Category: Mindless33703c5669

Wells Fargo Insults the Arts

9/16/2016

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

One of the reasons our world works is because different people are able to do different jobs. Not everyone can be a plumber or a police officer; we also need electricians, EMTs, etc. Still, aren’t there some occupations that are just more important than others? That’s the message Wells Fargo seemed to suggest in its recent, controversial ad campaign.

In order to promote its Teen Financial Education Day on September 17, the nation’s leading mortgage lender created two different print ads, both featuring young people in their future careers. One was of a girl entering engineering, the other of a boy beginning botany. At first glance, the ads seemed edifying. A closer review of the copy, however, raised the ire of many:
“A ballerina yesterday. An engineer today.”
“An actor yesterday. A botanist today.”

Both ads also contained the tagline “Let’s get them ready for tomorrow,” alongside the pictures of the talented teens. So, weren’t the ads a nice way of encouraging young people to pursue their dreams? Although some may have had that interpretation, many others saw condescension aimed at acting and dancing, as well as at an entire segment of society: the arts. Among the many negative reactions were the following tweets:

“Apparently @WellsFargo doesn't think that an actor or a ballerina require any work at all! Shame” (@CynthiaEriVo).
“Dear @WellsFargo: This ad stinks. Sincerely, An actor whose mortgage you hold #theatre #dance #grownupscanbeactors” (@JK_Ready).
“*whispers. We make more money than your botanistttttttttttt. Wells FarGoooooo... awayyyyyyy” (@ChrisMzCarrell).

In addition, a variety of well-known artists condemned the ads. Among those speaking out were: songwriter Robert Lopez (“Frozen”), singer Josh Groban, and actors Anthony Rapp(“Rent”), Cynthia Erivo (“The Color Purple”), and Jenna Ushkowitz (“Glee”).

The last thing most companies want to do is to upset current customers or repel prospective ones. Perhaps, therefore, Wells Fargo had a noble purpose in mind for the ads. Many believe that STEM occupations (science, technology, engineering, and math) are the key to America’s economic future, yet many STEM-related jobs go unfilled because of too few qualified candidates. So, maybe Wells Fargo was trying to help reverse the trend and better position our nation for the future?

Unfortunately, there were at least three problems with Wells Fargo’s approach:
1) If Wells Fargo wanted to support STEM occupations, there are better ways to do so than by highlighting them in ads at the expense of other careers. The company has annual income over $22 billion and cash and cash equivalents over $713 billion. It would be easy, therefore, for Wells Fargo to write a check for several million dollars to support STEM education.

2) Even if nations need more STEM-educated workers than they now have, they still need others as well. What would a world look like without actors, dancers, musicians, painters, and other artists? By practicing their trades and sharing their talents, they make life more colorful and enjoyable for most of us. As suggested at the onset of this piece, every job is important in some way, and arts occupations make a very special contribution to society.

3) Just as not everyone is gifted to be a professional athlete or artist, not everyone is cut out to be a scientist, engineer, or mathematician. “Science is not something that you can just do. It requires [unique] talent and ability.” Rather than encouraging people to embark on career paths that are not right for them, we do better for individuals and society by “matching the appropriate talent with the appropriate opportunity.”

It’s unlikely that Wells Fargo’s antagonizing campaign created stakeholder value. The public backlash described above pretty much guaranteed the ads’ inefficacy in terms of moving people into mortgages or building brand equity. At the same time, the ads also failed to show respect for a key people group: those learning and working in the arts.

To Wells Fargo’s credit, it realized its mistake and apologized. The company tweeted: “Wells Fargo is deeply committed to the arts, and we offer our sincere apology for the initial ads promoting September 17 Teen Financial Day. They were intended to celebrate all of the aspirations of young people and fell short of our goal . . . Last year, Wells Fargo’s support of the arts, culture, and education totaled $93 million. ”

The company’s mea culpa was certainly a good thing; however, such remorse cannot reverse the damage already done. Wells Fargo’s alienation of the arts, therefore, will be remembered as an act of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

21 Comments

Should Sponsors Forgive Lochte?

8/27/2016

6 Comments

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

To err is human, to forgive . . . is not something that most sponsors are willing to do. That’s what defamed Olympian Ryan Lochte recently realized, as have many other deposed endorsers whose sponsors quickly dropped them because of bad behavior. So, is one bold new sponsor right to give Lochte another lease on his endorsement life?

As companies have become increasingly skeptical of spokespersons’ abilities to keep their private lives under control, most endorsement contracts now include morals clauses, which offer advertisers an easy way out of their obligations when celebrities’ personal behavior tarnishes the reputations of their organizational underwriters. Such contract additions are legally expedient, but should companies exercise them? Doesn’t everyone deserve forgiveness?

Thanks to Lochte’s public drunkenness, vandalism, and deception involving the gas station incident in Rio, the twelve-time Olympic medalist has become a four-time released spokesperson. Speedo, Ralph Lauren, Gentle Hair Removal, and Airweave have all dumped the scandal-struck swimmer. Of course, Lochte is only the latest in a long line of celebrities who advertisers have dropped because of moral infractions. Other notable castaways include Lance Armstrong, Paula Deen, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, and even Lochte’s Olympic teammate, Michael Phelps.

