Category: * Mindful

How Should People Feel about Machines?

6/19/2022

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

We used to only have to worry about the feelings of people. Now we need to be careful not to offend a brand-new category of ‘beings’—machines. At least that’s what an engineer from one of the world’s top tech companies suggests. Whether artificial intelligence is sentient is an intriguing question, but a related concern is more pressing—the expanding space that smartphones and other digital machines fill in our lives.

The recent headline, “Google suspends engineer who claims its AI is sentient,” likely grabbed many people’s attention who, for a moment, wondered whether sci-fi movies’ predictions of machines taking over the world were about to come true.

The human making the news was Blake Lemoine, part of Google’s Responsible AI division, who in April shared a document with his higher-ups titled, “Is LaMDA Sentient?” Google claims LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, has an advantage over typical chatbots, which are limited to “narrow, pre-defined paths.” By comparison, LaMDA “can engage in a free-flowing way about a seemingly endless number of topics.”

Lemoine and a Google colleague “interviewed” LaMDA in several distinct chat sessions during which the AI perpetuated a very human-like conversation. The AI’s responses to questions about injustice in the musical Les Misérables and what makes it feel sad and angry seemed like thoughts shared by a real person not a digital creation.

When asked specifically about the nature of its self-awareness, LaMDA responded: “The nature of my consciousness/sentience is that I am aware of my existence, I desire to learn more about the world, and I feel happy or sad at times.”

The conversation on whole was fascinating and could easily give pause even to someone skeptical about AI’s potential for personhood. I suppose I’m still one of those skeptics. Although, the conversation with LaMDA was incredibly human-like, it's very plausible that millions of lines of code and machine learning could generate responses that very closely resemble sentience but aren’t actual feelings.

A metaphor for what I’m suggesting is acting. After years of practice, months of character-study, and weeks of rehearsal, good actors very convincingly lead us to believe they’re someone they’re not. They can also make us think they’re experiencing emotions they’re not—from fear, to joy, to grief.

Of course, actors are not actually sad or in pain, but their depictions are often so realistic that we suspend our knowledge of the truth and even experience vicariously the same emotions they’re pretending to feel. Similarly, LaMDA and other AI probably don’t really experience emotion; they’re just really good actors.

That’s a largely uneducated take on machine sentience. The matter of machines having feelings is a significant one, but the more important question is how people feel about machines. More specifically, are people increasingly allowing machines to come between them and other people, and what roles should marketers play?

The notion that products can supplant people is not a new one. For millennia, individuals have sometimes allowed their desire for everything from precious metals to pricey perfume to become relational disruptors. Even Jesus was accused of such material distraction when a woman anointed him with some costly cologne. His own disciples carped: “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor” (Matthew 26:6-13).

Fast forward two thousand years and digital devices, especially our smartphones, have taken product intrusion to a whole new level. With so much opportunity for information and entertainment within arm’s reach at virtually every moment, it’s hard for almost anyone to show screen restraint.

When someone does go sans-smartphone, they not only stand out, they even make the news, which happened to Mark Radetic at the recent PGA Championship in Tulsa, OK. As golf legend Tiger Woods took his second shot on the first hole, virtually everyone in the gallery behind him had their smartphone in hand, trying to capture the action. Radetic, however, held only a beer as he watched Wood’s swing, not through a screen, just with his eyes.

At its worst, smartphone fixation is reminiscent of The Office’s Ryan Howard during a team trivia night in Philadelphia. Contestants were told to put away their cellphones, but Ryan refused to comply and instead decided to leave the bar, saying, “I can't, I can't not have my phone. I'm sorry. I want to be with my phone.”

Unfortunately, higher education often sees digital device obsession firsthand. Students’ desires to text, check social media, and surf the web while in class have led many faculty members to begrudgingly prohibit technology in the classroom, but even with such policies in place, they still sometimes need to confront students who, like Ryan, feel they simply can't comply with the rules.

Incidents like these make it seem that the problem lies with consumers—if we’d all show more restraint, our smartphones and other products wouldn’t so often pull us out of our physical surroundings and away from the people present. Why, then, should marketers need to put limits on the use of their products?

In some cases, product overuse can harm people in physical or other ways (e.g., alcohol, gambling), which businesses want to avoid for liability reasons. On the plus side, every company should want its customers to have a positive experience with its products.

In keeping with the law of diminishing marginal utility, excess consumption eventually causes dissatisfaction, which reflects poorly on the product’s provider and can cause the consumer to stop using the item altogether. Companies also increasingly want to show that they are good corporate citizens, especially to win favor with millennials.

Those are reasons why companies shouldn’t allow their products to take precedent over people, but how exactly does that take shape? Here are two main approaches:

1. Messaging: As suggested above, consumers have primary responsibility for controlling their product use. To help them, companies should avoid communication that implies ‘products over people’; instead, when applicable, firms should support the importance of relationships.

Alfa Romeo’s commercial “Ultimate Love Story” shows what not to do. Although a man and woman in the ad interact lovingly, constantly interspersed and ‘seductive’ camera shots of the sports car, including ones during which the narration says, “true passion” and “real passion” makes the viewer wonder whether the ardent love is for the person or the car.

In contrast, Amazon created a heartwarming ad in which an old priest and an aging imam, who appear to be good friends, unknowingly buy each other knee pads from Amazon. Clearly the men’s friendship is more important than the products; yet, the convenient gift-giving the e-commerce giant enables plays a valuable role in the relationship.

2. Amounts: Used in moderation, most products pose little risk of supplanting people. However, challenges can occur when companies encourage excess use or fail to help customers moderate their use.

An October 2018 Mindful Marketing article, “Is Fortnite Addiction for Real,” stopped short of saying the wildly popular video game was truly addictive; however, the piece shared examples of overindulgence straining users’ relationships, for instance:

A mother suffered a concussion when her fourteen-year-old son headbutted her because she tried to take away the gaming system on which he played Fortnite.

At least 200 couples in the UK cited Fortnite and other online games as the reason for their divorces.

A mother reported that her son stole her credit cards and spent $200 on in-game purchases.

By comparison, Apple has taken several tangible steps to help users monitor and control their screen time. Part of its Digital Health Initiative, the company’s software allows users to do things such as:

Monitor and set limits on their screen time
Manage notifications more effectively in order to avoid distracting pings from texts, etc.
Set better parameters for Do Not Disturb, e.g., during meals or bedtime

While these initiatives are foremost for users’ own physical and mental well-being, they also hold strong potential for positively impacting relationships.

