Category: + Decency

Ensuring Ethical Advertising

12/18/2022

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

We’ve all said things we later regretted. Fortunately, a personal apology can often atone for such individual indiscretions. Advertising gaffes, which may reach millions, are much more damaging and difficult to roll back, so why do some of the world’s most creative companies and brightest people continue to make promotional faux pas, and what can be done to avoid them?

When people think of advertising, they often envision iconic Super Bowl commercials like Budweiser’s Clydesdales playing football, model Cindy Crawford sipping a Pepsi, or basket legends Michael Jordan and Larry Bird competing at H-O-R-S-E for a McDonald’s meal. They probably don’t picture “children holding teddy bears in bondage gear.” Unfortunately, that’s the image that many people now associate with the luxury brand Balenciaga.

The century-old Spanish fashion house recently made headlines for the wrong reasons when it released a series of ads that not only featured kids posed with adult-themed props but also included photos in which appeared “paperwork about child pornography laws.”

Severe backlash against the brand has included stinging social media posts and celebrity condemnations. Balenciaga, however, is no stranger to controversy. Among its other contentious tactics have been “selling destroyed sneakers for $1,850” and “sending models who looked like refugees down the runway carrying trash bags made of expensive leather.”

The company has apologized for its latest gaffes, with representatives saying that they take “full accountability for our lack of oversight,” as well as that they are “closely revising our organisation and collective ways of working.” Balenciaga’s creative director Demna also offered a mea culpa, saying that it was "inappropriate to have kids promote objects that had nothing to do with them."

It would be convenient if Balenciaga could be considered some kind of an advertising anomaly, but unfortunately, over the years, other companies have made their own promotional blunders, some arguably as bad or worse than that of the high fashion firm, for instance:

Dove created a campaign in which Black women pulled their t-shirts off over their heads, transforming into white women.
Reebok put up posters that read “Cheat on your girlfriend, not on your workout.”
In a commercial called “Pipe Job,” Hyundai used a man’s failed suicide to show that its vehicle produced no harmful emissions
A line-up of uniformly thin young female models served as the central visual for Victoria Secret’s “Perfect Body” ad.

It’s easy to scoff at these ads and think, “How could those companies be so rash to release such obviously offensive advertising?” “Couldn’t anyone see the probable PR crises and pump the brakes?”

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and it’s easier to criticize than it is to create. It’s also hard to know the circumstances surrounding the decisions. Still, here are two misguided motives that probably contribute to what seems like a never-ending series of advertising missteps:

1) Coveting Awards: The goal of any advertising should be meaningful ROI for the client, e.g., brand building, website views, sales. However, those practical objectives can fall prey to creative staffs’ desires to win advertising awards like Clios and Webbys.

To achieve such recognition, some advertisers feel needs to test social norms and push moral envelopes. Meanwhile, consumers sometimes see uber-creative ads but when asked what they’re for, they respond, “I have no idea.”

2) Creating Buzz: Relatively few advertisers compete for major industry awards, but millions would love their organization to be the focus of the next viral video. Unfortunately, the very unique content that people love to share with friends on social media is often not what translates directly, or at all, to bottom-line advertising results.

Worse, things like sexually explicit images may stimulate thousands of shares, but they also have negative impacts on social issues such as body image and gender stereotypes and ultimately backfire on the firms’ brand images.

Those are two of the most likely reasons why morally questionable advertising occurs, but what can be done to avoid it? Here are four strategies that can help:

1. Create a culture of questioning: People at all organizational levels need to feel they have the freedom to ask things like, “Could some people find this offensive”? or “Is there approach that would be equally effective but less risky?” If employees worry they’ll be shunned or punished for raising a red flag, those kinds of questions will seldom arise.

Crafting such an open culture is much easier said than done, but a few necessary prerequisites are top management support, rewarding people for asking hard questions, and continually reminding associates of the desire for moral accountability.

2. Identify corporate values: One of the best reminders of where a company stands ethically is a clearly articulated set of moral standards. Some companies suggest such principles in their mission statements. Other firms go a step further and outline a list of corporate values, such as these that form the foundation for Mindful Marketing:

Decency: avoiding behavior that people tend to regard as crude, heartless, immodest, obscene, profane, or vulgar
Fairness: treating others equally based on their personhood and equitably based on their individual contributions
Honesty: not lying or distorting truth
Respect: holding others in high regard
Responsibility: fulfilling duties to others, especially those that society tends to marginalize

3. Avoid time pressure: Given that most of us don’t do our best work when rushed, a hastily created ad campaign will likely suffer the same results. It’s helpful when there’s time to put new work aside and return to it several hours, days, or weeks later with fresh eyes that can then more clearly see any shortcomings.

Similarly, it’s much better to identify serious deficiencies, moral or other, early in the process. People increasingly resist change as more effort and expense are invested. It’s best to nib potential ethical offenses in the bud.

4. Ask for assistance: After we’ve been exposed to something for a period of time, it becomes harder to see it objectively. In fact, we may even forget about the thing, like a painting on the wall of our home, until a visitor’s comment reminds us it's there.

For any significant work, it’s very helpful to ask others to review it. Inevitably, they’ll see things we missed. For an ad, that should mean at a minimum of others outside the department or division, and perhaps someone outside the organization. Companies ask consultants to advise them on all kinds of business strategies. Given the havoc that an ill-conceived ad campaign can wreak, they also should ask outside experts for ethical input.

Balenciaga wasn’t the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last advertiser to overstep moral boundaries. However, steps like those above can guide firms around ethical infractions. Making morality an advertising priority alongside creativity is “Mindful Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Should Consumers Smile at Guerrilla Marketing?

10/9/2022

1 Comment

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

Millions of baseball fans were recently watching televised games when they were unexpectedly hit by a pitch! An errant slider didn’t fly through their screens; rather, they were beaned by a very unconventional advertising curve. The promotional pitch for Smile didn’t leave any bruises; in fact, many even liked it, but is this kind of guerrilla marketing fair or foul? A veteran marketer and an up-and-coming rookie argue the call.

About a week ago, before a Consumer Behavior class, one of my students asked, “Dr. Hagenbuch, I have an idea for a Mindful Marketing topic — Did you see the promos for Smile?” I hadn’t experienced the creepy tactics live, but like many, I was caught in their viral wake.

Smile is a psychological horror movie featuring murders that begin and end with evil smirks. Like most production companies, Paramount Players and Temple Hill Entertainment made the obligatory film trailer and television spots. However, to capture even more interest ahead of the Halloween horror movie season, the film makers executed a truly menacing marketing strategy.

Among other events, Paramount targeted a few specific Major League Baseball games that were being broadcast to national audiences on September 23, such as Yankees vs. Red Sox and Mets vs. A’s, and in each game managed to seat an actor behind home plate, in perfect view of outfield television cameras. Some of the actors stood, while others remained seated; some wore neon “Smile” T-shirts; all “donned creepy, unflinching smiles for the duration of the game.

As television crews zoomed in on the unsettling smirks, social media quickly caught wind, and coverage snowballed into mainstream media, which is where I encountered Paramount’s bizarre promotional play. This wasn’t, though, my first exposure to guerrilla marketing.

Not long after I began my marketing career, I bought one of Jay Conrad Levinson’s books on Guerrilla Marketing. During my time in higher education, I’ve conducted research on shock advertising, which shares some ‘unhealthy’ overlap with guerrilla marketing. I’ve also written about these unusual tactics for Mindful Marketing a couple of other times:

For those new to guerrilla marketing, or anyone wanting a reminder, Investopedia offers a nice description of the strange strategies:

“Guerrilla marketing is a marketing tactic in which a company uses surprise and/or unconventional interactions in order to promote a product or service. [It’s] different than traditional marketing in that it often relies on personal interaction, has a smaller budget, and focuses on smaller groups of promoters that are responsible for getting the word out in a particular location rather than through widespread media campaigns.”

In college marketing classes, we don’t spend much time talking about guerrilla marketing, mainly because there are so many other foundational concepts students need to learn, and in many instances, guerrilla marketing isn’t a good fit for brands’ goals. It’s also not easy to teach something that hinges so much on deviant creativity and precise timing. Still, many marketers find it fascinating.

