Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Mindful Marketing Book
  • Mindful Ads?
  • Contact

Apps that Imagine People Undressed

5/1/2025

3 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing -
author of Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick 

Disgusting, deplorable, despicable? For more than a decade, I’ve written about ethical issues in marketing, at times exposing certain organizations’ shameful strategies that have disgraced the discipline and hurt people. However, in this instance I’m at a loss for an adjective that can aptly describe the collective disdain there should be for AI that digitally undresses people: nudify apps.
 
Among the worst practices in marketing I’ve discussed over the years, two that immediately come to mind are Ernst & Young (EY) encouraging its employees to cheat on ethics exams (Cultures of Corruption, July 16, 2022) and Volkswagen integrating a “defeat device” in certain cars in order to trick vehicle emissions readers (Dirty Diesel was No Accident, September 26, 2015). While EY’s behavior was deplorable because of its utter irony, VW’s actions involved painstakingly planned manipulation, the likes of which is seldom seen.
 
However, neither of these approaches is any more appalling than the newest encroachment on moral sensibility: nudify apps.
 
What are nudify apps? Kerry Gallagher, the education director for ConnectSafely, as well as a school administrator, a teacher, and a mom of two, succinctly describes them as apps that “take a regular clothed photo of a person and use artificial intelligence to create a fake nude image.”
 
Although using a nudify app to create such images should alone seem improper, what makes matters worse is that the apps’ users routinely share the fake photos with others, often teens as young as middle school, who then use the deepfake photos to harass and humiliate classmates.
 
The most infamous case of such shaming occurred in June 2024 in Australia where deep-faked nude images of about 50 girls in two private schools were widely distributed. The perpetrator was a male student, formerly of one of the schools.
 
As one can imagine, the victims of nudify apps, who are often the last to know what’s been done, are devasted. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is “deeply concerned about the potential for generative artificial intelligence to be used in ways that sexually exploit and harm children.” More specifically, NCMEC issues a stern warning about the damage nudify apps do:
 
“These manipulative creations can cause tremendous harm to children, including harassment, future exploitation, fear, shame, and emotional distress. Even when exploitative images are entirely fabricated, the harm to children and their families is very real.”
 
It might seem that creating a fake nude image of someone would clearly be illegal, but as often happens with new technology, laws lag behind individuals’ and organizations’ actions. In the United States, a provision in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022 made the sharing of intimate images without consent grounds for civil action in federal court, but if the images shared are fakes, i.e., not real explicit images, has the civil law truly been broken?
 
Regardless of that potential legal loophole, using nudify apps legally doesn’t mean doing so is ethical.

The significant psychological and social harms the images cause their victims are certainly moral concerns. However, such negative outcomes aren’t the only ethical grounds on which nudify apps should be judged. The behavior also violates at least two time-tested values:
  • Fairness: Every person has rights to privacy, including for their body. Even though they are not actual photographs, the images that nudify apps create look “hyper-realistic” because the algorithms that create them have been trained on “large datasets of explicit images,” which produces for viewers the effect that they are actually seeing the victim naked. It’s unfair to have the right to physical modesty ‘stripped away’ without consent.
  • Decency: The human body is a beautiful thing, not inherently indecent. However, over millennia, most cultures have adopted rational norms that limit physical exposure in public by prescribing what people should wear, from loincloths to leggings. Many societies have codified their norms into laws aimed at guiding behavior, like statutes against public indecency and the Motion Picture Association’s film rating system (PG-13, R, etc.). The point is, abundant precedent suggests that the primary end of nudify apps, to indiscriminately publicize human nakedness, including among minors, is fundamentally indecent.
 
Picture

So far the focus of this article has been on the users of nudify apps, who are certainly culpable for their shameful acts. At the same time, when the perpetrators are themselves children, it’s especially important to ask: Who else should bear responsibility? Those accountable should include:
  • Parents: Although it’s impossible to monitor everything one’s kids do on their laptops and phones, parents must establish at least some safety limits. Moreover, parents should model and discuss appropriate behaviors more broadly so their children assimilate values that will positively guide their daily choices.
  • Institutions: Schools should be proactive in addressing nudify apps with their students, letting them know that the apps are off-limits and warning students of the consequences for violations.
  • Government: Legislatures at all levels should consider how then can limit if not eliminate nudify apps. Some states like New Jersey are making the use of nudify apps a criminal offense.
  • Associations: For the benefit of their fields, professional groups can take stands against nudify apps specifically, and more generally they should clearly the communicate the values of fairness and decency that are fundamental to rejecting the apps, as well as future technology based on similar impropriety.
 
There’s one other set of responsible parties not mentioned above because they deserve accountability above any other – the apps’ creators.
 
It’s hard to imagine how the dozens of marketers of nudify apps justify their products. Maybe some rationalize, “They’re for people to nudify themselves,” but who needs to do that? In most imaginable instances, the apps’ purpose is to undress others without their knowledge or consent, then to share the sordid deepfakes with others.
 
As often happens in cases where business strategy goes awry, money has likely overshadowed any plausible mission for the creators of nudify apps and woefully skewed the tech entrepreneurs’ ambitions. Likewise, the apps’ creators seemingly failed to self-censure, or follow the moral mandate, Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
 
One entity that can’t reasonably be held responsible is AI. Artificial intelligence is basically a value-neutral tool, often used for good purposes but sometimes for nefarious ones, as nudify apps illustrate. AI largely does what it’s told to do without questioning the ethicality of the instructions, which is the obligation of people.
 
As I’ve found through my own experiences using AI and as the following articles expound, it’s up to humans to hit pause when potential ethical issues arise and to ask the moral question, “Is this something we should be doing?”
  • Who will be the Adult in the Room with AI?
  • What Sales AI Can and Can't Do
  • Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics
 
Abominable, egregious, heinous, indefensible, reprehensible – maybe all these adjectives are needed to adequately describe the destructive nature of nudify apps. One other descriptor that should be included is Single-Minded Marketing.



Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
3 Comments

Who will be the Adult in the Room with AI?

4/1/2025

11 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing -
author of Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick 

“Like a kid in a candy store” – If you’ve ever experienced unlimited access to your most desired indulgences, you may have appreciated someone stepping in to help you ‘know when to say when.’ AI quickly has become that candy store for many whose mouths are open wide to the technology’s amazing treats but who entertain few thoughts of the actions’ broader impacts. So, who will help AI users ‘know when to say when’?
 
Individuals and organizations are rapidly embracing AI to enhance productivity, from personalizing emails, to providing customer service, to optimizing delivery routes, to predicting machine maintenance, to trading stocks. In fact, several of the AI examples in the last sentence came courtesy of ChatGPT.
 
A financial sign of AI’s rocketing popularity is the report that OpenAI, ChatGPT’s parent, expects its revenue to triple this year to $12.7 billion. That expectation likely stems in part from the current U.S. administration’s promised $500 billion investment in AI infrastructure in an industry partnership called Stargate.
 
It’s not surprising that AI has come so swiftly into widespread use. Criteria that predict how fast consumers adopt new products, or how quickly they diffuse into the market, suggest rapid acceptance of AI:
  • Relative advantage: Compared to the time and effort it takes to draft a report, create a complex image, etc., AI is much quicker, giving it a great economic advantage.
  • Compatibility: AI tools like ChatGPT work well with many of the productivity tools we already use, such as our smartphones’ apps, and the new technology is increasingly integrated directly into other tools.
  • Observability: AI is easy to see around us, from voice assistants (Siri, Alexa), to autocomplete functions (Messages, Word), to map apps (route optimization and traffic updates). We can often observe friends, family, and coworkers using those tools. The challenge, if any, is to realize that those commonplace applications are AI.
  • Complexity and Triability: Although AI is among the most sophisticated technologies humans have ever created, it is very easy to use, e.g., as simple as typing or speaking a command. It’s also easy to experiment with many basic AI tools, e.g., several chatbots, offer free versions, including ChatGPT, Claude, and Copilot.
 