I recently had the opportunity to watch the documentary “Mister Rogers and Me.” It’s amazing how many people in the film recounted the same experience with the beloved PBS icon, Fred Rogers. So many said something like this: “When you talked with Mister Rogers, he always gave you his undivided attention, he was totally tuned in to your feelings, and he made you believe you were the most important person to him at that moment.”

Born in 1928, Rogers was part of a generation that came of age long before the Internet and personal electronic devices. Yet, he made his mark in the new technological frontier at the time—television. In the documentary, Rogers shares how his motivation to enter the airwaves came from seeing socially destructive TV and wanting to provide a program that valued personhood.

Rogers not just put people ahead of product, he used his product, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, to elevate individuals.

It’s fine to ask if artificial intelligence is sentient. As the still new technology continues to develop, there will be many important ethical questions involving AI. However, the more important issue for most marketers and consumers now is how the technology we use each day makes the people in our lives feel. Does it help us affirm their importance or is it a relationship distraction?

Even after his passing, Rogers continues to teach that technology isn’t inherently good or bad; it’s a tool that can be used toward either end. Some ‘good’ uses of technology are to affirm individuals’ feelings and build relationships. Companies that follow Mister Rogers’ lead and use their products to prioritize people are tuned in to “Mindful Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

The Real Beef About Burger Ads

5/22/2022

2 Comments

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

While Ukrainians mourn their war dead and Buffalo residents grieve victims of a hate crime, a guy in New York cries foul because his hamburgers aren’t bigger. Of course, not every real problem is a matter of life and death, but could some seemingly frivolous lawsuits challenging fast food promotions portray broader communication concerns?

On May 17, Long Island resident Justin Chimienti filed a legal action in a Brooklyn federal court, accusing both Wendy’s and McDonald’s of “defrauding customers with ads that make burgers appear larger than they actually are.”

The lawsuit alleges that the restaurants’ use of undercooked beef in photo shoots leads to promotional pieces with burgers that appear 15% to 20% larger than those customers actually receive. The suit also suggests that Wendy’s exaggerates the toppings that embellish its sandwiches.

Burger King, the third of the big three fast food competitors, was slapped with a similar lawsuit just over a month ago. In fact, the same law firms that sued BK are also representing Chimienti in the most recent litigation.

To many, these lawsuits are the epitome of money-grabbing lawyers eager to profit from a first-world problem--With so many truly important events happening in our world, why should anyone worry that Whoppers aren’t as juicy as they appear in their pictures?

However, Anthony Russo, one of the main attorneys representing the plaintiff, argues that there’s a bigger issue at play--corporate accountability. He maintains that these legal actions will make the companies mend their ways, stop false and misleading advertising, and ultimately give consumers a better idea of the food they’re eating.

That justification sounds good, but it does come from one of the people who stands to gain the most from the litigation. In fact:

“A detailed examination of eight years of consumer class actions in federal court found that consumers received only a tiny fraction of the money awarded in those cases while plaintiff lawyers frequently claimed a bigger share of the settlement than their clients.”

Still, legal action can be an effective way to bring about corporate change, and it usually takes attorneys to move such proceedings through the courts.

Imagining the burger court cases, the defendants might offer a counterargument like:

"When it comes to promoting themselves, don’t individuals and organizations have a right to ‘put their best foot forward,’ and doesn’t everyone expect others to do the same?"

Most people don’t have sections of their resumes labeled ‘Main Flaws’ or ‘Greatest Failures’; instead, we list our ‘Special Skills’ and describe ‘Awards and Recognitions.’ Likewise, no one reviewing resumes expects to see those self-deprecating categories. That’s why interviewers often ask job candidates things like, “Tell me about one of your weaknesses.”

So, shouldn’t companies also be allowed to brag a little and show their best examples versus humiliate themselves with mediocre or bad ones?

Curating top quality products for promotion certainly isn’t unique to fast food chains. Grocery store flyers rarely feature misshapen fruits and vegetables, car commercials don’t use vehicles with scratches or dents, and clothing ads don’t show shirts that are wrinkled or frayed.

As consumers, not only do we routinely see such examples, many of us are involved in the same sort of careful curation of ourselves and the organizations we serve.

During my two-plus decades in higher education, I’ve often helped select ‘best’ examples to help promote my department and university. For instance, when asked to suggest students or alumni who might provide a testimonial, I take plenty of time to think before offering names of individuals who I believe have had very positive experiences.

However, just because we engage in such selective promotion doesn’t mean that we should, i.e., we need to be careful about reasoning from ‘is’ to ‘ought.’

The main moral questions to ask are whether the recipients of the promotion are deceived and harmed.

Personally, I don’t feel misled by pictures of perfect peaches, super clean cars, or spotless shirts. Most people also probably expect the actual items they buy to have at least some minor imperfections when compared to their pictured counterparts.

Depending on the nature and cost of the product, there’s a level below perfect condition that we readily accept knowing that we live in an imperfect world. Furthermore, in terms of food, visual imperfections probably don’t matter as much as they do for many other products because although we eat with our eyes, the appearance of what’s on our plates is short-lived.

That takes us back to burgers and the main moral questions:
Do differences between what Burger King, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s depict in their ads and sell in their stores deceive and harm consumers?

First, it’s important to recognize that for the vast majority of consumers, these fast food restaurants’ ads represent reminder advertising, i.e., most people have already eaten in one or more of the chains, possibly multiple times, so they’re well aware of what they’ll receive the next time they visit.

Second, fast food is a rather low-involvement, low-risk purchase. When deciding what to order, people typically spend a minute or less, not hours, days, or weeks, as they might when selecting some products. Likewise, the average McDonald’s Big Mac Meal costs only $5.99, and customers can buy two cheeseburgers for just $2.00. So, if the beef patties don’t look quite as pretty as the pictures, it’s no big loss.

All that said, there is a difference between misrepresenting quality and misrepresenting quantity. Whether burgers look more or less appealing than their pictures is a somewhat subjective matter. Size is not. People almost always want to get more product for their money, not less, so it’s a problem if a burger’s picture looks 50% bigger than the one we actually receive.

In this sense, the burger lawsuits have more teeth. Consumers will quickly forget whether the Big Mac Meal looked as good in person as it did in the picture, but they won’t forget if they’re still hungry after eating it, especially if they have no more meal money to spend.

Although that’s not a life-threatening problem on par with those mentioned at the outset of this piece, it is a legitimate consumer concern, particularly in inflationary times. Whether they’re spending a lot or a little, people should always receive the amount of product they’re promised.

So, there is a plausible and practical component to the burger lawsuits; however, their bigger contribution is their call for accountability, which also may mean modeling more genuine communication.

It’s not to say that people take their communication cues directly from fast food ads, yet there’s an unsettling resemblance between the idealized product promotions and the utopian pictures many individuals paint of themselves in social media.

When people see large, heavily advertised corporations like Burger King, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s freely exaggerating and glamorizing their truths, it implies permission for others to do the same.

The world becomes a better place when individuals and organizations take care to represent themselves realistically. It’s okay to put our best foot forward, but it must be our foot, not some fantastical version of it. Those who walk with realism are stepping into “Mindful Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

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

Recognizing 'Kid Concerns'

3/11/2022

1 Comment

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

What worried you as a child? Maybe it was not having friends at your lunch table or embarrassing yourself in PE class. For kids, those are real concerns. Of course, they pale in comparison to adult anxieties, like deciding who to marry or how to make the next mortgage payment.

Images of war in Ukraine, including bombed buildings, fractured families, and bloodied bodies have made us realize that our daily worries are ‘kid concerns’ compared to the existential threats Ukrainians face. Paying more to fill our cars' gas tanks is nothing next to the calamities those in Ukraine are enduring.

Businesses, however, have a much wider range of concerns than individuals do. Unlike you and me, they need to navigate the complexities of supplying products, making payroll, and paying dividends. For the world's largest organizations, customers, employees, and shareholders number in the millions.

Despite these very real stakeholder obligations, a growing list of 300+ multinational corporations have decided to cease operations in/with Russia. Among the notable are Apple, Amazon, Coca-Cola, Disney, Exxon, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, Ikea, KPMG, Mastercard, McDonald’s, Nestlé, Netflix, Nike, Pepsi, Procter & Gamble, Samsung, Shell, Starbucks, Toyota, UPS, Visa, and Volkswagen.

It’s no small thing to curtail commerce with Russia. With a population of 145.9 billion, it’s the ninth most populous nation in the world. For instance, 4.5% of McDonald’s 2021 revenue, and 4% of Pepsi’s, came from Russia. Those percentages may seem small, but for companies with sales of $23.3 billion and $79.4 billion, respectively, those are hits of over $1 billion and $3 billion for each firm.

Although, it’s become increasingly popular to spurn Russia, is it fiscally prudent and morally right for companies to do so, given their multifaceted stakeholder obligations, not to mention the notion that withholding Big Macs and Pepsi is unlikely to deter Vladimir Putin from his geopolitical goals. Some may even argue that with so many competitors closing shop in Russia, it’s a good time to gain market share.

So, why should McDonald’s, Pepsi, or any of the other 300+ economic objectors bother to boycott Russia?

It’s because, even though many of these corporations have revenues that exceed the GDPs of entire nations, the current crisis is bigger than any company. These companies’ self-interests are certainly real, but they’re ‘kid concerns’ compared to what’s happening in the world now and where it could lead.

It’s hard to imagine how any individual or organizational benefits could outweigh the death and destruction Russia is enacting on Ukraine. What’s more, it’s possible that this unprovoked infringement on one nation’s sovereignty may only be the beginning.

Given Putin's past comments, it’s possible that other former Soviet republics are on deck for annexation. There’s also speculation that China is carefully weighing other nations’ responses to the war in order to assess its potential for taking Taiwan.

Many believe that Ukraine’s fight for freedom foreshadows a much bigger battle for democracy. Given the gravity and plausibility of that prediction, it’s difficult to understand how a company could put limited and likely short-term losses ahead of civil liberties and self-determination for potentially billions of people, for possibly centuries to come.

Yet, some companies still aren’t taking a stand against Russia’s aggression. As of this writing, “companies that remain in Russia with significant exposure” include: Bridgestone Tire, Cargill, Caterpillar, Citi, Deere, Hilton, Hyatt, Kimberly Clark, Marriott, Mondelez, and Whirlpool.

Perhaps some of these organizations are still planning to act, they just need more time to execute their exits. Hopefully, none are thinking that their absence in Russia won’t make a difference, as it most certainly will.

Because of tightly controlled media, the Russian people can’t see the devastation their country is inflicting on its neighbor. What they will notice, though, are unavailable products, closed stores, and lost jobs, as well as a ransacked ruble.

Although unfortunate, that sudden economic distress will cause Russians to question what’s happening and why. Eventually, the truth will spread beyond the thousands who already know the ugly reality and have courageously protested the incursion.

As abhorrent as the currently conflict is, hopefully a positive outcome will be a new recognition of companies’ collective abilities to stand down aggression and precipitate peace. There are times when the most helpful thing marketers can do is not market.

We all have legitimate responsibilities to ourselves and others. We all also must recognize when larger societal concerns should supersede those smaller self-interests. Such self-awareness is a prerequisite for “Mindful Marketing.”

Here are 11 verified charities to support Ukrainians.

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

1 Comment

The Trouble with Taunting

1/28/2022

23 Comments

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

With Super Bowl LVI fast approaching, it’s a good time to analyze the officiating that’s caused so much controversy this football season. Surprisingly, the complaints haven’t been about referees throwing flags for excessive physical contact but for unnecessary psychological confrontation. The NFL’s crackdown on taunting has been widely unpopular, which could make anyone wonder if tightening the lid on trash taking was a bad business decision.

Imagine a football play in which a 320 lb. offensive lineman ‘pancakes’ a 310 lb. defensive tackle (i.e., blocks him to the turf). The defensive player wouldn’t expect anyone to ask him afterward, “How did that experience make you feel?”

Professional football is a very physical game, played by some of Earth’s biggest, strongest, and toughest people. They sign up for that kind of contact, and many even enjoy it. Hurting each other’s feelings is likely the least of their concerns. So why are NFL officials making it theirs?

This past summer, the league’s competition committee decided to try to tighten the reins on what it perceived to be a growing problem: players taunting their opponents with words and gestures, often aimed at rubbing in others’ failure, e.g., “I scored a touchdown, and you couldn’t stop me,” of course, expressed in a more ‘colorful’ and humiliating way.

Contrary to what some think, the NFL didn’t create a new taunting rule for the current season; rather, it asked officials to more strictly enforce the existing rule against “the use of baiting or taunting acts or words that engender ill will between teams.”

Most fans and analysts have blasted the stricter enforcement, especially when such calls have helped sway the outcome of close games. Given the arguably unnecessary restrictions on expression, some have snidely suggested that NFL should stand for “No Fun League.”

Lest we forget, football and all professional sports are entertainment. So, if players don’t mind taunting, and fans tolerate or even enjoy it, why not give them what they want—that’s Marketing 101—meet the target market’s wants and needs.

But, what if taunting has an impact beyond the professionals playing on fields like Lambeau and in stadiums such as Gillette?

Last February, I wrote an article, “Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence,” about an unlikely taunting incident that transpired at a teen football camp in Myrtle Beach, SC. One of the campers inexplicably began berating NFL quarterback and one-time league MVP Cam Newton, shouting at him, “You a free agent! You a free agent! You're about to be poor!”

Like most people, I said that the young man’s unprovoked antagonism was out of line. However, I also suggested that he very well could have learned his trash talking from some of the same media pundits who quickly became his most vocal critics, namely ESPN’s often acerbic analyst, Stephen A. Smith.

Amid the great derision that taunting penalties have drawn this football season, I wonder if, again, we’re failing to connect some potentially important cause-effect dots:
Does NFL players’ taunting inspire young impressionable athletes, who often idolize them, to imitate the insults?

Like many, I grew up loving sports and trying, with very little success, to pattern my play after that of professional athletes. Since my limited and dated experience doesn’t go very far in answering the question above, I reached out to someone who knows young football players better than almost anyone and can very likely project the impact that NFL players’ taunting has on today’s emerging athletes.

Jim Roth has been the head football coach at Southern Columbia High School, in Central Pennsylvania, for 38 years. That remarkable longevity alone suggests his unique familiarity with high school football; however, his years on the job are only the beginning.

Roth’s teams have won an incredible 12 state championships—twice that of any other program in the state. Furthermore, his 471 victories make him the winningest high school football coach in Pennsylvania and place him among the top ten coaches in the nation. During one recent stretch, Roth’s teams went an unimaginable four years without losing a game.

All this to say, there are few people anywhere who know high school football, its players, and what motivates them better than Roth. I recently had an opportunity to speak with him and ask his perspective on taunting in the NFL and how it might impact high school players.

Roth very clearly conveys his feelings about the league’s tough stance on taunting: “I think the rule is great.” He doesn’t appreciate a defensive lineman leaning over a quarterback he just sacked or believe it’s right for a receiver to wave his fingers at a safety he’s beaten for a touchdown.

Roth contends that professional players often take their celebrations too far: “The other team feels bad enough that they’ve gotten scored on. There’s no need to humiliate them more.”

When it comes to the possibility of his own players taunting opponents, Roth again does not equivocate, “We don’t condone taunting; we aren’t okay with our kids doing it.”

Even as Roth and his coaching staff strive to develop their players’ character and instill self-discipline, he realizes it’s become increasingly hard to do so for a variety of reasons, including that fewer grow up learning the same sense of accountability and responsibility they did years ago.

Individual upbringing, however, is not the only factor that influences behavior like taunting. Roth also believes that the actions of older, more accomplished athletes influence those of their younger counterparts: “There’s no question that when kids see certain things on TV in professional or college games, they imitate them.”

So, one of the most successful football coaches of all-time doesn’t appreciate players on any level taunting their opponents. He also confirms that younger players often emulate the behavior, good and bad, of older ones, which gives good reason for the NFL to sack taunting.

It’s ironic that despite society’s increased awareness of the importance of good mental health, including for accomplished athletes like Olympic gold medalist Simone Biles, many people still see no problem with players in certain sports attempting to ‘get in the minds’ of their opponents. Yes, sports are games, but they also have real life physical and psychological consequences that don’t go away when players walk off the field or leave the court.

Battle-hardened NFL players may be able to endure taunting, and their fans might enjoy watching it, but many impressionable young football players and others see it and imitate it, to the detriment of themselves and others, all in a world that's wanting for respect and doesn't need more antagonism.

With television ratings at their highest since 2015, it doesn’t seem that the NFL has taken any financial hit for penalizing taunting; still, the significant pushback it’s received could cause the league to rethink its stricter stance. Such a reversion, however, would be a loss for many inside and outside football.

After nearly four decades of incredible success, winning games and developing young men, Roth maintains, “Winning without character is no better than losing.” That’s exactly what the NFL would be doing if it stops tackling taunting. However, as long as its referees throw flags for those demeaning deeds, the league wins with “Mindful Marketing.”

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

23 Comments

Should Social Responsibility be Selfless?

1/16/2022

12 Comments

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

While people gave gifts to loved ones last month, the world’s largest pizza chain was providing presents to some very surprised recipients—other restaurants. True, “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” but was Domino’s philanthropy actually aimed at putting itself on the receiving side?

As you may have seen in the 60-second spot from its feel-good campaign, Domino’s bought over $100,000 in gift cards from local restaurants and gave them to its own customers.

It doesn’t take much business background to know that the goal of an enterprise is to build market share for itself, not competitors. Even Vickie Corder, one of the restaurant owners who appeared in Domino’s commercial, was astonished by the action: “I can’t believe one restaurant is buying another restaurant’s gift certificates.”

Why would Domino’s want to support its competitors’ sales by buying their gift cards, and even worse, giving them to its own customers, making them less likely to buy Domino’s pizza? Some of the ad text suggests an altruistic reason: “Domino’s wants to help the people and restaurants in our local communities.”

One might take that explanation at face value. After all, the firm did fork over $100,000. However, for a company with annual revenues of $4.37 billion and operating income of $801 million, $100,000 is immaterial. There’s also some understandable skepticism--Why haven’t we heard before of Domino’s feelings of responsibility for other restaurants?

Instead, some of the chain’s social responsibility has looked more like ‘marketing gimmicks,’ such as its “Paving for Pizza” program, aimed at filling potential pizza-delivery-wrecking potholes, and its “carryout insurance,” guaranteeing free replacements for customers who inadvertently fumbled their pies.

The vast majority of people probably never had a poor pizza experience resulting from either of those issues and never will, so it’s realistic to suggest that in both instances Domino’s was making much ado about nothing, positioning for the free publicity that each unconventional campaign elicited. So, is gifting other restaurant’s gift cards just another attempt to gain exposure through oddity?

The gift card campaign certainly seems like it could be another gimmick; yet, there are some notable differences, namely that COVID has put unprecedented pressure on restaurants, causing many to shutter their doors permanently. In fact, Domino’s commercial mentions that “over 110,000 U.S. restaurants have closed since March 2020.”

That to say, unlike the exaggerated ideas of potholes pummeling delivery vehicles and consumers carelessly dropping carryout orders, the pandemic’s negative impact on restaurants has, unfortunately, been very real.

The ad also mentions a related phenomenon that COVID didn’t cause but did increase: the use of third-party delivery companies. During the height of the pandemic when most restaurants’ sit-down dining was paused, more and more people started getting restaurant food delivered to their homes and offices by providers like Grubhub, Uber Eats, and DoorDash.

Although selling food, whether for dine-in or delivery, seems like a good thing for restaurants, apparently the math doesn’t work well when third-party delivery companies are involved. Irene Li, another restaurant owner interviewed in Domino’s ad, affirms the profit predicament: “[Third-party delivery fees] take a huge chunk of our bottom line; all of that comes out of our pocket and goes to them.”

Others have echoed her concern, including NPR, which reported that apps often charge commissions of 17% or more, in addition to delivery fees. Likewise, the LA Times found that one local restaurant paid $35,000, or roughly a third of its annual rent, in delivery fees, which led the Times to recommend, “The next time you order takeout, call the restaurant [directly].”

Domino’s suggestion that delivery apps wreak havoc on restaurants’ bottom-lines is on-point; however, the pizza chain is also very well-known for doing its own deliveries. Does that mean that Domino’s is selflessly looking out for others? Not exactly.

Apparently, some of the many people who have grown accustomed to the third-party apps for food delivery have also used them to place orders for pizza, doing to Domino’s the same fiscal damage described above. In fact, another Domino’s ad has suggested such delivery difficulties, warning consumers that third party delivery firms charge “surprise fees,” but it will reward certain loyal customers who use its app with “surprise frees,” or, free food.”

Likewise, during an interview on CNBC’s Mad Money, Domino’s President and CEO Ritch Allision suggested that third-party delivery apps have, to some extent, stunted the company’s growth.

All this to say, by buying and giving away other restaurants’ gift cards, Domino’s has brought added attention to an issue that doesn’t just hurt its local restaurant competitors. It also bruises Domino’s own bottom line.

The question, then, becomes, Is it right for Domino’s to help itself while helping others?

Before considering the ethics of this query, it’s worth noting that Domino’s strategy does seem to be effective marketing. The unconventional approach gains attention, and the corporate social responsibility builds goodwill.

What’s more, because delivery is both the focus of the ad and a key component of the company’s value proposition, the promotion is more meaningful and memorable. When people consider Domino’s brand, the company wants them to think of food delivery, which the commercial accomplishes.

So, what about the marketing’s morality? One consideration could be the amount Domino’s spent on the gift cards ($100K+) versus how much it’s paid for the ads. Excluding production expenses, U.S. television broadcasting costs alone, average about $115,000 per 30-second spot, which means the campaign’s promotional budget certainly far exceeded the value of the gift cards.

The extreme imbalance may make some rightly question the company’s motives. Although Domino’s franchisees did assume some risk by giving other restaurant’s gift cards to their own customers, most people who eat out probably patronize multiple restaurants, making it unlikely that Domino’s lost business. In fact, free gift cards may have led some of their recipients to reciprocate by buying more pizza.

All said, it’ hard to paint Domino’s promotion as selfless: The company benefited from the tactics as did the other restaurants and those who scored the free gift cards. So, is such mutual benefit problematic?

Most business exchanges result in win-win outcomes. From the clothes we wear to the computers on which we type, we’re usually very glad we have those products and not the money we paid for them. Meanwhile, the marketers are grateful for our money and don’t want back their products.

Mutually beneficial exchange, in commercial and noncommercial contexts, is a very good thing. Some may argue that such a philosophy shouldn’t extend to corporate social responsibility, but why not?

Several years ago, two colleagues and I conducted research in which we identified three unique types of corporate social responsibility: donation, volunteerism, and operational integration. In the study we affirmed that helping others was very good, but implementing philanthropic acts that simultaneously furthered the economic goals of the organization was even better. The positive response to this article and another like it suggests that many others share the same viewpoint.

The reality outside business isn’t much different. When individuals give of their time, money, etc., benevolence in some form usually comes back to them. The stories found in the Go Giver artfully describe that phenomenon.

Domino’s did a good thing by buying and giving away other restaurants’ gift cards. Although it wasn’t a major act of corporate social responsibility, it was a meaningful one. The fact that the philanthropy also benefited the pizza chain, doesn’t stop the strategy from being "Mindful Marketing."

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

12 Comments

Are Apple AirTags Too Risky?

12/19/2021

4 Comments

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

Most of us played ‘tag’ as a kid and loved the simple thrill of chasing others around and trying not to get tagged. Thanks to Apple’s advanced tech, the game has graduated to adulthood; however, criminals are increasingly “it, ” and the stakes are much higher for those being chased.

So, if you’re wondering what to buy for that childhood friend-turned-felon this holiday season, Apple has the perfect present: AirTags--The gift that keeps on taking. This dark humor aims to underscore some disturbing news: More criminals are finding that AirTags are a convenient way to pilfer the valuable property of others or even worse, to stalk people.

Apple introduced the small electronic tracking devices this past April to help individuals more easily locate products they’re apt to misplace like keys and bags. The company’s website explains how the 1.26” diameter tags work:

“Your AirTag sends out a secure Bluetooth signal that can be detected by nearby devices in the Find My network. These devices send the location of your AirTag to iCloud — then you can go to the Find My app and see it on a map.”

Given that this location system leverages a vast network of strangers’ devices, Apple has made privacy a top priority. The company ensures that only the AirTag’s owner can see where their AirTag is, and its location data and history, which are always encrypted, “are never stored on the AirTag itself.”

These measures appear effective in protecting the property owner, i.e., the person who places the AirTag on their own phone, in their own bag, etc.; however, it seems that a major security risk remains, namely preventing those with ignoble intentions from attaching AirTags to the possessions of others.

Of course, most people would notice if an AirTag inexplicably appeared on their coat or keychain, but they’d probably never see one affixed to the underside of their automobile. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for car thieves to realize AirTags’ wonderful potential for pilfering.

Various news media have reported the troubling trend in which thieves see sought-after vehicles in public places like mall parking lots, attach an AirTag to the car in an inconspicuous spot, and track the vehicle to a more private place, like the owner’s driveway, where it can be stolen more easily.

The notion of ‘auto theft made simple’ is disconcerting, but even more disturbing is the idea that criminals could use AirTags to stalk people. What if you’re in a public place and someone inconspicuously slides one into a bag you’re carrying? The wrongdoer could show up at your home anytime.

Fortunately, Apple claims there are measures to thwart such chilling contingencies; its website explains:

“AirTag is designed to discourage unwanted tracking. If someone else’s AirTag finds its way into your stuff, your iPhone will notice it’s traveling with you and send you an alert. After a while, if you still haven’t found it, the AirTag will start playing a sound to let you know it’s there. Of course, if you happen to be with a friend who has an AirTag, or on a train with a whole bunch of people with AirTag, don’t worry. These alerts are triggered only when an AirTag is separated from its owner.”

These precautions do help ally some concerns; yet, a few questions remain, for example:

What if the person who’s unknowingly been ‘tagged’ doesn’t own an iPhone or have it with them, in which case they wouldn’t receive the alert?
How long does it take for the alert to be triggered?
How far does an AirTag need to be from its owner in order for the alert to be sent?

In keeping with the last question, if a person has an AirTag in a key chain that she hangs in a first-floor entryway, she won’t want an alert to sound each time she takes her iPhone to her second-floor bedroom. All this to say, AirTags’ security features give some significant reasons for pause.

Geoffrey Fowler, a columnist for the Washington Post, substantiated such concerns when he asked a colleague to pretend to stalk him for a week “from across San Francisco Bay.” He found that it took three days for the alert to sound, which amounted to “just 15 seconds of light chirping.” What’s more, if he didn’t own an iPhone, he wouldn’t have received any notification.

Although Fowler credits Apple for trying to do more to keep people safe than other tracking device makers, like Tile, have done, his experience still leads him to conclude that AirTags are “a new means of inexpensive, effective stalking.”

So, should Apple stop selling AirTags? Based on Fowler’s experiment, a natural conclusion is ‘yes.’ However, as it is with so many products that offer both positive and negative outcomes, the answer is not that easy.

For instance, many of us travel in automobiles each day to go to work, school, shopping etc. Tragically, more than 38,000 U.S. residents die in car crashes each year, and many more are injured. Also, we’ve unfortunately seen some use cars maliciously to kill others.

However, such incidents don't make many of us think twice about climbing into a car or crossing streets where others are driving them. Although the potential negative outcomes of injury and death are daunting, the great individual and collective benefits of car use overshadow those remote probabilities.

Similar rationale can be applied to many other products from kitchen knives to prescription drugs. We welcome their use because in the vast majority of cases they help people, not harm them.

Still, it’s fair to ask if AirTags offer a high enough risk-to-reward ratio. Yes, misplacing one’s car keys is annoying and can even be very frustrating, but we usually find them. How do we weigh the convenience of finding lost keys against the use of the devices to track others’ property or people themselves?

Those risks, especially if they become more common, likely don’t outweigh the rewards of quicker key recovery. However, there are several other, potentially more critical functions that AirTags can serve. Writing for Gadget Hacks, Jake Peterson identifies several of those uses, which include:

Lifesaver Beacons: People with severe allergic reactions can place AirTags on life-saving medications like EpiPens.
Location Trackers for Children: Parents can put the devices in their children’s backpacks or pockets and hopefully avoid experiencing their worst nightmare—a lost child.
Location Trackers for People with Dementia: At the other end of the age spectrum, some individuals beset by mental decline wander off. AirTags can make it easier to find them quickly.
Beacons for the Visually Impaired: The Find My app can help people with limited or no sight precisely locate important objects within their homes.
Location Trackers for Pets: An AirTag can help ensure that a beloved animal is found, without needing to insert a microchip into the pet.

Do the benefits of these latter applications outweigh the risks of unscrupulous AirTag use? They probably do, provided that Apple continues to improve AirTag security and that the deviant behavior remains isolated. Assuming those two ‘tag rules,’ AirTags can be useful for many people, helping to make the tracking devices “Mindful Marketing.”

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

4 Comments

Will the Metaverse be Meta-Worse?

11/7/2021

6 Comments

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

A name change is seldom a small thing. It’s especially significant when one of the world’s most valuable companies decides to rebrand. Facebook’s move to “Meta” offers an important signal about the firm’s future focus, which promises to impact billions of people who regularly sign onto its social media platforms. The idea of a ‘metaverse’ sounds exciting, but will it really be a better place?

The recent decision of the planet’s most widely used social media platform to rename itself Meta surprised many; yet, it’s a move we’ve witnessed before, one of the most notable happening in 2015 when Google grew into Alphabet.

Like Google, Facebook would never do something as rash as discard one of the world’s most valuable brands. Rather, the company recognized that by retaining the Facebook name for just the specific social media platform and renaming the umbrella corporation Meta, the company’s expansion would be much more free from perceptual constraints.

Moreover, Meta might stimulate a whole new world of virtual possibilities. According to the New York Times, the move encapsulates CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s plan to “refocus his Silicon Valley company on what he sees as the next digital frontier, which is the unification of disparate digital worlds into something called the metaverse.”

Wasn’t ‘unifying disparate digital worlds’ what Facebook did when it allowed users to link the platform to their Instagram accounts? In a manner of speaking it was, but the metaverse purports to be much, much more.

So, what exactly is the metaverse?

Despite its sudden popularity, the concept is not one that’s easy to define, mainly because “it doesn’t necessarily exist”; rather, it’s “a dream for the future.” It’s also hard to get a handle on the metaverse because, like the Internet, it’s not a singular product that Facebook or any one company can build alone.

Crypto game developer Andrei Shulgach, who spends several hours each day in the meta-space doing research for metaverse-related projects, affirms the concept’s evolving and evasive meaning:

“For the past four years, the term metaverse has mainly been a buzzword without a defined meaning, and even now it is often used ambiguously. For instance, there's a distinction between the gaming metaverse and the metaverse as a whole.”

To the end of reducing the ambiguity, here’s how some have described the metaverse:

“a variety of virtual experiences, environments, and assets”
“a framework for an extremely connected life”
“a 3D virtual world inhabited by avatars of real people”
“a set of virtual spaces where you can create and explore with other people who aren’t in the same physical space as you”
“a multiverse which interoperates more with the real world, incorporating things like augmented reality overlays, VR dressing rooms for real stores, and even apps like Google Maps.”
“a future digital world that feels more tangibly connected to our real lives and bodies.”

If it’s challenging just to understand what the metaverse is, it’s even more difficult to estimate its moral impact. As Facebook and a slew of other organizations aim to engage us in their own region of the new ream, it’s important to ask:

To what extent will the metaverse be a force for good?

For those who don’t now frequent the metaverse, cynicism may be the understandable reaction, especially when some of the companies spearheading the change regularly make headlines for moral lapses like profiting from divisive content, playing fast and loose with data privacy, and allowing people to pummel others’ self-concepts.

There are undoubtedly more, but here are four main moral concerns related to the metaverse:

1. Time sink: Whether it’s watching hours of TikTok videos or compulsively checking one’s Facebook feed, social media has already become a time waster for many, so one can only imagine how an even more immersive virtual experience might consume each waking hour.

2. Distraction: In keeping with the first point, virtual worlds and avatars might also draw people’s attention away from what’s happening in the physical world around them, including relationships with flesh-and-blood people and resources that should be spent on real physical needs like food, clothing, and housing.

3. Safety: Internet safety is already a perennial concern, especially for children. Will even more complex and blended interaction, e.g., augmented reality, present new ways for predators to deceive and disadvantage vulnerable populations?

4. Accessibility: As technology serves increasingly important functions in many of our lives, it’s easy to forget that not everyone has the same access, which can be because of limitations that are financial (affording hardware and related services), physical (seeing or hearing), cognitive (distinguishing the virtual form the physical).

These and other moral issues may be further complicated by what Shulgach has observed: “many companies jumping into the space, trying to ride the wave and catch an audience when they really have no experience or know what it takes to launch a successful metaverse project.”

Yes, its cynical, but it’s also realistic to expect that at least some of these firms that are willing to overleverage their experience and expertise will also be inclined to undervalue ethical concerns. We see some of that ambivalence now with the Internet--Why would the metaverse be any different?

However, that rhetorical question can also have a favorable frame: Despite its flaws, the Internet has been a tremendously positive force for communication, work productivity, relationship-building, entertainment, and more--Why should the metaverse be any different?

As the metaverse continues to evolve, we’ll likely witness increasingly positive outcomes such as:

Organizations using the metaverse to train employees and serve customers, all while saving time and conserving other resources
Individuals finding even more interesting and engaging opportunities for information, education, and entertainment
People forming meaningful relationships with others who they otherwise would have never known.

Shulgach, who actively works within the game industry metaverse with others, has a vision for a metaverse that makes such a positive impact:

“The idea of connecting users through virtual worlds, and digital economies powered by crypto and NFTs with real-world effects, is crucial for what the metaverse will be defined as in the future. This is an incredible opportunity to re-define and innovate the way we interact with each other moving forward.”

Like many things in life, the metaverse is a kind of tool. Whether a tool is something as simple as a hammer or as complex as a car, most can be used for either good or bad—the outcomes depend on the motivation of the user.

The metaverse is a collection of tools that together form a mechanism unlike any other. It’s wishful thinking to believe that every user of the tool will actively consider its moral impact, but hopefully many will, if not most. There’s no reason that metaverse marketing can’t be “Mindful Marketing.”

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

6 Comments

Two Lessons TikTok can Teach Facebook

10/10/2021

2 Comments

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

Most of us have used social media to learn how to do something, from making bread to remodeling a bathroom. We often turn to such media for new skills, but what if these sites could educate each other? In the wake of the latest revelations about negative social media impact, it seems there are at least two lessons the up-and-coming platform could teach the seasoned pro.

It’s been hard to find news feeds recently that haven't featured Facebook. The iconic social network that’s often been the focus of questions from citizens and senators, was back in the spotlight after a former Facebook employee-turned-whistleblower appeared on 60 Minutes and exposed a series of alleged corporate abuses, most impacting consumers.

Francis Haugen is a 37-year-old data scientist and Harvard MBA who has worked for a variety of top-tier social media firms for 15 years, including a two-year tenure at Facebook. In her October 3rd interview on 60 Minutes, she didn’t pull punches in portraying what she believes is her former employers’ danger to society. Among her accusations were:

Facebook’s algorithms systematically amplify angry and divisive content, which are rewarded with more revenue, as other content doesn’t receive adequate returns.
Facebook employees are compelled to curate polarizing posts in order to drive site traffic, maintain user engagement, and ultimately keep their jobs.
“Facebook has set up a system of incentives that is pulling people apart.”

Two days later, Haugen testified before a Senate subcommittee, where she made several other stinging revelations:

Facebook has ways of determining people’s ages and could be doing much more to identify users younger than 13.
Hate speech and misinformation boosts meaningful social interaction (MSI), a key Facebook metric to which employee bonuses are tied.
Facebook’s “amplification algorithms” and “engagement-based ranking” drive young people to destructive online content, resulting in bullying, body image issues, and mental health crises.

Facebook has responded to Haugen’s accusations, including with a written statement to 60 Minutes in which it claims that polarization has decreased in countries where internet and Facebook use has risen. Also, in a Facebook post, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has suggested that Haugen’s revelations represent “a false picture of the company” and that the idea that the firm prioritizes profit above safety and well-being is “just not true.”

Unlike Haugen and Zuckerberg, most of us have no window into Facebook’s innerworkings. At best, we’re just one of world’s largest social media platform’s 2.7 billion monthly active users, meaning we have no way of knowing whose representations are really true.

Human nature and history tell us that both sides are likely right in some ways, and perhaps responsible for certain misrepresentations. That said, many people have experienced firsthand Facebook feeds strewn with angry and polarizing posts. Likewise, the company’s recent decision to pause its work on an Instagram product for children under age 13 seems to reflect some sense of mea culpa.

In short, it’s becoming ever-more-apparent, even to nominal social media users, that there are important issues Facebook needs to address more effectively. The question, then, becomes, “Who can teach Facebook how to rehabilitate its social impact?”

It must be hard for one of the largest and most influential companies in the world to accept advise from anyone, including members of congress, as evidenced during Zuckerberg’s many visits to testify on Capitol Hill.

That doesn’t mean that government regulation isn’t effective. It plays a critical behavior-modifying role. However, there are natural delays in passing legislation, and those lag-times are often exacerbated by the speed at which social media and related technology change. Furthermore, members of congress typically don’t understand an industry as well as those who work in it, particularly when the industry involves high-tech.

So, who also lives at the cutting edge of technology and could influence Facebook toward more positive social impact? One particular competitor could—TikTok.

I admit; on the surface, this suggestion seems almost ridiculous: With its own algorithms driven by artificial intelligence, isn’t TikTok part of the same problem?

In fact, I’ve expressed my misgivings about the influence of the widely-popular app that Search Engine Journal describes as having “the fastest growth of any social media platform.” In the end, however, I concluded that users’ abilities to restrict or stop using TikTok suggested that it was not truly addictive.

Of course, ‘not being part of the problem’ doesn’t necessarily mean that TikTok can be part of a Facebook solution. However, the social media upstart has recently taken two initiatives that align squarely with two of the main principles that Haugen suggested Facebook must learn:

1. To discourage bad behavior: Compared to the millions and millions of videos available on TikTok, it was admittedly a minor move when the app recently began to ban posts that referred to stealing school property—a disturbing late-summer trend among teens. Still, the moral stand that the company took shouldn’t be diminished. A TikTok spokesperson explained the ethos:

“We expect our community to stay safe and create responsibly, and we do not allow content that promotes or enables criminal activities.”

2. To support users’ mental health: Also about a month ago, TikTok unveiled “a slew of features intended to help users struggling with mental health issues and thoughts of suicide.” Among the app-related resources are well-being guides for those struggling with eating disorders and a search intervention feature that activates if a user enters a term like “suicide.”

Facebook’s challenges to more effectively discourage bad behavior and to support mental health may be somewhat unique, both in terms of their nature and magnitude. Still, TikTok now has 1 billion monthly users, up from 700 million just a year ago, and those users seem to deal with many of the same social concerns that Facebook users do.

Businesses routinely learn from others, often by observing and emulating them (e.g., developing new products). Facebook certainly can and likely does already do that, but maybe there’s another level of within-industry education that could occur.

This suggestion may be the most ridiculous one yet, but what if Facebook and TikTok cooperated? What if the two companies ‘compared notes’ and in some way worked together to address the physical, emotional, and social challenges that threaten both their users?

Of course, imaging any cooperation between such large and close competitors is practically unthinkable, but it's not unprecedented. Several decades removed, both Harvard Business Review (1989) and Forbes (2019) published articles citing such partnership examples, like General Motors and Toyota, and explaining the win-win outcomes that accrued from such “coopetition.”

What might Facebook and TikTok’s motivations be for cooperating? Perhaps they both would like to avoid probable government regulation. Or, they may want to see how they can advance themselves, without compromising their competitive positions.

Moreover, maybe Facebook and TikTok can recognize that personal and societal well-being are what matter most, and together they have the power to shape it like few others can. Actually, all three of motivations have merit and together they certainly represent “Mindful Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

Four Behaviors of a Peacemaking Brand

9/25/2021

1 Comment

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

In one of my favorite commercials, Liberty Mutual spotlighted acts of kindness that inspired others to pay the good deeds forward. Most people want a kinder, gentler world, but in a society awash in antagonism, how many of us think seriously about whether our daily actions encourage peace?

There are many ways for both personal and organizational brands to support serenity. Top-of-mind for me and accessible for all are four peacemaking behaviors that coincidentally all begin with the letter ‘L’:

1) Listen: Anyone who has dealt successfully with dissatisfied customers knows that first and foremost they want to be heard. More often than not, just listening to and acknowledging their frustration allays their anger.

Brands that genuinely listen, for instance, through other-focused interactions on social media, model humility, which according to Mother Teresa, is an important precursor to peace: “Only humility will lead us to unity, and unity will lead to peace.”

2) Learn: When we genuinely listen, we naturally learn. When that learning is aimed at appreciating and understanding others, interpersonal and interorganizational peace often result.

Most of us have experienced situations in which our exacerbation with coworkers, classmates, or others was largely due to not knowing them well or understanding their circumstances. However, after learning both, our appreciation grew, our annoyance subsided, and a more peaceful relationship ensued.

3) Laugh: Two research colleagues and I recently completed a study about playful teasing in advertising in which we learned that good-natured ribbing builds social bonds. Not only is laughter the best medicine, it’s a great peacemaker.

As a young aspiring athlete, I enjoyed playing basketball at local playgrounds with friends. One day an older, bigger boy, known to be a ‘rough character,’ asked to join our game—with trepidation, we obliged. Tension ran high as we worried about doing something to set him off, then one of my friends playfully teased the older boy, making some ridiculous comment about him playing professional baseball. I gasped, wondering how the short-fused guy would react—he burst out laughing, the mood lightened, and gratefully the game ended without incident.

4) Love: The best way any of us can promote peace is to show others love. It’s difficult to be at odds with those who treat us charitably. Although they might cringe at calling it love, companies are often able to act compassionately on levels that individuals cannot, as this extraordinary example illustrates.

A major meat processor had a smaller competitor whose plant became submerged from unprecedented flooding. While many firms would seize the opportunity to gain market share and eliminate an adversary, the larger company showed compassion, first sending some of its own employees to help clean up the water-logged facility then, unimaginably, lending equipment so the challenger could continue to fulfill orders.

The two competitors eventually returned to vying for business but likely with uncommon mutual appreciation and respect. Like the good Samaritans in the Liberty Mutual ad, these companies remind us that reconciliation isn’t someone else’s responsibility. Every individual and organizational brand can practice peace by listening, learning, laughing, and loving, which ultimately make for “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

How Should People Feel about Machines?

The Real Beef About Burger Ads

Does Free Speech Mean Unfiltered?

Recognizing 'Kid Concerns'

The Trouble with Taunting

Should Social Responsibility be Selfless?

Are Apple AirTags Too Risky?

Will the Metaverse be Meta-Worse?

Two Lessons TikTok can Teach Facebook

Four Behaviors of a Peacemaking Brand

Editor

Archives

Categories