So, when Thomas Murray, the student in my Consumer class, mentioned Smile’s guerrilla marketing during MLB games, I wasn’t surprised for a few reasons. Not only is he a sharp emerging marketer, he’s an NCAA baseball player, and he knows something about going viral: A couple of years ago, he made a TikTok video of himself throwing a football over his house and catching it. Before long, ESPN’s Sportscenter and some other very popular media sites were sharing the clip.

During our brief before-class conversation, Murray told me he appreciated Smile’s unconventional approach. As someone who’s been skeptical of guerrilla marketing on whole, I was eager to hear more of his perspective, so I asked him to share his thoughts for this piece. He did, making several compelling arguments for why the unusual tactics worked for Smile:

Word of mouth marketing: Placing actors in public settings and having them wear bright shirts and creepily smile at baseball and football games and outside the Today Show, was a perfect recipe for attention. People took notice while casually watching those programs and within minutes the actors were all over social media.

Product placement: Part of the genius of the campaign was taking something right out of the movie and putting it into real life. If you watch the trailer, you’ll notice that is how eerily the people are smiling. Both in the movie and in real life it creeps people out, but it also lures them in as they have to look and wonder why they’re smiling like that.

Budget-friendly: The overall cost of this campaign was likely minimal as well. Tickets for high profile seats at top sporting events are expensive, but in a feature film’s marketing budget, they would barely make a dent. The return on investment for this campaign must have been massive given it relied on going viral and certainly delivered as the campaign grew organically throughout various social media platforms.

Great timing: The launch of the campaign meshed perfectly with the release of the movie. By placing the actors in public a week or so before the premiere, the producers were able to build exceptional interest, and excited movie-goers only had to wait until the following weekend to see it in theaters.

That’s some solid support for the campaign’s effectiveness; it’s hard to discredit any of Murray’s points. What I can do is raise what may be some helpful questions/concerns about guerrilla marketing’s morality:

Target market creep: Of course, horror movies are not everyone’s thing, so it could well be that such a broad-reaching campaign creeped out some of the wrong people, like children. The lack of audience selectivity with many guerrilla tactics is certainly something to consider.

However, briefly seeing a few creepy smiles probably didn’t traumatize any adults or kids. Most people seemed to think they were funny. The fact that Smile is a horror movie is another issue, which can be a topic of future analysis since the focus here is not on product but promotion.

Murdering the game: A very legitimate complaint to levy against guerrilla marketing is that it disrupts the natural settings in which it appears. For instance, wouldn’t someone sitting directly behind home plate, wearing a bright shirt and a creepy smile break a pitcher’s concentration?

I threw that question to one of Murray's teammates who pitches. Surprising to me, he said it wouldn’t matter—his focus is entirely on the catcher and batter. Although the Smile actors did draw some camera close-ups and comments from broadcasters, they didn’t seem to significantly detract from the television programs in which they appeared.

Encouraging copycats: Even if a given guerrilla marketing tactic is okay, what about all the other would-be marketers who see it and say, “That’s the kind of thing we need to do”? If every company implemented such strategies, our lives would be awash in a never-ending stream of commercialism.

Realistically, however, such advertising overflow is unlikely to occur. For the vast majority of business-to-business firms, guerrilla marketing is a mismatch for their target markets, and even for most business-to-consumer companies, the tactics aren’t the best promotional option. Moreover, it’s very challenging to create and execute effective guerrilla marketing, which when done wrong, can easily betray a brand – those are natural deterrents for firms that might consider using such strategies.

When I began to write this piece, I believed I had a good case against Smile’s strange promotion, but Murray’s analysis has made me reconsider my views. I still don’t think guerrilla marketing is good in all cases, but I believe the rookie was right to call this specific instance ‘fair’ and for both of us to consider it “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Does Free Speech Mean Unfiltered?

5/8/2022

1 Comment

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

There’s no law stopping someone from telling a coworker he has bad breath, or a friend she texts too much, or a spouse their outfit isn’t flattering. Although people have the right to offer such criticisms, they often hold their tongues. Verbal restraint isn’t always ideal, but even common communication challenges like these can inform a newly trending social imperative—free speech.

Serial entrepreneur and one of the planet’s richest people, Elon Musk is buying Twitter— perhaps the world’s most pervasive and controversial communication platform. The reasons behind the $44 billion purchase are likely multifold; however, Musk claims that one of his primary motivations is to reduce the medium’s content moderation and to allow more free speech.

Free speech is fundamental to democracy: Government of-by-for the people is predicated on individuals speaking their minds, including ideas critical of the government. That’s why the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, [emphasis added] or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Of course, the nation’s founders couldn’t have foreseen social media and how it would be used both to bolster democracy (e.g., Arab Spring in 2010) and to bash people who look or think differently. The founders were people too, who probably fell into petty squabbles and even engaged in personal attacks; however, it’s unlikely that second kind of communication is what they intended to protect in amending the constitution.

Nevertheless, because of the First Amendment, there are no U.S. laws against hate speech; rather, people are free to say pretty much whatever they want about others, without legal repercussions, as Black’s Law Dictionary explains:

“A person hurling insults, making rude statements, or disparaging comments about another person or group is merely exercising his or her right to free speech. This is true even if the person or group targeted by the speaker is a member of a protected class. According to U.S. law, such speech is fully permissible and is not defined as hate speech.”

So, based on the law alone, people can pretty much let loose: no filter needed. Likewise, Musk has suggested that people should be able to ‘say whatever is legal.’ On April 26, 2022, he tweeted his stance:

“By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”

Although it’s true that law and ethics often align, the fit is far from perfect. Some laws even encourage immorality. At a minimum, there’s a lag, sometimes of decades or centuries before legislation aimed at correcting ethical failings come to fruition.

For instance, Jim Crow laws once required physical segregation of people of different races. Likewise, from its inception in 1776, it took the United States nearly two centuries to pass laws forbidding discrimination, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Even now, a leaked Supreme Court memo has spawned demonstrations across the country about abortion law. Regardless of whether Roe v. Wade stands or falls, a significant portion of the population will contend that the law does not match morality.

In short, we all need to be careful of equating what’s ethical with what’s legal. More specifically, if legal-moral equivalence doesn't hold for other social issues, why assume it works for communication-related concerns?

So, instead of rushing ahead with the reasoning, “Because the law allows us to say anything, we should,” individuals and organizations should collect their thoughts and consider three free speech amendments:

1) Practice Self-Restraint: Most people place limits on how much they eat, sleep, watch TV, etc., for their own good and sometimes because their actions impact others. Why not apply the same principle of self-control to our words? This adapted, time-honored moral axiom couldn’t be more apropos, ‘just because we can say it doesn’t mean we should say it.’

In speaking, as in many other things in life, less can be more, and sometimes saying nothing is best. When a baseball infielder mishandles a ground ball that allows the other team to score and win the game, nothing good comes from the coach berating him for his error. The player knows he made a mistake and already feels very badly about it. Even in cases when we’re free to speak, sometimes our thoughts are better left unsaid.

2) Ensure What We’re Saying is True: With social media and little effort, anyone can say practically anything to anyone anywhere in the world, which makes it all-the-more important to prioritize truthfulness. We should be confident of the veracity of what we say, as well as what we share from others. If we’re not certain something is true, we should at least provide a clear disclaimer or even better, wait until we know.

Alec Hill describes deception as encouraging someone to believe something that you don’t believe yourself. That kind of intentional manipulation of the truth is unconscionable. However, it’s also negligent to forward unverified information. A fundamental cost of free speech is the time and effort it takes to ensure the accuracy of what we say.

3) Take Care in How We Say Things: We’ve all heard the sentiment, ‘It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it.’ We’ve also experienced how much better it feels to receive a constructive critique versus caustic criticism.

When in person, nonverbal communication like welcoming body language and a friendly tone of voice can temper a message that’s not particularly positive. Similarly, a forward-looking frame is often better than a back-facing one. For instance, rather than belittling a person for what they did wrong, “You were so bad!!” focus on the action and project a positive future one: “It might be better to . . .” Both are free speech, but the latter will almost always elicit a more favorable reaction.