In sum, AI helps individuals and organizations accomplish two of life’s most prized goals: to work more effectively and efficiently. Beyond that practicality, many AI applications are exciting and fun. Some possess a jaw-dropping wow-factor that makes one wonder how the technology can do something so challenging so fast.
 
But just as too much candy can be bad for one’s teeth, too much AI is proving problematic for some of its users, as well as for individuals who barely know about it.
 
Even as many individuals and organizations dive headlong and uninhibited into AI, many others feel some, if not much, dissonance about its use. In a recent survey of knowledge workers that included 800 C-suite leaders and 800 lower-level employees, Writer/Workplace found a wide disparity in perceptions of generative AI, for instance:
  • 77% of employees using AI indicated that they were an “AI champion” or had potential to become one.
  • 71% of executives indicated there were challenges in adopting AI.
  • More than 33% of executives said AI has been “a massive disappointment.”
  • 41% of Gen Z employees were “actively sabotaging their company’s AI strategy.”
  • About 67% of executives reported that adoption of AI has led to “tension and division.”
  • 42% of executives indicated that AI adoption was “tearing their company apart.”
 
Why did AI produce so much angst for these research participants? Unfortunately, the article summarizing the study’s findings didn’t identify the causes; however, I have good guesses of what some of the reasons were.
 
Picture
 
In May 2024, I wrote “Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics” which identified a dozen areas of moral concern related to AI use: Ownership, Attribution, Employment, Accuracy, Deception, Transparency, Privacy, Bias, Relationships, Skills, Stewardship, and Indecency.
 
Looking back 10 months later, a long time in the life of technology, it seems the list has aged well, unfortunately. There are increasingly pressing concerns in each of the areas, such as:
  • Ownership, Attribution, Employment: Google and Open AI recently asked the White House “for permission to train AI on copyrighted content.” Over 400 leading artists, including Ron Howard and Paul McCartney, signed a letter voicing their disapproval.
  • Stewardship: AI is notoriously an “energy hog” whose data centers require far more electricity than that of their predecessors. Jesse Dodge, a research analyst at the Allen Institute for AI, shared that “One query to ChatGPT uses approximately as much electricity as could light a lightbulb for about 20 minutes.” Energy production for AI is the reason Microsoft has signed a deal to reopen the infamous nuclear power plant Three Mile Island.
  • Bias, Indecency: In his article, “Grok 3: The Case for an Unfiltered AI Model,” Shelly Palmer compares AI models that learn from sanitized datasets to xAI’s Grok 3, which has an “unhinged” mode that doesn’t restrict “harmful content—adult entertainment, hate speech, extremism.” Using the opening metaphor, Grok 3 seems like a wide-open candy shop with no adult supervision.
 
Certainly, some people have practical inhibitions about AI because they’re not sure how, when, or why to use it. Others, though, likely have moral concerns, including the ones above. I believe much of that AI dissonance stems from values embedded in every person, regardless of their worldview: principles that include decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility.
 
Granted, we don’t see these values in everyone all the time, but they’re there. Rational people know it’s indecent to show sexually explicit material in public, it’s dishonest to lie, it’s unfair to steal, etc. So when they see AI generating indecent content, creating misleading deepfakes, or appropriating others’ intellectual property, those innate values rightly spur feelings of unease.
 
So, back to the question that opened this piece: Who will keep rapidly advancing AI in moral check? Here are those influencers in reverse order of impact:
 
5) AI Itself: Over time and if trained on the right types of data, AI may become better at identifying and addressing moral issues. However, from my experience, although the technology is good at answering questions, it’s ill-equipped to ask them, especially ones involving ethical issues.
 
4) Laws: Clear-thinking senators and representatives often enact legislation that’s in the public’s best interest. However, given the time it takes to envision, propose, and pass such laws, they inevitably lag behind the behavior they aim to constrain, especially when the actions involve fast-moving tech.
 
3) Industry Associations: These organizations play useful roles in identifying opportunities and challenges that face their members. It takes time, but they often craft values statements and related documents that can help guide moral decision-making. Unfortunately, though, their edicts usually can’t be enforced the ways governments’ laws can, so compliance may be minimal.
 
2) Organizations: When they want to, business and other types of organizations can make decisions quickly. Morally grounded leaders can create policies to promote ethical behavior. The challenge is that even this guidance may not be specific enough for new or very nuanced moral dilemmas, and it’s usually impossible to speak into every action as it occurs.
 
1) Individuals: They are able to address issues as they occur and can be specially equipped for those ethical challenges. When moral issues arise, they are the ones who can and must hit pause and ask, “Yes, AI can do this, but should it?”
 
Rational principle-driven people, who embrace their innate senses of decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility, can quickly question AI's potential ethical encroachment as they see it and pump the brakes on strategies that seem likely to violate one or more of these values.
 
In the candy store that is AI, each of us needs to be the adult in the room. While we need to understand and encourage the many good things AI offers, we also need to know when to say, “That’s enough.” Ensuring that AI rightly serves humanity makes for Mindful Marketing.


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
11 Comments

Resolving to be More Moral

1/5/2025

4 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 
-
author of Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick 

With a new year come resolutions, often aimed at life-changing actions like exercising more and working less. Any effort to become the best version of ourselves is commendable, so why haven’t we heard this resolution? “In 2025, I want to be more ethical.”
 
As 2024 ended, it was interesting to read articles that curated top headlines from the prior twelve months, which reminded us of major life-altering and world-shaping events. Like other years, 2024 saw continued war and devastating natural disasters, and who can forget the contentious U.S. presidential election or the inspiring Paris Olympics?
 
Certain people commanded news coverage in good ways, while others did for the wrong reasons:
  • P-Diddy was accused of sex trafficking that involved drug-fueled orgies. 
  • Luigi Mangione has been charged with the murder of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO.
  • Former U.S. congressman Matt Gaetz purportedly paid tens of thousands of dollars to women for sex and drugs, including to a minor. 
  • Dominique Pelicot was sentenced in France to 20 years in prison for drugging and abusing his then wife while also inviting dozens of strangers to rape her.
  • A fifteen-year-old girl in Madison Wisconsin reportedly killed a fellow student and a teacher.
 
Regrettably, poor moral choices weren’t restricted to individuals. Several large companies pooled employee maleficence, leading to these newsworthy corporate scandals:
  • Mineral water producer Perrier utilized banned water purification processes.
  • Commodity trader Trifugura engaged in data manipulation, inflated payments, and concealing overdue receivables – fraud that will account for approximately $1.1 billion in losses.
  • The U.S. Justice Department found multinational software company SAP guilty of bribery in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), fining the company $220 million. 
  • The U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) fined the Netherlands affiliate of accounting giant KPMG $25 million for cheating on mandatory internal training exams. 
 
Of course, there were also millions of other unscrupulous acts that were too trivial to be newsworthy or that evaded public scrutiny for other reasons. However, in terms of morality, 2024 was not much different than 2023, and 2025, unfortunately, probably won’t see significant improvement.
 
So, given people’s proclivity to mess up and our perennial need for moral development, why don’t individuals make New Year’s resolutions to be more ethical?
 
Of the many plausible explanations, here are several that are most likely:
  • People don’t see a need: If asked if they’re ethical, most people would probably respond that they are, which by and large is true. Although we all make mistakes, it’s likely a small percentage of people who commit unethical acts routinely.
  • It’s a very broad pledge: Without a detailed action plan, it’s hard to even begin to approach such a far-reaching and expansive goal, i.e., “It’s a good objective, but how exactly do I accomplish it?”
  • It’s difficult to measure: At year’s end, how does one know if they’ve been more ethical? The goal’s ambiguity and lack of clear benchmarks make it hard to easily see success. How exactly do you quantify and appraise ethical behavior?
  • It’s daunting: Possible failure is likely why many potential resolutions never occur. No one likes to fall short of goals, particularly if they share them with other people.
 
