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

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
Anonymous
12/4/2016 11:20:55 pm

I would like to make a critique about this article. You state that Marcarelli is to blame for working for Sprint because, as an actor, he has many other opportunities available to him besides his current job. This, you say, makes him a traitor for working only with his former employer's competitor, when he could have taken another acting opportunity to make a living.

This argument, in my opinion, is quite faulty. The film industry is a very difficult industry to get into. Even the people who get into it generally have to work other jobs in order to live. The number of people who are successful enough to become celebrities is even smaller, and even those people sometimes find themselves out of work after a while. Make no mistake, this is a textbook example of a dog eat dog world. For example, a part time actor answered this question where he described the process of trying to make a successful career in this field https://www.quora.com/How-hard-is-it-to-become-an-actor/answer/Zach-Davidson-5 .

Acting in TV commercials is also an example of typecasting, which is when an actor becomes known primarily only for one role. As an example, many people love "The Most Interesting Man in the World" commercials featuring Jonathan Goldsmith as the title character. However, given that he was relieved of this role earlier in 2016, it is unlikely that he will find another role with such recognition and in this industry more recognition = more financial reward. Returning to Marcarelli, while I'm sure he could've found work, I find it hard to believe that any other opportunity would have provided a higher level of income for him than Sprint did.

Given this significant oversight, I have a hard time blaming Marcarelli for accepting the Sprint job like the author does. In addition, the Ads themselves do not attempt to undercut or slam Verizon in any way. Marcarelli doesn't attempt to twist the truth but presents an honest option for viewers to ponder: take Verizon's offer of the better quality for higher cost or take an alternative offer that might not be as great but is much cheaper.

Therefore, I think Marcarelli and Sprint should be commended for making a respectful and beneficial marketing campaign, not accused of suggesting "it’s okay to turn traitor or otherwise forsake the people who have helped make you who you are."

Reply
Jake
12/5/2016 10:32:19 am

I believe that the move that Sprint and Marcarelli made was the best move for both the company and the actor. In my opinion I would take the job too. We all have goals to make the most money we can in our careers and this probably provided Marcarelli with good income compared to that of other acting roles. As for Sprint it is a smart move to use a well known face to promote your company. More power to them. For Verizon, if they did not want Marcarelli to go to a competitor then they should have kept him in contract. It is their loss and Sprint and Marcarelli's gain. I believe it is mindful marketing.

Reply
Garrett A.
12/6/2016 09:35:53 pm

I believe that this is mindful marketing. I think that even though he was once a spokesperson for a rival company that it still upholds societal views. Marcarelli agreed to join the networks side after using their product. He is showing that he enjoys their product and wants to voice his opinion to the world. I think what Sprint did with this is smart, it's not so much a smack in the face to Verizon as in my opinion it is a user of both companies changing his mind on one and sharing why he switched. So, I believe it is mindful marketing and that it still upholds societal value.

Reply
David Michael link
12/7/2016 02:32:53 am

I agree with the article as a whole. However I would like to point out, as someone with film major friends and who knows people in the media/entertainment industry, for Mr. Macarelli this was probably a once in a lifetime chance for him, monetarily. The fact that he has had little success outside of the string of advertisements he acted in on the behalf of Verizon shows that he has not been very active or in demand as an actor. This is a chance for him to gain public relevance and monetary gain. However, I do agree that, ethically, this is lacking. The whole advertisement is made to play on nostalgia that consumers for Verizon's advertisements with Macarelli. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, figuratively speaking. I do agree with the reasoning behind the advertisement. If two services are near identical in quality, but vary in cost, consumers should generally go for the cheaper of the two options. However this does not excuse the lackluster ethical marketing decision to use Macarelli as a spokesperson. For me, this is clearly single-minded.

Reply
Autumn
12/7/2016 04:59:37 pm

I somewhat agree with the part in this post where it mentions that it may not have been looked at as fully ethical for Macarelli to go from Verizon to Sprint because from an outsider's opinion, it may look like he is being a traitor because he's advertising for a competitor. With that being said, I don't think it's something to get all bent out of shape about because it's not like he switched over to Sprint while he was still working for Verizon (if he would even be allowed to do that because of his contract).
I have a couple of childhood friends that have been in acting since they were little and they have always said that the acting and film industry is very competitive, so any little gig they can get is usually worth it to them. I think a reason that Marcarelli may have went to work for Sprint after working for Verizon could simply be that he needed a job and he had no other offers. Yes, the initial judgement and reaction of people may be why did he start working for the competing company in the industry?, but people also need to remember that we don't always know the whole situation.