Do the preceding three recommendations restrict free speech? In the sense that they urge us not to say everything we think or to say things the way we first think them, yes . On the other hand, ‘filtering’ in the ways described above adds value to the communication by casting the sender in a more positive light and making it more likely that the recipient will take action.

By virtue of their many media-related roles, marketers and Musk have unique opportunities to influence mass communication and interpersonal conversations. Filtered communication is still free speech. It’s also “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Harmful Humor

4/10/2022

7 Comments

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

I still don’t get it. College professors are supposed to be insightful, but I’m baffled by reactions to Will Smith’s infamous Oscars slap. Most people have rightly condemned the violent reaction, but why aren’t more talking about the joke that sparked the response? Society’s double-standard for humor can be confusing and consternating, which are reasons to consider how individuals and organizations should lean into laughter.

Most of us have now seen the clip of actor Will Smith striding onto the Oscars stage and striking award presenter Chris Rock across the face. The unimaginable physical altercation on Hollywood’s biggest night came because of a quip Rock made about the baldness of Smith’s spouse, Jada Pinkett Smith, who suffers from alopecia, a condition that causes complete hair loss.

Smith’s reaction was wrong. No matter the nature of the verbal offense, real or imagined, there was no reason for him to respond violently. Still, such condemnation shouldn’t stop anyone from asking whether Rock stepped over a line.

Of course, Rock is a comedian whose job is to make people laugh—a charge that’s particularly important when appearing at the Oscars, one of the most high-profile gigs a comedian can get.

Also, Oscars hosts and presenters have a history of lightly razzing celebrities in attendance. Legendary comedian and 19-time Oscars host Bob Hope was perhaps the earliest propagator of that tradition, making quips like this one during his 1971 monologue: “But this is a strange business. Just think, Frank Sinatra announced he was quitting show business and they gave him a humanitarian award.”

Billy Crystal, the second most frequent Oscars host (9 times), also had a habit of ribbing famous actors, as he did Clint Eastwood in 1993 for his role in Unforgiven: “Clint, of course, played that ruthless character, and you know he used those same tactics when he cleaned up that lawless renegade town of Carmel, California when he was the mayor there . . . It was Clint Eastwood who instituted the no crème brulee after 10:00 pm ordinance.”

Rock was himself an Academy Awards host in 2016, at which time he gave much of his monologue to highlighting the unsettling fact that there were no Black nominees at what he called “the White People’s Choice Awards.” He also took a jab at Pinkett Smith for boycotting ‘Oscars So White,’ suggesting it didn’t make sense for her to spurn an event to which she wasn’t invited.

Compared to the biting personal attacks for which insult comedians like Don Rickles, Lisa Lampanelli, and Andrew Dice Clay have been known, Rock’s comments may seem benign. Some might also suggest that humor is inherently controversial, i.e., some people will like a particular joke, while others will not.

It’s true that humor, like beauty, is in the ‘mind of the beholder’; however, there is a relatively clear line that individuals and organizations can avoid crossing to ensure that their jest about others isn’t injurious:

It’s usually okay to playfully point out the peculiar things that people do or say, but don’t joke about who they are.

Before offering some personal examples to support this suggestion, those who don’t know me well should understand that I’m far from a ‘wet blanket’ when it comes to humor: I love to laugh and endeavor to inject ad hoc humor into my classes, which I’ve found keeps students engaged, provides a brief reprieve from back-to-back-to-back classes, and lightens the load of weighty issues and complex concepts.

Other professors cite similar benefits. In fact, I recently read a Harvard Business article, “What educators can learn from comedians,” that offered empirical evidence for the third benefit above.

David Stolin, professor of finance at TBS education, collaborated with comedian Sammy Obeid, host of Netflix’s 100 Humans series, to create a variety of educational videos, some humorous and others serious. The researchers found that “when students were assigned humorous videos, they had consistently higher engagement and subsequent test performance.” So, among other things, humor helps learning.

I haven’t formally studied the same causal relationship, but I have done research on “playful teasing,” which suggests that good-natured ribbing helps build social bonds. I sometimes use that type of humor with my students, which brings me to my first personal example.

In one of my recent classes, a discussion about personal branding turned to ‘what coaches can do to encourage their players when they’re down.’ One of the students, who’s a college athlete, began to share her team’s current experience, saying, “It’s funny because two of my teammates tore their ACLs . . .” As she briefly paused to finish the sentence, I couldn’t resist interjecting some seemingly serious censure, “There’s nothing funny about that.”

Students, including the one who was speaking, laughed, and a classmate quipped, “I’m going to tell your coach!” The student finished her story and, of course, revealed that by “funny” she didn’t mean amusing but coincidental. People knew I was kidding because of the hyperbole of my comment, because we often joke in class, and because the students, all of whom I’ve had in other courses, know my penchant for dry humor.

The second example came a few years earlier when one of my students turned the comedic tables on me. As our class was discussing a case study about a particular west-coast-based restaurant chain, I showed a few pictures of my family and me, over the years, at various locations of the chain.

One student noticed something peculiar in the pictures and commented, “Dr. Hagenbuch, don’t you ever let your shirt out? Even on vacation, it’s tucked in!” I tried to argue that in a couple of the photos my shirt only looked to be tucked, but no one was buying it. We all had a good laugh, and shirt tucking became an ongoing joke for us.

Then, during the last class of the semester, I shared a specially made PowerPoint titled “Dr. Hagenbuch Untucked” that contained a dozen or more different family photos, all with my shirts outside my pants. The class appreciated the levity of the short slideshow and its homage to our inside joke. A couple years later, the student responsible for the original “untucked” playful tease, told me that our repartee was a highlight of his college experience.

The point of these examples is it’s very possible to laugh without shaming or otherwise hurting people, even when the humor is targeted toward one person. The key is a pure motive and playfully pointing out something silly the person inadvertently said (“It’s funny because . . .”) or did (shirts tucked in).

Rock’s Oscars jabs at Pinkett Smith failed both times to follow that protocol and instead took aim squarely at who she is. In 2016, his joke about her not being invited to the ceremony was a painful suggestion that she’s not a good enough actor. At the latest event, he made light of a physical condition that she cannot change and that likely makes her self-conscious.

For me, such humor is out-of-bounds; however, I wanted to hear the opinions of people who know much more than I do about psychology, sociology, and how Rock’s joke may have impacted not just Pinkett Smith but others. I reached out to two of my colleagues who teach in our university’s graduate program in counseling. They shared these reflections:

Dr. Leah K. Clarke, Director and Associate Professor of Counseling
“My own reaction to the joke was a resigned disappointment that women’s appearances and bodies, including black women’s hair, continue to be fair game for public discourse. Women and girls learn, almost from birth, that their bodies can be commented on, evaluated, touched, and utilized for other’s profit or pleasure. I’m not sure you could even count the number of songs that reference women’s appearances or specific body parts.”

“Pinkett Smith had previously shared about the source of her baldness, but even in doing so she acknowledged she felt she had to. Because otherwise the conversation about what was going on her scalp would happen without her. And she was right, Chris Rock and her husband had an interaction related to her appearance without her involvement or consent. The idea that her hair might be of no interest and nobody’s business doesn’t seem to occur to anyone.”

Dr. Sarah Brant-Rajahn, Assistant Professor of Counseling, School Counseling Track Coordinator
“Rock’s joke triggered the pain of many women and Black women, in particular, about ideals that are attached to appearance and hair as a beauty standard. I was surprised that such a joke would come from Rock, after his Good Hair (2009) documentary highlighted issues around Black-American women and the perception of their hair being acceptable or desirable.”

“As Pinkett Smith, like so many other women, attempt to boldly embrace their authentic selves and engage in self-love, they are met with ridicule, judgment, and shame when this true self does not align with societal notions of beauty. And to an extent, Rock’s joke and many like them can be viewed as bullying, as Pinkett Smith likely felt powerless to defend herself at a professional event, with an audience, and in a space that was being publicly recorded and viewed. There was a clear imbalance of power here where a male with a microphone and a stage demeans a female who does not have the same capacity to share her voice at the time.”

“While it is likely that Rock did not consider these implications, as he is a comedian and comedians make jokes about many people and topics, we would be remiss to not name and address the potential impact such comments have on girls and women, as well as the perpetual devaluation of them based on appearance.”