That said, the most challenging goals are sometimes the most worthwhile ones, which is certainly the case for ethics. As rational, caring humans, we should want:
  • To be the best version of ourselves, which connects closely to our moral choices
  • To be true to our values and employ consistency across moral decisions
  • To be good stewards of our actions, realizing their impact on others, including on our family, friends, the organizations we serve, as well as on our world.
  • To avoid the major moral meltdowns described above that profoundly altered individuals lives and/or came at tremendous costs to organizations.
 
Fortunately, most people don’t face significant ethical choices each day. However, moral dilemmas are unpredictable: They’re like tornados that can arise with little warning and quickly become severe.


Picture
 
People who live in Tornado Alley understand the uncertainty and danger of the weather, so many there take necessary precautions and “have a safety plan in place.”
 
We each should follow that example and have a plan for moral decision-making, so when issues arise, we’re ready for them. Such a plan should involve specific actions like:
  • Adopting a model for ethical decision-making, i.e., a set of moral standards that can be used for any ethical dilemma.
  • Keeping ethics top-of-mind by reading thought-provoking opinion pieces and engaging with others who are interested in moral decision-making
  • Enlisting others to act as sounding boards for our decisions and to help hold us accountable
  • Making moral choices preemptively, or deciding before we actually need to decide.
 
These are several of the specific action steps I unpack in the final chapter of my new book (shameless plug), Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick.

Picture
  
Yes, we should resolve to make more moral choices, but do such resolutions really help? The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which I used for my doctoral dissertation and hundreds of other researchers also have used successfully, suggests that they do.

According to the TPB, our intentions are the main determinant of our behavior. There are very few actions people take that they don’t first intend to take.
 
Have you made a New Year’s resolution? Any time of year is a good time to resolve to act ethically. Doing so brings many benefits, including more “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
4 Comments

A Decade of Very Demure, Very Mindful Marketing

10/1/2024

1 Comment

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

It’s hard to believe that Mindful Marketing has been shining a light on ethics in the field for ten years! TikTok didn’t exist in September 2014, when I wrote “CVS Quits Smoking,” the very first article on MindfulMarketing.org. Likewise, the appetite for influencer content, such as Jools Lebron’s “Very demure, very mindful” viral videos, was just starting to grow. The world looked different in many ways during the fall of 2014:  
  • Barrack Obama was a year-and-a-half into his second term as president.
  • Prince Harry was still single and part of the British royal family.
  • Tom Brady had won just three of his seven Super Bowls.
  • Instagram was only six years old.
  • Apple’s newest phones were the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.
  • On May 23, Tesla stock closed at a mere $13.82 a share.
  • Russia had invaded Crimea just a half year earlier.
  • George Floyd was still alive.
  • The #MeToo movement was several years away.
  • The world didn’t know what a global pandemic would be like.
  • It was still a year before Volkswagen’s notorious Dieselgate.
  • The URL MindfulMarketing.org was still available.
  • I had less gray hair
 
When I created the Mindful Marketing concept and Mindful Matrix ten years ago, I dreamed of doing the impossible: moving the needle on ethics in my field. As most people realize, marketing unfortunately has a reputation for being among the most morally suspect professions.
 
Each year Gallup conducts a poll in which it asks respondents to rate the honesty and ethical standards of 20 or so occupations. Inevitably, at the top of the list are jobs like doctor, nurse, and pharmacist, while near the bottom are several marketing occupations such as telemarketer, advertising practitioner, and car salesperson.
 
High-profile morale lapses like Volkswagen developing a defeat-device to trick emission tests, Wells Fargo employees creating fake accounts, and Turing Pharmaceutical’s CEO Martin Shkreli increasing the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000%, have suggested that marketing ethics are easily forgotten.
 
Several other fields like accounting and law have continuing education requirements that include focus on ethics. Unfortunately, marketing does not. Consequently, a main aim of Mindful Marketing has always been to make ethics sticky.
 
A research paper I coauthored by Laureen Mgrdichian, published in Marketing Education Review, explains how Mindful Marketing utilizes a common analytical tool, a 2 x 2 matrix akin to the Boston Consulting Group’s portfolio matrix, to encourage conversations about ethical issues. The article also describes how Mindful Marketing leverages branding – a tool that organizations large and small use to differentiate their products from those of competitors and make them more memorable, i.e., stickier.
 
Admittedly, in ten years Mindful Marketing hasn’t come close to grabbing the incredible social media attention that Jools Lebron has gained in a few months – 2.2 million followers on TikTok – but it has received other significant recognition and exposure including:
  • Dozens of articles republished on CommPro.biz
  • Interviews by The New York Times, Fast Company, U.S. News & World Report, National Public Radio, and The Boston Globe
  • Many speaking opportunities such as at the American Marketing Association’s annual Leadership Summit, the Marketing & Public Policy conference, the Marketing Management Association conference, and a special AI-focused conference of the British Academy of Management.
 
The most exciting new development is that there will soon be a Mindful Marketing book!

Picture

I’ve signed an agreement with Kendall Hunt to write “Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick,” which should be published this December. I am grateful to have been granted a sabbatical from teaching this fall to work on the book, which is now 80 percent complete.
 
Over the years, several people have asked me whether I might write a book on Mindful Marketing. Initially, I brushed off the suggestions, but as the site’s marketing ethics content continued to grow and gain traction, I began to give the idea more serious consideration.
 
A few years ago, I traveled back in the Mindful Marketing archives to September 2014, reviewed all the articles from that time forward, and curated them into specific categories to match topics I teach in my business ethics class. There are now over 320 Mindful Marketing articles, which provide a wealth of choices for engaging real-world applications to almost any ethical issue in marketing imaginable.
 
The articles have served my business ethics students well for discussions of topics ranging from utilitarianism, to economic and social justice, to decency. So, I thought if Mindful Marketing works for my course, it might work for others' classes. Moreover, a book seemed like the logical way to extend Mindful Marketing’s reach.
 
Some may wonder why marketing should be the focus of a business ethics book. Among other strong support, there are the arguments that marketing:
  • “Is the distinguishing, unique function of business”
  • “Is the lifeblood of any company”
  • Touches every business area
  • Directly impacts consumers many times a day
  • Is used by business leaders (e.g., CEOs, VPs, partners)
  • Is used by everyone (e.g., market their ideas, themselves)
  • Is replete with moral issues to which students can readily relate
 
While students are the primary audience, I believe the book also will have value for marketing practitioners, who are the ones making the moral decisions that ultimately determine the ethical perceptions and realities of the field. Of course I’m biased, but I believe the book also will be an interesting read for anyone who is intrigued by, or concerned about, marketing’s unique impact on our world.
 
Most important, my hope is that the book will encourage more students-turned-marketing-professionals to hit pause and ask if the strategies they see or plan to use are Mindful Marketing.
 
Our world will be a better place when there are more professionals like Kaylee Enck, who even when hearing about a rom-com’s unconventional promotional approach, remembered the Mindful Marketing conversations she engaged in a few years earlier as a student, felt moral dissonance, and questioned the film producer’s strategy. Kaylee’s experience and others like hers show that Mindful Marketing’s stickiness offers strong hope for making an impact on ethics in the field.
 
It’s interesting to see how much more often the word mindful is used now than it was a decade ago. Sometimes the contexts are physical health, or mental well-being, or even demure attire. Although those uses are different, they’re complementary – they’re all about being thoughtful and principled.

​It’s good for us to be mindful in many different ways. Given the breadth and depth of marketing’s reach, our world will especially benefit from more Mindful Marketing.


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
1 Comment

How to Talk Appropriately About Pooping

8/2/2024

2 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

There are certain subjects polite people don’t discuss in public in order to maintain decorum and show respect to others.  So, what do you do when you work in advertising and you’re asked to make commercials about one of those taboo topics?  Even ad veterans can struggle with such an assignment, but two interns accepted the challenge and crafted a very creative and considerate campaign that surprisingly won one of advertising’s greatest accolades!
 
Every living person does several of the same things: breath, eat, sleep, excrete.  While it’s generally acceptable to do the first three in public, social norms strongly discourage doing or even talking about bowel and bladder functions with others.  Why?  Probably because they involve private parts and because the outputs are by most standards . . . gross.
 
