.  If it did, Verizon’s attorneys would be all over it, and Sprint’s commercials probably wouldn’t be airing.

So, Marcarelli’s shift to Sprint is likely legal, but that still doesn’t answer the question posed at the onset of this piece: “Is it ethical?”  Just because something conforms with government’s laws doesn’t mean it upholds moral principles:  State-sponsored genocide and legal segregation are two such unfortunate examples.
 
In terms of fairness, Verizon and Marcarelli apparently enjoyed mutually beneficial exchange throughout the time of their company-spokesperson relationship.  Marcarelli played a key part in the company’s long-running ad campaign that saw Verizon Wireless’s domestic revenues rise from $19.3 billion in 2002 to $70.1 in 2011.  Likewise, it’s reasonable to assume that Marcarelli was well-compensated for his promotional role, which required relatively little acting (“Can you hear me now”?), yet turned him into a national icon.

So, the two parties probably don’t owe each other anything more in a monetary sense.  Each, though, does deserve from the other an extra measure of appreciation and respect—the kind afforded to individuals and organizations with whom we’ve shared a long-term, healthy relationship.  That’s where Marcarelli may have missed the mark.
 
Even though his legal obligation to Verizon has ended, it’s ill-mannered for him to intentionally work against his former benefactor.  “But,” you may be thinking, “Marcarelli’s occupation is acting, and he needs to ‘pay the bills,’ as we all do.  To bar him from practicing his profession is like enforcing one of those overly-restrictive non-compete clauses mentioned above.  It’s taking away his livelihood.”
 
This argument has some merit, so let’s compare it to another high-profile example of marketplace competition: LeBron James leaving the Miami Heat to return to the Cleveland Cavaliers.  When James, or most other professional athletes, become free agents they inevitably end up playing for teams that compete with their former franchises.  By winning the most recent NBA Championship, the Cavaliers denied the Heat, and every other NBA team, the same success.
 
However, an elite athlete like LeBron, in a very small industry like professional basketball, has no choice but to play for a competitor.  Outside of the NBA, there are no opportunities at the same level.  Contrast his situation to that of Marcarelli.  There are thousands of other acting opportunities available that are as good or better than serving as a spokesperson for Sprint.  There’s no reason Marcarelli couldn’t pursue one or more of those many other options.
 
Likewise, it’s important to wonder why Sprint would choose Marcarelli as the spokesman for its new campaign, especially when his persona was so long- and closely-associated with Verizon.  Did Sprint have no other options, or was he was he the very best actor the firm could find?  Probably not.  Sprint knew that ads with Marcarelli would grab attention precisely because of the time and money Verizon had invested in developing their “test man” character.
 
As such, Sprint not only seeks to reap the benefits of something it has not sown, but it’s using those benefits again their creator.  Some may argue, “That’s business.” Others, however, can rightly contend that Sprint’s approach is at least a little underhanded and represents something lower than clean and honorable competition.
 
Marcarelli, therefore, is susceptible to similar accusations for leveraging his national recognition to the detriment of the very organization that built it for him.  Perhaps he’s not being disloyal, given that he and Verizon no longer have commitments to each other, but at a minimum his fast partnership with Sprint demonstrates a high degree of ingratitude to the organization that made him an icon.  Whether Sprint is now the best value in wireless service is arguable, but that’s really not the issue.
 
So, an actor jumps ship from one telecommunications giant to another—what does it matter to all of us ordinary people who aren’t product spokespeople or CEOs?  Well, many people take their social cues from advertising—one of our world’s most pervasive forms of communication.  It makes a difference, therefore, when a large well-known company like Sprint suggests it’s okay to turn traitor or otherwise forsake the people who have helped make you who you are.
 
Yes, individuals and organizations change, and our attitudes toward them sometimes should as well.  However, gratitude is a glue that in many ways holds our society together.  So, although Sprint, Marcarelli, and many others may benefit from the new partnership, our value system takes the loss, which makes using a competitor’s spokesperson “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!
21 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