Reply
Evan Sholtis
12/7/2016 08:01:39 pm

I disagree with the point that Marcarelli shouldn't have helped Sprint. I believe since he had no legal ties to Verizon and that he enjoyed Sprint's service and wanted to help out, that he has the right to switch to Verizon's competitor. I also believe this is a good marketing ploy by Sprint. Being able to switch Marcarelli as the spokesperson of Verizon to Sprint, shows that they too should switch to Sprint. Marcarelli has the freedom to choose the jobs that he wants and him being a low list actor jobs can be hard to come by.

Reply
Leah W
12/7/2016 08:39:19 pm

I agree that Marcarelli's move was single minded. Although there was nothing legally restricting him from partnering with Sprint, he should still have some respect from his former employer. Yes, Marcarelli is an actor and needs to pay his bills, but I'm sure there were plenty of other job opportunities. His team should have been wary of the "back stabbing" move, since it could portray him as a traitor and someone who is not loyal.

Reply
Ryan hentschel
12/7/2016 08:49:18 pm

I think that Marcarelli's move was a good one for his professional life because he is making a lot of monry with Sprint. It, however, was not the best move for him in making a good name for himself. It makes him look like a traitor. People may also think that he just makes descisions to make money.

Reply
Sarah F.
12/8/2016 11:14:29 am

I agree. This actor is using his position of power formerly at Verizon to claim that Sprint is better. He may be an actor, but I think its somewhat traitorous. It is one thing to be in commercials for different types of products, but this move is a very clear display of power. It is single-minded and affects how people view both Sprint and Verizon.

Reply
Makenzie N.
12/7/2016 09:34:09 pm

I agree that this ad was simple-minded. I understand that Marcarelli needed to make the move for his career but I don't think it conveyed a good message to the audience. It makes Marcarelli look like a traitor instead of a national icon that I think Sprint was hoping for. Although Marcarelli did not take the job from Sprint while still working with Verizon and he waited about 5 years before switching, it still doesn't seem very ethical. Instead of making me want to switch to Sprint, the use of Marcarelli makes me question Sprint's ethical standards.

Reply
Alexander C.
12/7/2016 09:59:41 pm

After watching the ad and viewing comments on Sprint's video on YouTube, I believe, along with probably a majority of the ad's viewers, that the ad is simple minded. Though its viewers may not asses the ad in those specific terms, consumers view this tactic by sprint as simply "cheap," unfair, or unethical. While from a business standpoint this could have potentially been a wise move for Sprint, it does not appear to uphold societal values. Though I agree with the single minded nature of the ad campaign, I don't believe that Marcarelli should be blamed for simply doing his job as an actor.

Reply
Frankie Rosenberger
12/7/2016 10:38:04 pm

I remember the first time I heard this commercial and the fact that Marcarelli said that all wireless companies are basically the same within one percent. Then when I noticed who was in the commercial, it made me think for a second where that guy used to be a spokesman for. I don't truly think it's mindful marketing because for people like me, the whole commercial just made me think that Marcarelli use to be in Verizon commercials instead. I don't think its an advantage for sprint that they are using him, I don't believe that that will increase share holder value. Now when i see this commercial, all I think of is Sprint paying Marcarelli more than verizon would. That's all that means to me. So I believe this whole deal is Simple-minded marketing.

Reply
Makayla Mullikin
12/8/2016 12:31:12 am

I think that this is mindful marketing. While some might not like that he switched from Verizon to Sprint, he was not bound by a contract and he only agreed after using the product first. I also feel like it was a smart move on Sprint's part since he was such a widely known spokesperson, there are many people that might switch just because he did. I think that Sprint saw a good opportunity and took advantage of it.