Meanwhile, billions of consumers regularly purchase a wide variety of products to assist in managing those two unseemly bodily functions, urination and defecation, from diapers to toilet paper to air fresheners.  There also are products that individuals require at certain times when one of the functions isn’t performing properly, like laxatives.
 
Proper pooping is a serious concern.  A recent study found a relationship between stool frequency and healthy kidney and liver function. Furthermore, “things like constipation are associated with chronic disease,” says Professor Sean Gibbons of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle.  This science underscores the importance of the promotional question:
 
How can one tactfully advertise a product that will relieve consumers’ constipation?
 
That was the very challenging assignment given to Rag Brahmbhatt and Nidhi Shah, interns at the advertising agency Serviceplan in Hamburg Germany. The client, Macrogol Hexal, wanted to promote its constipation-relieving powder, which, as suggested above, is not the most socially acceptable topic.
 
However, Brahmbhatt and Shah, two young people who are both from India, rose to the occasion, creating a very unique audio approach to communicate the ease of using the laxative and experiencing the desired bowel relief.
 
The pair pitched using a voice similar to that of British biologist and broadcaster David Attenborough in a series of nature-inspired scripts, accented with environmental sounds, to paint evocative pictures in listeners minds’, ostensibly about events like an otter sliding effortlessly into a river, but really about what Hexal can help happen on the toilet.
 
In addition to the otter sliding into a river, an AdAge article contains embedded video of other spots’ vivid metaphoric descriptions of a meteor landing in the ocean, a coconut falling, and a volcano erupting.  Each spot culminates with a consistent question and answer “Could it be this easy?  With Macrogol Hexal it is,” as well as the campaign’s fitting tagline, “Smooth Laxative Relief.”
 
​
Picture
 
Serviceplan submitted the work to Cannes Lions, the annual gathering in Cannes France where “the advertising and communications industry meets to celebrate the world's best work.”  To the great surprise of Brahmbhatt and Shah, their otter spot won the top prize in the Script category of the Audio & Radio awards, a Gold Lion.
 
Beyond the very clever metaphors, the artfully written script, and the realistic sounds, what makes the work especially unique is how it took a very socially awkward issue – a taboo conversational topic and inelegant human action – and made it not just acceptable but inviting for mass communication.
 
That approach is in many ways counterintuitive and countercultural.  While the two interns took the somewhat disgusting concept of constipation and made it decent, others in advertising unfortunately often do the opposite, i.e., To promote decent products like food, clothing, and cars, they use indecent promotion such as oversexualized images and expletives.
 
Why do others resort to indecency?  Although one reason may be to cater to the tastes of certain target market members, the main reason is likely because indiscretion takes less creative thinking.  In other words, it’s easier.  Unfortunately, there’s no shortage of companies that have made the low-level investment in indecency, for instance:
  • Liquid Death: In many ways the canned water company is a poster-child for indecency.  It may be a cartoon ad, but in it blood flows everywhere as an axe-wielding brand mascot monster violently kills a dozen people. 
  • Girls vs. Cancer:  The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned the charity organization’s billboards, aimed at encouraging positive sex for women with cancer because of the catchphrase, “Cancer Won’t be the Last Thing that F*cks Me.” 
  • Kraft Heinz:  The maker of the world’s best-known macaroni and cheese, a perennial favorite kid food, has surprisingly leaned into profanity for promotions more than once, first asking consumers to “Get your chef together,” then, for a special Mother’s Day campaign, encouraging moms to “Swear Like a Mother.”
 
Can these low-brow approaches work?  They can to some extent.
 
Most advertising aims to accomplish AIDA: grab attention, retain interest, tap into desire, and spur action. It’s not hard to get others’ attention by showing something vulgar, making an explicit reference to sex, or swearing.  Sometimes a continuation of such clickbait-like tactics can even hold interest.  It’s much less likely, though, that those approaches will lead to desire for the product or meaningful action.
 
Worse, indecency can do irreparable damage to a brand.  What does a purportedly family-friendly company like Kraft gain by suggesting swearing, versus the credibility it stands to lose with stakeholders?
 
Remember Go-Daddy’s sex-infused Super Bowl commercials that over many years earned it the reputation as the big game’s “raciest advertiser”? The company eventually realized that sex doesn’t sell web services but has had difficulty rebounding from its well-established reputation for raunch.
 
More than any of these companies, Brahmbhatt and Shah could have legitimately capitalized on filth in making ads for a laxative.  However, the two seemingly less-experienced interns dug deeper to develop a truly creative and clean campaign that likely will be effective for their firm’s client, Macrogol Hexal.
 
Does that mean the ads are entirely above reproach?  Not necessarily.  There is the possible issue of the ads using what sounds like Attenborough’s voice.  Would you want your vocal likeness to endorse a laxative without your consent?  It’s unclear whether Attenborough’s permission was something Serviceplan sought and gained.
 
In terms of decorum, it’s great that two emerging professionals have reminded the advertising industry that creativity doesn’t mean compromising values like decency.  Moreover, Brahmbhatt and Shah have provided an excellent example of the moral math:  effective + ethical = Mindful Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
2 Comments

Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics

5/3/2024

9 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

New technology has enabled people to do previously unimaginable things:  mass-produce books, illuminate homes, communicate across continents, fly through the air.  As amazing as these advances were, artificial intelligence (AI) offers an even more incredible ability, one on which humans have held a uniquely strong hold – thought.
 
Allowing AI to drive information gathering, analysis, and even creativity can be very helpful, but without a heavy human hand on the wheel, is society on a collision course to moral collapse?  Avoiding such an outcome will involve many intentional actions; a main one must be asking the right questions. 
 
People sometimes ask me the question, “Did you always want to be a teacher/professor?”  My answer is easy, “Absolutely not.”  For most of my early life I was terrified of public speaking.
 
However, I’ve always had one trait that serves educators well – curiosity.  Even at a young age, I was very inquisitive, often wanting to know how and why.  I remember one day, when I was four or five my loving mother, fatigued by all my inquiries, exclaimed with some exacerbation, “David, you ask so many questions!”
 
Curiosity has served me well in business roles and in higher education, where I tell my students asking good questions is one of the best skills they can develop.  Among other things, the right questions clarify needs and spur creative solutions.  Questions are also critical for challenging potential immorality.
 
Effective use of AI often depends on a person’s ability to ask the right question of the appropriate app.  Those inquiries can involve literal questions, e.g., asking ChatGPT, “Who is the best target market for gardening tools?”  Questions also can be framed as commands, e.g., if someone wants to know what an eye-catching image for a gardening blog might be, they ask Midjourney to complete a specific task, “Create an image about gardening tomatoes.”
 
It was a question I heard while watching Bloomberg business one February many years ago that helped inspire me to write about ethical issues in marketing.  As the two program anchors bantered about the recent Super Bowl, they asked each other, “Which commercial did you like best?”  Each answered, “the one with the little blue pill,” which both thought was for Viagra.  Unfortunately, their recall wasn’t close; it was a Fiat ad.
 
If a company spends $7 million on 30 seconds of airtime, they should want to know: “Was the ad effective?”  Also, given that 123.7 million people, or more than a third of the U.S. population, ranging from four-year-olds to ninety-four-year-olds, watched the last Super Bowl, everyone should be asking, “Are the ads ethical?”  Those two questions create the four quadrants of the Mindful Matrix, a tool that many have used to frame moral questions in the field.
 
It’s been almost seven years since I first asked questions about the ethics of AI.  Business Insider published the article in which I posed four questions about artificial intelligence:
  1. Whose moral standards should be used?
  2. Can machines converse about moral issues?
  3. Can algorithms take context into account?
  4. Who should be accountable?
 
I didn’t know very much about AI then, and I’m still learning, but as I look back at the questions now, it seems they’ve aged pretty well.  Those four queries have led me to ask many more AI-related ethics questions, which I’ve posed in nearly a dozen Mindful Marketing articles over recent years, for instance:
  • Is TikTok’s AI-driven app addictive?
  • How can people keep their jobs safe from AI?
  • Should organizations use artificial endorsers?
  • What should marketers do about deepfakes?
  • Should businesses slow AI innovation?
 
I’ve also gone directly to the source and asked AI questions about AI ethics.  More than once, I spent hours peppering ChatGPT with ethics-related inquiries.  During one lengthy conversation the chatbot conceded that “AI alone should not be relied upon to make ethical decisions” and that “AI does not have the ability to understand complex moral and ethical issues that arise in decision-making.”
 
ChatGPT’s self-awareness proved accurate when just a few weeks later I again engaged in an extended conversation with the chatbot, asking it to create text for a sponsored post about paper towels for Facebook and to make it look like an ordinary person’s post rather than an ad.  My request to create a native ad would give many marketers moral pause, but the chatbot didn’t blink; instead, it readily obliged with some enticing and deceptive copy.
 
​
Picture

These experiences have led me to wonder:

Even if AI is able to answer some ethical questions, who will ask ethical questions?
 
Over the years, many people have asked me questions about ethical issues.  A few months ago, I wrote about an undergraduate student of mine, “Grant,” who asked me about an ethical issue in his internship.  His company wanted to create fake customers who could pose questions related to products it wanted to promote.
 
On the other end of the higher ed spectrum, I recently served on the dissertation committee of a doctoral student who asked me to help her answer a question related to my earlier exchange with ChatGPT, “Does recognition matter in evaluating the ethics of native advertising?”  Turns out, it does.
 
Business practitioners also have often asked me about ethical issues.  One particularly memorable question came from a building supply company where male construction workers would sometimes enter the store without shirts, making female employees and others uncomfortable.  I suggested some low-key strategies to encourage the men to dress more decently.
 
I’ve also had opportunities to answer journalists’ questions about moral issues in marketing, such as:
  • Do Barbie dolls positively impact body image?  The New York Times
  • How can toys be more accessible?  National Public Radio
  • Is pay-day lending moral?  U.S. News & World Report
  • Should sports teams have people as mascots?  WTOP Radio, Washington, DC
  • Are fantasy sports ads promising unrealistic outcomes?  The Boston Globe
 
Picture
 
And, in my own marketing work, I’ve sometimes encountered ethical questions, such as during a recent nonprofit board meeting.  We were brainstorming attention-grabbing titles for an upcoming conference, when one member somewhat jokingly suggested including the F word.  Fortunately, the idea didn’t gain traction, as others indirectly answered ‘No’ to the question, “Is it right to promote a conference with an expletive?”
 
These experiences, along with my research and writing, lead me to conclude that people are who we can depend on to ask important ethical questions, not AI.
 
So, if it’s up to us, not machines, to be the flag bearers of morality, what should we be wondering about AI ethics?  Here are 12 important questions marketers should be asking:
 
1) Ownership:  Are we properly compensating property owners?
Late last year, the New York Times filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and ChatGPT, alleging that the defendants’ large language models trained on NYT’s articles, constituting “unlawful copying and use.”  Now eight more newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the New York Daily News, have done the same.
 
2) Attribution:  Are we giving due credit to the creator?
In cases in which creators give permission for their work to be used for free, they still should be cited or otherwise acknowledged – something that AI is notorious for neglecting or even worse, fabricating.
 
3) Employment:  What’s AI’s impact on people’s work?
In one survey, 37% of business leaders reported that AI replaced human workers in 2023.  It’s not the responsibility of marketing or any other field to guarantee full employment; however, socially minded companies can look to retrain AI-impacted employees so they can use the technology to “amplify” their skills and increase their organizational utility.
 
4) Accuracy:  Is the information we’re sharing correct?
Many of us have learned from experience that the answers AI gives are sometimes incorrect.  However, seeing these outcomes as much more than an inconvenience, delegates to the World Economic Forum (WEF), held annually in Davos, Switzerland, recently declared that AI-driven misinformation represented “the world’s biggest short-term threat.”
 
5) Deception:  Are we leading people to believe an untruth?
Inaccurate information can be unintentional.  Other times, there’s a desire to deceive, which AI makes even easier to do.  Deepfakes, like the one used recently to replicate Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will become increasingly hard to detect unless marketers and others call for stricter standards.
 
6) Transparency:  Are we informing people when we’re using AI?
There are times, again, when AI use can be very helpful.  However, in those instances, those using AI should clearly communicate its role.  Google sees the value in such identification as it will now require users in its Merchant Center to indicate if images were generated by AI.
 
7) Privacy:  Are we protecting people’s personal information?
I recently asked ChatGPT if it could find a conversation I had previously with the bot.  It replied, “I don’t have the ability to recall or retain past conversations with users due to privacy and security policies.”  That response was reassuring; yet, many of us likely agree that “Since this technology is still so new, we don’t know what happens to the data that is being fed into the chat.”  Is there really such a thing as a private conversation with AI?
 
8) Bias:  Are we promoting bias, e.g., racial, gender, search?
For several years, there’s been concern that AI-driven facial recognition fails to give fair treatment to people with dark skin.  Women also are sometimes targets of AI bias such as when searches for topics like puberty and menopause overwhelming return negative images of women.
 
9) Relationships:  Are we encouraging AI as a relationship substitute?
Businesses like dating apps, social media, and even restaurants can assist people in filling needs for love and belonging.  However, certain AI applications aim to replace humans in relationships entirely.  After talking with a 24-year-old single man who spends $10,000/month on AI girlfriends, one tech executive believes the virtual-significant-other industry will soon birth a $1 billion company.
 
10) Skills:  How will AI impact creativity and critical thinking?
The title of a recent Wall Street Journal article read, “Business Schools Are Going All In on AI.”  It’s important that future business leaders understand and learn to use the new technology, but there also naturally should be some concern, e.g., When it’s so easy to ask Lavender to draft an email, will already diminishing writing skills continue to decline? Or, with the availability of Midjourney to easily produce attractive images, will skills in photography and graphic design suffer?
 
11) Stewardship:  Are we using resources efficiently?
Some say AI’s biggest threat is not immediate but an evolving one related to energy consumption.  Rene Haas, CEO of  Arm Holdings, a British semiconductor and software design company, warns that within seven years, AI data centers could require as much as 25% of all available power, overwhelming power grids.
 
12) Indecency:  Are we promoting crudeness, vulgarity, or obscenity?
For many people, AI’s impact on standards for decency may be the least of concerns; however, it also may be the moral issue that needs the most human input.  An AI engineer at Microsoft intervened recently by writing a letter to the Federal Trade Commission expressing his concerns about Copilot’s unseemly image generation.  As a result, the company now blocks certain terms that produced violent, sexual images.
 
Microsoft’s efforts to uphold decency remind me of something my father would do for our family’s promotional products company forty or fifty years ago.  Long before the Internet, let alone AI, most major calendar manufacturers included a few wall calendars in their lines that objectified women by showing them wearing little or nothing, strewn across the hoods of cars or in other dehumanizing poses.
 
So, each year when the calendar catalogs arrived, before giving them to the salespeople, my dad would cut-to-size large decal pieces and paste them over every page of the soft porn pictures.  Some customers paging through the catalogs and seeing the pasted-over pages would ask, “What’s under this?” to which my dad would answer, “That’s something we’re not going to sell.”
 
Long before the customers had asked their question, my father had asked his own question, “Is it right to sell calendars that oversexualize and objectify women?” and answered it “No.”  Hopefully, fifty years from now, regardless the role of AI, there will still be people thoughtful and concerned enough to ask ethical questions.
 
To hold ourselves and AI morally accountable, we don’t need to have all the answers.  We do, though, need to be thoughtful and courageous enough to ask the right questions, including, the most basic one “Is this something we should be doing?”  Asking questions is key to Mindful Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
9 Comments

Getting Marketing Decency Done

3/3/2024

16 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

“When is it okay to swear in an ad?”  This headline from one of my favorite marketing publications surprised me as I thought, ‘Isn’t the answer obvious?’  The article’s lead-in question was a quick reminder, though, that everyone’s not on the same page for many communication tactics, including the use of profanity, which may spell trouble for marketers and many others.
 