Yes, in the wake of his unbelievable Rio Olympic performance, some have forgotten that Phelps had more than one moral meltdown that put him at odds with the law and advertisers. In 2009, the swimming legend was photographed using a marijuana pipe, which cost him the support of Kellogg’s. Then, in just December of 2014, he pled guilty to driving under the influence for the second time in ten years. Yet, despite these ethical issues, several sponsors have stuck by Phelps, including AT&T, Speedo, and Visa.

Maybe, then, it’s appropriate that a new sponsor has already decided to support Lochte, just a couple of weeks after his revelry in Rio. Lochte plans to appear in a series of print ads for Pine Bros., maker of “softish” throat drops. The campaign will be based on the theme of forgiveness, suggesting that Pine Bros. drops are “forgiving on your throat.”

What should we make of Lochte’s new endorsement deal? First, it’s hard to know the motives of Pine Bros. Perhaps the company is truly interested in encouraging compassion and helping Lochte bounce back from the bad behavior he has exhibited, not just in Rio, but also at other times. According to CNN, in 2005 and 2010, Lochte was cited three times and arrested once for crimes that included trespassing, urinating in public, disorderly conduct, and fighting in public.

Yes, everyone deserves to be forgiven, but forgiveness doesn’t mean that: 1) people escape the consequences of their actions, 2) offenders are enabled to repeat their behavior, or 3) others are encouraged to commit the same acts. Unfortunately, Pine Bros. sudden support of Lochte allows all three of these outcomes by: softening the financial hit on Lochte of the other lost endorsements, empowering him to continue illicit acts, and suggesting that such abhorrent behavior is acceptable for others. In addition, Pine Bros.’ fast funding, while an investigation of the incident is still underway, shows little empathy or respect for the Olympics, the nation of Brazil, or the owners of the gas station that Lochte despoiled.

But, isn’t Pine Bros. bold move good marketing? By linking with Lochte, the company is buying buzz that’s hard to match. If it’s true that any publicity is good publicity, Pine Bros. may realize some benefit from the sponsorship, but more likely the advertising campaign will collapse. The idea that the drops are “forgiving on your throat” is a weak unique selling proposition expressed in an awkward theme. In terms of AIDA, the use of Lochte may generate some attention and interest for Pine Bros., but the illogical pairing of throat drops and a scandal-ridden swimmer is unlikely to produce much desire for the product or action.

On the surface, Pine Bros.’ attempt to forgive Lochte seems commendable, but diving deeper into the sponsorship implications reveals weak values propelled by poor promotional strategy. As a result, Pine Bros. and Lochte have sunk to the level of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

6 Comments

Size Suspense

8/13/2016

4 Comments

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

Variety may be the spice of life, but standardization makes life manageable. Think of all the products we use daily that work only because many different manufacturers have made their products compatible: K-cups, DVDs, light bulbs, batteries, etc. Then, there’s clothing.

Why do many of the products we wear each day vary so much in their sizing? The numbering systems they utilize should produce pretty consistent results across different suppliers; however, it’s not uncommon to find a pair of men’s 34” waist pants in one brand that are much bigger than the same size of another label.

Although men face some sizing snafus, what they experience pales in comparison to what most women endure in trying to find clothes that fit. Of course, women’s bodies come in many more shapes and sizes than men’s do, which makes it truly remarkable that designers claim to capture multiple anatomical variations in a single sizing digit, e.g., 8, 10, etc. A video by Vox provides a great summary of how such sizing came to be.

As if the single-digit system weren’t ambiguous enough, enter vanity sizing. It’s not surprising that many women want to wear smaller-sized clothes, given the emaciated models found in media and steady social pressure to be thin. Apparel makers recognize this desire, and some have decided to cater to it by revamping their sizing systems so their clothes are cut bigger. For instance, women who used to wear a size 6 can now fit into a 2, and those who had sported a 4 might don a double zero. The idea behind vanity sizing is to play upon people’s preference to think they’re thinner than they actually are.

Many people have long suspected manufacturers of vanity sizing, perhaps based on their personal experience, but is there proof that the strategy actually exists? Yes, the evidence is ample. For instance, a reporter for Vox documented her purchase of jeans of the same size from three different retailers, Forever 21, Topshop, and Zara, and showed how vastly different the widths were among them. Similarly, a writer for Esquire found that the actual waist measurements of men’s pants were sometimes as much as five inches bigger than their marked sizes.

If neither of those examples is convincing, checkout charts from the Washington Post which show how, over several decades, sizes have gotten smaller at the same time that people have become bigger. In 1958, for example, a size 16 fit a woman with a 29 inch waist, but in 2011, the same size fits a woman with a 36 inch waist.

So, there’s little question that many manufacturers have kept their sizes the same while making their clothes bigger in an effort to make consumers feel smaller, but couldn’t such vanity sizing be a good thing? In an age of body shaming and eating disorders, why not let people think they’re thinner than they actually are? In fact, a study in the Journal of Consumer Psychology found that vanity sizing was associated with positive mental imagery and improved self-esteem.

Unfortunately, any positive effects of vanity sizing are short-lived; instead, the strategy may be doing significant damage in other ways. Vanity sizing only works for so long. Eventually people realize that a size 4 is no longer as small as it once was, and they redefine what represents a thin size and what does not.

As suggested above, consumers also often experience frustration in dealing with significant size variations among manufacturers. It’s a waste of time to unnecessarily try on different sizes in order to finally find one that fits. The frustration can be even greater when shopping online, where realizing the right size might involve a series of shipments and returns.