Beyond many specific truths, my overarching takeaway from both these experts’ assessments is that humor’s impact extends beyond the parties directly involved—a realization I’d also had through my research into playful teasing.

People often learn vicariously, i.e., from observing others’ firsthand experiences. Just as we can ‘feel’ that a stove is hot by watching someone else touch it, we can feel ridiculed when we hear or see someone deride a person who is in some way like us, e.g., race, body type.

Because the Academy Awards is broadcast to millions of people worldwide, Rock’s joke was at the expense of thousands of people with alopecia, not just Pinkett Smith. Furthermore, as Clarke and Brant-Rajahn have suggested, women and especially Black women were right to feel that their bodies and appearances were once more objectified for public consumption.

Their thoughts pinpoint the hypocrisy to which I alluded at the beginning of this piece. How can a society claim it’s concerned about bullying, shaming, and mental health, but be accepting of things like mean tweets, taunting, and caustic comedy? It's hard to understand why more aren’t alarmed by the troubling connections.

So, what does this analysis have to do with marketing? For any of us who aspire to make others laugh, how we handle humor becomes part of our brand, whether we’re an individual like Rock or an organization like GoDaddy, which is still trying to break free from its oversexualized Super Bowl ad humor more than a decade ago. The character of one’s comedy has long-lasting implications for one’s brand.

Just as the same medicine that helps people can hurt them if taken incorrectly, the ‘best medicine,’ laughter, can hurt people when its wrongly administered. It’s fine to playfully tease people for silly things they do or say, but we shouldn’t make light of who they are.

It seems that Rock’s stock has risen since the last Oscars, probably due to extra publicity he’s received, as well as sympathy from the slap. However, those truly deserving empathy are the ones Rock’s putdown humor belittled directly and by extension. The impact on them makes Rock’s ridicule “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

7 Comments

Super BOLD Ads

2/12/2022

1 Comment

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

A guy chows down on kitty litter, a celebrity bedazzles a convict’s ankle monitor with diamond studs, a groom marries a demon ghost bride. These aren’t outtakes from B movies; they’re scenes from the year’s most highly anticipated commercial content—Super Bowl ads.

Despite the fact that 30 seconds during the 2022 sports spectacle reached an astounding $7 million per spot, NBC sold out its ad inventory, with a very high percentage of those spots leveraging humor, including some rather crude comedy. If companies are willing to pay more for a half minute of airtime than most organizations’ entire annual marketing budgets, why wouldn’t they want to muster more ‘serious’ sponsorship efforts? What’s with all the advertising irreverence?

Of course, Super Bowl ads have a long history of hilarity—traditionally, many ads made for the big game are funny, probably to align with the event’s party atmosphere, which often flows with the same sodas and snack foods seen in the spots. Humor now is an annual expectation such that sponsors who make the contrarian choice to air more sober ads often reap the consequences of lackluster reviews.

Perhaps for these reasons, many advertisers have continued to push the envelope on humor, to the point that their MO is: ‘Go Irreverent or Go Home.’

Underlying this observation is the notion that there’s a difference between ordinary humor and irreverent humor. According to the Collins Dictionary, something is humorous if people find it amusing, clever, or witty. Ephrat Livni, writing for Pocket, further unpacks the essence of wit:

“The wittiest among us are simply people who make unusual connections between words and ideas. There’s a refreshing element of surprise to these observations that prompts a smile or a wince from the listener who didn’t see the link until it was presented.”

Beyond just being witty, irreverent humor adds abrasion to the comedic equation in the form of disrespect “for people or things that are generally respected.” In other words, irreverent humor not only makes a clever and surprising connection between concepts, it also throws some significant shade on a group of people.

This distinction between regular humor and irreverent humor makes some sense in the abstract, but it’s better explained through specific examples. So, here are a couple of Super Bowl LVI ads aimed at painting a clearer picture of the difference.

Regular Humor: Kia – Robo Dog
After watching a real dog playing happily with its owners, an electronic pooch on display in a department store longs for its own human companion, leading it to chase the driver of an electric Kia. Aiming for the car’s open moon roof, the love-starved dog leaps from atop a tall building, only to have its battery die, just before entry into the vehicle.

Thankfully, the dog awakens from its untimely slumber to find that the Kia driver has resuscitated it, courtesy of a cable plugged into the EV’s charging port.

This commercial is humorous for a variety of reasons, including its clever connection between an electronic dog and an electronic vehicle, as well as the surprising idea of a dog desiring an owner so badly that it chases one across a city. The spot doesn’t arouse bellyache laughter, but the unique feel-good mini story does encourage at least a hearty chuckle.

Irreverent Humor: ClickUp – Declaration
While many consider the authors of America’s Declaration of Independence heroes, ClickUp’s commercial depicts many of them as bumbling fools, particularly the nation’s second president, John Adams, who somehow misplaces the newest version of the foundational document.

The situation worsens as the flustered Adams stumbles into an artist who’s trying to capture the historic moment on canvas, causing him to spread white paint across the famous scene. The commercial concludes with Ben Franklin commending “Tommy” (Thomas Jefferson) for smartly creating a ClickUp task, as well as for “always saving John’s derriere.”

The ad is witty for several ‘regular’ reasons, including that it cleverly compares the centuries-old methods used to draft the Declaration of Independence to today’s digital technology. It’s also amusing to see men wearing neck cloths and knickers gush over a laptop app.

However, the humor is irreverent because of its disrespect for America’s founding fathers, especially Adams. These men risked their reputations and their lives to stand against colonialism and create one of the most impactful documents the world has known. Of course, the ad is meant in jest, yet it seems impertinent to lampoon these patriots for a courageous and momentous act that has meant unprecedented freedom for so many.

So, why would Super Bowl advertisers like ClickUp and those mentioned above (Uber Eats, Plant Fitness, and Lays) want to risk alienating tens of millions of consumers with irreverent advertising? It’s because one specific and highly sought-after target market appears to love the impertinence—Generation Z.

For this cohort of 10–to-25-year-olds, the rule of thumb is often ‘the more brash the better.’ However, the reason “Gen Z demands absurdity from their ads” seems counterintuitive at first.

What Gen Z actually craves is authenticity. Its members can smell a fake a mile away, and they detest phoniness, including in traditional advertising. Gen Zers deduce, “I know you’re trying to sell me something, so stop pretending that you’re not.”

The advertising that this savvy young cohort finds most appealing is the kind that makes no pretense of selflessness; rather, it admits it’s pushing product through unconventional creative approaches that are often so over-the-top they’re laughable:

“Gen Z’s take on authenticity is pushing brands to break all previously established rules of brand communication.”

A good example of Gen Z’s affinity for absurdity is the off-beat soap brand Dr. Squatch. While coming of age, those of us in older generations had little concern about the suds we used to shower. However, thanks to Dr. Squatch’s crazy ads, such as one with a bearded guy in a shower cap, bathing in the woods with a rubber ducky, many in Gen Z are taking their soap choice more seriously.

The humor in the Dr. Squatch ad is certainly absurd, but is it also irreverent? Although it’s outlandish by traditional advertising standards, most of the commercial’s content is pretty mild in terms of immorality. For instance, one actor playfully douses another with what are purportedly chemicals found in typical, unnatural soaps.

One could argue that such antics disrespect the guy getting doused, but the action is clearly hyperbole, and it’s hard to claim there’s contempt for any specific people group.

The same logic probably also applies to Pringles 2022 Super Bowl spot “Stuck,” which tells the story of a young man who gets his hand wedged into one of the iconic canisters and ends up living his entire life with the snack food package appendage.

In this instance, Pringles is really laughing at itself for manufacturing such an awkward piece of packaging. Its self-deprecating humor may seem like a risky move; however, when people or in this case a company pokes fun at itself, it often stops others from doing the same, perhaps out of pity, or maybe out of respect—‘It takes a strong person to admit they were wrong.’

In his book, The Power of Regret, Daniel Pink reinforces this principle, maintaining that when individuals openly express their regrets to others, people surprisingly hold the soul bearers in higher regard, not lower.

On the other end of the humor/respectability continuum is a company like Liquid Death Mountain Water, which placed a bet, picking the underdog to win the Super Bowl LVI, then hired a witch to try to influence the game’s outcome.