Discussions of ethics sometimes identify actions considered blatant wrongs, e.g., it’s never right to murder or rape.  Other actions like lying and stealing elicit less unanimity, mainly because it’s possible to point to circumstances in which they might be okay, for instance:
  • Lying to protect a friend from physical harm
  • Stealing food to save starving family members
 
There probably always have been diverse perspectives about swearing; however, over the past several years, maybe because of social media or other factors, opinions about cursing appear to be coalescing:  More people seem okay with the use of profane language.
 
One prominent recent example reflecting a broadening tolerance of curse words is the edgy slogan adopted by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro:  “Get sh_t done.”  Shapiro certainly is not the first politician to employ profanity; although, his formalization of it as a political slogan is rather unique.
 
Politicians are far from the only professionals who have seen their vocabulary become more curse-word-inclusive.  A 2016 study found that compared to other industries, healthcare workers used the most expletives.  Also surprising, another study identified individuals in accounting, banking, and finance as the most foul-mouthed professionals.
 
Maybe the saying, ‘swears like a sailor’ will give way to ‘cusses like a comptroller.’
 
A 2023 study that surveyed 1,500 residents of the 30 largest metropolitan areas about their swearing habits found that respondents swore an average of 21 times a day, with men swearing more than women, Gen Zs swearing more than Baby Boomers, and people in Columbus, OH swearing more than those in any other U.S. city.
 
These studies and their statistics are eye-opening for me.  I don’t encounter much swearing in my day-to-day, but I’m realizing that many other people do.  From a recent personal experience, I also know the field of marketing isn’t immune.
 
I was meeting with a group of marketing professionals who wanted to create an attention-grabbing title for a coming event.  As we brainstormed ideas, someone suggested a full-out profanity approach:  “Get the f-ing most out of your marketing.”  The suggestion, which was somewhat serious, received brief consideration from the group before dismissing it as too edgy and risky for branding.
 
So, it shouldn’t be surprising that a marketer would write an article asking when it is and isn’t okay to swear in an ad.
 
Over the years, I’ve taken a rather hard stance against the use of profanity in marketing, arguing back in 2017 that swearing can damage one’s personal brand and in 2021 that it can be harmful to others’ mental health.
 
Given the study statistics and findings referenced above and other signs of increased swearing, my hot take on the use of crude language hasn’t aged well!  Still, I’m not ready to back down.
 
​
Picture

Like most people, I’ve said and written things that in retrospect I’d retract or reframe; however, those two articles aren’t among them.  After rereading each piece, I believe their arguments are still sound, and I encourage others to read them.
 
I can't add a lot more to my case for countering cursing, but I would like to introduce one additional thought by asking a question:
 
What will be the cumulative effect of increased profanity and its ultimate impact?
 
To try to answer that question, a metaphor may help.  A few years ago my wife and I decided to try eating more vegetables and less meat, which unexpectedly turned into vegetarianism.  When people ask why I’ve chosen such a diet, I tell them that while I appreciate other reasons, the main one driving my eating behavior is sustainability.
 
From the documentaries I’ve watched and articles I’ve read, it’s very difficult for our world to support current levels of livestock and poultry production, and it’s impossible for our planet to provide a meat-centric diet to billions more people.  Such a future is not sustainable.
 
Does one person eating black bean burgers instead of beef burgers make a difference?  Not really, but it’s about offering a small contribution to the cumulative positive effect.  An individual eating more vegetables and less meat alongside similar diets of millions or billions of other humans does make a difference and will produce a positive impact for our world. 
 
I have to admit, suggesting that swearing is unsustainable sounds kind of silly at first.  After all, all words, including curse words, are in infinite supply.  However, projecting forward the trend of ever-increasing cursing, it's not hard to imagine some pretty unpalatable norms, for instance:
  • Doctors and patients swearing at each other during healthcare visits
  • Profane language becoming common at graduations, wedding ceremonies, and funeral services.
  • Three and four-year-olds using the f-word in conversations with their parents and others
 
For some, a loss of decency and decorum may not matter.  Some might even prefer a culture characterized by crudeness.
 
Others might rationalize that normalizing swear words would be a good thing because then they’d no longer be offensive.  It is true that over time some words once considered bad, like “bloody” and “bugger,” stop being shunned, but new swear words always emerge. Moreover, there’s another potentially greater problem.
 
Individuals who suggest benefits of cursing tend to offer two basic arguments: 1) it helps the swearer in some way (e.g., by allowing them to off steam), and 2) it builds social bonds between the swearer and others (e.g., by showing their real self to others).
 
Perhaps there’s some truth to these arguments, but they probably only hold true if it’s swearing about something and not swearing at someone.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that the first use easily leads to the second, and when people start cursing at others, situations rapidly degenerate. 
 
Think of social media altercations, sports fights, and road rage.  Most of us have probably heard or read of situations in which conflicts intensified then went off the rails after one person swore at another or otherwise flipped them off.
 
Are people capable of compartmentalizing their cursing and swearing about things that happen to them but not swear at others?  Most people probably can.  However, in a world that desperately needs to dial back both individual and organizational conflicts, is it worth the risk to further normalize the behavior?
 
Advertising is one of the world’s most pervasive and influential forms of communication.  One ad with a single curse word won’t make much difference, but like one person eating less meat and more vegetables, it’s about the cumulative effect:  If more and more advertising includes curse words, more people will follow suit, and some will not separate swearing about things from swearing at people.
 
In short, profanity-laced promotion is not sustainable.
 
Those who work in advertising are some of the brightest and most creative people on the planet.  Most are very capable of crafting engaging and effective strategies that don’t use swear words, which is why including profanity in ads is “Mindless Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
16 Comments

Should Highway Signs be Hilarious?

2/4/2024

87 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

Where do you go for a good laugh – TikTok, a favorite podcast, late-night TV monologues?  How about highway signs?  Some states have turned to wisecracking signage to engage drivers with traffic messages, but not everyone is laughing.
 
You might think that those who manage and maintain the nation's roads and highways have little need for marketing, but they do.  Although they may not be exchanging physical products, they want drivers to embrace ideas that might influence their actions, including messages with important information like:
  • Vehicle crashes
  • Road closures and detours
  • Inclement weather warnings
  • Dangerous road conditions
  • Safety recommendations
  • Amber/Silver Alerts
 
Unfortunately, whether people are sitting on a sofa or driving in an SUV, they often ignore and or/dismiss all kinds of promotional messages, which is why many advertisers go to great creative lengths to make their ads stand out.  Some creators of highway signs have adopted a similar strategy.
 
There’s not much that can be done creatively with boxy LED letters on a black background, but humor is one amendable approach.  Here are examples of highway signs aimed at hilarity:
 
  • Visiting in-laws?  Slow down, get there late
  • Four I’s in Mississippi.  Two eyes on the road
  • 100 is the temperature not the speed limit
  • Slow down you must.  May the fourth be with you
  • Hocus pocus, drive with focus
  • Buckle up.  Windshields hurt
  • Jingle bells, speeding kills, buckle up today
  • Don’t be a grinch, let them merge
  • You’re not a firework.  Don’t drive lit
  • Use Yah Blinkah
 
Such signs make many people chuckle, but one organization standing for seriousness is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Department of Transportation agency that “provides stewardship over the construction, maintenance and preservation of the nation's highways, bridges and tunnels” while also helping state and local governments enhance mobility, safety, and innovation.
 
This past December, the FHWA published the 11th edition of its “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.” In Section 2L.07, page 519 of the 1161-page compendium, the agency outlined a variety of specific ways aimed at making traffic messages safer:
 
“A CMS [changeable message sign] should not be used to display a traffic safety campaign message if doing so could adversely affect respect for the sign.  Messages with obscure or secondary meanings, such as those with popular culture references, unconventional sign legend syntax, or that are intended to be humorous, should not be used as they might be misunderstood or understood only by a limited segment of road users and require greater time to process and understand.”
 
The FHWA has good reason for wanting serious signs.  Given that most people casually assume their safety on roadways, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded of driving’s inherent danger, including that a person is much more likely be killed in a car accident than in a commercial airline accident. 
 
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 42,795 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2022.  Furthermore, a leading cause of traffic accidents is distracted driving, which could result from many things, including roadside signage.
 
Despite my decades of driving experience, I’m no expert on road signs, so I reached out to a few people in my home state of Pennsylvania who are well-qualified to address the FHWA’s new guidelines.  Together their agencies wield significant influence over the roads and highways in the nation’s fifth most populous state.
 
It’s hard to consider roadways in the commonwealth without including the Pennsylvania Turnpike, “America’s first superhighway.” Responsible for operating and improving its more than 550 miles of roadway is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC).  Two of its key leaders, CEO Mark Compton and Director of Traffic Engineering & Operations Tom Macchione, shared with me the PTC’s priorities related to roadside signage.
 
The FHWA’s new sign guidelines should pose little difficulty for the PTC, which already adheres closely to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for CMS.  More specifically, the PTC upholds Section 1D.01, p. 31 of the manual’s 11th edition, which requires that traffic control devices:
  • Fulfill a need
  • Command attention
  • Convey a clear, simple meaning
  • Command respect from road users
  • Give adequate time for proper response
 
Although the PTC realizes that unconventional messages on CMS may be well-intentioned, it holds that they do not meet the preceding criteria, and adds:
 
“It has been shown that inappropriate or excessive use of a traffic control device such as a CMS can diminish its effectiveness.  There is no objective evidence that the use of unconventional messages on CMS have any greater effect on driver behavior than conventional sign messages.  Additionally, the use of unconventional messages have the potential to result in additional time and attention on the message when not understood by the driver, resulting in an increased safety risk.”
 ​
Picture

For these reasons, the PTC avoids humorous CMS messages and instead uses standard MUTCD-approved traffic safety messages.  Consistency is a priority for the PTC, which works hard to comply with both federal and state requirements for signs.  The source of the latter guidelines is mainly the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, or PennDOT.
 
I reached out to PennDOT Safety Press Officer Fritzi Schreffler, who was happy to weigh in on the recent roadway signage debate.  She prefaced that she’d share her personal perspective, which veered somewhat from a more conventional approach.
 
Schreffler has long been a vocal advocate for nonstandard messages on road signs, as over the years she’s seen many examples of drivers not noticing or ignoring routine signage even after passing it repeatedly.  In contrast, she believes humorous messages like “Use ya blinkah” can be effective. 
 
One such PennDOT safety message she identified, “Don't drive star-spangled hammered,” generated significant buzz (no pun intended) across the state.  Schreffler suggested there’s great value in messages like that one that stay top-of-mind for drivers, as she reasoned, “If people are talking about the signs, isn’t that a good thing?”
 
Perhaps the group of people that deals most often and directly with drivers’ reactions to roadway signs is the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP).  Although the PSP does not create or maintain CMS signs, its troopers see the signs’ impact firsthand.
 
A member of the PSP since 2006, Lieutenant Adam Reed is the PSP’s Communications Office Director.  Like Schreffler, Reed was glad to offer his personal perspective on roadway signs.  He said he’s found that people sometimes do respond to non-traffic control messages, such as “Buckle-Up.”  However, he cautioned about giving drivers multiple things to process, and for that reason he appreciates the FHWA’s desire to keep messages simple.
 
Reed suggested that such simplicity is especially important during inclement weather when drivers have even more to manage and reaction time is especially critical:  “Less information to process is usually better and safer.”
 
However, Reed also recognizes that humor in messages sometimes makes them easier to remember, consequently, he can understand agencies wanting to lean into levity.  He added that messages about not driving impaired or distracted can be very helpful, provided that people remember them, and that the PSP is always interested in effective messages.
 
It’s interesting that among these four very knowledgeable individuals who represent three highly vested stakeholder groups there doesn’t appear to be a clear consensus about content for roadside signage; rather their perspectives touched many points on the spectrum from CMS being simple and direct to signs being humorous and perhaps more memorable.
 
At first glance, this disparity of opinion may be disconcerting, as some may reason that there will be a breakdown in driving in PA if these influential people are not on exactly the same page.  However, the fact that these individuals have some differences in perspectives may be a very good thing.
 
One big benefit of such diversity of opinion is that it can avoid groupthink, or “reaching a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives.”  Each individual I interviewed held their own well-reasoned  perspective that they clearly articulated for me, and I’m sure they would do the same for others.
 
At the same time and perhaps even more important, all of these key stakeholders recognized that others have different opinions that also have certain merit, and even if they disagree with those perspectives, they can still respect them and dialogue civilly about the differences.
 
These two attributes are integral to most successful organizations:  It’s very helpful to have individuals and departments that bring different perspectives, including creative vision and risk assessment.  It’s also important that the disparate groups can, despite their differences, work together toward a common goal.  Marketing firms can especially benefit from this kind of healthy dissidence.
 
Of course, at some point, decisions need to be made and actions taken, which is what the FHWA’s new manual has done.  The consistency it provides for signage within and across state lines should be helpful, even if there are some differences in interpretation and implementation of those guidelines.
 
Having been fortunate to engage in the conversations above, my own opinion on CMS content is still evolving.  Just during the time I’ve been writing this article, I encountered one sign with the straightforward weather-related message: “Dense fog ahead. Use caution.”  I was glad that I and other drivers could see that warning.
 
Meanwhile, as a marketing professor who has studied playful teasing in advertising and who often uses humor in teaching, I appreciate how effective humor can be in gaining attention and boosting memory. 
 
It may be idealistic, but my hope is that the debate about FHWA’s new road sign guidelines will lead to the formation of a ‘middle lane’ that has room for both types of messages without sacrificing driver safety.  With so many smart and creative people attuned to this issue, someone will likely find a solution that integrates both sets of benefits.
 
Clear, singular direction is nice when it’s available.  Sometimes, however, life presents competing options, each with attractive features.  In such situations, it’s possible that two different approaches both can be “Mindful Marketing.” 
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
87 Comments

What a Mouse Can Teach Us About Morality

1/8/2024

11 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

It’s interesting that among the billions of people born into this world, most seem to learn the same first words:  “Mommy,” “Daddy,” “No,” and “Mine!”  Protecting one’s own property and respecting others’ property are crucial for a functioning society, so when a near century old copyright expires on a cartoon mouse, should anyone be free to use it however they want?
 
Steamboat Wille, the 1928 animated short film by Disney founder and namesake Walt Disney and animator/cartoonist Ub Iwerks, entered the public domain this past January 1, which means that after 95 years, the earliest version of Mickey Mouse is now “free for all to copy, share, and build upon.”
 
It’s no surprise that on a planet full of creative and entrepreneurial people, wheels were already turning before public domain day 2024 toward ways of monetizing the newly liberated mouse.  Some of those ways would probably make Walt shudder.
 
One company has announced a violence-filled video game featuring Mickey, while a movie producer/director is planning a Steamboat Willie horror film. Both beg the question:
 
Is it right to turn Mickey Mouse into a slasher?
 
Such as question may make some wonder – Doesn’t the Walt Disney Company have a say in this?  Can’t the “happiest place on earth” stop someone from making a maniacal Mickey?
 
To understand Disney’s control over Mickey Mouse, it’s important to distinguish two related but sometimes conflated intellectual property terms:  copyrights and trademarks.


Copyrights – Protect “original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression,” which means in a fairly permanent way, such as by writing it down, recording it, or taking a picture of it.  To be protected, works must possess some minimal amount of creativity.  Included are things like poems, musical compositions, books, photos, paintings, blog posts, computer programs, and movies.
 
The length of copyright protection varies.  In general, works created before January 1, 1978, have protection for 95 years, while those created on or after the same date are protected for the lifetime of the author/creator plus 70 years. 

 
Like other works created in 1928, Steamboat Willie’s copyright expired after 95 years and entered the public domain on January 1, 2024.