Probably the biggest potential problem with vanity sizing, however, is the false sense of fitness it may give people. In the United States, nearly 69% of adults are either overweight or obese; almost 36% fall into in the latter category. With obesity comes increased risks for health problems such as high blood pressure, heart disease, high cholesterol, stroke, and some cancers.

Certainly people should consider their actual weight and their doctor’s diagnosis when determining their healthiness; however, it’s not unusual for people to use quick and convenient metrics like the fit of their clothing to decide whether or not they are overweight. Deceptively sized apparel does a disservice to consumers and can have physically damaging outcomes.

Given the detrimental impacts of vanity sizing combined with little promise of creating stakeholder value for marketers or consumers, there’s little question that vanity sizing measures up as “Mindless Marketing.”

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

4 Comments

Poor Taste in Patriotism

5/14/2016

1 Comment

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber barley waves,
For golden fountain majesties
Above the hop-filled plains!

America! America! InBev brews for thee,
To fill thy stein with liquor fine
From sea to wining sea!

If this adaptation of “American the Beautiful” sounds like sacrilege, you may have similar misgivings about the latest rebranding of the world’s largest brewery. AB InBev, the parent of major beers like Bud Light, Corona, and Beck’s, has decided to temporarily tweak the label of its signature brand. Between May 23 and the November elections, the company plans to replace the name “Budweiser” on its iconic cans and bottles with the word “America.”

Why the significant switch? According to USA Today, “With Americans participating in the Olympics and a presidential election in full swing, the company believes it’s the perfect time to salute the United States with the new cans.”

This isn’t the first time the giant brewer has sought to position its product using patriotism. Past Budweiser cans have featured American flags and the Statue of Liberty. In addition to the current name change, the new cans also will include lyrics from The Star Spangled Banner and lines from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Given its practice of patriotic promotion, it’s fair to ask to whether Budweiser is truly trying to distill national pride, or if it just realizes that an easy way to turn a buck is to “throw some America on it.” Of course, the real motives of individuals and organizations are difficult to determine, but here are four reasons why we should be skeptical of Budweiser branding its brew “America.”

1. Foreign Ownership: Budweiser is no longer an American owned company. In July 2008, Belgium-based InBev bought Anheuser-Busch for $52 billion, creating AB InBev. The company’s global headquarters is located in Leuven, Belgium. True, Anheuser-Busch has a long history in the U.S., but things are different now that title has transferred to the other side of the Atlantic. One might wonder how Europeans would feel if the Coca-Cola Company captioned its cans “Belgium,” “Germany,” or “France.”

2. Youth Appeal? Patriotism is for everyone; it has no age restrictions. Alcohol, on the other hand, cannot be legally consumed by Americans under age 21, other than for some specific state exceptions. So, while we may want to nurture our children’s nationalism, we can’t encourage them to grab a can of “America” even if they’re old enough to vote for the next president. Unfortunately, however, novelty packaging like Budweiser’s or Snickers changing its candy bar wrappers to words like rebellious, spacey, and grouchy, probably appeal more to younger consumers.

3. “Pour” Associations: Sure, when consumed in moderation, beer can be connected with positive social experiences, like watching the big game with friends. There’s also the dark reality, though, that alcohol is a drug and that it is “the most commonly used addictive substance in the United States.” Furthermore, the outcomes of alcohol abuse include such rampant problems as disease, violence, and drunk driving, which Budweiser spokesperson Helen Mirren, “a notoriously frank and uncensored British lady,” ironically and caustically criticized during the most recent Super Bowl. So, perhaps the tagline for the patriotism-based promotion should be, “Budweiser, as American as Alcoholism.”

4. Respectable or Spectacle? Ultimately, the question comes back to whether Budweiser’s rebranding represents national veneration or denigration. The reasons listed above already seem to lean to the latter. Moreover, it’s hard to take seriously the intentions of a firm that has featured the former governor of California as a ping-pong-playing caricature of himself in a Bud Light ad with the slogan “Up for Whatever Happens Next.” Yes, it’s nice when we can laugh with and perhaps even at our leaders, but what impact does such irreverence have on people’s overall perceptions of politicians and the political process? Speaking of spectacles, it may be telling that Donald Trump has taken credit for the beer’s name change, suggesting that Budweiser was influenced by his own appeal to “Make America Great Again.”

America owes its success in large part to countless companies that satisfy consumers' needs and provide meaningful employment. Some of those businesses have co-branded themselves with the name of their country (e.g. American Airlines, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and American Express). These firms’ use of national identify was first very practical—the name represented their location. More importantly, however, their use seemed to be born out of reverence and a long-term commitment, not a flippant short-term promotion.

One of the greatest things about America is that it affords individuals and organizations opportunities to do things they couldn’t do anywhere else. That freedom also should inspire genuine respect for the name of the country where such opportunities abound. Unfortunately, Budweiser's rebranding doesn't demonstrate that respect and is unlikely to result in any significant increase in stakeholder value. For these reasons, beer cans labeled "America" represent a complete case of "Mindless Marketing."

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

1 Comment

Why is it So Hard to Cut Cable?

4/2/2016

22 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

In the digital age, many things are easier than ever. With just a few taps of a smartphone we can order from Amazon, pay for Starbucks, and stream Netflix. Why, then, is it so hard to cancel cable service?

If you’ve ever attempted to close your cable plan, you know how agonizing it can be. The request seems simply, yet you’re forced to reassess and defend the decision as if you’ve asked to take a loved one off life-support. The manifold interrogation often unfolds as follows:
“Are you sure you want to cancel?”
“Why do you want to cancel?
“I need to transfer you to our customer loyalty department.”
“Why do you want to cancel?”
“Have you considered these other options?”
“Do you realize that if you cancel, you’ll lose . . . . ?”
“What can we do to keep you from cancelling?”
“Are you sure you want to cancel?”

The preceding paragraph may appear to be hyperbole, but it’s not. Unfortunately it’s easy to find on-line examples of how the Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, has made life miserable for those wanting to end their agreements. For instance, a 66-year-old Minnesota man couldn’t get Comcast to cancel his contract even after his house burned down. Another excruciating example is an actual recording of a conversation that a Comcast representative had with podcaster Ryan Block, who repeatedly and rationally asked to have his service disconnected.

Equally telling, a new industry has sprung up in response to Comcast customers’ dilemma. For $5.00 Airpaper will “cancel your Comcast service for you.” Airpaper avoids the tortuous phone track by taking a lesser used approach to termination--a letter requesting cancellation that’s imbued with the customer’s information and mailed to the cable giant on the customer’s behalf.

In Californian people have become so agitated over Comcast’s resistance to canceling customers’ plans that one legislator has proposed a law that would force the company to significantly ease the path to exit. Los Angeles Assemblyman Mike Gatto recently introduced the bill, which “would allow Californians to cancel their Internet or cable services online with ‘one click.’” That’s right, select a single button and your subscription is stopped. The rationale for the law, as expressed by Gatto, is profoundly simple: “if you are able to sign up for a service online, you should also be able to cancel it the same way.”

Some have called the bill, which is officially known as AB2867, “Ryan’s Law,” because Gatto cites Ryan Block’s very unpleasant phone call with Comcast in the proposed legislation. The bill’s press release also quotes Block.

So, perhaps Comcast is over-zealous about keeping customers, but isn’t retention what every organization wants and needs to do? Companies can’t exist without clients, and experience says it’s more cost effective for an organization to keep the customers it has, rather than constantly onboarding new ones. Or, as the old saying goes, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”

Certainly customer retention is critical, but how it’s achieved is also very important. Consumers should remain in relationships because they receive value, not because they’re coerced into continuing. Whether it’s in a commercial context or a purely social setting, no one wants to feel trapped by psychological pressure or manipulation.

It’s a very bad sign when a company has to resort to such hard-handed tactics to keep customers. Such an approach suggests that the firm’s value proposition is inadequate, which is one of the most serious weaknesses an organization can have. Over the last few years, Comcast and other cable companies have experienced increased “cord cutting,” as more consumers realize that “$180 is way too much to pay for too many bad TV channels.” Such recognition has led to a mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of cable subscribers per quarter across the nation’s 13 top cable providers.

Of course, Comcast and its competitors want to stem that tide. Anytime organizations lose customers, it’s helpful to know why they leave—that information can potentially be used to make improvements that can increase value for everyone. Comcast already knows, however, why its customers want out. It’s tactics, therefore, are simply aimed at erecting higher barriers to exit, with the hope that fewer people will have the resolve to surmount them.

In terms of ethical fails, it doesn’t get much worse than when government needs to step in and create a law in order to stop a particular business practice. Comcast’s oppressive approach to customer retention certainly fails to create stakeholder value, and it violates societal values of fairness and respect. In short, the cable company’s practice is a clear case of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

22 Comments

An Unappealing Product

3/12/2016

18 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

Do you find any of the following frustrating?

   - You can’t hear the TV when you’re eating potato chips.
   - Your laptop’s power dies, but the charger is in another room.
   - The auto detailer moves your car’s seat.
   - You want to turn off the lights but the bed is too comfortable.
   - You house takes too long to clean because it’s so big.

If you do, you may be experiencing “first world problems,” those trivial difficulties that people in rich industrialized nations bemoan, which pale in comparison to the challenges that individuals in emerging countries often endure.

There’s another apparently petite problem you may not have heard about: “I’d like to eat an orange, but it has a peel on it.” In a world of seedless grapes and crust-less bread, why can’t there be peel-less oranges? Well, thanks to a leading U.S. supermarket chain that wish recently became reality, although short-lived.

Whole Foods, the Texas-based retailer that bills itself as “America’s Healthiest Grocery Store” introduced a peel-less orange in some of its stores. As the picture above shows, consumers could buy the single citrus, sans the skin, in a pint-size plastic container. The retailer priced the package at $5.99 per pound.

It didn’t take long for the fruit-selling-strategy to come under fire, which started when a London-based shopper, Nathalie Gordon, posted a picture on Twitter along with a snarky remark: “If only nature would find a way to cover these oranges so we didn't need to waste so much plastic on them.”

No surprising, Gordon’s witty sarcasm didn’t just sink into the social media abyss. Her indictment went viral, and within only three hours Whole Foods responded saying that it would pull the orange packages from its shelves. It tweeted this apology: “These have been pulled. We hear you, and we will leave them in their natural packaging: the peel.”

So, case closed. For once a company promptly processed consumers’ concerns and rapidly made the right response. Well, not so fast. Part of the reason Gordon’s commentary went viral is that it caused a social media melee: people had strong feelings for and against her critique and Whole Food’s reaction. Those who responded in favor generally echoed the negative environmental impact to which Gordon alluded. For instance, @StephanieBe tweeted, “[expletive, expletive]. That makes me unbelievably angry actually. Talk about necessarily contributing to plastic taking over the planet.” Such strong support, however, was met by equally robust rebuttal.

The main criticism of Gordon’s tweet and Whole Food’s product retraction came from those concerned about individuals who can’t peel their own oranges. There are likely millions of people who lack such digit dexterity due to a wide variety of conditions ranging from arthritis to amputation. Many sympathetic to these persons’ plights voiced their support for the peel-less orange, as well as their distaste for Gordon’s tweet and the retailers’ reaction. Here are a few of those opposing tweets @ Whole Foods:

“I'm so sorry you've decided to do that. I have rheumatoid disease and it's often impossible to peel an orange” (@pschiendelman).
“How do you feel about preventing disabled people from eating fresh fruit because some cracker complained?” (@decolonizeupdog).
‎“Please don’t. A lot of ppl with disabilities like arthritis see them as a lifesaver, and don't appreciate the ‘joke’" (@KevinCarson1).

So, maybe having to peel an orange is not just another first world problem. Does that possibility, then, mean that Whole Food’s introduction of the peel-less orange was “Mindful Marketing”? Again, the answer is “not so fast.”

First, there’s no evidence that Whole Foods had any intention of helping those who suffer from conditions that would prevent them from peeling their own oranges. The company didn’t mention that desire in any of its pre- or post-organgegate communication. Plus, if the retailer really wanted to avoid physical encumbrances, it might have gone one step further and separated each orange into sections, making the fruit even easier to eat.

Of course, one might argue that the firm’s motivation doesn’t matter as much as the end result, i.e., people being helped is more important than why they are helped. However, the long-term reliability of that outcome is also tenuous, for instance:

Some have suggested that that the packaging itself (a hard-to-remove lid) might pose a problem for those with limited manual dexterity.
The oranges’ high cost (nearly $6 per lb.) would make their purchase cost prohibitive for many people, particularly persons with disabilities, whose physical challenges often correlate with financial ones.

Of course, customers’ cost is not the only concern. Even if Whole Foods’ peel-less oranges had helped a significant number of shoppers, there still would be the issue of environmental impact, which was the reason for Gordon’s critical tweet. Likewise, one can only wonder how many of the high-priced oranges would have been wasted after sitting peel-less in plastic. Neither of these outcomes would be desirable ones for a company that prides itself in environmental stewardship.

So, whether or not Whole Foods’ peel-less orange exemplified a first world problem, it did represent a real world marketing problem: a product that probably never would have created sufficient stakeholder value, while compromising the societal value of good stewardship. The end result is another unappealing instance of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

18 Comments

Seedy Slogan

2/27/2016

10 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

I love a good slogan—that concise, clever expression of what makes an organization or its products unique. If you like slogans/themes too, you’ll enjoy a little quiz: Name the companies that used these classic slogans. The answers come later in the blog.

1. Like a good neighbor
2. Melts in your mouth, not in your hands
3. Can you hear me now?
4. Where’s the beef?
5. When you care enough to send the very best

One of the best slogans I ever heard was for a Catholic school that said: “Put faith in the future.” The slogan is effective partly because it is short, alliterative, and memorable. It also contains an appropriate play on the word “faith,” which conveys two equally impactful messages:

- Students’ faith-based education stays with them throughout their lives.
- The school's service gives us hope for the future.

More recently, I heard another slogan that also employed a play on words; however, this one made me wince. The phrase is for an all-American food product: Ball Park Franks. The slogan: “Grab life by the Ball Park.”

Some may wonder, “What’s wrong with that theme?” After all, it’s concise and clever, and it alludes to several similar expressions that encourage people to take control, e.g., “Grab life by the: horns, reins, and handlebars.” Of course, there’s another expression that’s even more similar and common, which is also off-color: “Grab life by the balls.”

Was this last association the one on which Ball Park was banking? Even on the surface it would seem so given that balls and ballpark obviously share the same root. Likewise, the following numbers of Google search results suggest the association that people are most likely to make: handlebars - 82,600, reins - 96,900, horns - 994,000, and balls - 3,760,000.

Why would America’s largest hot dog maker, a division of Tyson Foods, choose a slogan that makes a not-so-subtle reference to male genitalia? Well, the choice has its roots in another decision the company made a decade-and-a-half ago. As an April 9, 2001 Advertising Age article described, it was around that time Ball Park decided to drop its long-standing, “They plump when you cook them” theme in favor of “Eat like man.” The purpose was to position Ball Park Franks as a more manly meat and to attract more male consumers.

Then in 2015, the company conducted market research that revealed “eight out of ten men admit to putting off tough talks; 50 percent of them say they delay the dialogue for a month or more; 36 percent have even faked being busy or sick to avoid a conversation.” From these findings Ball Park surmised that it should tell its male target market to “man up,” and tackle tough topics, thus the “Grab Life by the Ball Park” motto was born.

Encouraging anyone to engage in constructive conversations is certainly commendable. It’s questionable, however, how many people might look to a hot dog maker for such relationship counsel. Ball Park’s motives in making the new theme also should be scrutinized in that there’s no evidence that the company is any way enabling this sort of social support. For instance, a review of Ball Park’s website reveals no such programs, and searches of the site for the words “conversations,” “discussions,” “talk,” and “difficult” deliver zero results.

Given that the pretext of helping men become more mature conversationalists seems sketchy at best, we’re left to assess the slogan on its own merits, i.e., to ask if it’s an effective theme. As mentioned above, “Grab Life by the Ball Park,” is clever and concise. The slogan misses the mark, however, in reflecting a compelling reason why a consumer would want to buy Ball Park Franks. Sure, Tyson Foods would like all of us to grab a pack of Ball Park franks, but what exactly are the distinct advantages of choosing Ball Park over a competitor?

The fact that it’s difficult to answer this question suggests that “Grab Life by the Ball Park” fails to encapsulate the brand’s unique selling proposition. In contrast, consider Ball Park’s classic theme “They plump when you cook them.” That theme told consumers that if they bought Ball Park, they’d enjoy a hot dog that was bigger and juicier. People wanted that outcome, the slogan reminded them of it, and Ball Park sales soared.

Are there other firms whose themes have effectively summarized their unique selling propositions? Yes, the answers to the earlier slogan quiz are some of those companies: 1) State Farm, 2) M&Ms, 3) Verizon, 4) Wendy’s, 5) Hallmark. For instance, other insurance companies might offer a low rate for auto insurance, but when you’ve had an accident and you need an agency that will really help you, then, “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is There.”

It seems that Ball Park was at a loss for crafting a truly creative and compelling theme/unique selling proposition combination, so it’s taken the low road, trying to use sex to sell. Granted, Ball Park’s “Grab Life by the Ball Park” isn’t bad compared to some of the highly sexualized things we see and hear in the media. Still, the company’s not-so-veiled reference to male genitalia gives people one more gratuitous trigger to entertain indecent thoughts, even as many people in our society suffer from sexual addictions.

Ball Park obviously has done many things right to have risen to the top of the U.S. hot dog market. It’s doubtful, however, that the company’s new slogan will do much to help it retain that position. Meanwhile, in a market that sees about $2.5 billion of its sales come through supermarkets, the frankfurter maker is building a brand image that is not so family-friendly. For these reasons, what Ball Park has grabbed and grilled up is a case of "Mindless Marketing."

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

10 Comments

Super Insult Advertising

2/13/2016

13 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

After working in advertising and teaching marketing for many years, I’ve seen firms use a wide variety of methods to motivate consumers: everything from client testimonials to product demonstrations. One tactic that never crossed my mind was to insult customers. Apparently that approach has potential--at least that’s what one well-known Super Bowl 50 advertiser seems to believe.

The company that ran two different abusive ads was none other than Anheuser-Busch, the sultan of Super Bowl spots and the parent of the King of Beers, Budweiser. Forgoing its classic Clydesdales, Budweiser instead featured British actress Helen Mirren in an ad that was ostensibly less about selling beer and more about discouraging drunk driving—a very laudable goal. It was the means to that end, however, that likely led more than a few Super Bowl viewers to blush.

After introducing herself as “a notoriously frank and uncensored British lady,” Mirren describes any individual who drives drunk as “a short-sited, utterly useless, oxygen wasting, human form of pollution; a Darwin award-deserving selfish coward.” To this putdown she adds “if your brain was donated to science, science would return it.” The latter part of the spot has Mirren making amends by reassuring the target of her attack that he/she is likely a “fun, solid, and respectable human being.” Those compliments, however, are largely overshadowed by her initial verbal barrage.

The other Anheuser-Busch brand to employ insult was Shock Top, a craft beer and Belgian white wheat ale. This ad featured comedian T.J. Miller trading jabs with Shock Top’s animated brand icon—a sunglass-wearing, Mohawk-sporting, trash-talking orange wedge. Among other taunts, Shock Top tells Miller: “You look like you’re on a cleanse that doesn’t work”; “I feel like you peaked in middle school”; “You look like an out-of-work magician”; and “I got a movie idea for you—this loser walks into a bar; it’s called ‘right now’.” Like the Mirren ad, Shock Top makes up at the end as he and Miller share a laugh despite, their corrosive banter.

Anheuser-Busch obviously spent big bucks on these spots, as much as $10 million total, which should cause the company and others to ask if the ads were effective. According to the USA Today, “Simply Put” with Mirren came in at #9 on its annual Ad Meter, while Shock Top’s “Unfiltered Talk” entered at just #42. It’s hard to know the efficacy of the ads from this metric alone, however, since Ad Meter results seem to be based on what respondents like the most, and liking is no guarantee that one will remember who or what an ad was for, case in point, last year’s Fiat ad, which some people thought was for Viagra.

However, more significant than a short-term surge in beer sales is the long-term impact that these ads may have on the Budweiser and Shock Top brands. In particular, Anheuser-Busch has gone to great lengths to build a positive brand image for its signature Budweiser brand using, for instance, the majestic Clydesdales. Should Budweiser risk its brand equity by associating itself with the negativity and mean-spiritedness of insult advertising? Probably not.

For instance, Campbell and Warren’s (2012) research published in Social Influence found that celebrities’ negative associations were more likely to transfer to the brands they endorsed than were their positive associations. So, in terms of its Super Bowl ad with Helen Mirren, viewers might be more likely to think of Budweiser as cutting, unkind, caustic than as straightforward and socially responsible.

Organizations and their agents brand themselves in many different ways, including by what they say. Even if they’re speaking about someone or something else, their choice of words and tone paint a picture of who they are. So, if an agent uses vulgarity or profanity to describe another person, there’s a good chance hearers will remember the agent as being vulgar or profane as much as they’ll remember what the agent said about the other party.

Efficacy, however, is not the only quality of insult advertising that should be questioned. The practice’s ethicality also deserves debate. For the Budweiser ad, decreasing drunk driving is certainly a worthy goal, but does that end justify any means of mitigation? It’s ironic that Mirren skewers those who drive drunk for physically disrespecting others, while her own caustic tirade verbally disrespects all of the ad's viewers, including those who don’t even drink.

Beyond the inconsistency of disrespectfully demanding respect, there’s also the danger that the language of the Budweiser and Shock Top ads will inspire imitation. Do people really act out ads? Yes, some do, especially young, impressionable persons who value risk more than restraint. Mumbai, India, for instance, experienced ad imitation after TV commercials showcased motorcycle riders performing amazing stunts. Police called for a ban of the ads because young imitators were endangering themselves and others.

It’s easy to imagine middle school students and others taunting their peers with jabs borrowed from Anheuser-Busch’s ads like “a loser walks into classroom . . .” and “if you donated your brain to science . . . .” Schools are trying to combat that kind of verbal abuse, which is often called bullying. They don’t need a beer company to provide their students with more material for mockery.

Anheuser-Busch is right that it’s a bad idea to combine alcohol and automobiles. The parent of some of the world’s most iconic brands should also realize that it’s wrong to blend beer with belittlement, both for the benefit of its brands but also for the sake of our society. As a result, Anheuser-Busch’s insult advertising can be considered “Mindless Marketing.”

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

13 Comments

Holiday Greetings Guile

12/26/2015

6 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

Imagine you open a holiday card from a friend that reads: “Wishing you joy and peace during this special season.” Also inside the card is a small flyer showing several types of cutlery and a hand-written note: “Carve-Co is having some great sales on knives for all of you holiday cooking needs. Please call me to set-up a time to discuss.”

What would you think of your friend’s communication? If you’re like most people, you’d probably have mixed feelings about the card. On one hand, you appreciate your friend sending the holiday greeting. On the other hand, you’re taken aback by his/her promotion of the knives. You may not have minded the sales pitch in another context; in fact, you may have even appreciated it. But you probably found the combination of commercial and personal messages off-putting.

The chance of you receiving a mixed holiday message like that one from a friend is pretty slim. The probability that you’ve received such a message from a company is likely 100%, at least if your experience is like mine. Here are some examples of communication, camouflaged as Christmas greetings, that have made their way to my email inbox:

Pier 1 Imports: Merry Christmas! Our Gift to You . . . today only FREE SHIPPING ON YOUR ENTIRE PURCHASE

Dick’s Sporting Goods: Merry Christmas from everyone at Dick’s Sporting Goods. We’re Open Today Online! Stores Open Tomorrow at 7 am.

Bon-Ton: Merry Christmas! TAKE UP TO AN EXTRA 30% OFF YOUR PURCHASE**

Kohl’s: Merry Christmas from our family to yours. With the warmest of wishes, All of us at Kohl’s. P.S. Enjoy 25% OFF online today only (you know, just in case).

NordicTrack: Merry Christmas from NordicTrack. Free shipping on machines over $399. See our Christmas specials. Give the gift of good health.

In the spirit of some recent Geico commercials, you might be thinking that these types of messages are to be expected from companies, i.e., “If you’re a corporation, that’s what you do”—try to sell while wishing people well. However, as with all ethical issues, just because people or organizations do something doesn’t mean that they should. Here’s a pair of reasons why companies shouldn’t mix holiday greetings with commercial content, using two of the five societal values that Mindful Marketing often mentions:

1. Honesty: When we receive a card in the mail that says “Seasons Greetings” on the front, or an email that has “Happy Holidays” as the subject line, we may begin to read it only because we think it’s a genuine expression of well-wishing. Mixed holiday messages, however, fall short on honesty as they try to trick us into taking a first step (ready this email) with the hope that we’ll overlook the deception and continue to process the commercial content.

2. Respect: Of course, it’s inherently disrespectful to deceive people; however, there’s more here being disrespected than just the message’s recipients. The camouflaged communication also disregards the meaning and worth of the holiday. Instead, it uses the holiday as a means to an end; for example, it implies “Our company doesn’t really care what Christmas means to you, but we know we can use it as a way of getting your attention and possibly making a sale.”

Lest we become cynical and think that all companies’ holiday greetings are duplicitous, here are a few other emails I recently received that are not infused with blatant commercial content:

Founders Inn and Spa: The end of the year brings no greater joy than the opportunity to express to you season's greetings and good wishes. May your holidays and New Year be filled with joy! [email included an outside photograph of trees covered in white lights]

American Marketing Association: HAPPY HOLIDAYS from the American Marketing Association. [email also included a personalized note, appreciating me for being a member]

Michaels: Merry Christmas [email did include a small link to the weekly ad, but that was all]

Align: Happy Holidays from Align. Season’s Greetings [this first part of the message appeared on a picture of a snowy landscape with trees and two cardinals]. During this holiday season, Align is proud to support the Muscular Dystrophy Association on behalf of our clients and partners.

So, why do some companies choose to conceal their promotional messages as holiday greetings while others don’t? The main reason is that the former group has a short-term outlook, i.e., “We need to sell product now.” Of course, members of the latter group also want to secure sales; however, they have a proper perspective of marketing: “If you put the needs of people (namely your customers and employees) first, sales will follow.”

Commerce is a good thing, but there are certain places and times when people need a break from business. As such, they appreciate companies that care enough about them as people to put their commercial content on pause. Organizations that choose to ignore this basic human need not only compromise important societal values, they ultimately jeopardize stakeholder value, which makes them merchants of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

6 Comments

Pretentious Presents

12/19/2015

3 Comments

by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing

What if Bill Gates were your brother, Warren Buffet were your grandfather, or Mark Zuckerberg were your friend--What would you give them for a gift this holiday season? Billionaires are notoriously difficult to buy for, but fortunately there’s help . . .

Bloomburg Business has come out with “The Billionaire’s Shopping Guide: 13 Gifts for the Person Who Can Buy Anything.” As the title suggests, this gift-giving resource is aimed at helping the friends and family of the ultra-rich pick the perfect present for that person who already owns almost everything he/she needs or wants. You can read the full list with the complete descriptions, but here’s a summary:

A Meal at Every Three Michelin Star Restaurant: $274, 983
A 1962 Aston Martin DB4/GT: $15, 000,000 - $17,000,000
The First Omega Speedmaster Watch: $100,000 - $150,000
Original Art from 'Where the Wild Things Are: $200,000 - $950,000
Rodin’s 'Eternel Printemps': $489,000 - $597,000
Hang Out at the Edge of Space: $90,000
A 1978 Luke Skywalker Action Figure: $12,000 - $18,000
A Hand-Painted Dress by Holly Fowler: price upon request
Marc Newson 'Extruded Table 3': $100,000 - $150,000
A Wine Château in Saint-Émilion: $5,190,424
Chalcedony Bracelets Owned by the Duchess of Windsor: $400,000 - $600,000
The Chance to Live Like a Spy for Two Months: $11,300
A Trek Through Untouched Rivers and Mountains in Papua New Guinea: $15,000

Although Bloomberg has compiled this list, it isn’t the one selling these items; rather they’re available through a variety of vendors, including Sotheby’s and Christies auction houses, and web-based businesses VeryFirstTo.com and TrulyExperiences.com. Another of the suppliers is luxury retailer Neiman Marcus, which curates its own unique collection of “Fantasy Gifts” that can be found within the pages of its annual Christmas Book. Here are a few of its 2015 Fantasy Gifts, which Neiman Marcus describes as “Eye-Popping, Jaw-Dropping Dreams Come True”:

Arch Motorcycle & Ride Experience: $150,000
World View Exploration at the Edge of Space: $90,000
Italy Tour with Ippolita & Artemest Craftsmen: $150,000
Neiman Marcus Limited-Edition Mustang Convertible: $95,000
Texas Guitar Trio Gift: $30,000 each
Couture Diary: $10,000
His & Hers Ultimate Children’s Costumes in Mackenzie-Childs Trunks: $5,000
12-Day Dream Trip to India: $400,000

Can such extraordinary purchases be justified? Well, one way may be to look at them as investments. For instance, cars generally depreciate in value, but perhaps a Limited Edition Mustang Convertible will appreciate if it’s not driven but rather is garage-kept in mint condition. In that sense, buying a rare car or piece of original artwork is not unlike holding stocks with the hope of a favorable return on investment.

Most of the gifts listed above, however, aren’t items that will increase in value over time, and others aren’t physical assets at all; they’re intangible experiences. Take the Ultimate Children’s Costumes in Mackenzie-Childs Trunks. It would be cruel to buy a child that special costume she really wants, then tell her that she can’t put it on and play in it. At the same time, if she does wear Cinderella’s Ball Gown and play with the custom trunk, is it possible for her to realize $5,000 worth of benefits before becoming bored with them or outgrowing the dress? Probably not. The same is also likely true of the 12-Day Dream Trip to India. Speaking from firsthand experience, India is an incredible country that everyone should visit if they have the opportunity, but to drop almost a half million dollars on a less-than-two-week trip seems extravagant, to use an understatement.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with owing things or doing things. We need certain material goods just to function in our world, and some experiences provide real physical, emotional, and other benefits. Beyond such practical value, possessions can provide a “sense of self” as well as offer “stability and continuity in our lives” (Belk, 2011). As we grow older and wiser, though, we realize that there’s a limit to these benefits and that consuming too much of even a good thing is wasteful (Chan & Tong, 2006).

But, maybe it’s different with gifts: Don’t people appreciate expensive gifts more than less costly ones? Not according to Flynn and Adam’s (2009) study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. While this research revealed that gift-givers thought their more expensive gifts would be appreciated more, gift-recipients did not make the same association. These finding are consistent with those of Richins (1994) who concluded that people ascribe value to possessions not based on their cost but on the meaning they provide. In terms of gift-giving, therefore, maybe it really is the thought that counts.

Coming full circle, it’s interesting to note that Bloomberg Business, the curator of "The Billionaire’s Shopping Guide” outlined at the onset of this post, also recently ran a piece titled “Most billionaires can’t stay that rich after 20 years.” A key statistics in the article is “of 289 billionaires in 1995, only 126 still have $1 billion.” Having money now is no guarantee that one will have money in the future. So, maybe even a billionaire would be better off with a gift that’s low on cost and high on sentimental value.

Do ultra-luxury retailers like Neiman Marcus create stakeholder value? If they sell the extravagances they advertise, they undoubtedly make money, but as discussed above, it’s questionable whether their customers reap proportional benefits. In fact, an even better question might be “At what point does one stop owning such expensive possessions and they start owning you? Furthermore, as we become more aware of the negative impact that the overconsumption of a few has on the rest of our world, it becomes apparent that such extreme indulgence doesn’t represent good stewardship, rather it symbolizes “Mindless Marketing.”