One of the company’s commercials from a couple of years ago contained so many offensive elements that it’s challenging just to list them, e.g., profanity, vulgarity, stereotyping, allusions to the occult, and insensitivity to those who have lost loved ones to drowning and to overdosing on energy drinks. To top it all off, the commercial even demonstrates torture by waterboarding.

Advertising humor, like much human behavior, involves a range of action from the simply benign to the very bad, from innocently amoral to dangerously immoral.

In a classic article published in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, “Advertising: Looking Glass or Molder of the Masses?” Geoffrey Lantos posed an important question: Does advertising simply reflect what people are already doing or does it preemptively shape society’s behavior?

While it’s certainly worth asking that question of irreverent humor, the answer doesn’t necessarily matter. Whether it molds or mirrors, advertising that’s effective but disrespects others isn’t edifying in either sense. Instead, it amounts to “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Why Can't TikTok Block the Blackout Challenge?

1/1/2022

10 Comments

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

Many people’s New Year’s resolutions are to eat less and exercise more. Fortunately, few people need to promise to kill less. That goal, though, may be a good one for the world’s-fastest growing social media platform in order to better protect the lives of young users who are oblivious to the dangerous game they’re playing.

Nyla Anderson was a “happy child” and “smart as a whip”—she even spoke three languages. Tragically, the 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl’s life was cut short on December 12, when she died while attempting a perilous social media trend called the Blackout Challenge.

The Blackout Challenge “requires the participant to choke themselves until they pass out and wake up moments later.” Sadly, some who participate, like Nyla, never wake up, and if they don’t die, they may suffer seizures and/or brain damage.

It’s tragic, but young people likely have engaged in foolhardy, life-threatening behavior since the beginning of humankind. Within a few years of my high school graduation, two of my classmates lost their lives in separate car crashes caused by high-speed, reckless driving. Most people probably can share similar stories of people they knew who needlessly died too young.

In some ways it’s inevitable that young people’s propensity for risk-taking paired with a limited sense of their own mortality will lead them to endanger themselves and encourage others to do the same. What’s inexplicable is how older and presumably more rational adults can encourage and even monetize such behavior, which is what some suggest TikTok has done.

Unfortunately, Nyla is not the only young person to pass away while attempting the Blackout Challenge. Other lives the ill-advised trend has taken include 12-year-old Joshua Haileyesus of Colorado and 10-year-old Antonella Sicomero of Palermo, Italy. TikTok provided the impetus for each of these children to attempt the challenge.

Most of us know from experience that peer influence can cause people to do unexpected and sometimes irrational things. In centuries gone by, that influence was limited to direct interpersonal contact and then to traditional mass media like television. Now, thanks to apps like TikTok, anyone with a smartphone holds potential peer pressure from people around the world in the palm of their hand.

In TikTok’s defense, the Blackout Challenge predates the social media platform. ByteDance released TikTok, or Douyin as it’s known in China, in September of 2016. Children had been attempting essentially the same asphyxiation games, like the Choking Challenge and the Pass-out Challenge, many years prior. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 82 children, aged 6 to 19, likely died from such games between 1995 and 2007.

It’s also worth noting that individuals and other organizations create the seemingly infinite array of videos that appear on the platform. ByteDance doesn’t make them, it just curates the clips according to each viewer’s tastes using one of the world’s most sophisticated and closely guarded algorithms.

So, if TikTok didn’t begin the Blackout Challenge and it hasn’t created any of the videos that encourage it, why should the app bear responsibility for the deaths of Nyla, Joshua, Antonella, or any other young person who has attempted the dangerous social media trend?

It’s reasonable to suggest that TikTok is culpable for the self-destructive behavior that happens on its premises. A metaphor might be a property owner who makes his house available as a hangout for underage drinking. The homeowner certainly didn’t invent alcohol, and he may not be the one providing it, but if he knowingly enables the consumption, he could be legally responsible for “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.”

By hosting Blackout Challenge posts, TikTok could be contributing to the delinquency of minors.

I have to pause here to note an uncomfortable irony. Less than four months ago, just after Francis Haugen blew the whistle on her former employer Facebook, I wrote a piece titled “Two Lessons TikTok can Teach Facebook.” In the article, I described specific measures TikTok had taken to, of all things: 1) discourage bad behavior, and 2) support users’ mental health.

How could I have been so wrong? Although I certainly may have been misguided—it wouldn’t be the first time—TikTok’s actions that I cited truly were good things. So, maybe the social media giant deserves to defend itself against the new allegations.

TikTok declined CBS News’ request for an interview, but it did claim to block content connected to the Blackout Challenge, including hashtags and phrases. It also offered this statement, “TikTok has taken industry-first steps to protect teens and promote age-appropriate experiences, including strong default privacy settings for minors."

The notion of protecting teens is certainly good; however, it’s hard to know what “industry-first steps” are. Furthermore, prioritizing age-appropriateness and privacy are important, but neither objective aligns particularly well with the need to avoid physical harm—the main problem of the Blackout Challenge.

In that spirt and in response to accusations surrounding Nyla’s death, TikTok offered to Newsweek a second set of statements:

“We do not allow content that encourages, promotes, or glorifies dangerous behavior that might lead to injury, and our teams work diligently to identify and remove content that violates our policies.”

"While we have not currently found evidence of content on our platform that might have encouraged such an incident off-platform, we will continue to monitor closely as part of our continuous commitment to keep our community safe. We will also assist the relevant authorities with their investigation as appropriate."

These corporate responses do align better with the risks the Blackout Challenge represents. However, there’s still a disconnect: TikTok claims it’s done nothing to facilitate the Blackout Challenge, but family members of those lost say the social media platform is exactly where their children encountered the fatal trend.

The three families’ tragedies are somewhat unique, but they’re far from the only cases of people seeing the Blackout Challenge on TikTok and posting their own attempts on the app. TikTok has taken measures that have likely helped ‘lessen the destruction,’ but it’s unreasonable for it to claim exoneration.

The company’s app must be culpable to some degree, but what exactly could it have done to avoid death and injury? That question is very difficult for anyone outside TikTok or without significant industry expertise to answer; however, let me ask one semi-educated question—Couldn't TikTok use an algorithm?

As I’ve described in an earlier blog post, “Too Attached to an App,” ByteDance has created one of the world’s most advanced artificial intelligence tools—one that with extreme acuity serves app users a highly-customized selection of videos that can keep viewers engaged indefinitely.

Why can’t TikTok employ the same algorithm, or a variation of it, to keep the Blackout Challenge and other destructive videos from ever seeing the light of day?

TikTok is adept at showing users exactly what they want to see, so why can’t it use the same advanced analytics with equal effectiveness to ‘black out’ content that no one should consume?

The truism ‘nobody’s perfect’ aptly suggests that every person is, in a manner of speaking, part sinner and part saint. TikTok and other organizations, which are collections of individuals, are no different, doing some things wrong and other things right but hopefully always striving for less of the former and more of the latter.

Based on its statements, TikTok likely has done some ‘right things’ that have helped buffer the Blackout Challenge. However, given the cutting-edge technology the company has at its disposal, it could be doing more to mitigate the devastating impact. For that reason, TikTok remains responsible for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

10 Comments

Will Heinz’s Halloween Promotion Scare Away Consumers?

10/23/2021

6 Comments

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

Halloween is a time when many companies give a glimpse into their dark sides, usually with carefully created, humor-filled ads. However, one iconic consumer product company’s frightful holiday tactic brings to mind the fearful parental warning, “It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt!” Is Heinz’s gory Halloween promotion going to bloody its own brand?

The H. J. Heinz Company merged with Kraft Foods in 2015, creating one of the largest food and drink companies in the world, with an enticing selection of edibles, from Maxwell House Coffee, to Oscar Meyer Hot Dogs, to Philadelphia Cream Cheese. With such consumer product success, Kraft Heinz obviously knows something about branding, which makes Heinz’s decision to turn its ketchup into Halloween blood even eerier.

Yes, Heinz is suggesting that America’s favorite condiment for covering hamburgers at July 4th cookouts can also be used to coat Halloween costumes to give them a gruesomely bloody appeal.

Specially labeled Tomato Blood Ketchup is just one of the brand extensions. The company is also offering “Tomato Blood costume kits, masks and premade outfits themed around mummies, pirates and more,” all available on a company microsite, HeinzHalloween.com.

A YouTube video introduces the Tomato Blood Ketchup, which the microsite further describes as “a collectible limited edition 20 oz. squeeze bottle . . . the same classic Heinz ketchup you know and love, but with a spooky Halloween makeover.”

What should we make of Heinz’s move into the macabre? First, it’s important to note that Heinz is far from the only consumer products company that has sought to tap into the revenue potential of Halloween. Other brands that have created “Frightfully Fabulous Halloween Marketing Campaigns” include:

Butterfinger: mugshots aim to convict parents who have eaten their kids’ Halloween candy to turn themselves in.
Snickers: a grown-up trick-or-treater in a bear costume insists she really is a bruin.
Temptations: the cat food company recommends that pet owners feed its treats to their felines, so their cats won’t eat them.
Nike: has created a special Halloween-themed sneaker with orange and black colors, an illuminated outsole, and a “creepy spider pattern on the insole.”
Lego, Star Wars, Disney+: have partnered to produce a series of animated shorts with clever storylines based on Halloween themes.
Reese’s: a longtime Halloween favorite, suggests that all the Reese’s that disappear during the holiday have gone on to “a better place.”
Skittles: has released a special line of Zombie Skittles in Halloween themed flavors that include Mummified Melon and Boogeyman Blackberry.

The point is that other brands’ Halloween-themed promotions are heavy on humor and light on realism. For instance, no one would actually believe the Temptation commercial’s suggestion that a housecat would eat a person.

Contrast that humorous hyperbole with the bloody realism of Heinz Ketchup, which really does resemble plasma. If the next time you’re chopping vegetables for dinner you squeeze ketchup over your hand and wail in pain, members of your household will likely believe you’re badly injured.

Heinz Ketchup acting as blood has the ability to genuinely shock or sicken people unlike any of the other Halloween promotions mentioned above. Still, whether you’re a fan of Halloween or not, much of the holiday is increasingly about scaring and nauseating people, so in that grisly context, the tomato blood ketchup is not as outrageous as it otherwise would be.

So, most people can probably tolerate the idea and image of ketchup blood—there are things even more grotesque that people watch throughout the year in movies, TV shows, and online videos. Graphic violence that was seldom seen decades ago is now much more commonplace.

Some might say it’s a good thing that more people are now acclimated to the sight of blood, but what is that desensitization doing to society? Although it’s probably true that most of us are no more likely to kill someone, how do we respond when we see real bloodshed and violence on screen or in-person. Are we as likely to be appalled and to act against it?

A few weeks ago, on a SEPTA train outside of Philadelphia, a man raped a woman while several bystanders reportedly did nothing. Of course, intervening in an act of violence is no small thing. Still, if we weren’t exposed to so much violence and bloodshed, would we react differently when we see it? Is fake blood or anything that trivializes trauma adding a little more insensitivity to our collective apathy?

Such societal impact is certainly the most significant consideration here; yet, from a business perspective, there’s another important question to ask about the Halloween promotion:

Can Heinz’s own bottom-line stomach the bloodshed?

Of course, the campaign is the company’s own doing, so surely Heinz has conducted cashflow analyses to project how much marginal revenue Tomato Blood will raise against incremental costs for things like new labels and special promotion.

It’s fairly easy to estimate that net income. What’s much harder to determine is the blood’s long-term impact on Heinz's well-established brand. To that end, the AIDA model (attention, interest, desire action) may help.

On one hand, the uniquely appalling nature of Tomato Blood has gained Heinz considerable attention, or awareness that the brand wouldn’t otherwise have, e.g., news coverage, social media shares. Similarly, the mere idea of the repulsive product piques curiosity, or interest, and likely causes many people to want to find out more, just as I did.

For some people that attention and interest might also lead to desire, or identifying a need to use the product either as fake blood or to put on burgers, as well as to action, i.e., purchasing the bottles and/or recommending them to others.

On the other hand, there’s a real risk in associating a beloved condiment with a body fluid that many people literally "can’t stand the sight of."

Between 3 and 4 percent of the population has hemophobia, or an irrational fear of blood. For these individuals, even seeing blood on television can cause symptoms such as difficulty breathing and extreme anxiety or panic.

It’s easy to dismiss a relatively small group whose reactions to blood are clinically considered “irrational.” However, the same primitive reflex that causes some people to faint at the sight of blood exists in all of us to some extent.

How many people actually enjoy blood? It seems that a visual of the vital fluid makes most people at least a little squeamish if not nauseous. Given that widespread response . . .

Why would any brand, especially one whose consumption is predicated upon appearing appetizing, want to associate itself with such strong and innately negative reactions?

Human history and Maslow’s hierarchy have taught us that the motivation to eat is one of the most basic human needs and, if given a choice, people prefer to eat things that ‘pass the eye test’ and look appealing, if not delicious.

Food companies like Kraft Heinz usually go to great lengths in ads to make their products appear as attractive as possible. Some even use little tricks, like putting a light layer of deodorant spray on fruit to make it shine or substituting shaving cream for whipped cream, which looks better in pictures.

Industry insiders know that bad food experiences and negative impressions can be very difficult to overcome. I was one of many people who were slow to go back to Chipotle after about 1,100 of its customers contracted norovirus between 2015 to 2018. Many diners are even reluctant to return to a restaurant after finding something as simple as a hair on their plate.

More than what they wear, type on, or wash with, people are understandably very particular about the products they put in their bodies. Any kind of negative association real or imagined, can be difficult to overcome. So, it’s hard to understand why the manufacturer of a very popular tomato product would plant in people’s minds a seed of dissonance that could bloom into a very ‘bloody taste in their mouths.’

It’s hard to know actually how Heinz’s Halloween promotion will play out. It might offer a nice short-term shot to income, but it may also be a blow that bruises the brand while also helping make people a little more comfortable for gore. For these reasons, the matrix type for Tomato Blood is 'MM negative' for Mindless Marketing.

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

6 Comments

Has OnlyFans Sold Its Soul?

8/29/2021

16 Comments

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

When you were a kid, people probably asked you, “What do you want to do when you grow up?” It’s unlikely that anyone ever asked what you wouldn’t be willing to do for a living. However, that uncommon question may actually be the more important one; at least that’s what OnlyFans’ off-again-on-again sex saga suggests.

Those familiar with OnlyFans were surprised to learn that the London-based online subscription service known for risqué content had suddenly decided to ban sexually-explicit videos. The move, which seemed analogous to Budweiser abandoning alcohol, made me wonder whether the purveyor of virtual vice suddenly had a moral epiphany that left it feeling convicted and compelled to reform its ways.

However, my online search for an ethical impetus behind the pornography ban came up empty. It appeared that the main motivation came down to processing payments and keeping credit lines open, since some of OnlyFans’ banks had become increasing uncomfortable with transactions tied to the sex industry.

On one level, OnlyFans did act on a moral imperative, but it wasn’t a strategy it selected willingly; rather it was behavior compelled by others and tied squarely to revenue retention.

The idea that there had been no real ethical enlightenment became all-the-more apparent when, within a matter of a few days, the company reversed its stance and lifted the pornography ban.

Any of us can change our minds on ethical issues (I sometimes do), but for an individual or organization to go from “this is so right,” to “this is so wrong,” to “this is so right,” within a matter of days, defies most moral compasses.

So, whether or not we agree with OnlyFans’ recent choices, it’s hard to lend the company moral capital for any of them. Instead, we’re back to the most basic business ethics question: Is OnlyFans’ business model a moral one, i.e., Is it right to sell sex?

Of course, selling sex has been happening for millennia, which is why prostitution is known as “the oldest profession.” Also, throughout that time a very wide variety of sexual expression has been sold, from actual physical intercourse to subtle innuendo in advertising.

Over so much time and across so many different cultures, there’s bound to be differences of opinion about what constitutes appropriate sexual expression and how, if ever, if should be commercialized. My convictions, which stem from a Christian worldview, provide guiding principles that admittedly are filtered through my interpretation. I respect others’ distinct judgments and bases for beliefs because I don’t have it all figured out.

Still, there are four arguments I often hear in favor of commercializing sex that are hard for me to appreciate for reasons I’ll explain:

1) Diversity and Inclusion: In a tweet describing the reversal of its pornography ban, OnlyFans said:

“Thank you to everyone for making their voices heard. We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse community [emphasis added] and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change. OnlyFans stands for inclusion [emphasis added] and we continue to provide a home for all creators.

OnlyFans’ announcement reminds me of Frank Sinatra famously singing, “I did it may way,” as well as of many young people today saying, “You have to do you.” All three sentiments suggest that what’s good is purely a personal decision, or what feels right for that individual.

Individuality is good in many ways, but personal diversity related to what a person does (i.e., their actions, behaviors) is different than who a person is (e.g., their race and gender). Unfortunately, OnlyFans conflates the two. People always deserve respect for who they are, but personal preference for what to do shouldn’t serve as the metric for what’s ethical.

2) Free speech: Reading and listening to interviews about the OnlyFans news, I heard several sex workers appeal to free speech, suggesting that what they sell is protected by freedom of expression. In terms of U.S. constitutional law, it is true that not only words but actions, specifically symbolic ones, fall under the umbrella of free speech.

However, free speech doesn’t give the right “To make or distribute obscene materials” (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476; 1957). Granted, this prohibition is a legal one, not necessarily a moral one; still, it’s informative that those interpreting such important constitutional matters felt that free speech does not mean the right to say or do absolutely anything and that illicit expression is particularly deserving of censure.

3) Free Market System: The interplay of supply and demand is effective for bringing about marketing efficiencies, but some seem to believe that if there are two consenting parties—a willing buyer and a willing seller—any exchange between them is inherently ethical. Countering that notion is the moral axiom, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

In the vast majority of cases, sellers and buyer do self-regulate ethically; yet, there are plenty of instances in which parties to an exchange rationalize activities that most others say is wrong, e.g., murder for hire, distribution of illegal drugs, human trafficking, etc. So, claiming that selling sex is okay because two collaborators want it does not hold much ethical weight.

4) Jobs: One of the greatest privileges a person can have is to do meaningful work. Good jobs are important for individuals’ economic and emotional well-being, as well as for society as a whole. However, in keeping with the previous point, not every job is a good job.

Some people make significant money and may even enjoy being arms dealers or animal poachers, but employment is not an absolute good. What people do for pay matters. A job that’s harmful to them or to others is not a worthwhile job.

It’s nice that sex workers can pay their bills, but there’s little or no redeeming value that sex workers can claim , i.e., “Here’s how we’re helping others and making this world a better place.” If anything, sex work precipitates very adverse impacts, e.g., addiction, objectification, psychological scaring, and broken relationships.

Job security is one of life’s most motivating forces. Many people will do almost anything to rationalize and retain their income stream, which evokes this article’s original question: Is there anything you wouldn’t do for money?

Growing up and working in our family’s promotional products company, I clearly remember my father pulling aside calendar manufacturers’ catalogs that contained sexually explicit pictures and completely covering those pages with large decals so what was under them couldn’t be seen by our salespeople, our customers, or anyone else.

We could have done well financially marketing those lewd calendars to companies that wanted to buy them; however, my dad decided that offering them was not the right thing to do. Selling sex was something he wouldn’t do for money.

Although it may be economically advantageous, it’s morally unfortunate that people today can easily make money selling sex. Hopefully, OnlyFans will at some point reconsider its largely illicit business model. In the meantime, the company continues to be a purveyor of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

16 Comments

Cutting Out Weight Loss Ads

8/15/2021

11 Comments

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

Have you ever felt self-conscious about your weight? Most people probably have, perhaps because of someone’s casual comment or from comparing their figure to those of their friends. Maybe an ad even contributed to the unease. Marketers increasingly seek to affirm all physiques but is their support of body positivity delivering an unhealthy message?

It’s hard to think of inclusiveness of physical form without remembering Dove. Through its 2004 “Real Beauty” campaign the personal care brand pioneered promotion based on the reality that beautiful people come in all shapes and sizes.

Since then, many other organizations have mirrored Dove’s body-positive approach. Retailers like Kohl’s and Old Navy, routinely include plus-sized models in their ads, while Target and Macy’s employ variously proportioned mannequins to highlight similarly sized clothing.

Last month, the picture-lovers site Pinterest took body positivity a step further by announcing it would ban weight-loss ads. The social media platform explained that its decision was in the interest of individuals “facing challenges related to body image and mental health,” especially those suffering from eating disorders.

The first major social media platform to take such action, Pinterest’s unprecedented decision quickly received wide news coverage ranging from Fortune to NPR.

Most media cast Pinterest’s ban of weight loss ads in a positive light. For instance, an NBC News opinion piece called the choice “a glimmer of good news” amid more typically troubling stories.

It’s very encouraging that people increasingly recognize that everyone is different and that those differences can be celebrated. But are all differences good differences? Aren’t there certain behaviors that are objectively better for people to do, and others to avoid? Furthermore, are some marketers, like Pinterest, encouraging people to celebrate differences that could actually be harmful to them and to society?”

These are difficult questions to answer in any context, and they become especially tenuous when treating a topic like body image, which so directly impacts everyone, both in individual, psychological ways and in social, relational ways.

In my early years, I was a somewhat ‘chunky’ child and experienced, more than once, critical comments about my weight, which were hard to hear. As I grew older, taller and became more active, I lost weight, or maybe more accurately, didn’t gain much more. Ironically, I now sometimes receive unsolicited comments about being thin, which admittedly are easier to accept; although, they still make me feel uncomfortable.

Despite, this personal experience, a middle-aged man like me is probably not an ideal person to offer insights about body image and the social norms that surround it. When I feel ill-equipped to tackle an ethical issue on my own, which occurs often, I reach out to others who have different and frequently more informed perspectives.

In this instance, I needed as much help as ever, so I contacted several people who I knew would expand my perceptions by hearing their thoughts about Pinterest’s ad ban. Here are highlights from three interactions:

1. A veteran registered nurse, and Baby Boomer, who works in adult primary care as a nurse practitioner posed two important questions that also have been on my mind: 1) How effective are weight loss ads, and 2) “Do they promote healthy behaviors or unhealthy ones?” In answering both questions, she pointed me to a study published in npj Digital Medicine, which found that “online advertisements hold promise as a mechanism for changing population health behaviors.”

She also referenced CDC statistics that show that from 1999 to 2018, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 30.5% to 42.4%. In her work, she sees firsthand how the effects of obesity, including diabetes and hypertension, can lead to “even more life changing complications.” She added:

“Weight loss is usually part of the treatment, and avoidance of obesity is usually preventative. So, if clicking on weight loss ads is a behavior that leads to seeking out more information on healthy behavioral change, then by all means, keep the ads.”

2. A member of Generation Y who works in the food marketing industry had a somewhat different take on weight loss ads. She said that her online scroll speed increases significantly in order to avoid the ads, which she says, “feel more personal as they poke at my self-esteem.” However, she qualifies her aversion to the ads, adding:

“I believe that weight loss products/services deserve to be advertised, but maybe in a way that’s sensitive to the cultural climate of body positivity/neutrality. I’m hopeful that these organizations could use that mindset as a framework guiding their ads, in a way that’s still effective at stopping someone’s scroll but acts as an invitation rather than a confrontation.”

3. A college student and member of Generation Z told me about his very significant weight loss: In just five months, this 6’ 3” young man lost 60 lbs., dropping from 260 to 200 lbs. Given that his accomplishment came mainly from “drinking plenty of water and exercising 4-5 times a week,” it’s not surprising that he emphasized the importance of approaching weight loss as a serious undertaking that requires perseverance:

“It is important to draw the connection between weight loss and hard work, the latter which must come first. It's about discipline, research, and taking your own personal initiative to develop an interest in personal fitness. You cannot simply buy a weight loss program and expect fat to magically remove itself from your body.”

Although he had no concern that society would suddenly become heavier if weight loss ads disappeared, he did express concern about any messaging that might normalize obesity:

“We will lose the idea of what is acceptable and what is not if we desensitize ourselves to what is normal. Being overweight is not a ‘normal’ state to be in, according to health professionals regardless of what ‘body-positivity experts’ have to say. It is common, but not healthy . . . It is ironic that the body-positivity movement promotes every body type more frequently than the ones deemed most healthy by scientists and health professionals.”

Of course, the opinions of these three people don’t represent the full spectrum of perspectives on weight loss and body image. They didn’t speak much to issues like anorexia and bulimia; however, I know each of them understands and empathizes with all who suffer from such eating disorders, as well as those who have been shamed because of their physique.

At the same time, these three voices have expressed important points that perhaps seem contrarian, probably because they tend not to receive the attention they deserve. For instance, they emphasized:

The right type of weight-loss advertising, that’s affirming and realistic, can be effective and beneficial.
Weight-loss is more a function of hard work and self-discipline than any quick fix.
No one should be made to feel bad about their body, but normalizing obesity is not helpful.
Although eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia are fairly common (1%-4% of the population suffers from them), obesity is much more prevalent: As mentioned above, in the U.S., 42.4% of adults were obese in 2018. Also, unfortunately, the pandemic has seen an increase in obesity, with an average weight gain of 29 lbs., making people more susceptible to the dangerous effects of the virus, as well as other serious illnesses.

It’s unfortunate that we live in a weight-obsessed society. Some marketers bear responsibility for helping to cultivate that preoccupation, e.g., by promoting unhealthy lifestyles that lead to excessive weight gain. Others are culpable for perpetuating unrealistic physical ideals and impossible ways of achieving them.

Pinterest is right to act against specific advertising abuses that cause others to feel shame and that encourage eating disorders. However, in embracing body positivity, the social media platform and others should be careful not to inadvertently endorse what is objectively one of world’s biggest problems, obesity, as doing so weighs in as “Mindless Marketing.”

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

11 Comments

Is Space Tourism an Unnecessary Splurge?

7/17/2021

2 Comments

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

It’s interesting to see how much people are willing to pay to travel from point A to point B: Is $50 too much for a 15-minute Uber to the airport; is $500 reasonable for a one-way flight from JFK to LAX? For a few hundred thousand dollars, today’s trendiest travel just takes a person from point A and back, but it does include a brief stop in the stratosphere. So, is consumer space travel worth its astronomical price?

For Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk, the answer is, of course, “yes.” These three billionaires not only want to be astronauts, they want others to share the celestial experience, provided they can ante up the soaring prices.

On July 11, Branson, founder of Virgin Galactic and a variety of other Virgin companies, became the first of the execs to experience outer space when his corporation’s SpaceShipTwo carried him and a small crew to an altitude 9.5 miles above the earth.

The two other tycoons are expected soon to follow suit, the next being Bezos in his company’s Blue Origin craft on July 20. Interestingly, Musk reportedly bought a ticket on Virgin Galactic about 15 years ago; he likely will also fly on one of his own SpaceX ships someday.

It shouldn’t be long before prosperous private citizens will be boarding spacecrafts and floating in zero gravity. With already over 600 tickets sold to individuals that reportedly include Justin Bieber and Leonardo DiCaprio, Virgin Galactic appears to be leading the space tourism race. However, its competitors are also reserving spots, such as a seat that SpaceX sold to a Japanese billionaire for a trip around the moon.

So, how much does a flight into space set a person back? Seats on Virgin Galactic have been selling for $250K each. and will probably increase after its successful maiden voyage. Still, a few hundred thousand dollars is a bargain compared to a ticket for the upcoming Blue Origin flight with Bezos, which cost the winning bidder a staggering $28 million; although, Blue Origin’s suborbital capsule travels over 62 miles above earth compared to Virgin Galactic’s 9.5.

Those are enormous amounts of money spent on an activity that is essentially entertainment, i.e., there doesn’t seem to be a reason why an ordinary person has to fly on a rocket ship. It just seems like something someone would choose to do for the thrill of it or to claim the one-of-a-kind experience.

However, before anyone starts pointing a finger too vigorously at these affluent amateur astronauts, it’s helpful to recognize that many people regularly indulge in expensive, and often short-lived, entertainment experiences. For some it’s hundreds of dollars to see a sporting event or a Broadway show; for others it’s thousands of dollars to travel to a special destination for skiing or scuba diving. I've been among the indulgers.

A little over a decade ago, a research paper I’d written was accepted for presentation at a conference in Honolulu, and fortunately my wife was able to join me on this first-time trip to Hawaii. Given the unique opportunity, we took a few extra days to visit Kauai, “the Garden Island,” where we decided to splurge on a very special flight of our own—a helicopter tour of the isle, including passes over stunning Waimea Canyon and the spectacular Napali Coast.

I believe at the time tickets cost us nearly $200 each, which before the ride seemed like an extraordinary amount of money for 50-minutes, but we rationalized that it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience, which it was. If there are a few places in the world that are worth a helicopter tour, Kauai is one of them.

Still, with all the needs in the world, it’s worth asking if money spent on such momentary pleasures should be used in other ways. Maybe a $200 helicopter tour doesn’t matter as much because it’s a fraction of the cost of a ride into space, which for most people, whether they can afford it or not, probably more easily crosses the line into what they’d consider to be unnecessary and excessive consumption.

One person who’s made that suggestion is senator Bernie Sanders. During a New York Times interview, he questioned the value of the space tourism race, saying, “You have the richest guys in the world who are not particularly worried about earth anymore.” His accusation reminded me of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ maxim, “Some people are so heavenly minded, they’re of no earthly good.” Are Bezos, Branson, and Musk too “heavenly minded”?

Perhaps Sanders has a point—maybe the cost of space tourism shouldn’t only be measured by its direct costs but also in terms of its opportunity costs, or how money spent on space tourism could otherwise be used. Swiss bank UBS has estimated that space tourism could be a $3 billion industry by 2029. There’s a lot of good that those billions of dollars could do.

On the other hand, perhaps some people are looking at the industry’s impact too narrowly. Maybe space tourism is doing and can do more earthly-good than many realize.

Already, SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft has lent a big hand by delivering supplies and crew to the International Space Station. Although those are professional astronauts not tourists, the potential payoff from a large end-consumer market has often encouraged companies in certain industries to invest more of their expertise and resources to develop technology and perfect products that benefit others.

Airplanes and computers are two examples. Military pilots flew many flights before there was commercial aviation. Likewise, businesses used mainframe computers long before individuals used personal ones. In these cases, emerging consumer demand attracted competitors into the market, which helped to improve technology and lower prices. The same will likely happen with space travel.

At the same time, there are also examples of earthly-good that the space tourism industry is accomplishing already:

Blue Origin is donating $19 million of the $28 million winning bid for the seat on its New Shepard rocket; the beneficiaries are 19 different space-related nonprofits.
There are likely hundreds if not thousands of people whose jobs are currently tied to space tourism, and that number will continue to rise as the industry ascends.
According to SpaceX, point-to-point space travel, accomplished by leaving earth’s orbit, could soon make possible a 40-minute flight from New York City to Shanghai. In other words, space tourism is leading to a new era of travel for more utilitarian reasons.

Perhaps the greatest thing that space tourism is doing is inspiring the next generation of creative thinkers and risk takers. On his recent galactic journey, Branson spoke excitedly of how space captivated him as a child and how he hopes young people today will take inspiration from his stellar endeavors:

“To all you kids down there. I was once a child with a dream, looking up to the stars. Now I’m an adult in a spaceship with lots of other wonderful adults looking down to our beautiful, beautiful earth. To the next generation of dreamers, if we can do this, just imagine what you can do.”

Launching anyone into space, including ordinary people, is a risky proposition for all involved, in more ways than one. However, current and future benefits to humanity appear to outdistance those costs, making space tourism a stellar example of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

<<Previous

Ensuring Ethical Advertising

Should Consumers Smile at Guerrilla Marketing?

Does Free Speech Mean Unfiltered?

Harmful Humor

Super BOLD Ads

Why Can't TikTok Block the Blackout Challenge?

Will Heinz’s Halloween Promotion Scare Away Consumers?

Has OnlyFans Sold Its Soul?

Cutting Out Weight Loss Ads

Is Space Tourism an Unnecessary Splurge?

Editor

Archives

Categories