Reply
Lanae Hunsberger
12/8/2016 12:55:34 am

I believe this is mindful marketing because there isn't any contract that withheld Marcarelli from partnering with Sprint. Since he got to try out Sprint's product before agreeing he obviously was satisfied with the product and wanted to be involved. However, Marcarelli was involved with Verizon but Sprint was able to have him in commercials after the contract with Verizon. It might've been strange when customers saw Marcarelli in a Sprint commercial rather than a Verizon one, but since he helped Verizon then he can probably do a lot of good for Sprint

Reply
Raul Serrano
12/8/2016 09:30:33 am

I would classify this as single minded marketing. It seems to me that Marcarelli was looking after himself and money rather than upholding the company that got him his acting fame and fame. I can see where many would say it is for work and need of work related reasons and it is legal in the eyes of the government. Although that is true I regard loyalty and respect at a high level. And I would presume that Verizon treated Marcarelli fairly and compensated him well because he was with them for so long. It seems unethical to me for him to betray those who took care of him and gave him his start. But I will say I could definitely understand why one would think this is just an actor doing his job. The classification of this situation depends on the person doing the classifying and their outlooks and values.

Reply
Hayley
12/8/2016 11:19:30 am

I agree with the article that it would be single minded marketing. For a celebrity to switch from one company to another just shows consumers that they are working for the fame and not because they actually care for the product. This has the possibility of having a negative effect on both companies in the long run. Consumers may choose to not use either brand because of the reputation that both companies have.

Reply
femi obadina
12/8/2016 11:32:33 am

I definitely agree that I was the right choice of his to move. Although it may seem unethical the way I look at it is that companys evolve overtime and certainly some may improve while other =may just plumet but, the point he is trying to make is that he has seen a better evolved network which is sprint. even though it happens to be one of the rivals of his former sponsor he simply may be saying the truth and going for what is best.

Reply
Eric
12/8/2016 12:43:15 pm

I don't really agree with the choice to move because he was with one of the most reliable if not the most reliable networks. Yes they may only be a 1% difference but that 1% could mean a lot. That could mean the range of service could 1% less in your area or etc. For sprint bringing one of your competitor's to advertise your product looks bad because this shows that he can't be trusted to be loyal to one network. Verizon thought he could be trust and loyal to their company, but look at him now, he's with Sprint. So what he decides to move again? That just shows that he is not loyal. Bringing in one of Verizon guys could be a crucial mistake to this company in the future.

Reply
Matt Kovach
12/8/2016 06:20:37 pm

I am actually fine with his choice to start working with a new company. Although people may see him as traitor, I don't think this will affect sprint. You propose the conversation about if this is legal, and then if this is ethical. First off, ethical or not, he might have taken the job for money, because other than commercials with these two companies I have not seen Marcarellis face anywhere else. So ethical or not, money comes before most in many people's minds. Second off, I don't think costumers are really wondering about how ethical his decision was, because we are talking about phone companies... not something really worth getting flustered over. Nevertheless, I believe his choice to switch to sprint is perfectly fine.

Reply
James Gibbons link
1/8/2017 02:32:07 pm

I find this series of commercials to be troubling. Not only because of the switch of Paul from Verizon to Sprint, which this article covers, but also because of the shady marketing language used by Sprint. While the "reliability" of Sprint's network may be within 1% of Verizon, anyone who knows anything about networks knows that Verizon has a network that covers much more ground than Sprint even to this day. Saying things like all networks are great is misleading to potential customers who may think that Sprint now has good coverage in their area while they still are spotty. This connects back to Paul's legacy. His first series with Verizon focused on covering the country and being able to connect anywhere. Consumers will conflate that message with the reliability message of Sprint. I believe it is not a tactful move by Sprint for both of these reasons.

Reply
Sam
1/8/2017 09:09:35 pm

In general, I am in agreement with this article. While Marcarelli’s switch to Sprint was a smart strategic move, it definitely was not ethical. I believe that the main argument for this would be that Sprint is reaping the benefits of the marketing platform that Verizon established. This switch sets a poor example for society because it makes it seem like moves similar to this one are acceptable. It is legal, but it is not right. Perhaps if there had been a bad split between Verizon and Marcarelli it would be more understandable; still unethical, but understandable. However, due to circumstance, it is hard to argue in favor of Marcarelli. I agree with the statement that he could have found acting opportunities elsewhere, as he did establish himself well through his prior work with Verizon. I think Sprint’s decision was cheap and lazy, because rather than thinking of new and innovative marketing strategies they decided to reuse and recycle Verizon’s. In my opinion this decision reflects negatively on Sprint as a company and Marcarelli as an actor, as it discredits him greatly.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    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