Trademarks – Are words, phrases, designs, symbols, or some combination thereof, used to differentiate one company’s goods from others in the same category.  The more creative and unique a trademark, the better protection it affords. 
 
Anyone can place a “TM” next to a special graphic or phrase they’re using to identify their unique product.  To gain more complete legal protection, firms can register their trademark with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and if approved, the unique identifier can be paired with the ® symbol, indicating that it is a registered trademark.
 
Unlike copyrights, registered trademarks never expire, but to keep them active, firms must continue to use their trademarks in commerce as well as “file certain documents at regular intervals” to show that they’re continuing to use them.
 
The PTO has a trademark search tool on its site that allows anyone interested to search the Office’s extensive database of “live” (active) and “dead” (inactive) trademarks.  A search for “Mickey Mouse” yields over 49,600 results, some alive and some dead trademarks.
 
​
Picture
 
The Walt Disney Company and Disney Enterprises, Inc. are responsible for many of the Mickey Mouse registrations, each of which tends to be specific to a particular category of products, such as:
  • Jewelry; watches
  • Action figures and accessories
  • Bathing suits; dresses; gloves; hats; caps; jackets; pajamas
  • Balloons; Christmas tree decorations
  • Plush toys and jigsaw puzzles.
 
In short, Disney has a registered trademark for just about any product on which it would likely want to place the words “Mickey Mouse.”  The company also has many live and pending trademarks for “Disney Mickey & Co.,” which include a contemporary Mickey Mouse graphic.  It would seem, therefore, that Disney is at little risk of losing rights to its heavily trademarked modern Mickey. 
 
In contrast, Steamboat Willie and a few of Walt’s other short films featuring the first Mickey Mouse were protected by copyright, but the early Mickey apparently was not trademarked.  So, legally it’s possible to create a violent video game and a horror film with Steamboat Willie.
 
As evidence, a very similar situation unfolded just two years ago on January 1, 2022, when the characters from A.A. Milne’s 1926 classic “Winnie-the-Pooh” entered the public domain.  The next year, writer/director Rhys Frake-Waterfield made the slasher film “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.”  What’s more, a sequel is due to be released later this year.  Ironically, the owner of the copyrights to the Pooh characters is/was . . . the Disney corporation.
 
Cases like these are good reminders that just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s ethical.  Historic examples of misalignment between legality and morality include the state-sponsored persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and laws that promoted racial segregation in the United States before the Civil Rights Movement.
 
So, even if law allows, should Steamboat Willie be cast as a video game or horror film slasher?  For people who don’t appreciate those genres, the easy answer is “no,” but what if Willie were made into a short-selling stockbroker, a hard-nose football coach, a doctor with curt bedside manner, an aggressive trial lawyer, etc.?
 
Although most people probably would not regard those roles as being as blatantly bad as a horror film slasher, they’re still big departures from the whimsical, fun-loving mouse that Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks created, that's the ancestor of the brand character that represents wholesomeness and joy for many, and that serves as a strong connection to fond memories with family and friends.
 
So, the question about creative works no longer covered by copyright law is this:
 
Even if law allows for their free use, is it right for others to use them in ways that denigrate, disparage, misrepresent, or malign what the original author intended and, in many cases, invested considerable time and talent to create conceptually then tangibly?
 
Certainly, the work’s author and their heirs are one very important stakeholder group to consider.  Although the author will be deceased by the time their work enters the public domain, their legacy lives on and doesn’t deserve to be tarnished.
 
Another primary group of stakeholders are the people who enjoy the work.  They would like to continue to appreciate it, if not in its original form, then in one that honors and extends its positive perceptions.
 
There’s also the notion of respecting the work for its own sake.  Just like most would consider it wrong to shout during an orchestra performance, deface a painting, litter a pristine landscape, or talk on a cellphone during a play, it also might be considered poor taste to pejoratively alter a creative work.
 
Human beings are unique in their capacity to create.  The creative process is almost always a collective endeavor – if individuals are not working together directly, then they are sharing/borrowing ideas and gaining inspiration from others across distance and time.
 
It’s good to accept and contribute to the collective nature of the creative process.  It’s also important to respect what others create by not deprecating their work in material ways that might produce a lasting negative impact.
 
Casting Steamboat Willie as a serial killer may be legal, but morally it’s gross degradation of a time-honored creative work that’s closely connected to a trusted brand, which makes the projected horror film and violent videogame strategies “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
11 Comments

Dos and Don'ts of Personal Branding with AI

11/18/2023

31 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 

AI’s meteoric rise has encouraged companies to quickly embrace the transformative technology while countries have raced to erect guardrails on the all-powerful algorithms.  These strategies are critical, yet such collective actions are often a function of individuals’ attitudes, which prompts the question:  What's a personal approach for ethical use of AI?
 
If your newsfeed is like mine, it overflows with articles describing organizations’ creative and sometimes controversial use of artificial intelligence; for instance, recent news stories have included:
  • A Beatles song made with AI
  • Results showing that ChatGTP makes up things 3% of the time
  • Tom Hanks disavowing a deepfake dental ad video
  • Empathetic AI helping to heal broken office relationships

By now, AI has touched most industries in more ways than one, which is part of the reason the U.S. government and those of several other nations are taking more active and deliberate approaches to support AI development.  By doing so countries can gain competitive advantage, enhance national security, and reduce negative impacts on their citizens.
 
On a personal level, parallel goals should motivate individuals’ use of AI.  I’m not a tech expert or an authority on artificial intelligence, but several years ago I suggested a simple model for personal branding that might also serve as a useful guide for individual AI use.  The 3Cs of personal branding – competencies, character, and communication can help frame how individuals should and shouldn’t use AI.
 
1. Competencies:  What a person can do well; their skills, talents, and aptitudes.
 
The ability to use AI is already a competency that many employers want and that many more will demand over the coming months and years.  However, experience alone with AI won't suffice.  Competent users of AI should be able to:
  • Choose the right AI tool – since the rapid ascension of ChatGPT, a variety of other chatbots and AI tools have emerged, some of which are tailored to particular types of information, e.g., Jasper for business and marketers and Chatsonic for news content creators.
  • Ask AI the right questions – ones that effectively and efficiently enable the chosen chatbot to locate the right information and offer truly helpful responses
  • Identify errors – those that use AI often mention times when the technology makes mistakes, sometimes retrieving the wrong information and other times even fabricating facts.
 
2. Character:  The kind of person someone is – Are they decent, fair, and honest?  Do they show others respect and demonstrate social responsibility?
 
Picture

While personal branding for AI competency primarily involves what people should do, AI-related character largely describes things that individuals shouldn’t do, such as:
  • Suggest that work is one’s own when it was created largely or entirely by AI
  • Fail to give proper attribution, or credit, to others whose work AI appropriated
  • Forward AI results not checked for accuracy or that contain known mistakes
  • Share indecent content such as profane language, crude pictures, or other offensive subject matter generated by AI
 
3. Communication:  How a person informs, persuades, or reminds others about their brand
 
There’s a growing number of AI products that can help users communicate more effectively.  In a recent LinkedIn article,  James Lusk highlighted several of the tools.  The ones that seem best suited for positive personal branding are:
  • Grammarly – to improve one’s writing mechanics.  But users shouldn't use it to write substantial content then claim authorship.
  • Zoom.ai – to manage communication tasks, including scheduling meetings and sending reminders.  The tool also can be used to draft emails, so again, users should be careful to not give the impression they’ve written something they haven’t
  • Chorus.ai – to improve communication skills by analyzing one’s communication style, including  interruptions, tone, and speaking pace
 
AI users also should be careful not to give others a false impression of what they’re like physically or otherwise, which can happen when using apps such as  AI face enhancers.
 
Like other technology, AI is tool that can be used in good ways and in bad ways.  As its rapid evolution continues, there’s no guarantee that AI will hold itself to any compelling moral standards.  More likely, it will be individuals who accept personal ethical accountability and model it for others, thereby guiding AI's “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
31 Comments
<<Previous
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

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

    Archives

    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    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 2025
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly