Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Mindful Marketing Book
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Contact

Has Tipping Reached a Tipping Point?

8/26/2023

39 Comments

 
Picture

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

There are many ways people are rewarded for good work, but few are as immediate as monetary tips.  Restaurant servers have long received confirmation and big parts of their compensation from gratuities, but recently many other service providers have started tapping the same propensity for generosity.  Given that these increasingly common appeals have become off-putting to some, it may be time to ask:  Has tipping been taken too far?
 
The New York Times recently described a case in which, after some cosmetic medical treatments, a reader’s dermatologist asked her for a tip.  If some physicians are soliciting gratuities, is it only time until other professionals start doing the same? Should professors like me put out tip jars?
 
We’ve all added a tip to a restaurant check, handed cash to a bellhop, or Venmoed a little extra money to another service provider.  While physical tip jars have become increasingly common on retail store counters, digital technology has made it extremely easy for anyone accepting electronic forms of payment, in person or from afar, to casually ask for extra cash.
 
For instance, I recently placed an online order to pick up dinner from Chipotle.  When I went to check out, just below the order total a prompt appeared: “Tip the Crew – Show some love to the team that prepares your order.”  As I’ve grown accustomed to doing, I clicked one of the tip amounts but not without thinking, “Do I really need to?”
 
Picture
 
A decade or two ago, one would usually only tip in a sit-down restaurant where a waiter or waitress took your order, brought your drinks and food, stopped by your table to see if you needed anything else, delivered the check, and processed your payment.  As the word “gratuity” suggests, your tip was a way of saying thanks for their multipronged service, and the amount you gave was a way of expressing how good you thought the service was.
 
In the case of Chipotle, no one did any of the aforementioned things for me, so it seemed reasonable to wonder, “Who exactly am I tipping and why?”  The easy answers to these questions are the restaurant staff that prepared the food and placed it in the carryout containers because they work hard for low wages, but even if those inputs and circumstances warrant tipping, how similar are they to those of other occupations that are also now panning for tips, including at least one dermatologist?
 
The complexities and potential inequities in tipping are further illustrated in examples like this one in Sanibel, FL.  A couple of years ago, Island Cow, a popular restaurant on the island, was ordered to pay $222,000 to 48 employees because it created an illegal tip pool that “required tipped employees to share earnings with non-tipped workers, including dishwashing assistants and kitchen expeditors.”
 
This incident and others like it prompt a variety of questions and concerns including:
  • Do tips always make it to their intended parties?
  • Do owners sometimes pocket tips for themselves?
  • Do workers who don’t deal directly with customers deserve to be tipped?
  • Why don’t companies just pay their employees more so they don’t need to receive tips?
 
The last question may simply seem hypothetical, but a recent visit to Europe reminded me how services can be delivered effectively with just base pay and little or no tipping.  A few times, when dining out in France, I received my check, which had no place to add gratuity.  When I asked how I could leave a tip, the waiter/waitress replied that tipping wasn’t necessary.
 
Of course, that norm is not indicative of every restaurant in France, and it’s certainly not true across all Europe, where the likelihood of tipping varies widely from rather unlikely in Norway (14.3%) and France (39.9%) to very likely in Sweden (82.8%) and Germany (96.7%).
 
​
Picture
  
Whether in the United States or abroad, the total wages that service providers earn should have some bearing on whether or not they’re tipped.  While the question of whether customers are being asked to subsidize the poor wages from employers is a fair one, it also might be moot  because when employers are forced to pay higher wages, they often pass those increased costs on to customers in the form of higher prices.
 
So why not do away with tipping entirely and just pay more for restaurant meals, etc.?  Theoretically, tipping provides value to customers because it allows them to adjust the amount they pay based on the quality of service they receive.  Meanwhile, service providers have an incentive to do their jobs better, as they gain feedback about how well they’re performing.  However, in reality, those benefits may not accrue for several reasons:
  • Feelings of obligation:  Even if service is very poor, patrons may feel obligated to offer an average tip, so they don’t seem cheap or unempathetic.
  • Product prices:  When customers believe they’re already paying a lot for something, they’ll sometimes scale back their tips – like the person who told me that while they typically tip for everything, they don’t always tip at Starbucks because they’re already paying $5.00 for a coffee.
  •  Poor timing:  As suggested by my Chipotle example above, some companies ask for tips before the service has been completed.  In those cases, your order may come out completely wrong, but you’ve already given a tip. 
 
Despite several decades of work experience, I’ve never been in an occupation that received tips, which made me eager to hear from those who have.  So, I reached out to two of my current students who have considerable food industry server experience.
 
Sarah Schall has worked in a variety of retail occupations, including as a counter-service food worker and as a waitress.  She makes the important point that particularly in a sit-down restaurant, one’s overall dining experience is a function of many employees’ contributions, which should impact how patrons approach tipping:
 
“Although the waiter/waitress is the one who may seem to be in charge of a guest’s entire experience, it’s important to remember that there are many team members who go into creating a dining experience. Therefore, it wouldn’t be right to lower the tip that’s going to the server if the food took a while due to a slow kitchen staff.”
 
“If the food wasn’t up to par, or if it took a long time to get to the table, it most likely was the kitchen staff at fault rather than the waitress. Instead of leaving a poor tip, guests should inform the waiter/waitress that they were disappointed with their meal so that way the restaurant can improve and the server can work to reconcile the problem.”
 
Josh McCleaf grew up in the restaurant industry, working in a variety of front- and back-of-house positions in his family’s multigenerational restaurant.  This experience has given him particular appreciation for the multifaceted and prolonged engagement servers have with customers in traditional dining:
 
“When you sit down at a table-service restaurant, you expect your server to spend the next 45 to 90 minutes getting you drinks, refills, meals, extra napkins, sides of ranch, and anything else you might need for your dining experience. It's also important to note that your server is not only fulfilling the needs of your table during your visit, they are also trying to fill the needs of every other table in their section at the same time.”
 
McCleaf contrasts this typical sit-down dining scenario with his own recent experience as a counter-service customer:
 
“A few weeks ago, I walked up to a Cinnabon stand in a mall to purchase two bottles of water. While the transaction was short and the water was only an arm's length away from the cashier, I was still faced with the increasingly popular iPad flip and a prompt asking me if I'd like to leave a tip. I have to admit that this put me in an odd position, and I was left to answer some questions: Was this one-minute interaction and simple order worthy of a 20% tip? Even if it wasn't, how bad would it look if I said no?”
 ​
Picture
  
McCleaf likens this incident to experiences patrons have at quick-service restaurants where interactions last for just three to five minutes and are “one and done,” i.e., people order, pay, receive their food, and leave, which is much different than the sustained engagement with servers in sit-down dining.
 
However, McCleaf emphasizes that even in these faster service restaurant formats, good customer service is vital, as servers who demonstrate dedication to their work, strong communication skills, enthusiasm, and patience may be well-deserving of tips.  He concludes:

“What's important is that you tip at your own discretion. You should never be guilted into leaving a tip at these kinds of establishments.”
 
His admonition is a good one:  guilt, fear, and other strong-handed emotional appeals represent coercion and aren’t appropriate for marketers to use.  I’d add that organizations should be sensitive to how the tipping choices they offer, or don’t, can remove customers’ control and force their decision-making.
 
For instance, our family recently ate at a sit-down dining restaurant where when paying the bill, the lowest tip listed among the iPad’s preset choices was 20%.  While I was happy to offer more than that amount, and I believe that servers deserve more for the hard work they do, it struck me as being too prescriptive – Why shouldn’t a patron be able to more easily offer any amount that reflects their satisfaction with the service they received?
 
To be true to its nature and intent, tipping must remain a discretionary thing – while it certainly should be encouraged, it shouldn’t be compelled.
 
Anyone who has the ability to tip generously should do so, but ultimately, consumers deserve: 1) to decide without pressure how much they’d like to tip, 2) to make their choice, ideally, after they’ve received the service, and 3) to know, with some assurance, who will receive their gratuity.  Discounting these ingredients for equitable tipping is a recipe for “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
39 Comments

Is Extreme Tourism Worth Its Costs?

7/3/2023

10 Comments

 
Picture

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

How far are you willing to go for fun?  For some, it’s battling the traffic and crowds at busy summer beaches.  For others, it’s climbing over ice and fighting to breathe on an expedition up Everest.  Depending on one’s taste and budget, either one of these experiences can be a great time, but as extreme tourism increases, it’s time to ask, are extraordinary leisure activities worth their costs?
 
By now, most have heard of the Titan submersible’s ill-fated excursion to explore the sunken Titanic.  When I first learned that OceanGate’s record-setting sub went missing enroute to the wreckage that lies 2.37 miles below the surface of the North Atlantic, I assumed it was a scientific expedition.  Only after additional news reports did I realize that the five passengers passed away on a pleasure trip.
 
Regardless of the reason for the voyage, it’s tragic that these individuals lost their lives.  It’s frightening to think of a sub imploding; hopefully, their passing was quick and painless.  Still, the nature of the trip has caused some to question whether such a tour should have been offered, given its inherent risk.
 
Many people have jobs that require them to risk their lives each day such as: first responders, miners, loggers, construction workers, oil and gas workers, electrical power line installers and repairers.  These brave individuals are typically well-trained and well-aware of the danger in their work, which they do to serve others, as well as for income.  Leisure activities, in contrast, are by definition discretionary.
 
While everyone should have recreational time in which they can refresh their body and mind, there are many things people can do that require minimal cost and pose little or no risk, from reading, to walking in a park, to playing pickle ball.  So, why does anyone need to do extremely dangerous activities like:
  • Free climbing – climbing a rock face with no ropes
  • Base jumping – parachuting from a fixed structure
  • Bull running – jogging with horned bovines
  • Big wave surfing – boarding on swells that reach 50 ft. or more
 
Of course, everyone is wired differently in terms of the recreational activities that bring them pleasure.  While some like low-key, passive leisure (e.g., watching movies), others enjoy the physical exertion and competition that comes from playing a sport (e.g., tennis, football).  Still others crave much more, like:
  • Experiencing an extreme adrenalin rush
  • Seeing or doing something that few others have seen or done
  • Testing one’s physical and mental limits
 
Before becoming vice president for finance and administration at Martin’s Famous Potato Rolls and Bread 12 years ago, Scott Heintzelman had a successful two-decade career in public accounting, including a long tenure as a CPA firm partner.  For many people in his position and stage of life, the most leisure energy they’d expend would be on a round of golf.  However, just before the age of 50, Heintzelman ran his first marathon, then soon turned his attention to triathlons.  Over the past five years he's completed 13 Ironman races.
 
Heintzelman’s friends, family members, and others sometimes say he’s crazy to needlessly put himself through the months of grueling training followed by the body-breaking 140.6-mile competitions, which culminate with him crying upon crossing the finish line.  So, why does he choose to recreate in such an extreme way? 


Picture
 
Heintzelman says he likes testing himself mentally and physically and adds that enduring pain, delaying gratification, and overcoming negative thoughts have helped him become more disciplined, focused, and resilient – qualities that serve him well in other areas of life.
 
As the preceding suggests, participating in an Ironman certainly comes with physical costs.  It also comes with some significant financial ones such as $1,000-$5,000 for a race-quality bike, $800 for travel expenses, $150 for a 6-month gym membership, and a $600-$800 race entry fee. 
 
Still, these costs pale in comparison to an ultra-extreme sport like high-altitude mountain climbing, for which participants pay “around $100,000 or even more for the privilege to get to the world’s highest peaks.”  In the process, there’s real risk of life altering injuries and death from falls, extreme cold, and oxygen deprivation, where above 8,000 meters, “there is so little oxygen that the body starts to die, minute by minute and cell by cell.”
 
This year, 12 climbers have died on Mount Everest, the world’s highest peak, and regrettably, five more who are missing and likely dead will make 2023 “the deadliest year ever.”  One of the reasons for the increase in fatalities is overcrowding, as more inexperienced guides and climbers have made for a record number of climbing permits and caused traffic jams on already very challenging slopes.  At times, queues of climbers enroute to the summit have looked like lines of vacationers waiting for a popular Disney World ride.
​
Picture
 
There are reportedly more than 50 companies that offer guided tours on Everest.  Great supply is usually good for consumers, as added competition typically means more options and lower prices.  Those things are true to some extent for Everest, but they’ve also meant a dangerous lowering of standards for climber competence and safety, to the point that certain companies will “take absolutely anyone up the mountain, regardless of experience, and cut corners on safety standards.”
 
One company that’s particularly notorious for taking human life lightly is Seven Summit Treks.  Unlike other firms that usually limit their expeditions to 20 people, Seven Summit “is known to take as many as 100 climbers up the mountain — many of whom are unprepared for the altitude and physical exertion.”
 
The company also offers a VIP Everest Expedition “designed for those seeking to summit Mt. Everest in the utmost comfort and convenience” whether they are “an experienced climber or a first-timer for 8000er.”  The expedition includes lessons at Everest basecamp on “ice wall climbing, ladder crossing, and other techniques that will be required for the ascent” – skills you’d think anyone who hopes to climb the world’s highest mountain would have already mastered.
 
This piece has gone from the depths of the sea with the recent OceanGate tourism tragedy to the heights of the earth with lives lost seeking to summit Everest.  So, what do these two elevation extremes and all the options in between mean for those providing extreme leisure activities?  Here are three potentially helpful considerations:
 
1) It’s hard to judge what leisure is too costly and risky:  I would generally describe myself as cost-conscious and risk-adverse, which makes me want to point my finger at others spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and risking their lives to do things like deep ocean exploring and high-altitude climbing.  Then I remember that I’ve done some leisure activities that others might consider too expensive and risky.
 
More than a decade ago, when my wife and I visited Kauai, we took advantage of what seemed like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity:  to view the breath-taking island by helicopter.  The nearly $200 we spent per ticket certainly could be considered excessive for the 50-minute ride.  Likewise, flying inside canyons on the rugged Napali coast had risk.  Then again, anyone who flies or drives anywhere for a vacation could be accused of incurring unnecessary cost and risk.
 
The point is, it’s difficult to draw a clear line between what is and isn’t excessive leisure.  That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be a line or that anything should go but rather that it might be helpful to consider factors like cost relative to the individual’s income, if not per capita income, as well as the percentage of instances of severe injuries or death for those who engage in the activity.
  
2) Leisure interest can lead to scientific discovery:  Sometimes people’s leisure leads to discoveries that benefit much larger groups of people.  For instance, amateurs have documented unique animal behaviors and even discovered new species.
 
People pursing their recreational passions also have played significant roles in advancing fields like avionics and computing.  Most recently, companies including SpaceX are leveraging what they’re learning from offering space tourism to create the potential for dramatically faster point-to-point travel on earth, such as a flight from New York City to Shanghai that might only take 40 minutes.
 
3) Consumers’ safety is critical:  Ultimately, what matters most for companies marketing recreation of any kind, including extreme tourism, is safety.  Of course, before people participate in dangerous activities, organizations must clearly communicate the risks.  It’s fine to ask participants to sign waivers; however, those releases should never become substitutes for taking every reasonable step to ensure that individuals simply looking for a pleasurable leisure experience don’t return injured or dead.
 
It seems that the two extreme tourism companies mentioned above have both fallen short of this critical standard.  Since OceanGate’s Titan submersible exploded, many have reported that there were serious safety concerns surrounding the structural integrity of the deep-diving craft.  Similarly, beyond Seven Summits Treks’ questionable onboarding practices described above, the firm’s owner resists rules for who should or shouldn’t enter into Everest’s death zone; instead, he recommends, “If [people] have enough energy, they can go.”
 
As Baby Boomers and Gen Xs look for a last hurrah and experience-driven Gen Ys and Zs gain disposable income, it’s likely that demand for extreme tourism will continue to increase.  Companies that want to capitalize on this trend should ensure that the benefits they provide to clients are proportionate to the costs they incur.  In addition, others outside the exchange shouldn't be asked to bear costs (e.g., environmental degradation, rescue costs) without receiving benefits.
 
Above all, organizations must do everything possible to ensure their clients’ safety.  In an often-unpredictable natural world complicated by periodic human error, safety can seldom be guaranteed.  However, at 3,800 meters below sea level or 29,000 meters above it, companies should have air-tight models for returning their clients safely; otherwise, they’re liable for “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
10 Comments

Why Did the PGA Stop Keeping Score with LIV?

6/20/2023

5 Comments

 
Picture

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

“If you can’t beat them join them.”  This old adage, suggesting that adversaries become allies, has been used to describe everything from Vichy France aligning with Nazi Germany to Apollo Creed training Rocky Balboa.  Now a very surprising real-life sports pairing has made ethics appear expendable or at least raised the question:  Is it okay to have a moral change of mind?
 
The Professional Golfers’ Association’s (PGA) decision to merge with LIV Golf was a move that virtually no one expected.  Even professional golfers and analysts who cover the game were shocked by the news.  The PGA’s sudden change of heart, which went from viewing LIV as a bitter rival to a bedfellow also represented for many an epic moral capitulation.

Over the past year, the PGA and LIV have been “at war.”  The PGA had threatened to suspend golfers who defected to LIV and even ban them for life.  Why such acrimony?  Of course, no organization wants a new competitor, especially one that steals its product (golfers) and commandeers its place (golf venues).
 
However, the PGA’s disdain for LIV was rooted in more than competition-fueled conflict.  Many in the veteran golf association, as well as others, took issue with LIV’s funding source – the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, the nation of origin for 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks and a country known for human right abuses.
 
In an interview just a month ago, the PGA’s CEO, Seth Waugh, was heard “trashing” LIV Golf ahead of the PGA Championship.  How is such a seemingly irreconcilable relationship so suddenly  repaired?  One ESPN piece, “How the shocking PGA Tour-LIV Golf deal went down” details the events leading up to the proposed merger and its players, while another describes how the unification, which also includes the DP World Tour (Europe), might solidify the sport long-term.
 
This Mindful Marketing article doesn’t pretend to know what’s best for the future of professional golf; rather, it aims to ask a more general philosophical question:  Was it okay for the PGA to have a moral change of mind?  
 
Of course, it’s not organizations but the individuals that manage them who make decisions, including ethical ones.  Most of us have experienced that our initial inclinations are not always optimal.  As evidence, we’ve all mistakes and often realized later the option we should have selected.
 
Imperfect decision-making is a thread that has run continually through human history and often involved ethics.  For instance, decisions in favor of racial segregation in the U.S. in the 19th- and 20th century are ones that most Americans now reject, as are the choices that kept women from voting until 1920.
 
​
Picture
 
Realizing the error of one’s way and self-correcting a moral stance is a good thing.  However, it’s also important to help others understand the reason for the reversal.  Intelligent, inquiring people want to know not just that a judgment that was A is now B but why it’s changed  That’s where moral reasoning helps. 
 
In a moral argument, a person first identifies a moral standard then suggests one or more alleged facts, which lead to a conclusion, or moral judgment.  A month ago, it seemed that many PGA supporters/LIV detractors morally reasoned along the lines of the following:
  • Human rights should be upheld. (moral standard)
  • Saudi Arabia has not upheld certain human rights. (alleged fact 1)
  • LIV Golf’s funding come from the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. (alleged fact 2)
  • LIV Golf’s funding source taints the league. (alleged fact 3)
  • It’s wrong for professional golfers to play for LIV. (moral judgment)
 
Then, without notice, the PGA reversed course, announcing its merger with LIV and thereby introducing a new moral judgement:  It’s fine for professional golfers to play for LIV.
 
Again, there’s nothing wrong with having a moral change of heart, especially if it’s the result of ethical enlightenment.  However, others deserve to know what changed the moral judgment, which is where the PGA fell short of the cup.
 
A year ago, PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan was invoking the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a main reason to reject LIV.  Now, he will reportedly serve as CEO of the newly created company.
 
Monahan and the PGA have offered little evidence that their change of heart had anything to do with recognition of either a more compelling moral standard or more salient alleged facts such as, ‘Saudi Arabia’s record on human rights is improving’ or ‘Where money comes from doesn’t matter as much as what’s done with it.’
 
Moreover, it appears that the PGA has made a wholesale change in its moral decision-making from principle-based ethics, or nonconsequentialism, to outcome-based ethics, or consequentialism.  Evidence of this philosophical shift can be seen in recent statements from the PGA and Monahan that focus not on upholding specific moral principles but on prioritizing outcomes for the game of golf, for instance:
 
“We are pleased to move forward, in step with LIV and PIF’s world-class investing experience, and I applaud PIF Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan for his vision and collaborative and forward-thinking approach that is not just a solution to the rift in our game, but also a commitment to taking it to new heights. This will engender a new era in global golf, for the better.”
 
Understandably, given what’s transpired, this explanation has failed to reach the green for many of the tour’s most important stakeholders.  Many top professional golfers, have felt blindsided by the decision and left to wonder what inspired it.  Rory McIlroy, the third ranked golfer in the world, said he was surprised by news of the merger, he felt like a “sacrificial lamb,” and he hated LIV and hoped it would go away.
 
Similarly, hall of fame golfer Tom Watson sent a letter to Monahan questioning the merger Watson also acknowledged that his skepticism about the new structure has been “compounded by the hypocrisy in disregarding the moral issue.”
 
If the merger goes through, professional golf, with its strong new financial backing and consolidation will likely thrive.  However, the PGA’s pivot has left a moral divot that will not be easily replaced.
 
It’s the prerogative of any person and professional sports association, to have a moral change of heart.  However, when such happens, it’s also important to say why.  By not explaining how it so quickly arrived at a very different moral judgment about LIV, the PGA hit the ball into a bunker of “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
5 Comments

Higher Ed's Big Gamble on Sports Betting

3/26/2023

 
Picture

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

For centuries, universities have been places where students study philosophy and sharpen professional skills.  Are colleges now becoming locations where young minds learn to place prop bets and parlay their winnings?  As more schools find gambling partners, those educational outcomes seem less like longshots.
 
By now most basketball fans’ March Madness brackets have been busted, which is not a big deal, provided they didn’t put down dollars on those picks.  Of course, the risks of such bets increase with the amount of money wagered, but they also rise as gamblers’ ages decline.  So why are some universities encouraging their own students to try sports betting?
 
According to the New York Times, schools that have established such partnerships include Michigan State, Louisiana State University (LSU), Maryland, University of Denver, and the University of Colorado.  The executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, Keith Whyte, claims that eight or more universities have inked similar deals, and “at least a dozen athletic departments and booster clubs have signed agreements with brick-and-mortar casinos.”
 
Why would institutions that families trust to guide the next generation down paths of enlightenment and prudence, expose their students to activities that may strain relationships, double debt, and spell insolvency?  The simple answer is money.
 
Many colleges and universities have long felt the pinch of revenue lost from declining enrollment and rising costs, including meeting expectations for best-in-class facilities and services.  Corporate sponsorships often have helped bridge such fiscal divides, but when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized sports gambling in May of 2018, the doors swung wide open for all kinds of institutions to enter partnerships with oddsmakers.
 
In 2020, the University of Colorado Boulder signed a $1.6 million contract to promote sports gambling on its campus, and the deal that LSU inked with Caesars Sportsbook in 2021 is worth seven figures. Higher education may have been a little late to the gaming table, but now that some schools have gone all-in, others are likely to follow.
 
​
Picture
 
Of course, money is also a motivator for gaming companies.  The ability to realize untapped revenue is understandably attractive to them.  However, compared to other demographic groups, the young and green-to-gambling college-age market has special long-term appeal.
 
I remember years ago a client of our family’s promotional products company, a local bank, had created a special savings account for children called “Mega Bucks.”  It featured a variety of kid-friendly incentives, the unambiguous intent of which was to forge relationships with young savers before their bank loyalties could be deposited elsewhere.
 
“Get ‘em while they're young” is a common mantra among marketers.  Given that consumers are creatures of habit, constrained by switching costs, it’s often hard to persuade people to try a new product, especially when they’re satisfied with what they have.  So, it’s understandable that organizations from banks to bookstores to bars want to reach the youngest age cohorts able to use their services.
 
Gambling companies want to do the same, i.e., reach young gamblers for the sake of current and future profits.  One of the best ways to do so is through sports since most young people have no history with horseracing or blackjack, but many are avid fans of football, basketball, etc.
 
In all but four states, these firms can’t target consumers below age 21, but as with alcohol advertising, spillover into younger demographics is inevitable.  It’s impossible to keep ads from Caesars Sportsbook and BetMGM that air during televised sporting events from influencing viewers who are 20 or, for that matter, 12, especially when they employ popular celebrity endorsers like Jamie Fox and former NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning.
 
Moreover, actual gambling for those underage isn’t hard to accomplish, as many betting firms provide little resistance thanks to very loose screening processes.  For instance, FanDuel Sportsbook PA’s $1,000 No Sweat First Bet, which promises new customers “Up to $1,000 back in bonus bets,” provides the following easy entry:
 
  • When you click on “JOIN NOW,” a list of about 20 states appears.  Choosing Pennsylvania produces a “Create an Account” form that asks for an email address, username, and password but not a birthdate or age.
  • A sentence in small type, just above the “Create and Account” button reads, “Users must be 18+ (21+ in MA) to play Fantasy and 21+ to place bets on Sportsbook.”  There’s nothing more on the page to prohibit underage gambling beyond that soft admonition.
  • If someone is inquisitive enough to click on Terms of Use, they’ll find a 161-page document with more than 76,000 words, which does state that underage gambling is a critical offense and FanDuel reserves the right to “to request proof of age documentation from any applicant or customer.”  Still, what are the chances that anyone, let alone teenagers looking to try something new and exciting, will find the buried disclaimers or be dissuaded by them?
 
The experience in Apple’s App Store is similar.  Three of the top betting apps (FanDuel, Draft Kings, and BetMGM) have age ratings of “17+ Years Old.”  Granted, it’s a standard measure that applies to all kinds of apps; still, it’s easy to imagine how an 18-year-old who wants to bet could interpret the rating as a green light to begin gambling.
 ​
Picture
  
When a potential user clicks on “GET,” there’s no prompt to enter an age or birthday before being served the “Install” button.  On BetMGM’s website, potential users are prompted to enter their email address and last four digits of their social security number before they’re asked their age.  Human nature suggests that the further someone goes in the process, the less likely they’ll be to abort and the more likely they’ll be to rationalize and possibly lie.
 
However, this targeting of young people for sports betting is pedestrian compared to what some college and universities permit through partnerships that “allow sports betting companies to advertise on campus, in athletic venues and, in some cases, directly in students' email inboxes.”  LSU’s contract with Caesars Sportsbook has seen students under the age of 21 receive an email encouraging them to place their first bet.
 
It’s unimaginable to think that a college or university would send its students any kind of invitation to gambling.  As someone who’s worked in higher education for more than two decades, I know that students intrinsically trust communication from their school, which they believe is looking out for their best interests.  For many undergrads, a partnership with a betting firm would seem like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on gaming.
 
Of course, gambling can be exciting entertainment, but at what cost, particularly for those who are still developing their understanding of risk/reward, debt, and addiction?  As just a college sophomore, Saul Malek found himself in “tens of thousands of dollars in debt after two years of betting on sports.”
 
Unfortunately, Malek’s gambling experience is likely to play out increasingly for others, thanks to more universities partnering with betting firms.  Even worse, these youthful indulgences may be setting up the gamblers for a lifetime of financial hardship and relational stress.
 
I recently spoke with a woman who witnessed her father’s gambling addiction firsthand and saw it break up her family.  At age nine, she thought it was normal to go to the racetrack on a school night.  After her dad drained her mom’s bank account and left her stranded outside her work for hours without a ride while he gambled, her mom left him.  Unable to make it on his own, the dad now lives with his grown daughter who must take care of everything for him.
 
There’s a reason ads for betting often contain gaming disclaimers and phone numbers to call about gambling addiction:  It’s a slippery slope on which a simple $5 wager can easily spiral into regular $500 bets on point spreads.
 
It’s also worth noting that the house never loses.  Sure, individual gamblers sometimes make good bets, but overall and long-term, the gaming companies always win – their business models are based on outcome imbalance in their favor.
 
Marketers can target younger consumers for products, provided they’re properly informed and the products truly benefit them.  Back to “Mega Bucks,” There’s a big difference in risks between banking and betting.  For colleges and universities to promote sports gambling is madness any time of year, not just March.  It’s also “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!

Movie Ticket Madness:  Should Choice Seats Cost More?

3/12/2023

4 Comments

 
Picture

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

When you need to get away from others for a little alone time, there’s a place you can go:  the first few rows of a movie theater.  Soon, however, those neck-wrenching seats may be occupied as the nation’s largest movie theater chain implements premium pricing for its cinemas’ more coveted seating.  But, is it right to suddenly charge extra for something that’s been free to audiences since Garbo and Gable graced the silver screen?  
 
Many moviegoers are likely giving a two-thumbs-down rating to AMC Entertainment, the world’s largest cinema chain, for its recent announcement that it will charge higher prices for more sought-after middle-of-theater seats.
 
It’s natural for anyone who pays their own hard-earned money for things to dislike price increases, especially when there seems to be no reason beyond a business’s realization, “We can charge for that.”
 
Movie theaters, however, have endured very hard times over the past decade.  First, streaming services and home entertainment centers lured away from theaters many who realized they could enjoy a cinematic experience in the comfort of their own homes.  The pandemic’s quarantines and social distancing exasperated that trend.  Most recently, inflation has caused many consumers to monitor more carefully their discretionary spending.
 
To call these events “challenges” is like calling Tom Hanks “some actor.”  Rather, they’ve been existential threats, as Cineworld unfortunately knows.  Last September, the world’s second largest movie theater chain and owner of Regal Cinemas, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
 
Maybe premium-priced seating is something movie theaters must do to stay solvent.  In many other industries, such variable pricing is a staple of their revenue streams:
  • Live theatre, concerts, and sporting events have long charged more for better seats.
  • All kinds of service providers, from car washes to hair salons, demand more for higher levels of service.
  • Many goods producers charge more for their premium products and more sought-after brands, for instance, automakers are well-known for various trim levels (DX, LX, ELX, etc.) and some, like Toyota, offer higher-end vehicles under a different brand, e.g., Lexus.
 
Ultimately, most product pricing decisions come down to supply and demand.  Whether they’re from Gap or Gucci, products that are in greater demand tend to cost more.  As price rises, quantity demanded decreases, helping ensure that supply can keep pace.
 
In free markets, businesses decide what they want to sell, and consumers choose what they want to purchase.  No one has to go to a movie theater or when there, purchase a premium seat.  It’s their choice to do those things, which makes it hard to argue that AMC is in any way acting unfairly.
 

Picture
 
So, charging more for certain cinema seats probably isn’t unethical, but is it really an effective business strategy?
 
A main problem with the premium approach is likely consumers’ perceptions ingrained from years of cinematic experience.  For more than a century, moviegoers have freely chosen their theater seats, including those in the center.  It’s hard to suddenly start charging for something that people have been getting for free, especially when an upcharge seems unwarranted.
 
In contrast, the seats in the very front of the theater seem like they should cost less.  In fact, why do theaters even have those close-up seats that few people choose and that have been mocked in sitcoms like Seinfeld.  Of course, theaters need to cover substantial retail space leases and other expenses, which means fitting in as many paying patrons as possible.  However, to demand the same admission price for such suboptimal seating is a big ask.
 
Here’s what movie theaters should consider instead:
  • Raise ticket prices slightly, across the board:  Again, no one likes price increases, but people who want a true cinema experience can tolerate a modest increase.  Moreover, they can understand the need to do so, given the unique pressures theaters have been under, outlined above, and because they see many other organizations doing the same.
  • Discount the close-up seats:  As just mentioned, these seats are significantly less valuable than any others in the theater.  Other events often offer discounts on seats with obstructed views, etc.  Movie theaters could do the same, or they could get creative and give patrons who sit in those seats something extra like a coupon for a free small soft drink or a popcorn-size upgrade.  Consumers may even perceive such incentives as more valuable than a small ticket price discount, and the freebies could be less costly to the theater companies.
 
In a free market, it’s not inherently unethical for AMC or other movie theater chains to charge more for choice seating, but such a strategy probably won’t sit well with consumers, who have chosen those middle seats for free for so long.  For that reason, the ending of this cinematic story will likely be “Simple-Minded Marketing.”
​

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

Play with a Purpose

10/19/2022

6 Comments

 
Picture

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

Bobby eagerly opens his Happy Meal box, tossing the chicken nuggets and fries aside to find the special toy tucked inside.  Kids have repeated that ritual for decades, but Bobby is 32.  While it’s nice that McDonald’s and other companies increasingly meet the need for nostalgia and help grown-ups relive childhood highlights, is selling sentimentalism a good adult-use of time and resources?
 
Cobranding with the apparel company Cactus Plant Flea Market, McDonald’s recently released a limited-edition Happy Meal intentionally targeted to adults.  At $12.69 each, the big kids’ meals aren’t very wallet friendly.  They’ve also disappointed some who couldn’t find a restaurant that had them or who got Cactus Buddy, the apparel brand’s mascot, instead of the classic McDonald’s character they wanted.

Still, buzz has been strong and sales brisk, leading some to conclude that “the promotion has been hugely successful for McDonald’s.”  The fast-food icon is just one of many firms that are playing on nostalgia to target adults for kids’ products, for instance:
 
  • American Girl Cafes host birthday parties and other gatherings just for grown-ups and the dolls they bring.  
  • Play-Doh has created several varieties of its finger-friendly clay in grown-up scents including mom jeans, latte, six-pack, and lawn scent.
  • Kohl’s carries a 4 ft. high legacy Pac Man video arcade game for $450.
  • Amazon has an entire category of “nostalgic toys” that includes the Magic 8 Ball, Lite Brite, Lincoln Logs, Slinky, Spirograph, Candy Land, Operation, Evel Knievel, and Etch a Sketch. 
  • LEGO sells a mini version of Jerry Seinfeld’s bachelor pad from the 1990’s sitcom.  [More about LEGO below]  
 ​
Picture
 
Are these nostalgic products always profitable?  Probably not.  It’s doubtful that any approach the sales volume they once enjoyed; however, given that their design costs have long-since been covered, manufacturing processes have likely improved, little advertising is needed, and they can be sold online with relatively low overhead at premium prices, most of these items probably do make money — their proliferation is evidence.
 
So, it seems that selling nostalgic play to adults is often effective marketing, but is it ethical?
 
Two plausible moral concerns are that when adults play, they waste resources, namely time and money:
  • There’s an opportunity cost that comes with play – when we’re playing we’re typically not doing other things, like working, so we’re being unproductive.
  • Play can be expensive.  Some people spend thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars a year on hobbies such as mountain climbing, boating, skydiving, and car collecting.
 
However, there also are very compelling arguments supporting that people of all ages need to play, or be “joyfully immersed in the moment.”   While there are undoubtedly other benefits, here are five reasons why adults should play:
 
1. To learn:  Videos like this one of lion cubs stalking and pouncing on each other show how play helps them begin to learn to hunt.  Most of us also learned specific and generalizable skills through childhood play.
 
2. To maintain skills:  As we grow older, our physical and cognitive abilities naturally decline.  Play is one way to slow that descent, whether it’s by participating in a low-intensity sport or doing word puzzles.
 
3. To develop relationships:  People build bonds with others in many different settings, e.g., work, school, church, and play.  Friendships often form among individuals on sports teams, chess clubs, hiking groups, etc.  
 
4. To reduce stress:  Life at times has hardships and frustrations.  Physical play helps us burn off anxious energy, while mental engagement in play often elicits laughter, positive thoughts, and good memories that help keep bad ones at bay.
 
5. To serve others:  Each of the above reasons for play are pretty intuitive.  This last one isn’t, at least it wasn’t for me until I connected with a colleague, RJ Thompson, who takes play to another level that one might call play with a purpose.
 
Thompson is the director of digital marketing in the Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business and College of Business Administration at the University of Pittsburgh.  He’s also an award-winning graphic designer and the president of the Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Marketing Association.  Those are impressive credentials, but the reason I reached out to him is because he’s a grown man who still loves Legos.
 
A resident of Bellevue, PA, Thompson recently completed construction of a 45 ft. Lego model of his town’s Lincoln Avenue using over 20,000 of the tiny bricks.  What’s more, with only photos for reference and using as many as 30,000 bricks, he spent six months building a 30”L x 30”W x 45”H model of Bellevue’s Andrew Bayne Memorial Library that splits in half to reveal its fine inside detail.  Each model cost thousands of dollars.
 ​
Picture
  
Why would an accomplished professional spend so much time and money playing with building blocks?  Thompson credits LEGO for fanning his creative flame at a very young age and opening for him doors to design, teaching, and entrepreneurship.  However, the impact of these epic Lego projects extends far beyond his personal enjoyment of the pastime.
 
First, the projects have afforded some priceless family time for Thompson and his daughter, who has inherited her father’s curiosity and creativity.  Furthermore, with help he moved the massive models from his home to the Library where they served as the centerpiece of a fundraiser that drew hundreds of people and raised $1,500 for renovations to the Library’s children’s areas.  Many kids were fascinated by the models and inspired to start their own Lego building projects.
 ​
Picture
  
As Thompson’s experience illustrates, play can be more than respite from work, mental relaxation, etc.  Those personal benefits are very important in their own right; however, play can achieve a whole other level of significance when used like Thompson uses it, to serve others.
 
His examples left me wondering, though, with his play becoming so other-oriented, does he still find the same pleasure he once did, building with the miniature bricks?  Thompson says he “definitely does,” adding:
 
“There are some models or kits I see that I absolutely have to have - so there is an anticipatory angle to it where I get excited just as much as my kid does about certain sets.  When it first came out, I had to have Dr. Strange's 'Sanctum Sanctorum' model.”
 
As an artist and a marketer with a heart for play, Thompson shows how a pastime can become even more than a win-win:  Purposeful play can have a triple or even quadruple bottom-line of positive impact.  Those that sell nostalgic play help bring back fond childhood memories and remind us of the benefits of “Mindful Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
6 Comments

Do Subscriptions Make Sense?

7/30/2022

9 Comments

 
Picture

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

“That’s the gift that keeps on giving the whole year”—such was Cousin Eddie’s inane attempt in Christmas Vacation to console a devastated Clark Griswold after he found out his firm gave him a Jelly of the Month Club membership instead of a generous cash bonus.  Clark had good reason to resent receiving a product subscription, but  how should consumers feel about more companies moving to subscription models?
 
If you’re like most people, you’ve noticed a steady rise in reoccurring payments.  Decades ago, monthly bills were restricted to things like rent and utilities, but they’ve since expanded to include regular charges for cellphone plans, movie streaming, and online news.  And, the list keeps getting longer, as even more organizations find opportunities to automatically tap their consumers’ wallets for things like clothing (e.g., Stitch Fix), meal kits (e.g., HelloFresh), and shaving tools (e.g., Harry’s).
 
These examples aren’t particularly surprising—each day people wear clothes, eat food, and shave their bodies, so it makes sense to automate the purchase process and save consumers time shopping for such staples.  However, subscription services for some other products should make any of us wonder, ‘Why?’
 
For example, BMW has begun to offer “heated seat subscriptions” in certain vehicles for $18 a month.  According to James Vincent, writing for The Verge, “BMW has slowly been putting features behind subscriptions since 2020.”  The automaker’s other reoccurring charges include automatic high beams and adaptive cruise control.
 
There’s also sneaker maker Cloudneo, which offers a “100% recyclable running shoe that’s only available by subscription.”  For $29.99 a month, customers receive “an endless supply of shoes.”  When pairs are past their useful lives, customers request new ones while returning their old ones, which the company grinds down and melts into plastic pellets used in its new product manufacturing.
 
These last two examples and several of those mentioned earlier are innovative approaches that reimagine marketing’s 4 Ps.  All share strategic similarities as they fall under the subscription umbrella, but there also are significant and sometimes unsettling differences that make me want to better understand: When is subscription pricing right for both companies and consumers?
 
To answer this question, I turned to someone who has navigated the challenging process of transitioning his company’s signature product from a one-time purchase to a monthly subscription.  Jason Kichline is founder and chief technology officer of OnSong, namesake of one of the world’s most widely used music performance apps.  It allows musicians to digitally store, sort, and customize their music, saving them time and enabling them to focus on what they do best.
 

Picture
 
An annual guest speaker in my capstone marketing course, Kichline has told us of his firm’s deliberations about transitioning the OnSong app from a one-time Apple App Store purchase to a monthly subscription.  OnSong started to offer a feature-enhanced, subscription version of its product a couple of years ago.  This past June, OnSong finalized the monumental move by eliminating the one-time purchase option.
 
For many companies, the decision to go to full sail on a subscription model is simply a matter of what nets the most money, i.e., will more revenue from reoccurring payments offset sales not realized from potential customers who want a one-time purchase?
 
Although OnSong certainly considered income projections, it’s analysis was much more circumspect and other-oriented, which is evident as Kichline explains three main reasons for the move:
 
1.  Relationships:  “We’ve always placed a high value on supporting our users.  A complex and full-featured app like OnSong demands a level of support that goes beyond that of a one-time purchase. A subscription creates the opportunity for a more formal relationship with users and the need to continually provide them with value.  Our goal is to make our customers incredibly happy with the level of service, support, and features we offer.”
 
2.  Continuity:  “Although OnSong has been successful for more than 10 years, many software firms don’t last as long—they go out of business, or they’re acquired.  A developer can keep an app around for a long time for some side money or an owner’s salary, but a buyer typically wants ROI.  For this reason, new owners turn many one-time-purchase apps into subscriptions and try to ‘leverage’ the existing user base.”
 
“Even though app customers often assume they’ll be forced to upgrade to a subscription, we didn’t feel it was fair, so we grandfathered existing users.”  Still, because going out of business also leaves customers stranded, we believe that subscribing to OnSong is the best path forward for all.  A subscription to OnSong is an investment in the company and its product’s future.”
 
3.  Value-Added:  “The defining measure for most consumers is what they receive compared to what they pay.  Although a subscription costs more than a one-time purchase over time, it also provides greater benefits, including important updates and improvements in an ever-changing technological environment.  A cancelable subscription also reduces financial risk for consumers by allowing for product trial, which is often not possible with one-time software purchases.”
 
“Looking to the future, OnSong wants to provide a web-based version of the app that will store music and resources in the cloud, as well as manage bands and teams.  A subscription model supports this additional functionality and added value.”
 
Kichline acknowledges that the transition to a subscription model has not been without challenges, which include effective communication with consumers, who can be swayed by public perceptions in social media.
 
Still, the change has been a good one for OnSong and its customers.  After experiencing one “tight month,” the company’s revenues quickly rebounded to previous levels with continuing growth.  That success should also be taken as a sign of the strength of OnSong’s value proposition in the eyes of consumers—the benefits they receive from the app are well-worth its reoccurring cost.
 
For Kichline, key to the whole process has been “having the mind of the consumer.”  His analysis above and this summary statement make me ask:  Do the subscriptions for BMW’s heated seats and Coudneo’s recyclable running shoes show an understanding of “the mind of the consumer” and a desire to truly meet customers’ needs?
 
Cloudneo’s product subscription may represent such a market orientation for certain hardcore runners who cycle through sneakers at a rapid clip.  They might wear out a pair of running shoes every few months and could easily spend $360 or more per year on performance footwear.
 
BMW’s subscription is harder to justify.  In his Verge article mentioned above, Vince raises good points that call into question the automaker’s motives:
 
“BMW owners already have all the necessary components [for the heated seats], but BMW has simply placed a software block on their functionality that buyers then have to pay to remove. For some software features that might lead to ongoing expenses for the carmaker (like automated traffic camera alerts, for example), charging a subscription seems more reasonable. But that’s not an issue for heated seats.”
 
When BMW manufactures vehicles with heated seats, it likely passes on the added material and labor costs to consumers at the time of purchase.  So, the automaker is essentially holding back a feature for which customers have already paid so it can charge twice for what is an increasingly common new car addition.  Such a motive certainly wouldn’t represent a customer-centric attitude.
 
As BMW has shown, there are situations in which paying a reoccurring fee for a product makes little sense for consumers.  However, when companies prioritize the three principles that Kichline has identified (relationships, continuity, and value-added), subscription pricing is “Mindful Marketing.”


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

The Real Beef About Burger Ads

5/22/2022

2 Comments

 
Picture

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?"
 

Picture

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.”


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

Gen Z Students Teach Their Professor About Thrifting

9/10/2021

28 Comments

 
Picture

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

Remember the excitement of your first time wearing a new jacket or pair of shoes?  Did you wonder how the original owner felt when they wore them?  You probably didn’t unless you’ve been part of one of the hottest consumer trends--thrifting.  For a variety of reasons, it’s now fashionable, especially among Generation Z, to shop secondhand, but this Gen X marketing professor wonders if it’s smart for the apparel industry to embrace a fad that may dissuade people from purchasing its new products.
 
Scanning my marketing news feeds a couple of months ago, a headline caught my eye, “Letter from Gen Z:  Why thrifting is the future of fashion.”  Thinking it was a bold prediction, I saved the article to discuss with my fall classes.  The semester started, I shared the piece, and I’m stunned how passionate so many students are about thrifting!
 
However, on the first day of Personal Selling class, before I even mentioned the article, I asked each person to ‘sell us on something important to you.’  With great enthusiasm, a student named Brooke shared how much she enjoyed thrifting.  Her tremendous passion for the practice was obvious to all, and very surprising to me.
 
My impression had long been that shopping for secondhand items was something mostly people on very limited budgets did out of necessity, to save money.  Similarly, those who did frequent aftermarket sellers certainly wouldn’t brag about what they’d bought.  Apparently, that stigma has subsided, and college students, some of whom come from affluent families, are among those most active in propagating thrifting’s new-found popularity.
 
To get a better picture of thrifting behavior among college students, I created a brief online survey that I shared with my four classes; about 70 students completed it.  The results revealed some surprising behavior, for instance:
 
  • 70.4% of students had purchased used clothing three or more times, and 54.9% had done so seven or more times.
  • The most likely places to purchase used clothing were traditional thrift stores like Goodwill and Salvation Army (39.4%), followed by retailers and brands that sell both new and used clothes, such as H&M and Levi’s (33.8%), then consignment stores (22.5%), and finally flea-markets (7.1%).
  • The strongest motivations for buying used clothing were cost (49.3%), followed by fashion (16.9%), then desire for old/vintage (11.27%), then impact of influencers (2.8%), and last environmental concerns (1.4%).
 
Before the survey, I didn’t think that so many college students were actively thrifting.  To my surprise, only 9.9% of those who responded, said they’ve never purchased used clothing.  I was also surprised that the places they thrift are rather evenly distributed.
 
Comparing the two different findings, it’s remarkable that the percentage of those who are very likely to frequent even the least popular thrifting place, flea-markets (7.1%), is not much lower than the portion of people who have never thrifted (9.9%).
 
On one hand, seeing cost emerge as the top motivator for thrifting was not surprising; however, I had expected its percentage to be even higher, e.g., 90% or more—again, I always thought that saving money was the only reason people purchased used clothing.
 
As it turns out, the desires to be fashionable and to own old/vintage clothing were also very compelling.  Along those lines, I realized that my simple survey failed to ask about what may be one of the most important motivations!
 
At the end of the survey, an open-ended question invited respondents to share any other thoughts about thrifting.  Seventeen students seized the opportunity and offered responses that included the following:
  • “I love it so much!”
  • “I love to thrift and over half of my closet is thrifted.”
  • “Very cheap way of finding trendy clothes”
  • “It’s how I get 90% of my clothes.”
  • “I love that I can find articles of clothing that no one else is likely to have. Thrift finds are one of a kind. I also buy clothes from stores like Target, but my purchases [there] are not as unique [emphasis added] because other people have the ability to buy the same thing. Thrifting grants me a more unique [emphasis added] wardrobe!”
  • At least 50% of my clothes are thrifted, I absolutely love thrifting - both because it limits waste in the fashion industry and because it’s fun! [emphasis added]
 
The last two comments contained two words that were both eye-opening and full of marketing implications:


1) Unique:  I remember, not long ago, when young people wanted to look like everyone else.  To be one of the few people who didn’t have the popular brands of sneakers or jeans was often an ostracizing experience. 
 
Now it seems that many Gen Zers want to own clothing that not everyone else is wearing.  Moreover, items that are one-of-a-kind, like those that can be found through thrifting, are even better, as they help express individual identity, which mass marketed products can’t easily accomplish.


2) Fun:  In my thrifting survey, I kind of included a question about wanting unique clothing (“old/vintage”), but I completely overlooked the idea that members of Gen Z thrift because they enjoy the thrill of the experience.  

For many, thrifting is a kind of treasure hunt in which they may or may not know exactly what they’re looking for, and what they find may be a complete surprise.  It’s exciting for almost anyone to come across something special that others are unlikely to locate.
 
Both of these motives, as well as some of the others, are instrumental to the thrifting behavior of Brooke, introduced above, who has been buying secondhand products for 3-4 years and goes thrifting once every two or three weeks.  In those outings, Brooke has found used bargains on everything from American Eagle clothing, to Ugg boots, to Vera Bradley bookbags.
 
Cost is certainly a motivation for Brooke; in fact, she says she loves saving money and showing people the great buys she gets for ¾ of regular retail prices.  She also says that she now has “a hard time spending full price on clothing at retail stores.”  However, Brooke also enjoys the excitement of thrifting:
 
“I get a thrill in not knowing what I’m going to find. You don’t know if you’ll walk in and find brand new Nike shoes for $40 or Lululemon leggings for $30, and that’s the fun in thrift shopping, the unknowns.”
 
There’s little question that many members of Gen Z enjoy thrifting for a variety of reasons, but what can/should marketers do with that consumption behavior?  After all, most clothing brands are in the business of selling new clothes, not used ones.  Some, however, have found ways to do both, and apparently make money.
 
One of those brands is the iconic blue jean maker Levi’s, which has made an entire enterprise out of buying back and reselling its used denim.  The company runs a well-developed website, Levi’s SecondHand where it resells its classic jeans, jean shorts, denim jackets, and more.
​
Picture
 
Even though they’re used, the items aren’t cheap.  For instance, the site sells preowned men’s original fit 501 jeans for $38.  On a recent Labor Day sale, Macy’s offered the same jeans new for $41.70, or less than $4 more.  Levi’s used product site also sells Vintage 501 Shorts for a pricey $78 a pair.
 
However, a webpage that describes Levi’s SecondHand explains why someone would want to pay a premium for preowned: “Denim from past seasons that’s already beat-up and broken in. In other words, perfect.”—That sentiment is very similar to the survey finding mentioned above about generation Z liking clothes that are old, vintage, and unique.
 
The company also touts several other advantages of SecondHand, especially sustainability:
 
“If everybody bought one used item this year, instead of buying new, it would save 449 million pounds of waste.” 
 
“Levi’s SecondHand keeps coveted pieces in circulation. It’s all about connecting people to timeless styles they otherwise may not have found, and most importantly, saving clothing from going into a landfill. Old denim has never looked better.”  
 
A big question that remains is if selling secondhand is sustainable for Levi’s.  Sure, used denim may be what consumers want and what the environment needs, but can the company make money in the clothing aftermarket?  If not, the program has little potential.
 
Levi’s SecondHand isn’t yet a year old, so longevity is still not the best indicator.  However, if the company is successful selling some used products for only a few dollars less than they sell for new, and others for even more, it seems likely that the firm, free from manufacturing costs and with relatively little added overhead, must make a healthy margin on each piece and turn a profit on the program as a whole.  Interestingly, over the past year Levi’s stock price has increased significantly, from $12/share on September 21, 2020, to $26.50/share on September 6, 2021.
 
Can other clothing companies pull off a secondhand program like Levi’s?  Few have the history and brand equity that the iconic jean maker enjoys; however, consumers’ appetite for used clothing and the favorable cashflow suggested above serve as an invitation to other suppliers.  Furthermore, the fact that those who have entered the aftermarket include clothing retailers J.C. Penney, Macy’s, Madewell, and Nordstrom, as well as the furniture behemoth IKEA, suggests the viability of selling secondhand.
 
When you think about it, it’s not unusual for manufacturers and new product retailers to sell used products.  Auto dealerships have been doing so for a century or more.  Part of the reason people are willing to pay so much for new cars is that they know when they’re done driving them, someone else will buy them.  Whether it’s Levi’s or Lexus, high resale value is a hallmark of a strong brand.
 
Still, an important moral issue remains, which a second member of Gen Z brought to my attention.  Katie, also a marketing student of mine, helped me see that consumers have a responsibility to ‘thrift ethically.’  Inspired by a variety of posts she’d seen on Instagram and a visit to a thrift store in Colorado, Katie suggested that consumers shouldn’t shop in “low-volume, high-populated areas” and that they should avoid patronizing secondhand places “outside of their fiscal demographic."
 
The overarching reason for these sensitivities is that some desirable-brand item that we buy in a thrift shop as a ‘little luxury’ might be the same item that a more impoverished person would buy out of necessity.  As consumers, we are often accustomed to there being plenty of products for everyone, but Katie reminded me that what we buy secondhand may be taking something away from someone who needs it more.  
 
Of course, not every product lends itself to a profitable aftermarket, but many do.  Consequently, for the sake of environmental, financial, and social stewardship, more companies and consumers should consider how they might responsively market and purchase preowned products.  Whether new or used, items that offer value to buyers and profit to sellers, can be considered “Mindful Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
28 Comments

Help Wanted, Marketing to Prospective Employees

7/31/2021

8 Comments

 
Picture

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

While eating lunch at a favorite restaurant recently, my son and I noticed that the menu was much shorter than before.  The Italian eatery was no longer even offering one of its standard selections, pizza!  After our meal, I asked our waitress about the simpler spread.  She explained it was because they couldn’t hire enough cooks to prepare additional entrées.
 
You’ve likely seen signs in restaurants, ads from retailers, and posts on social media from other service providers announcing pressing needs for more employees.  While the recent labor shortage has been a boon to job seekers, it’s been a bummer for many businesses that find themselves perpetually understaffed.  However, firms can turn their current recruitment challenges into opportunities if they rethink how they market to prospective employees.
 
Like many professors, I’ve invested considerable time helping students get jobs, both internships during college and career positions after graduation.  What has for decades been largely an employer-oriented sellers’ market has suddenly shifted.  Now employers are increasingly competing for new hires.  As a result, it behooves businesses to go back to school and brush up on their marketing, not to attract customers but to contract employees.
 
In a few days, I'll participate on a panel for that purpose, joining three others to engage employers in a discussion of how to recruit college students and recent grads more effectively.
 
Being both a marketer and a college faculty member, I hope to offer a unique perspective, mainly based on two-plus decades helping get students gainfully employed.  I’m fairly familiar with Gen Z’s preferences in the recruiting process.  So, in case there’s any overlap between the panel audience and this one--spoiler alert!  I’m sharing below my recommendations for more effective marketing to prospective employees.
 
It’s probably not surprising that this marketer’s suggestions flow from the 4 Ps.  Although there are several strategies I could encourage for each marketing mix component, I’ve singled out two for each, not because they’re necessarily the most important ones but because they’re the features/benefits that young prospective employees increasingly seek, which means they’re ones upon which employers need to double down:
 
Product 
  • Social Responsibility:  Gen Z’s desire to align themselves with organizations that make a difference is well-documented.  Its members want to have a positive impact on the world, and one of the best ways to do so is to work for “purpose-driven companies.”  Firms should be able to communicate clearly and concisely to prospective employees how they help people and the planet.

  • Attractive Organizational Culture:  Decades ago, when I was entering the job market for the first time, company culture was not on my radar screen.  Now most new hires want to know 'what it will be like' to work for a firm.  I often hear them offer desired descriptors like “low-stress,” “friendly,” and even “fun.”  Interviewers should be prepared to talk about their organization’s culture and point to specific examples.  They also need to model it in their interactions with prospects.

Picture

 Place 
  • Work On-Line:  Through the pandemic, where work occurs has become an increasingly important point of interest.  Many people with whom I’ve spoken have suggested that they’ve enjoyed working from home; in fact, they’d like to continue to work remotely at least some of the time.  As might be expected, most Gen Zs are extremely comfortable with digital technology and very used to interacting with others virtually.
  • Work In-person:  At the same time, people also mention that they miss the impromptu interactions that would occur in office hallways and around the proverbial watercooler.  In taking jobs, many new grads move away from family and friends, so they’re hoping to make new, meaningful connections.  One recent graduate told me it’s harder for her to develop those relationships just from online interactions.  So, it seems that employers should provide at least some opportunities for face-to-face interaction.
 
Promotion 
  • Timely Communication: This past spring a senior student of mine was interviewing with an organization.  The process was going well, but more than once he expressed concern, e.g., “It’s been almost two weeks since my second interview and I haven’t heard from them.”  Granted, two weeks is not an unreasonable wait, but employers should be sensitive to the fact that more job seekers today have multiple options.  So, to not miss the opportunity to make a great hire, firms should at a minimum make clear their timeframe for follow-up communication and even better, move the recruiting process along a little more quickly than it has gone in the past.
  • Transparent Communication:  In keeping with the previous imperative, many college students tell me how much they value transparent communication.  Sometimes I push back and ask, “Do you really want to know everything an organization does?”  They reply, “No, but we don’t like when they hide important things or try to put a positive spin on something negative.”  In short, they want organizations to be open, honest, and genuine.  Companies should be careful to model these values in their communication with prospective employees.   
 
Price 
  • Appropriate Pay:  Professional sports fans often hear of pro athletes wanting to “get paid.”  It’s usually when a star’s current contract doesn’t compensate them in proportion to their productivity.  College-age prospective employees don’t have contracts, but they should ‘get paid’ in the sense that they shouldn’t be lowballed; rather, they should be offered competitive salaries and benefits at if not above market averages.  These young people aren’t looking to squeeze out every dollar they can, but they do have debt to pay and don’t want to have to live paycheck-to-paycheck.  Similarly, unpaid internships should be a thing of the past.
  • Work-Life Balance:  The greatest resource employees give organizations is their time.  Although the prospective employees with whom I speak are very willing to work hard, they rightly want to have sufficient time for other needs and interests outside of the office.  Employers should monitor and encourage healthy work-life balance.  They also should be ready to tell prospective employees about their systems for maintaining an agreeable life equilibrium.    
 
Some sectors, like healthcare, already know well the challenges of employee recruitment and retention:  For years, hospitals have labored to hire enough doctors and nurses.  Now, many employers share their pain.  The above prescriptions can bring some recruitment relief while also helping firms feel better, knowing that they’re practicing “Mindful Marketing.”



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

    Editor

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

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2024
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly