Category: Honesty7883a9b09e

A Decade of Very Demure, Very Mindful Marketing

10/1/2024

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!

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.

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

5 Comments

Does Selling Love Risk Relationships?

6/4/2024

4 Comments

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

Love, exciting and new . . . come aboard, we’re expecting you. Those lyrics from one of the most popular TV sitcoms of the 1970s – ABC’s The Love Boat – are a reminder that people have long-been fascinated with others’ romances. Offering entertainment that people enjoy is a good thing, but are new marketing strategies for monetizing love courting immorality?

A former student of mine, Kaylee Enck, recently messaged me to ask my opinion about a rom-com. I’m not the best person for questions about romantic cinema, but Kaylee wasn’t really interested in my perspective on the movie, Anyone But You; she wanted to know my thoughts about a very unconventional tactic used to promote the film, as she explained:

“The movie went viral because everyone thought the two leads had fallen in love with each other off-screen---even though both were in serious, committed relationships with other people at the time. They played the ruse really well. It's hard to know if it was the pretend relationship or something else, but the male lead's real-life finance actually called off their engagement. A few days ago, it was revealed that the whole thing was a marketing ploy invented by Sydney Sweeney, the lead actress and an executive producer on the film.”

With Kaylee’s clear event summary and some additional background from a link she provided, I was glad to offer my perspective:

Thank you for sharing this story. It seems like a very lowly strategy both because of the wide-spread intentional deceit and the negative impact on real relationships. As I think of broader issues involved, the strategy may reflect a growing tendency to put work ahead of the people in our lives and a willingness to do anything for money or fame.

Kaylee thanked me for my reply, and we could have been done there, but her question got me thinking . . . the markets for products related to love are many and huge! Besides certain movies genres, there are dozens of other products that are often, if not always, connected to love, for instance:

Television shows: old ones e.g., the Love Boat, the Dating Game, soap operas, and new ones e.g., 90-Day Fiancé, the Bachelor, the Bachelorette, Golden Bachelor, Love Island
Plays/musicals
Songs: so much music has been written about love
Books: romance novels
Dating apps
Greeting cards
Flowers
Candy
Romantic dinners
Jewelry: particularly engagement rings and wedding rings
Clothing: wedding apparel, lingerie
Wedding venues
Wedding photography
Honeymoons
Perfume and cologne
Toothpaste and mouthwash
Teeth whitening
Makeup
Hair and skincare products
Cosmetic surgery

There are likely more, but this is at least a good start for a list that can be categorized in several different ways e.g., goods vs. services, romantic love vs. friendship love. Another way to slice it is products that offer a direct, personal love benefit vs. a vicarious one i.e., enjoying someone else’s love experience. Dating apps and wedding rings are the former, while rom-coms and romance novels are the latter.

Is one of these value propositions (direct or vicarious) more moral than the other? Probably not. Just as it’s great that resorts offer honeymoon vacation packages for newlyweds, it’s nice that people who enjoy romance novels can read about couples going on their honeymoons. Buyers and sellers of both benefit without anything being inherently unethical.

Then, what’s wrong with a business model based on love?

That’s not a rhetorical question – There are, unfortunately, many specific ways such a model can be misappropriated, but the general downfall is when profit takes precedent over people and individuals are injured physically, emotionally, or relationally.

Sometimes called “the oldest profession,” prostitution is the classic example of such harm and the reason why historically most societies have considered harlotry immoral. Even if there are two ostensibly willing parties, this selling of “love” causes relational harm to family members of those involved in the act, as well as broader harm to the family as a societal institution.

Movie and TV show sex scenes are another example of potential harm. Even if camera angles and editing suggest more to physical intimacy than actually occurs, the actors involved in the loveless, commitment-less contact expose themselves to what may be lasting emotional harm, as Nedra Gallegos, an instructor at the Los Angeles Campus of the New York Film Academy, implies: “The narrative may be fictional, but the contact is real.”

Unlike the previous two examples, the issue with Anyone But You was not overtly sex but rather the costars putting the success of their movie ahead of their own real relationships/significant others. In this instance, the relational harm was direct, as suggested by the breakup of actor Glen Powell and his girlfriend Gigi Paris.

I'd shared with Kaylee my opinion of the movie’s marketing tactics, but I really wanted to hear hers, since she’s a communications and marketing professional who knows more about the rom-com genre than I do. Here’s her perspective, which is influenced by her Christian faith:

“What marketing really boils down to providing value to the consumer. What is more valuable to us as humans than love, though? When tapping into that sacred emotion, one has to do so cautiously, because no matter how hard we try, no product/service we offer can actually bring someone lasting love---only our relationships, especially our relationship with Christ, can provide that. Transparent, honest advertising, even if not as monetarily successful in the here-and-now, will always win out in the end.”

Her admonitions for transparency and not allowing anything to replace real relationships are great ones for everyone. Coincidentally, they are also consistent with some other Love Boat theme song lyrics that identify love as “life’s sweetest reward,” and that prioritize love that “won't hurt anymore.”

There are good ways that marketing can help start, strengthen, and celebrate real relationships, as well as provide edifying relationship-focused entertainment. However, even effective strategies that place profit ahead of people are “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

4 Comments

Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics

5/3/2024

24 Comments

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:

Whose moral standards should be used?
Can machines converse about moral issues?
Can algorithms take context into account?
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:

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.

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

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.

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

24 Comments

Has Gatorade Diluted its Brand?

4/1/2024

2 Comments

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

For companies thirsting for earnings, new product lines and brand extensions are often great sources of cash flow. The world’s foremost sports drinks maker has won with such strategies for decades, but does adding bottled water to its product mix develop or dilute Gatorade’s iconic brand?

Over the last 10 years, the market for sports and exercise-related rehydration has burst open. Dozens of companies have added new pre- and post-workout drinks infused with everything from electrolytes, to minerals, to protein. Among the leading competitors are Body Armor, Powerade, PRIME, and Electrolit.

Still, in the saturated sports drink market, Gatorade’s annual revenue of $7 billion represents five times the sales of its closest competitor. Much of that success comes from the company’s skill in creating new products labeled with its valuable Gatorade name. Among its branded offerings in the sports drink category are:

Gatorade Thirst Quenchers
Gatorade Zero Sugar Thirst Quenchers
Gatorade Thirst Quencher Powder Packets
Gatorade Electrolyte Beverages
Gatorade Fit Electrolyte Beverages
Gatorade Protein Shakes

In addition, the company has attached its world-renowned name to a number of non-liquid, or solid, goods including:

Gatorade Protein Bars
Gatorade Sports Bottles
Gatorade Shaker Bottles
Gatorade Sports Towels
Gatorade Bottle Carriers
Gatorade Bottle Carts
Gatorade Ice Chests
Gatorade Coolers
Gatorade Cups

Despite all the hydration help Gatorade has offered athletes and others since its invention at the University of Florida in 1965, the company hasn’t had a Gatorade-named offering in the most basic thirst-quenching category – water.

The global market for bottled water is already voluminous and is expected keep growing: Some estimated it to represent $302 billion in revenue in 2022 and anticipate an increase to over $503 by 2032.

Why wouldn’t Gatorade want to take a sip of those sales? Plus, Gatorade’s parent company, PepsiCo, is familiar with bottled water, producing the very successful brand Aquafina. Its annual U.S. revenue of $1.3 billion make it the best-selling non-private-label brand water in the nation.

So, given the massive market opportunity and the company’s great familiarity with food and beverages, it seems to make sense for Gatorade to lean again on its staple strategy of brand extension. But by naming the new entry “Gatorade Water,” has the company gone to the well once too often?

There were some good reasons that PepsiCo called its bottled water Aquafina and not Pepsi Water. First, Aquafina is a creative name that evokes relevant positive perceptions for the brand. Perhaps more important, though, Pepsi Water would be a branding oxymoron – a contradiction in terms and problem for value proposition perceptions.

When people hear “Pepsi,” they probably think of words like cola, soda, sweet, fizzy, and caffeine. They might also associate Pepsi with parties, special occasions, and splurging. All of these adjectives and nouns are pretty much the opposite of what most people associate with water.

The same perceptual disconnect likely exists between water and Gatorade. When people hear “Gatorade,” they probably think salty, sugary, energy, and colorful (yellow/green, blue, red). Again, words that are pretty much the opposite of water.

H2O was around before human beings were. Ever since, people have been hydrating rather successfully with water. Still, researchers at the University of Florida created Gatorade because they believed they had improved on the classic element by developing “a drink that contained salts and sugars that could be absorbed more quickly [than water].”

Since its invention, Gatorade’s unique value proposition has been its relative advantage over water, as the sports drink’s development affirms:
“Drawing on research into rehydration, the team developed an electrolyte-carbohydrate solution, a mix of salts and sugars designed to provide the athletes with energy and necessary chemicals for physical and mental performance. Plain water could not move through the body quickly enough, nor restore its chemistry.”

So, Gatorade Water should make one wonder, “If water works, is traditional Gatorade really necessary?” Or, the new product may create the cognitive dissonance for consumers suggested above and lead to the philosophical question: “What exactly is Gatorade?”

To be fair, Gatorade Water isn’t just H2O. It also contains electrolytes, but the company’s own website suggests the purpose isn’t performance, rather its water is “electrolyte infused for great taste.”

To avoid possible brand confusion, marketers might suggest that PepsiCo should have used individual branding, which gives significantly different product lines their own branding, rather than family branding, which puts the family name on all a company’s products.

Apple is a great example of family branding: It leverages its highly esteemed name and graphic icon for its AirPods, MacBooks, and iPhones, among other products. In contrast, Procter & Gamble (P&G) may be the biggest consumer products company that most consumers don’t recognize because it individually brands its products, including Pampers, Bounce, Downy, Tide, Bounty, Gillette, Head & Shoulders, Pantene, and Old Spice.

Should PepsiCo have individually branded its sports water instead of family branding it? Actually, the company already tried the individual branding strategy, which is why there’s Propel.

Propel is an individually branded PepsiCo line of “fitness water” that contains vitamins B3, B5, B6, C and E. What makes its branding even more interesting, if not confusing, is that Propel is also infused with “Gatorade Electrolytes.”

Gatorade in Propel represents another branding strategy – ingredient branding. It’s what Duncan Hines uses when it promotes that its cake mixes contain Hershey’s syrup, or what Dell uses when it says its laptops have Intel chips inside them.

Ingredient branding is a very viable branding strategy, but in the case of PepsiCo, it just ads to the bottled water brand confusion. For instance, it may be clear why some consumers would choose Propel instead of Aquafina, but why would they chose Gatorade over Propel when Propel ‘contains Gatorade’?

It seems like its countervailing branding strategies have set up PepsiCo to be an example of another not-so-favorable marketing concept, cannibalization, which is when a corporation’s own brands compete with each other more than they do with the brands of other companies. General Motors experienced this problem many decades ago with brands like Buick and Oldsmobile.

Gatorade is one of the world’s most highly regarded brands in any category, especially in hydration. However, on this particular play-call, the sports drink icon and its parent PepsiCo seem to have dropped the ball. Though well-intentioned, ‘video evidence’ will likely later confirm that Gatorade Water was “Simple-Minded Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

A Case for Marketing Ethics

12/20/2023

8 Comments

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

When students approach me after class it’s often because they missed a quiz, have a question about an assignment, or want to chat about a topic of mutual interest. So, I was surprised recently when a student waited until others had left, then said, “Hey, Dr. Hagenbuch, I have a question about an ethical issue.”

The inquiry wasn’t entirely unexpected. We discuss ethical issues often in my classes, and sometimes students ask my opinion about questionable strategies they’ve seen in the news or that they imagine companies might use. However, this question wasn’t hypothetical.

Grant (not his real name) had been working for several months as an intern with a company that sold the products of various manufacturers in a particular business-to-business industry. He provided the firm different forms of marketing support, including help with social media.

Now the company wanted to share in social media specific consumer questions and its responses, which would highlight as solutions specific manufactures’ products, but there was one problem: The company had no actual consumer questions along the lines of what it wanted, so some in the firm decided it would be easiest to create not just the questions but also imaginary consumers to ask them.

Grant didn’t wonder whether what his company was considering was unethical; he knew it was wrong. It probably helped him, however, to hear me validate his concern. His question to me was more about what he might do or say.

As we talked about the issue, one of the first things that came to my mind was Sports Illustrated’s recent moral lapse. The iconic magazine about all things athletic ran afoul of public opinion on a viral scale when it apparently used artificial intelligence to write articles that it attributed to human beings.

First off, the articles appeared fake; for instance, one suggested that volleyball can be hard to play without a ball. Second, the authors seemed contrived. One writer, Drew Ortiz, had no publishing history or social media presence, all while a website that sells AI-generated headshots was offering for sale the same suspicious-looking profile picture that Sports Illustrated used for him on its site.

Unfortunately, Sports Illustrated isn’t the only organization faking it. A recent Wall Street Journal article revealed that phony product reviews, especially on Amazon, are more rampant than most of us ever would imagine.

Grant understood and rejected such deception. He could tell his coworkers that it's unethical to deceive and that creating fake customers would represent that very infraction. However, his colleagues might not be receptive to such a blunt rebuke and indictment of their character, particularly not from an intern.

So, I suggested that he mention the Sports Illustrated example and delicately suggest that things could turn out badly for their own company if they followed a similar tack and their strategy were exposed.

I felt for Grant in this predicament, but I also was very glad that he not only recognized there was an ethical issue, he was conflicted enough by it that he wanted to talk about it. For me those two things represented a moral victory.

Having worked in business for about a decade and having taught ethics in higher education for a couple more, my strong sense is that many moral issues in business are either not recognized, or they’re rationalized away, or they’re simply ignored. Grant cleared each of those moral hurdles. He then went a step further by talking with me.

Why don’t more marketers and others do what Grant did? That’s a difficult question to answer short of some formal research. Maybe I’ll conduct such a study sometime, but in the meantime, I asked Grant to reflect on his decision process and actions, which he graciously did.

I first asked Grant how he came to see the tactic as a potential ethical issue. He responded:

“In the project proposal my manager asked me to make fake client profiles on our website and have them send messages to our Product Advisor Channel. We would then take each fake question and make an Instagram style reel answering it. These Q&A reels would be used to promote partnered manufacturers and create a new style of content for our media channels.”

“I questioned the ethics of this project because we would be claiming to have organic questions coming from clients, and our company would be giving advice and solving problems when the questions weren’t being asked by actual clients. In my mind this comes across as lying to our customers to get engagement, benefit our company, and our manufacture partners.”

However, Grant also showed discernment in recognizing the multifaceted nature of the issue:

“I also saw how doing this could benefit clients. If we were posing questions that were legitimate and providing truthful answers, I can see how it would benefit the community. There could be advice given by our professionals that could help clients, even if it was from an account that we claimed to be organic, when in actuality they were our own.”

Many ethical issues involve legitimate competing considerations, which is one of the things that makes them so challenging. If they were easy, we wouldn’t have dilemmas.

Second, I asked Grant why he decided to mention his moral concern to me. He replied:

“The reason I mentioned it to you was because I know that you are passionate about going about marketing the right way. More and more I feel like the lines between legal and ethical are being blurred. We see a lot of marketers that are not concerned with the ethics of their marketing or in some cases don’t even realize that they are being unethical in their practices. I know that you have experience in marketing and because of this I sought out your advice.”

I was glad that Grant thought of me as someone who cared about ethics and could act as a helpful sounding board. I’ve often benefited by having people in my life to turn to for opinions and advice. I was happy to offer the same to him.

Reflecting on this experience with Grant has made me think of factors that should influence a person’s ethical decision making. There are surely more, but Grant’s actions in this instance have led me to identify three very important considerations:

1. Recognition: Conventional wisdom has long held that the first step in overcoming a problem is to admit having one. Similarly, good managers know it’s ineffective to discuss strategies before identifying the underlying challenges. Moral decision-making should follow the same approach.

It’s likely that many people wouldn't bat an eye if they received the same request that Grant got from his boss. The directive didn’t set well with Grant, probably because of his upbringing and deep-rooted beliefs and perhaps also because of the priority marketing ethics have received during his college education.

2. Regard: Just because someone recognizes an issue doesn’t necessarily mean they think it’s a meaningful one. Some needs are naturally more important than others, which is why discernment is critical and with it genuine concern.

Occasionally, an unrepentant offender will say, “I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway.” Even very smart people are capable of abhorrent things if they don’t care. Thankfully, Grant cared.

3. Recommendations: No one has all the answers. Instead of relying just on our own ideas and instincts to guide our actions, our outcomes will usually improve when we ask others for their input.

In deciding moral issues, it’s especially helpful to gain the advice of someone objective who doesn’t have a direct interest in the outcome but who also has insight into the type of issue at hand. Grant happened to ask me, but the most important thing is that he sought a second opinion from someone who could offer an unbiased and informed one.

Whether Grant decides to refuse his boss’s request or honor it, perhaps with some caveats, his recognition of the problem, genuine regard for the outcome, and request for another’s recommendation place his moral decision-making ahead of that of most others. Grant’s actions also suggest that even before graduating college, he’s a practitioner of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

8 Comments

Dos and Don'ts of Personal Branding with AI

11/18/2023

32 Comments

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?

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.”

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

32 Comments

How Data Analytics Find You

7/19/2023

23 Comments

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

As a marketing educator, I take some pride in understanding organizations’ marketing and sharing it with others. However, two unexpected emails from unfamiliar online retailers left this professor perplexed and led me to reach out to a former student to teach me what had happened.

It was a Saturday evening when the emails hit my inbox within minutes of each other. They caught my attention because both were from furniture retailers that I never heard of before. Although I hadn’t been shopping for furniture, I knew my wife had been online helping our son find furnishings.

I asked her if she recognized the retailers. She said she had visited their websites earlier that day but hadn’t purchased anything or provided any contact information. Nonetheless, she also had started receiving emails from them.

Most of us have experienced the remarketing that happens when we search for a specific product online and soon after, ads for the same product start appearing on webpages we visit. However, that kind of digital targeting is typically confined to websites; it doesn’t lead to us receiving emails since we didn’t provide an email address.

While I was surprised that my wife had received emails from the two retailers, I was baffled by how I’d been added to their lists.

I understood that it’s easy for companies to access data linking our email addresses to our internet protocol (IP) address, “the unique identifying number assigned to every device connected to the Internet.” That connection is evident each time we complete an online form that asks for our email address, among other personal information.

Companies that don’t harvest that data themselves also can buy it from those who do. The market for data brokering is huge – now a $138.9 billion industry that’s expected to top $229 billion by 2025.

Big tech companies like Facebook and Google, as well as credit bureaus like Equifax and Experian, are among the biggest players in the data collection market. These organizations often say they don’t sell customer data; rather, they “share” it with their advertising partners. Of course, advertisers pay these big data collecting companies to run their ads, so selling vs. sharing seems like semantics.

Having exhausted the extent of my digital data-sharing knowledge, I turned to an expert. Dan Shaffer was once a BIS major and a student in my Marketing Principles class. He’s since risen to Director of Marketing Operations at WebFX one of the world’s leading digital marketing companies. I asked him how the two furniture retailers, who were completely unknown to me, could have gotten my email address.

Shaffer said that the companies were likely using https://retention.com/ to tie my IP back to my email addresses via brokered data – a process that started when at some point my email address and IP address were paired, probably from an online form I filled or an email newsletter to which I subscribed sometime ago.

Even though my wife and I use different devices to access the Internet, and each device has its own unique IPv6, the first 14 digits of that number are the same for every device in our household. So, a company with data from both my wife and from me could connect our datasets and target not just an individual shopper but as Shaffer described, our “household’s browsing history and interests.”

So, to summarize, the two unknown furniture retailers found me by using a very specialized analytics service (Retention.com) that: cross-referenced myriads of data it either harvested itself or purchased from others, found correlations among my wife’s and my separate online activities, and used those connections to paint a digital picture of our household.

That’s a simplified view of what happened and how. Given the moral focus of Mindful Marketing, the bigger question is, should it have happened? Was it right for the two furniture retailers and Retention.com to put my wife on their email list and target me?

It’s interesting that Retention.com dedicates an entire webpage to answering the question, How is Retention.com Legal? Who else does that? Does your employer take time to explain why it’s legal? An organization that does so naturally makes us ask: Should I be worried? Are there reasons why this business may not be legitimate?

Retention.com makes a case for the legitimacy of its practices with a variety of alleged facts including:

According to the US CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 you do NOT need an opt-in to send email marketing in the USA. In Europe, you do; but in the US, you don’t.
To be CAN-SPAM compliant, all you need is an opt-out link in the communication, and you need to make it clear that it’s an advertisement, along with a few other requirements (see below).

The webpage goes on to discuss that the conventional definition of SPAM is email that is both unsolicited and bulk. However, Retention.com argues against that definition because although it comes from Spamhaus, which is “an important, and influential organization in Email Marketing,” “Spamhaus is NOT the US government.”

At the same time, Retention.com also claims that it complies with Spamhaus’ definition because it provides “verifiable consent, ie, a third-party opt-in date and time, and the URL of our partner website that they opted in to.”

Furthermore, the site argues that the emails sent thanks to its services comply with the main requirements of the Federal Trade Commission’s CAN-SPAM act:

No false or misleading header information
No deceptive subject lines
Identifying the message as an ad
Telling recipients where the sender is located
Telling recipients how to opt out of receiving future emails
Honor opt-out request promptly
Monitor what others are doing on your behalf

To Retention.com’s credit, I can confirm that the emails I received from the two furniture retailers complied with most of the seven stipulations above. However, one significant falsity appeared at the top of each email: “You’re receiving this email because you stopped by our site. Unsubscribe”

Before I received the first email from them, I didn’t even know these retailers existed; I certainly never visited their websites.

Given that my wife did browse the sites, perhaps the retailer and Retention.com could argue that “you” is plural, i.e., ‘you people,’ or ‘your household.’ Of course, even individuals in the same family or household often have very different personalities, preferences, and internet use patterns.

Why would a company want to risk annoying, alienating, or even offending potential customers, given the possibility that by targeting households one of the following could happen:

Spoil a surprise – What if my wife was hoping to surprise me with some new piece of furniture? Well, she can’t now!
Reveal sensitive information – Others don’t need to know that someone in their household is looking into treatment for a certain medical condition or for an attorney, a therapist, protection from domestic abuse, etc.

Besides being dishonest (“you stopped by our site”), it seems like Retention.com and these furniture retailers are taking a step backward in terms of best practices in marketing.

Ever since marketing began as a science in the mid-1900s, marketers have continually worked to refine their target markets, i.e., tailor them more and more to the needs of specific individuals vs. amorphous groups.

Now that digital media have enabled true one-to-one marketing and mass customization, why turn back the clock?

At the same time, I realize that Retention.com, like many digital marketers, is playing a numbers game. It doesn’t need to get my business for its clients. As long as its shotgun approach gets 15-20% of recipients to open the unsolicited emails and even smaller percentages to visit the retailers’ sites and make purchases, it’s probably providing ROI.

On its ‘right to exist’ page, Retention.com poses a rhetorical question that compares Spamhaus’ guidance to what’s legal:
Why abide by this definition, even though it’s considerably more restrictive than the law?

This question cuts to the heart of the difference between law and ethics and evokes a time-honored moral truism: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

First, there is at least one reason to believe that Retention.com’s practices do run afoul of the law, specifically concerning the Federal Trade Commission’s standard for truth in advertising, which mandates that “Under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair . . .” (1) Since I never visited the two furniture retailers’ sites, to say I did is blatantly untruthful.

Second, even if Retention.com is given a legal pass, it’s practices still raise moral questions, e.g., What really represents ‘opting in,’ and how might less-than-transparent and/or manipulative systems mislead or coerce consumers?

For instance, at some point months or years before, my wife and/or I may have clicked “yes” on terms-of-use agreements that in an array of opaque legalese said that certain companies could “share” our customer information.

Is there really informed consent when you have 1) practically no idea with whom your data will be shared and for what purposes and 2) you’ve been shopping online for a long time, the terms-of-use agreement is the last thing you need to check off before completing the purchase, and the agreement is 10 pages long, in 8-point type, single-spaced?

Just because a company like Retention.com can “legally” assimilate reams of data, find connections, and sell those association services to others, should it? Instances of deception and possible coercion suggest, “no.”

Despite my own unpleasant experience and critical analysis, Retention.com probably is helping to convert a small percentage of surprised email recipients to customers for its clients, making its data amalgamation and email inundation approach “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

23 Comments

Why Did the PGA Stop Keeping Score with LIV?

6/20/2023

5 Comments

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

“If you can’t beat them join them.” This old adage, suggesting that adversaries become allies, has been used to describe everything from Vichy France aligning with Nazi Germany to Apollo Creed training Rocky Balboa. Now a very surprising real-life sports pairing has made ethics appear expendable or at least raised the question: Is it okay to have a moral change of mind?

The Professional Golfers’ Association’s (PGA) decision to merge with LIV Golf was a move that virtually no one expected. Even professional golfers and analysts who cover the game were shocked by the news. The PGA’s sudden change of heart, which went from viewing LIV as a bitter rival to a bedfellow also represented for many an epic moral capitulation.

Over the past year, the PGA and LIV have been “at war.” The PGA had threatened to suspend golfers who defected to LIV and even ban them for life. Why such acrimony? Of course, no organization wants a new competitor, especially one that steals its product (golfers) and commandeers its place (golf venues).

However, the PGA’s disdain for LIV was rooted in more than competition-fueled conflict. Many in the veteran golf association, as well as others, took issue with LIV’s funding source – the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, the nation of origin for 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks and a country known for human right abuses.

In an interview just a month ago, the PGA’s CEO, Seth Waugh, was heard “trashing” LIV Golf ahead of the PGA Championship. How is such a seemingly irreconcilable relationship so suddenly repaired? One ESPN piece, “How the shocking PGA Tour-LIV Golf deal went down” details the events leading up to the proposed merger and its players, while another describes how the unification, which also includes the DP World Tour (Europe), might solidify the sport long-term.

This Mindful Marketing article doesn’t pretend to know what’s best for the future of professional golf; rather, it aims to ask a more general philosophical question: Was it okay for the PGA to have a moral change of mind?

Of course, it’s not organizations but the individuals that manage them who make decisions, including ethical ones. Most of us have experienced that our initial inclinations are not always optimal. As evidence, we’ve all mistakes and often realized later the option we should have selected.

Imperfect decision-making is a thread that has run continually through human history and often involved ethics. For instance, decisions in favor of racial segregation in the U.S. in the 19th- and 20th century are ones that most Americans now reject, as are the choices that kept women from voting until 1920.

Realizing the error of one’s way and self-correcting a moral stance is a good thing. However, it’s also important to help others understand the reason for the reversal. Intelligent, inquiring people want to know not just that a judgment that was A is now B but why it’s changed That’s where moral reasoning helps.

In a moral argument, a person first identifies a moral standard then suggests one or more alleged facts, which lead to a conclusion, or moral judgment. A month ago, it seemed that many PGA supporters/LIV detractors morally reasoned along the lines of the following:

Human rights should be upheld. (moral standard)
Saudi Arabia has not upheld certain human rights. (alleged fact 1)
LIV Golf’s funding come from the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. (alleged fact 2)
LIV Golf’s funding source taints the league. (alleged fact 3)
It’s wrong for professional golfers to play for LIV. (moral judgment)

Then, without notice, the PGA reversed course, announcing its merger with LIV and thereby introducing a new moral judgement: It’s fine for professional golfers to play for LIV.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with having a moral change of heart, especially if it’s the result of ethical enlightenment. However, others deserve to know what changed the moral judgment, which is where the PGA fell short of the cup.

A year ago, PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan was invoking the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a main reason to reject LIV. Now, he will reportedly serve as CEO of the newly created company.

Monahan and the PGA have offered little evidence that their change of heart had anything to do with recognition of either a more compelling moral standard or more salient alleged facts such as, ‘Saudi Arabia’s record on human rights is improving’ or ‘Where money comes from doesn’t matter as much as what’s done with it.’

Moreover, it appears that the PGA has made a wholesale change in its moral decision-making from principle-based ethics, or nonconsequentialism, to outcome-based ethics, or consequentialism. Evidence of this philosophical shift can be seen in recent statements from the PGA and Monahan that focus not on upholding specific moral principles but on prioritizing outcomes for the game of golf, for instance:

“We are pleased to move forward, in step with LIV and PIF’s world-class investing experience, and I applaud PIF Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan for his vision and collaborative and forward-thinking approach that is not just a solution to the rift in our game, but also a commitment to taking it to new heights. This will engender a new era in global golf, for the better.”

Understandably, given what’s transpired, this explanation has failed to reach the green for many of the tour’s most important stakeholders. Many top professional golfers, have felt blindsided by the decision and left to wonder what inspired it. Rory McIlroy, the third ranked golfer in the world, said he was surprised by news of the merger, he felt like a “sacrificial lamb,” and he hated LIV and hoped it would go away.

Similarly, hall of fame golfer Tom Watson sent a letter to Monahan questioning the merger Watson also acknowledged that his skepticism about the new structure has been “compounded by the hypocrisy in disregarding the moral issue.”

If the merger goes through, professional golf, with its strong new financial backing and consolidation will likely thrive. However, the PGA’s pivot has left a moral divot that will not be easily replaced.

It’s the prerogative of any person and professional sports association, to have a moral change of heart. However, when such happens, it’s also important to say why. By not explaining how it so quickly arrived at a very different moral judgment about LIV, the PGA hit the ball into a bunker of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

5 Comments

Is it a Sin to Advertise Religion?

5/21/2023

5 Comments

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

In casual interpersonal conversation, two topics have long been taboo: politics and religion. By contrast, in advertising, politics are usually fair game, but religion has largely remained off-limits, until now. So, have two widely broadcast religion-related campaigns changed an age-old mass communication commandment?

By now, most people have driven by billboards or viewed videos online for “He Gets Us,” the omnipresent ad campaign aimed at changing people’s perceptions of Jesus. The campaign even aired ads during last February’s Super Bowl.

More recently, another campaign, which represents religion for some but with a very different objective, also has been broadcast in national media: #StandUpToJewishHate aims to stop antisemitism. The need for such an initiative stems in part from the sobering statistic that the American Jewish community represents just 2.4% of the U.S. population, but Jews are victims in 55% of the country’s religious hate crimes.

Given my past and present advertising-related roles, people sometimes ask my opinion about ads, and because I teach at a Christian University, my views on marketing that involves religion has some extra appeal.

However, as much as I enjoy sharing my thoughts, I really appreciate hearing others’ perspectives, from which I always learn. So, in the current case of these two high-profile campaigns, I reached out to a few wise friends and asked for their insights on the ads.

One person is a Christian church pastor; the others are Jewish – a software project manager and an executive coach. For the sake of brevity but at the risk of some awkward acronyms, I’ll refer to these kind contributors anonymously as CCP, JSPM, and JEC, respectively. Here are their reflections on the ads.

He Gets Us

In light of ongoing critiques of Christians and Christianity, CCP admitted having mixed feelings about the He Gets Us ads. Still, he was grateful for the campaign’s positive portrayal of Jesus.

JSPM and JEC also appreciated the ads. JSPM was particularly impressed by the campaign’s inclusivity, emphasized through third person plural language. He reflected, “Our world could certainly use more ‘us’ than ‘them’ . . . When we allow people to dehumanize others, bad things happen.”

Likewise, JEC was very impressed by the He Gets Us ads, which he found to be “incredibly open-minded” as they presented an accurate picture of Jesus, who was not close-minded.

Notwithstanding these positive attributes, CCP posed an important bottom-line question about the ads: Are they effective? More specifically, he wondered:

“The ads’ portrayals of Jesus highlight his love and grace, but do they clearly communicate to their audience who He is? Also, are those short dramatic snippets enough to cause someone to explore more about Jesus?”

Furthermore, knowing that purchasing national media isn’t cheap, and a 30-second Super Bowl spot can cost as much as $7 million, CCP asked the very reasonable question of whether taking practical actions would be more meaningful than words:

“While our Christian witness is important, do television ads or addressing the needs of people who are hurting provide a better representation to our world of who Jesus is and what He and his followers value?”

Still, CCP remained circumspect, “Maybe the fact we’re having this discussion is proof the ads are accomplishing their purpose.” He’s right: This kind of general image/brand-building is very difficult to quantify, and so much free press is likely helping, at least to some extent, to offset the costs.

#StandUpToJewishHate

As mentioned above, JSPM denounced dehumanizing actions and the acrimony that often underlies them. He added, “The abundance of hate in our society is crowding out love and is dangerous on many levels.” The hateful words and actions the #StandUp campaign seeks to discourage exemplify some of the more advanced forms of that abuse.

JSPM appreciated how each campaign, though very different in their focus, aimed to replace the prevailing narrative with a better one, i.e., Jesus was about loving others, and it’s wrong to radiate hate.

JEC supported the #StandUp ads’ goal of combatting hate and protecting people. He also fittingly differentiated the two campaigns, pointing out that while He Gets Us focuses squarely on Jesus and highlights specific spiritual disciplines He demonstrated like self-control, unconditional love, and hospitableness, #StandUp makes no mention of a deity or reference to specific tenets of faith.

In addition, JEC raised two good questions:

How should the funding sources for both campaigns affect the ways their respective ads are interpreted?
Do the #StandUp spots really represent religious advertising?

Admittedly, the second question surprised me as it challenged the fundamental framing of this piece and the logic: ‘Because the #StandUp campaign encourages rejection of acrimony aimed at Jews, and because Judaism is a religion, the ads are religious advertising.’

However, JEC reminded me that not all Jews consider themselves as adherents to Judaism, i.e., Jewish religion. For some, being Jewish is about cultural/and or ethnic identification, not necessarily religious beliefs and practice. So, although antisemitism may involve religious bigotry, it’s more broadly discrimination against specific people who are identifiable outside of their theological beliefs.

JEC’s analyses of the campaigns were also a good reminder that people, including me, see ads through the lens of their own worldviews and experiences, which can lead to very different interpretations of the commercial content. Those potential discrepancies are why it behooves those creating ads to step outside themselves and truly try to understand others’ perceptions.

The three interviewees provided some excellent analysis of the two specific campaigns, but what about the general idea of religion using paid-for mass communication? Is it right for religious organizations to advertise?

Considering this question, JSPM and JEC both pointed to the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Outside of hate speech and a few specific requirements like truthfulness, individuals and organizations of all kinds do have great liberty to publicly disseminate information and to attempt to persuade people to believe and act in certain ways.

Still, the messages of religion-related ads cut deeper than most, which means religious organizations should strive to:

Promote in proper situations: Ensure that ads appear at appropriate times and in appropriate places.
Be inclusive: Use language that’s welcoming rather than exclusionary.
Seek common ground: Emphasize points of agreement.
Avoid offending: Don’t disparage others’ beliefs.
Be compassionate: Understand the difficult challenges that many people face each day.

Not surprisingly, these are many of the same principles that the three contributors to this piece have identified and implied. Furthermore, following these principles doesn’t mean abandoning the tenets of one’s faith; rather the principles suggest not leading with antagonism.

It’s also helpful to recognize that most religious organizations’ advertising does routinely uphold these principles. These organizations are not necessarily using national television campaigns like the ones discussed above but rather promotional tactics like these:

A synagogue buys newspaper space to advertise an annual flea market fundraiser.
A church runs radio spots to promote its Christmas-themed musical.
A new mosque uses outdoor signage to announce its opening.

This kind of religious advertising commonly accomplishes the organizations’ objectives and upholds values that virtually everyone understands, like decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility.

There are examples of good and evil mass communication in every sector. Religious advertising isn’t always pious, but when done in the right ways, it radiates “Mindful Marketing.”

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

5 Comments

The Pros and Cons of Artificial Influencers

5/7/2023

8 Comments

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

Who would you ask for an important restaurant recommendation? You might turn to someone who knows the local area well, eats out frequently, or has discerning taste. What about asking someone who’s never been to a restaurant or ever eaten food? That seems like a silly suggestion, but with companies increasingly offering advice through artificial endorsers, the notion of consulting a ‘tech expert’ has taken on a whole new meaning.

I recently received an email from OpenTable in which the well-known reservation app announced an innovative partnership with the suddenly famous AI bot ChatGPT:

“We’re collaborating with the internet’s favorite chatbot to make finding the perfect table as easy as texting your best friend. Soon you can ask ChatGPT for restaurant recommendations for the perfect family brunch spot, a lively rooftop for a big group, or a romantic table for 2, and you’ll received recommendations with a direct link to book in seconds.”

It’s an intriguing proposition – asking a chatbot that doesn’t have tastebuds or emotions, let alone a significant other, to suggest a restaurant for a romantic dinner.

Virtual beings aren’t just recommending what to eat; they’re also suggesting what to wear. The 170-year-old jeans maker Levi’s recently grabbed headlines when it announced plans to increase diversity in its advertising by employing AI clothing models.

But wait, there’s more! Marketing technology guru Shelly Palmer has compiled a list of companies using virtual influencers to build their brands, which includes many notables such as Alibaba, IKEA, League of Legends, Lux Shampoo, Pacsun, and Puma. As the science and acceptance of AI continues to advance, all signs point to a baby boom of virtual brand endorsers.

Over the past few months, millions of people have turned to ChatGPT and some similar AI bots for answers, often to factual questions about:

general knowledge and information, such as definitions, historical events, and scientific facts
technology, such as how to use a particular software or troubleshoot a technical problem
health and medicine, such as symptoms, treatments, and side effects of various conditions
current events, such as news updates and breaking news

For those kinds of objective answers, it certainly makes sense to leverage machine learning, which can scour “a colossally large repository of text” and very quickly and adeptly “parse queries and produce fully-fleshed out answers and results based on most of the world's digitally-accessible text-based information.”

There’s a difference, though, between returning a list of “all fine-dining restaurants in Denver” and recommending a few that seem like the best fit for the particular diner’s occasion, palate, price range, and other personal preferences.

Companies wouldn’t use AI-powered artificial endorsers if they didn’t have advantages, but as this piece has already suggested, they also have disadvantages. Here’s what this human marketer sees as the pros and cons of virtual spokespeople.

Pro 1 – Affordability: Firms don’t have to pay artificial influencers, but they do need to pay for 3-D modeling which can be about $75,000 for a six-month contract. That’s not cheap but it is cost-effective compared to the deals demanded by A-list celebrities like Taylor Swift ($26 million from Diet Coke) and David Beckham ($160 million lifetime from Adidas).

Con 1 – Apathy: Jobs for humans are often an issue in conversations about AI. Virtual spokespeople don’t care that they might be replacing people. The companies that make and use the avatars may or may not feel conflicted, but at least some humans are needed to do the 3-D modeling and help manage the virtual endorsers.

Pro 2 – Adaptability: Firms can program an artificial endorser to do and say anything they want, as well as look anyway they want. These spokesbots will always deliver their lines perfectly, they’ll never cause PR headaches because of missteps in their social lives, and they’ll always maintain the ‘ideal’ weight, hair color, and skin tone.

Con 2 – Inauthenticity: Because they’re nonautonomous beings that speak others’ words, virtual endorsers can’t be truly authentic. One might argue that human spokespeople also parrot what they’re told to say , but at least they have a conscience and can decide, ‘The money is very attractive, but I can’t support this company/product.’

Pro 3 – Omniscience: As suggested above, AI-powered applications can scan and assimilate incredible amounts of information. Although they can’t literally know everything, and they sometimes make mistakes, their knowledge and accuracy will keep getting better and exceedingly surpass that of humans.

Con 3 – Inexperience: Even as virtual endorsers may have unparalleled knowledge, they have no real experience. As mentioned above, ChatGPT can’t eat food or wear jeans, so how can it really recommend restaurants or clothing?

Pro 4 – Disclosure: When we see ads with endorsers, whether they’re real people or digital beings, we instinctively know that they’re sharing a perspective that’s at least somewhat biased toward the advertised product. In some ways, the presence of virtual beings, which are still relatively uncommon, makes it even clearer that the communication is not impartial.

Con 4 – Deception: Although leading people to believe that their endorsement is unbiased is a possible problem for both human and animated beings, artificial endorsers hold greater potential to mislead, to the extent that their very life-like looks and mannerism make them seem real. This realism ties back to the issue of inauthenticity (Con 2) and represents the greatest potential ethical issue for spokesbots.

As described above, their lack of volition means artificial endorsers can never really say what’s on their mind, or be totally truthful. When people know a spokesperson isn’t human, they can account for that inauthenticity by raising their perceptual defenses and being more leery of what’s said. However, if consumers believe a spokesbot is a real person, that added skepticism will never arise.

Right now, most artificial endorsers still appear fake, although some, like Puma’s Maya look and act incredibly real. In fact, many have wondered if she is human, and some have even expressed a romantic interest in her.

As time goes on and technology advances, spokesbots will become more and more indistinguishable from real people. Organizations that employ artificial endorsers should let the public know that their digital creations aren’t real through some kind of disclaimer (e.g., “Maya is a virtual person”). Otherwise, consumers may give the bots’ communication more credence than it deserves since they’re not real humans who have genuinely judged companies’/products’ merits and made deliberate decisions that they are worthy of endorsement.

Over millennia of buying and selling products, people have known that it’s difficult for sellers to be truly objective about their wares, but buyers also know that spokespeople must make a conscious choice to endorse. Organizations that attempt to sidestep those consumer perceptions by passing off their spokesbots as real, autonomous people are endorsing “Single-Minded Marketing.”