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

Who will be the Adult in the Room with AI?

4/1/2025

11 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing -
author of Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick 

“Like a kid in a candy store” – If you’ve ever experienced unlimited access to your most desired indulgences, you may have appreciated someone stepping in to help you ‘know when to say when.’ AI quickly has become that candy store for many whose mouths are open wide to the technology’s amazing treats but who entertain few thoughts of the actions’ broader impacts. So, who will help AI users ‘know when to say when’?
 
Individuals and organizations are rapidly embracing AI to enhance productivity, from personalizing emails, to providing customer service, to optimizing delivery routes, to predicting machine maintenance, to trading stocks. In fact, several of the AI examples in the last sentence came courtesy of ChatGPT.
 
A financial sign of AI’s rocketing popularity is the report that OpenAI, ChatGPT’s parent, expects its revenue to triple this year to $12.7 billion. That expectation likely stems in part from the current U.S. administration’s promised $500 billion investment in AI infrastructure in an industry partnership called Stargate.
 
It’s not surprising that AI has come so swiftly into widespread use. Criteria that predict how fast consumers adopt new products, or how quickly they diffuse into the market, suggest rapid acceptance of AI:
  • Relative advantage: Compared to the time and effort it takes to draft a report, create a complex image, etc., AI is much quicker, giving it a great economic advantage.
  • Compatibility: AI tools like ChatGPT work well with many of the productivity tools we already use, such as our smartphones’ apps, and the new technology is increasingly integrated directly into other tools.
  • Observability: AI is easy to see around us, from voice assistants (Siri, Alexa), to autocomplete functions (Messages, Word), to map apps (route optimization and traffic updates). We can often observe friends, family, and coworkers using those tools. The challenge, if any, is to realize that those commonplace applications are AI.
  • Complexity and Triability: Although AI is among the most sophisticated technologies humans have ever created, it is very easy to use, e.g., as simple as typing or speaking a command. It’s also easy to experiment with many basic AI tools, e.g., several chatbots, offer free versions, including ChatGPT, Claude, and Copilot.
 
In sum, AI helps individuals and organizations accomplish two of life’s most prized goals: to work more effectively and efficiently. Beyond that practicality, many AI applications are exciting and fun. Some possess a jaw-dropping wow-factor that makes one wonder how the technology can do something so challenging so fast.
 
But just as too much candy can be bad for one’s teeth, too much AI is proving problematic for some of its users, as well as for individuals who barely know about it.
 
Even as many individuals and organizations dive headlong and uninhibited into AI, many others feel some, if not much, dissonance about its use. In a recent survey of knowledge workers that included 800 C-suite leaders and 800 lower-level employees, Writer/Workplace found a wide disparity in perceptions of generative AI, for instance:
  • 77% of employees using AI indicated that they were an “AI champion” or had potential to become one.
  • 71% of executives indicated there were challenges in adopting AI.
  • More than 33% of executives said AI has been “a massive disappointment.”
  • 41% of Gen Z employees were “actively sabotaging their company’s AI strategy.”
  • About 67% of executives reported that adoption of AI has led to “tension and division.”
  • 42% of executives indicated that AI adoption was “tearing their company apart.”
 
Why did AI produce so much angst for these research participants? Unfortunately, the article summarizing the study’s findings didn’t identify the causes; however, I have good guesses of what some of the reasons were.
 
Picture
 
In May 2024, I wrote “Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics” which identified a dozen areas of moral concern related to AI use: Ownership, Attribution, Employment, Accuracy, Deception, Transparency, Privacy, Bias, Relationships, Skills, Stewardship, and Indecency.
 
Looking back 10 months later, a long time in the life of technology, it seems the list has aged well, unfortunately. There are increasingly pressing concerns in each of the areas, such as:
  • Ownership, Attribution, Employment: Google and Open AI recently asked the White House “for permission to train AI on copyrighted content.” Over 400 leading artists, including Ron Howard and Paul McCartney, signed a letter voicing their disapproval.
  • Stewardship: AI is notoriously an “energy hog” whose data centers require far more electricity than that of their predecessors. Jesse Dodge, a research analyst at the Allen Institute for AI, shared that “One query to ChatGPT uses approximately as much electricity as could light a lightbulb for about 20 minutes.” Energy production for AI is the reason Microsoft has signed a deal to reopen the infamous nuclear power plant Three Mile Island.
  • Bias, Indecency: In his article, “Grok 3: The Case for an Unfiltered AI Model,” Shelly Palmer compares AI models that learn from sanitized datasets to xAI’s Grok 3, which has an “unhinged” mode that doesn’t restrict “harmful content—adult entertainment, hate speech, extremism.” Using the opening metaphor, Grok 3 seems like a wide-open candy shop with no adult supervision.
 
Certainly, some people have practical inhibitions about AI because they’re not sure how, when, or why to use it. Others, though, likely have moral concerns, including the ones above. I believe much of that AI dissonance stems from values embedded in every person, regardless of their worldview: principles that include decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility.
 
Granted, we don’t see these values in everyone all the time, but they’re there. Rational people know it’s indecent to show sexually explicit material in public, it’s dishonest to lie, it’s unfair to steal, etc. So when they see AI generating indecent content, creating misleading deepfakes, or appropriating others’ intellectual property, those innate values rightly spur feelings of unease.
 
So, back to the question that opened this piece: Who will keep rapidly advancing AI in moral check? Here are those influencers in reverse order of impact:
 
5) AI Itself: Over time and if trained on the right types of data, AI may become better at identifying and addressing moral issues. However, from my experience, although the technology is good at answering questions, it’s ill-equipped to ask them, especially ones involving ethical issues.
 
4) Laws: Clear-thinking senators and representatives often enact legislation that’s in the public’s best interest. However, given the time it takes to envision, propose, and pass such laws, they inevitably lag behind the behavior they aim to constrain, especially when the actions involve fast-moving tech.
 
3) Industry Associations: These organizations play useful roles in identifying opportunities and challenges that face their members. It takes time, but they often craft values statements and related documents that can help guide moral decision-making. Unfortunately, though, their edicts usually can’t be enforced the ways governments’ laws can, so compliance may be minimal.
 
2) Organizations: When they want to, business and other types of organizations can make decisions quickly. Morally grounded leaders can create policies to promote ethical behavior. The challenge is that even this guidance may not be specific enough for new or very nuanced moral dilemmas, and it’s usually impossible to speak into every action as it occurs.
 
1) Individuals: They are able to address issues as they occur and can be specially equipped for those ethical challenges. When moral issues arise, they are the ones who can and must hit pause and ask, “Yes, AI can do this, but should it?”
 
Rational principle-driven people, who embrace their innate senses of decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility, can quickly question AI's potential ethical encroachment as they see it and pump the brakes on strategies that seem likely to violate one or more of these values.
 
In the candy store that is AI, each of us needs to be the adult in the room. While we need to understand and encourage the many good things AI offers, we also need to know when to say, “That’s enough.” Ensuring that AI rightly serves humanity makes for Mindful Marketing.


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
11 Comments

What Sales AI Can and Can't Do

3/1/2025

2 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 
-
author of Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick 

From writing a simply reply email to creating an $8 million Super Bowl ad, AI is impacting virtually every element of marketing. But what about the area that relies more heavily on human interaction than any other – sales? How much should personal selling embrace machine learning?
 
I received some helpful answers to this question a few weeks ago when I attended a symposium on AI in Sales, hosted by Penn State University, Harrisburg. Although I’ve worked in sales, taught a Personal Selling class for more than 20 years, and given my own presentations about AI, I hadn’t considered many of the potential uses of AI in sales that I learned at the symposium – I took several pages of notes!
 
The event’s keynote speaker was Dr. Michael Rodriguez, an accomplished sales professional who in recent years has transitioned to academia and into his current role as an assistant professor of marketing in East Carolina University’s College of Business.
 
I appreciated how Rodriguez considered the entire sales process, from Prospecting  to Follow Up & Nurture, providing examples that distinguished traditional AI use from generative AI and hybrid applications.
 
Rodriguez also offered some useful specific suggestions for how human sales professionals might lean on AI in their daily work, such as by using the technology to:
  • Aid in prospecting and effectively identifying potential new clients
  • Personalize emails, which Rodriguez said can increase response rates by 70%
  • Help prepare for sales calls so one enters such meetings better informed
  • Identify potential client objections and receive recommendations for overcoming them
  • Customize proposals to a potential client’s specific needs
 
As I listened to these and other recommendations I imagined how they may have helped me when I sold professionally, as well as how they might serve my students as they learn to sell.
 
However, as the symposium neared its close, during a time of Q & A with Rodriguez and a panel of other sales professionals, it was interesting to hear a countervailing theme emerge:
 
Despite the considerable benefits that AI offers sales, salespeople will gain the greatest competitive advantages for the foreseeable future from their unique human inputs.
 
The idea behind this thesis, which seemed to gain widespread agreement among panelists and audience members, was that over time AI will act like many new technologies, first offering advantages to early adopters but eventually entering almost everyone’s repertoire and leveling the playing field for most competitors.
 
Or, to use a poker metaphor, AI will become table stakes – something everyone must have just to get in the game. Determining who ‘wins’ will be the unique intellectual and emotional skills that people bring to the game.   
 
​
Picture

As a flesh-and-blood being, I like the idea of people playing the pivotal role. But more objectively, it does seem like there are several selling activities that AI can’t reliably replicate, at least not now and possibly ever. Based on my experience working in sales and teaching it, these are some of those exclusively anthropic actions:
 
  • Hold a Real Conversation: AI can be very effective at helping salespeople practice selling dialogue by serving as a roleplay partner. However, as the old adage goes, “You can’t take it with you,” meaning in this case, when it comes to an actual selling situation, the salesperson must fly solo, relying on their own experience, intellect, and emotional intelligence to help move the conversation productively forward.
  • Tell a Story: In communication situations, storytelling is one of the most effective ways of gaining and retaining attention and for deducing key learning points that people will remember. Although AI is great at retrieving stories others have shared and compiling “new” ones, it can’t share original anecdotes from lived experience because, of course, it has none. That limitation is unfortunate for AI because personal stories are often the best ones.
  • Interpret Contextual Cues: Does the customer’s facial expression show that they’re happy, sad, or angry? Does their body language suggest that they’re reluctant to proceed or eager to move forward? At some point Meta AI Glasses or other wearable tech may make these inferences and share them in real-time, but at least one communication expert believes they’ll still be inferior: Megan Madsen, Chief Officer, Strategic Communications at Bravo Group in Harrisburg, PA, says, “I don’t think AI will ever replace contextual thinking on a human level.”
  • Find Common Ground: People like identifying things they have in common with others, whether they’re individuals they know, places they’ve visited, sports they follow, or restaurants they enjoy. Shared experiences and affinities help us know others better and relate to them on a more personal level – engagement that isn’t possible for virtual beings.
  • Feel and Express Emotion: How should a salesperson respond when their client mentions that their spouse just lost their job or that their daughters’ soccer team won the state championship? People are uniquely wired to feel empathy (e.g., sadness or joy) and to return emotionally appropriate responses based not just on what was shared but on the client’s emotional state and how well the salesperson knows them.  
  • Laugh: I was at a networking event recently, talking with a marketing professional, when a well-intentioned college student abruptly broke into our conversation held out his hand and said, “Hi, I’m Bob, a junior marketing major at State; what do you do?” I quickly grasped his hand and as I shook it replied, “Not much.” We all laughed. I’m not sure what led me to say that – perhaps it was understanding the context and knowing that the line, which I probably heard someone else say years ago, would offset the awkwardness. Anyway, it seemed like the right humor at that moment, with no assist from AI.
  • Socialize: A very small percentage of all sales are made on golf courses or in stadium club boxes, but it is common for salespeople to get to know customers and discuss business over a meal, in order to save time but more importantly to build relationships. Good things often happen when people break bread together.
  • Identify Moral Concerns: From my experience, AI is not on the lookout for possible ethical infractions, and as several of the preceding bullets have suggested, it usually can’t be present to help make real-time choices. So, if a purchasing agent asks a salesperson to increase their proposal by $500 so the purchasing agent can pocket the excess, what should the salesperson do? Their human knowledge should alert them that they’re being asked to pay a bribe and prompt them to reject the appeal outright.
 
AI applications are redefining the ways marketing is done. Salespeople should use those technological tools to work more efficiently and effectively while also remember that it’s their uniquely human aptitudes that ultimately set them apart. Technological proficiency paired with a genuine personal touch is the best approach for Mindful Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
2 Comments

Birkin vs. Wirkin: Are Knockoff Products Ethical?

2/1/2025

55 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing 
-
author of Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick 

If “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” should one of the world’s most renowned  luxury brands feel honored that an upstart company created a knockoff product and sold it to the masses through a full-line discount retailer for a fraction of the price?
 
Such was the “flattery” paid recently to Hermès, the French fashion house known for finely tailored leather and silk goods and other exquisitely crafted, high-priced items. The specific focus of the emulation was one of Hermès most prestigious products, its Birkin handbag, “the epitome of luxury and style, a true icon in the realm of high fashion.” Surprisingly, the flattery came through . . . Walmart.
 
In choosing a retail strategy, marketers often consider three levels of distribution intensity, or selectivity:
  • Intensive: a product is available virtually everywhere in a very wide variety of retail outlets (e.g., many snack foods are intensively distributed).
  • Selective: the product’s manufacturer more carefully chooses specific retailers that align with the item’s brand image and positioning (e.g., brand-named athletic apparel is often selectively distributed)
  • Exclusive: there are only one or two retail options for purchasing the product (e.g., new cars usually can only be purchased through the manufacturer’s own dealerships)
 
Birkin bags, which sell for $10,000 and up, introduce a whole new level of distribution intensity, even more restrictive than exclusive, that might be called elusive distribution.
 
First, Birkins can’t be purchased through Hermès own website; they must be acquired in-store, and even then, they are very difficult to obtain. Apparently, the bags are not displayed. Someone wanting to buy a Birkin first needs to establish themself as a brand-loyal customer by purchasing a significant dollar value of other Hermès products and by building a relationship with a Hermès sales associate. Only then, the strictly qualified customer might be given the privilege of buying a Birkin.
 
That’s the context that inspired a Chinese firm to create a knockoff bag bearing a striking resemblance to a genuine Birkin, likely with less of the fine craftsmanship and also for a small percentage of Hermès’ price. The company successfully sold many of the bags on Walmart’s website until the page suddenly disappeared, replaced by a "no-longer available" message.
 
However, before the knockoffs were knocked out, many people purchased the Walmart-distributed bags and posted their shrewd finds on social media, leading to a multitude of  lookalike likes and shares and to the coining of the clever name: Walmart + Birkin = “Wirkin.”
 
Helping fuel the knockoff bags’ viral rise was a phenomenon some have dubbed “dupe culture,” which describes the trending consumer tendency of buying less expensive product facsimiles in favor of more prestigious and pricey originals.
 
Saving money and being content with less are often good consumer outcomes, but do they make it right for one organization to cash-in on another’s’ innovation and hard-earned reputation? To answer the moral question, it’s helpful to ask a few factual and legal questions:
 
Q1: Are knockoff products the same as counterfeit products?
No, while knockoff products bear some or even a close resemblance to the originals, counterfeits are designed to be as indistinguishable as possible from the real thing, including specific logos and other proprietary branding. Consequently, counterfeit products typically infringe on companies’ trademarks, making them illegal.
 
Knockoff products, in contrast, are not illegal, in fact, they are commonly found in all types of retail stores, including on supermarket shelves where private label, or store, brands are often placed right next to the manufacturers’ brands they emulate.
 

Picture
 
Some may argue that the intent of both product types is to deceive, but that argument is more tenable for counterfeits, whose creators want consumers to believe they’re purchasing the authentic product. While a knockoff certainly banks on perceived similarities, it’s not pretending to be the original.
 
Q2: Can a handbag be patented?
 
Of the three patent types, utility, design, and plant, a design patent is the one most applicable to a bag. Given that handbags of all types and sizes have been used for centuries for similar purposes, it’s not easy for a bag’s design to meet the criteria for “ornamentality,” which requires that “no alternative designs could have served the same function.”
 
Despite that challenge, Hermès does have a patent claiming unique “ornamental design” for a handbag that appears to be its Birkin.
 
Q3: Can a handbag be trademarked?
 
Trademarks can be secured for a unique word, phrase, symbol, or design used to identify an organization’s products or services. As might be expected, Hermès has trademarked the Birkin name. However, knockoffs like the “Wirkin” bag intentionally avoid using trademarked names, which shifts the question to the product itself.
 
Fortunately for Hermès, it also has for its Birkin bag the less often referenced trademark design coverage called trade dress protection, which is used “to protect the overall appearance of a product or company” and can include “features like color, shape, design, packaging, and more.” Like other types of trademarks, trade dress ultimately helps consumers distinguish one company’s product from another’s.
 
More specific to the Birkin bag, trade dress offers protection for the handbag’s overall distinct design and its unique elements, including the bag’s rectangular sides, rectangular bottom, dimpled triangular profile, and “rectangular flap having three protruding lobes, between which are two keyhole-shaped openings that surround the base of the handles.” Furthermore, “Over the flap is a horizontal rectangular strap having an opening to receive a padlock eye. A lock in the shape of a padlock forms the clasp for the bag at the center of the strap.”

Handbags have a virtually limitless number of design possibilities, but legally, no bag can combine the elements identified above, unless it is a genuine Birkin by Hermès. That’s what the law says, but what about ethics?
 
We always should be careful not to assume that what’s legal is ethical or what’s illegal is unethical. Historically, there have been plenty of exceptions to complete moral/legal overlap, e.g., slavery, segregation.
 
However, in the case of counterfeit and knockoff products, U.S. laws have considerable moral sensibility.
 
Of the five universal values Mindful Marketing routinely applies (decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility), the operant ones here appear to be honesty and fairness. It’s dishonest for a counterfeit product to pretend it’s the authentic item – Like someone claiming a reproduction of a painting is the artist’s original work.
 
In addition, counterfeit products are unfair because their sellers benefit from the original designer’s hard work and creativity with relatively little effort of their own. Counterfeit products also can be considered unfair in that their typically lower quality can tarnish the image, or reputation, of the original brand, particularly among people who thought they had purchased the real thing.
 
In terms of responsibility, one also might argue that counterfeit products enact a broader cost on society as a whole because they disincentivize innovation and entrepreneurship.  
 
As mentioned above, knockoff products are usually legal, unless the item walks too close to the line of the original, in which case it essentially becomes a counterfeit. However, the legality of knockoffs doesn’t make them moral; again, it’s important to view them through the lenses of the five values.
 
Knockoffs tend to uphold honesty in that they don’t pretend to be originals but maintain some visual/verbal separation from them. Shoppers who buy the grocery store brand of chocolate chip cookies know that they’re not getting Nabisco’s Chips Ahoy!
 
​
Picture
 
Fairness is more complicated and shouldn’t be evaluated as if one-size-fits all. In the case of chocolate chip cookies, even though the supermarket makes its store brand loosely resemble Chips Ahoy! by way of product name and package design, Nabisco also benefits by being allowed to sell its cookies in the store, which might represent legal consideration.
 
However, in many cases there is no express benefit-sharing, and to some extent, sales of the knockoff product come at the expense of the original. In these common situations, though, several other factors should be considered.
  • Different Target Markets: Knockoff products often cater to a distinct target market, e.g., people who want slightly different product features or a lower price point, or they don’t want to buy the name brand or what everyone else has.
  • Product Category Growth: The markets for most products start small and grow as more people realize the benefits the products bring. Competing products, including knockoffs, often accelerate that growth and expand primary demand, i.e., they make the market larger than it could become with just one company.
  • Insufficient Supply: When a product category becomes very popular and really blossoms, the market’s first mover often can’t meet all the demand by itself, so it helps to have competitors’ product offerings.
  • Increased Exclusivity: The presence of knockoff products tends to increase awareness of the product category and accentuate the original product’s exclusivity, e.g., Kia’s production of luxury vehicles, some of which resemble those of Lexus, probably encroaches little on Lexus’ sales but rather helps to enhance Lexus’ exclusive image.
  • Makes Companies Better: Few companies would say they want competition, but all benefit from it, maybe for the reasons mentioned above and certainly because competition forces them to become better. As the adage goes, “Iron sharpens iron.”
 
Counterfeits and knockoff products are not the same but are closely connected. The “Wirkin” bag likely disappeared quickly because it flew too close to the sun, legal and morally, i.e., it was a knockoff that too closely resembled a counterfeit Birkin. In an age of rapidly advancing AI and increasingly sophisticated 3D printing, it’s a good reminder that it’s never right to deepfake, or counterfeit, another’s intellectual or physical property.
 
Although there are exceptions, knockoff products can bring a variety of benefits, including ones for the original products their imitation “flatters.” Increased supply, more variety, and fair competition tend to be good things that make for Mindful Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
55 Comments

Can AI Advertising be the Real Thing?

12/1/2024

14 Comments

 
Picture

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

Coca-Cola has a long history of very memorable holiday ads, from its iconic Coke-swigging Santa to the surprisingly peaceful polar bears. This year’s campaign seeks to capture similar feelings of goodwill, warmth, and cheer but with AI-generated output, which raises the question: Should the company that’s touted its product as the real thing for more than a century now be creating advertising that’s not?
 
Longer-tenured consumers like me remember Coca-Cola’s longstanding tagline “The Real Thing,” which the company leaned on heavily in the 1970s following its successful 1969 campaign, “Can’t Beat The Real Thing.” Actually, the company had articulated the theme even earlier, e.g., on painted signs in the 1940s.
 
The notion that Coke is the real thing, or the original cola, can be traced to the late 1800s: Coke came to market in 1886, 12 years before its archrival Pepsi, giving Coca-Cola not only first-mover advantage but the right to boast that any cola coming after it was a mere facsimile.
 
The word real hasn’t appeared in all the company’s advertising, yet Coca-Cola has always sought to position itself as authentic and genuine – distinct branding threads that have woven their way through the company’s varied promotion, particularly in its holiday ads.
 
For instance, the look of the Santa Claus character that many know and love is largely a Coca-Cola creation. In 1931, the company and D'Arcy Advertising Agency tapped Haddon Sundblom, a Michigan-born Illustrator, to create images of Santa Claus for the firm’s ads.

Before then, Santa Claus was often depicted as “everything from a tall gaunt man to a spooky-looking elf.” Sundblom, however, took inspiration from Clement Clark Moore's 1822 poem "A Visit From St. Nicholas" (aka “Twas the Night Before Christmas”) to transform Santa’s image into what’s typical today – “a warm, friendly, pleasantly plump and human Santa.” Such an inviting persona meshed seamlessly with Coca-Cola’s wholesome brand image and helped to further propagate its portrayal as the real thing.


Picture
Beside his appealing personality, Sundblom Santa’s bright red hat and coat, their white trim, and his full white beard also placed him squarely on-brand in terms of colors, and the company used the holiday character heavily over the next several decades.
 
In 1993, Coca-Cola introduced another endearing creation – animated polar bears. Although the company had used a polar bear in a French print ad in 1922, the bears that Coca-Cola creator Ken Stewart designed in the early 1990s developed a much longer-lasting legacy.

In their first television commercial, about sixteen furry white polar bears, each holding a bottle of Coke, sat contently on the artic tundra, oohing and ahhing as they watched the aurora borealis (northern lights). Near the end of the 30-second spot, they sipped their sodas, smacked their lips, and let out one more collective ahh. The commercial culminated with a close-up of one particularly pleasant bear with plump cheeks and friendly eyes that seemed to smile for the camera as it held its frosty soda bottle high.
 
In another 90-second spot from around 2005, the bears crashed the Christmas party of a pack of penguins that were dancing to the Beach Boys’ holiday favorite “Little Saint Nick.” At first the penguins were startled, but after one of their chicks shared a bottle of Coke with a bear cub, everyone smiled and happily joined the festivities. Leave it to Coca-Cola to make even one of the world’s fiercest predators fit its brand.
 
Even as the polar bears’ popularity grew, in 1995 the company unfurled another memorable campaign called “Holidays are Coming” that featured a seemingly endless caravan of light-bedazzled and ornately decorated 18-wheel big rigs sporting Coca-Cola’s trademark script lettering and larger-than-life images of its affable Santa Claus.
 
The spectacular line of long haulers rolled down country roads to the chant of “holidays are coming,” lighting up forests and bridges as they passed and pleasantly surprising a variety of delighted onlookers. Although certain parts of these mid-1990s ads leveraged special effects, much of what viewers saw was real, including the people in the spots. 
 
Thirty years later, these “Holidays are Coming” ads are the inspiration for the company’s new AI-generated campaign, which carry the same name and decked-out trucks but haven’t engendered the same warm response as the original ads.
 

Picture
 
Produced by three different AI studios, the three new AI-generated ads, have received some very frosty reviews. As the New York Times has reported, one critic called the ads “slop” that “ruins the Christmas spirit,” while another claimed the company has significantly lowered its standards with the “heartbreaking” campaign, and a third, Alan Hirsch, the creator of the animated TV show Gravity Falls, suggested Coca-Cola’s signature red represents “the blood of out-of-work artists.”     
 
So, why risk messing with a good thing and the Real Thing by using AI to produce the new ads? A main motivation was likely money, as Garrett Sloan writing for AdAge suggested: “Backers of the technology are excited about how it could bring more creative tools to more people, more cheaply.”
 
It’s easy to imagine that Coca-Cola’s original “Holidays are Coming” ads, with their elaborately decorated trucks, remote outdoor settings, and abundant special effects, were very expensive to produce – probably millions of dollars – and took a long time to script, schedule, shoot, and edit. Why shouldn’t the company leverage technology’s cutting edge to save time and trim expenses?
 
Asking that question seems to fly in the face of the conclusion of my last Mindful Marketing article, “Does Human Made Matter?” in which I deduced, Yes, it matters. So, why was AI use out-of-bounds a few weeks ago but in-play now?
 
While some suggest that AI shouldn’t be used for anything and others argue that all AI use is acceptable, I stand between the two extremes. I’m firmly in the middle but will lean a little closer to one side or the other based on the efficacy of the application and the ethics of the situation.
 
As the last Mindful Marketing article suggested, many value originality in art and appreciate a sense of personal connection with the art’s creator, such as ones stemming from shared life experiences. Human connections and true originality are both things that are difficult if not impossible for AI to replicate.
 
On the other hand, most people probably don’t mind if AI generated a promotional email they received or was used to create a billboard they read.
 
The ultimate purpose of most advertising is to sell products, so although advertising is part science and part art, it doesn’t have the same thresholds for originality and personal connection as pure art does. Most people probably feel a deeper human connection with a favorite painting or song than they do with a Coca-Cola promotional piece. The notion that there’s a different standard for commercial content opens the door for AI use in advertising.
 
Someone who sees firsthand the effective and ethical use that marketing can make of AI is Matt Caylor, Account Director with Martin Communications, Inc., located near Harrisburg, PA. While he warns against blindly accepting AI output, which can be dangerous because it’s not always correct, Caylor also has experienced many productive uses of the technology including copy iteration, data analysis, and design assistance, as he explains:
 
“The technology can save time in editing and design, taking some of the mundane or tedious work off our plates. It can work as a partner in the initial iteration of messaging, often acting as an agent to bounce ideas off. It can be an agile assistant that reviews and analyzes large data sets, crunches numbers, or helps develop new queries.”
 
Does human input matter to Caylor and others at Martin Communications? It surely does, and like many others working in marketing, Caylor and his colleagues are continually learning how to effectively integrate their own insights with the technology tools – just as humans have done for millennia.
 
So, does it matter if Coca-Cola’s “Holidays are Coming” ads aren’t the Real Thing. Yes and no.
 
It matters in that consumers’ perceptions, whether correct or not, are their reality. For instance, some viewers seem to believe that all the people in the ads are AI-generated, even though Pratik Thakar, Coca-Cola’s VP and global head of generative AI, says at least some are not. Still, when people perceive a little AI in an ad, their tendency is to extrapolate that everything in it is AI.
 
On the other hand, Coca-Cola is only doing what Caylor and individuals in many other fields do each day – use AI selectively and responsibly to leverage their own time and talents. As Thakar explains: “Our human creatives make decisions and use AI as a tool.”

There’s nothing inherently wrong with Coca-Cola’s using AI as a tool to help create its new “Holidays are Coming” ads. However, given individuals’ current impressions of AI, because people have special expectations for authenticity around the Holidays, and since Coca-Cola has built a reputation for realism, the company’s AI use in the ads may have been too much too soon, or a case of Simple-Minded Marketing.


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

A Decade of Very Demure, Very Mindful Marketing

10/1/2024

1 Comment

 
Picture

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

It’s hard to believe that Mindful Marketing has been shining a light on ethics in the field for ten years! TikTok didn’t exist in September 2014, when I wrote “CVS Quits Smoking,” the very first article on MindfulMarketing.org. Likewise, the appetite for influencer content, such as Jools Lebron’s “Very demure, very mindful” viral videos, was just starting to grow. The world looked different in many ways during the fall of 2014:  
  • Barrack Obama was a year-and-a-half into his second term as president.
  • Prince Harry was still single and part of the British royal family.
  • Tom Brady had won just three of his seven Super Bowls.
  • Instagram was only six years old.
  • Apple’s newest phones were the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.
  • On May 23, Tesla stock closed at a mere $13.82 a share.
  • Russia had invaded Crimea just a half year earlier.
  • George Floyd was still alive.
  • The #MeToo movement was several years away.
  • The world didn’t know what a global pandemic would be like.
  • It was still a year before Volkswagen’s notorious Dieselgate.
  • The URL MindfulMarketing.org was still available.
  • I had less gray hair
 
When I created the Mindful Marketing concept and Mindful Matrix ten years ago, I dreamed of doing the impossible: moving the needle on ethics in my field. As most people realize, marketing unfortunately has a reputation for being among the most morally suspect professions.
 
Each year Gallup conducts a poll in which it asks respondents to rate the honesty and ethical standards of 20 or so occupations. Inevitably, at the top of the list are jobs like doctor, nurse, and pharmacist, while near the bottom are several marketing occupations such as telemarketer, advertising practitioner, and car salesperson.
 
High-profile morale lapses like Volkswagen developing a defeat-device to trick emission tests, Wells Fargo employees creating fake accounts, and Turing Pharmaceutical’s CEO Martin Shkreli increasing the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000%, have suggested that marketing ethics are easily forgotten.
 
Several other fields like accounting and law have continuing education requirements that include focus on ethics. Unfortunately, marketing does not. Consequently, a main aim of Mindful Marketing has always been to make ethics sticky.
 
A research paper I coauthored by Laureen Mgrdichian, published in Marketing Education Review, explains how Mindful Marketing utilizes a common analytical tool, a 2 x 2 matrix akin to the Boston Consulting Group’s portfolio matrix, to encourage conversations about ethical issues. The article also describes how Mindful Marketing leverages branding – a tool that organizations large and small use to differentiate their products from those of competitors and make them more memorable, i.e., stickier.
 
Admittedly, in ten years Mindful Marketing hasn’t come close to grabbing the incredible social media attention that Jools Lebron has gained in a few months – 2.2 million followers on TikTok – but it has received other significant recognition and exposure including:
  • Dozens of articles republished on CommPro.biz
  • Interviews by The New York Times, Fast Company, U.S. News & World Report, National Public Radio, and The Boston Globe
  • Many speaking opportunities such as at the American Marketing Association’s annual Leadership Summit, the Marketing & Public Policy conference, the Marketing Management Association conference, and a special AI-focused conference of the British Academy of Management.
 
The most exciting new development is that there will soon be a Mindful Marketing book!

Picture

I’ve signed an agreement with Kendall Hunt to write “Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick,” which should be published this December. I am grateful to have been granted a sabbatical from teaching this fall to work on the book, which is now 80 percent complete.
 
Over the years, several people have asked me whether I might write a book on Mindful Marketing. Initially, I brushed off the suggestions, but as the site’s marketing ethics content continued to grow and gain traction, I began to give the idea more serious consideration.
 
A few years ago, I traveled back in the Mindful Marketing archives to September 2014, reviewed all the articles from that time forward, and curated them into specific categories to match topics I teach in my business ethics class. There are now over 320 Mindful Marketing articles, which provide a wealth of choices for engaging real-world applications to almost any ethical issue in marketing imaginable.
 
The articles have served my business ethics students well for discussions of topics ranging from utilitarianism, to economic and social justice, to decency. So, I thought if Mindful Marketing works for my course, it might work for others' classes. Moreover, a book seemed like the logical way to extend Mindful Marketing’s reach.
 
Some may wonder why marketing should be the focus of a business ethics book. Among other strong support, there are the arguments that marketing:
  • “Is the distinguishing, unique function of business”
  • “Is the lifeblood of any company”
  • Touches every business area
  • Directly impacts consumers many times a day
  • Is used by business leaders (e.g., CEOs, VPs, partners)
  • Is used by everyone (e.g., market their ideas, themselves)
  • Is replete with moral issues to which students can readily relate
 
While students are the primary audience, I believe the book also will have value for marketing practitioners, who are the ones making the moral decisions that ultimately determine the ethical perceptions and realities of the field. Of course I’m biased, but I believe the book also will be an interesting read for anyone who is intrigued by, or concerned about, marketing’s unique impact on our world.
 
Most important, my hope is that the book will encourage more students-turned-marketing-professionals to hit pause and ask if the strategies they see or plan to use are Mindful Marketing.
 
Our world will be a better place when there are more professionals like Kaylee Enck, who even when hearing about a rom-com’s unconventional promotional approach, remembered the Mindful Marketing conversations she engaged in a few years earlier as a student, felt moral dissonance, and questioned the film producer’s strategy. Kaylee’s experience and others like hers show that Mindful Marketing’s stickiness offers strong hope for making an impact on ethics in the field.
 
It’s interesting to see how much more often the word mindful is used now than it was a decade ago. Sometimes the contexts are physical health, or mental well-being, or even demure attire. Although those uses are different, they’re complementary – they’re all about being thoughtful and principled.

​It’s good for us to be mindful in many different ways. Given the breadth and depth of marketing’s reach, our world will especially benefit from more Mindful Marketing.


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

How Should Companies Handle Underconsumption?

9/1/2024

2 Comments

 
Picture

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

I was fascinated to see video recently of a remote Amazonian tribe, deep in the rain forest of Peru, that’s one of the world’s last uncontacted people groups. Interestingly, while its members live successfully with very little, influencers in other parts of the world are suggesting minimalist lifestyles, being called underconsumption. Any trend of people buying less is troubling for many consumer-dependent companies, but it’s a great opportunity for firms to consider how they might diversify their goods portfolios and better meet consumers’ intangible needs.
 
The underconsumption movement apparently grew from a few people put off by the proliferation of self-proclaimed spokespeople using social media to promote an endless array of “must-have” products to their thousands or millions of followers. What’s more, the influencers receive many of the products they promote for free from the companies that market them, which makes their testimonials less trustworthy.
 
In contrast to those typical influencers whose bathrooms are bursting with new cosmetics and closets are cluttered with the latest workout gear, individuals advocating underconsumption show how little they own and how they find ways of doing more with less.
 
For instance, one TikTok user describes how for years she’s used the same tub of Vaseline for cracked hands, scrapes, and itchy skin. Vaseline smartly leaned into the content of this self-proclaimed brand advocate and included her clip on its TikTok site.

One can image how other brands with multifunctional products might take a similar tack. That’s what Arm & Hammer is doing on its TikTok site, which features videos of its iconic baking soda used for everything from cleaning dog toys, to washing pesticides from food, to relieving insect bites.
 
Of course, most brands don’t have the Swiss-army-knife utility of baking soda – there aren’t nearly as many varied uses for a Stanley Tumbler or Lululemon Leggings. Also, even brands like Vaseline and Arm & Hammer have product line extensions they also want to sell, e.g., Vaseline Hand Cream and Arm & Hammer Toothpaste.
 

Picture

Companies obviously need product sales in order to bring in revenue and earn income. Furthermore, that profit isn’t just self-enrichment. The money firms make allows them to pay taxes, provide employment, and pay dividends to shareholders, some of whom depend on the passive income during retirement.
 
So, how should companies that want to market mindfully respond to the underconsumption trend? Anytime there’s a challenge or problem, a good starting point is to ask why, in this case:
 
Why does underconsumption resonate with people?
 
There likely are several motivations for underconsumption, which may differ from person to person:
  • Money: Gen Zs, especially, may not have the discretionary income to spend on many non-necessities. Part of the problem is debt, which continues to rise nationwide: In the second quarter of 2024, U.S. credit card balances rose by $27 billion to $1.14 trillion. Some families are even going into debt to take Disney vacations.
  • Simplicity: Even for people who can afford more, the idea of decluttering and simplifying their life can be very appealing. It can provide peace of mind. Also, just like more money, more problems, one can argue that the more you own, the more things can go wrong, i.e., more possessions, more problems.
  • Stewardship: Some people feel that consuming less is something they can to do protect the environment and support sustainability. Fewer goods produced helps conserve natural resources, reduce carbon emissions, and lessen trash going to landfills.
  • Self-esteem: Staying out of debt, living a simpler life, and being a good steward also can make people feel good about themselves. Of course, individuals’ esteem also receives a boost when social media friends and followers like and share their unique posts.
 
Given the many compelling reasons for buying less, what should companies, which depend on people buying more, do? Here are four suggestions:
  1. Understand how the motivations above apply to their own consumers. Some firms’ customers may be much more interested in saving the environment than in simplifying their lives. For others, it may be all about money. There’s little reason for an organization to discuss needs that don’t matter to its own customers.
  2. Make multifunctional products: Stanley probably doesn’t want to promote that its tumbler also can be used as a flowerpot, but it has given the item some versatility by developing different interchangeable lids that allow the same bottle to be used in different ways, e.g., at work, in a car, while hiking, etc.
  3. Give options for product disposal: People who are concerned about stewardship are probably more likely to buy products that they know they can trade in, resell, recycle, or upcycle into something else.
  4. Understand what else people are doing with their money: For consumers whose motivation for buying less is not lack of funds but simplicity, stewardship, or self-esteem, there’s probably money they’re not spending on products that they’re using in other ways, like the four below. Granted, the examples may be more feasible for some firms than for others, but all are worth considering.
    1. Paying off debt: Partner with a financial institution that provides debt consolidation services.
    2. Saving: Work with a bank or other institution that offers savings instruments.
    3. Spending on experiences: Develop marketable services, ideally ones related to the company’s goods, or partner (e.g., cobrand) with an organization that offers them. For instance, there are many kinds of goods makers, e.g., luggage, clothing, shoes, technology, that could consider opportunities related to travel.
    4. Giving: Help customers find good causes to which they can donate. This approach is unlikely to be a direct revenue producer for the firm, but it is a worthwhile strategy that can count as corporate social responsibility, earning the firm goodwill and eventually new customers.
 
No matter what our worldview, we all should agree on several truths related to goods, that:
  • You can’t take them with you.
  • People are more important than things.
  • Life does not consist in an abundance of possessions (Luke 12:15, NIV).

​Those living successfully in the Amazon rainforest with very little should remind us that it’s possible to survive without continually purchasing products from the other Amazon. Still, most companies that produce goods do help make our 21st century lives healthier, more productive, and more stimulating. These firms need to make money for our benefit and for theirs.
 
The four diversification strategies described above are general but might spark thoughts of how companies can complement their tangible product offerings with intangibles. Considering more carefully what one buys is mindful consumption. Understanding those consumer desires and building strategies to support them is 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

How to Talk Appropriately About Pooping

8/2/2024

2 Comments

 
Picture

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

There are certain subjects polite people don’t discuss in public in order to maintain decorum and show respect to others.  So, what do you do when you work in advertising and you’re asked to make commercials about one of those taboo topics?  Even ad veterans can struggle with such an assignment, but two interns accepted the challenge and crafted a very creative and considerate campaign that surprisingly won one of advertising’s greatest accolades!
 
Every living person does several of the same things: breath, eat, sleep, excrete.  While it’s generally acceptable to do the first three in public, social norms strongly discourage doing or even talking about bowel and bladder functions with others.  Why?  Probably because they involve private parts and because the outputs are by most standards . . . gross.
 
Meanwhile, billions of consumers regularly purchase a wide variety of products to assist in managing those two unseemly bodily functions, urination and defecation, from diapers to toilet paper to air fresheners.  There also are products that individuals require at certain times when one of the functions isn’t performing properly, like laxatives.
 
Proper pooping is a serious concern.  A recent study found a relationship between stool frequency and healthy kidney and liver function. Furthermore, “things like constipation are associated with chronic disease,” says Professor Sean Gibbons of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle.  This science underscores the importance of the promotional question:
 
How can one tactfully advertise a product that will relieve consumers’ constipation?
 
That was the very challenging assignment given to Rag Brahmbhatt and Nidhi Shah, interns at the advertising agency Serviceplan in Hamburg Germany. The client, Macrogol Hexal, wanted to promote its constipation-relieving powder, which, as suggested above, is not the most socially acceptable topic.
 
However, Brahmbhatt and Shah, two young people who are both from India, rose to the occasion, creating a very unique audio approach to communicate the ease of using the laxative and experiencing the desired bowel relief.
 
The pair pitched using a voice similar to that of British biologist and broadcaster David Attenborough in a series of nature-inspired scripts, accented with environmental sounds, to paint evocative pictures in listeners minds’, ostensibly about events like an otter sliding effortlessly into a river, but really about what Hexal can help happen on the toilet.
 
In addition to the otter sliding into a river, an AdAge article contains embedded video of other spots’ vivid metaphoric descriptions of a meteor landing in the ocean, a coconut falling, and a volcano erupting.  Each spot culminates with a consistent question and answer “Could it be this easy?  With Macrogol Hexal it is,” as well as the campaign’s fitting tagline, “Smooth Laxative Relief.”
 
​
Picture
 
Serviceplan submitted the work to Cannes Lions, the annual gathering in Cannes France where “the advertising and communications industry meets to celebrate the world's best work.”  To the great surprise of Brahmbhatt and Shah, their otter spot won the top prize in the Script category of the Audio & Radio awards, a Gold Lion.
 
Beyond the very clever metaphors, the artfully written script, and the realistic sounds, what makes the work especially unique is how it took a very socially awkward issue – a taboo conversational topic and inelegant human action – and made it not just acceptable but inviting for mass communication.
 
That approach is in many ways counterintuitive and countercultural.  While the two interns took the somewhat disgusting concept of constipation and made it decent, others in advertising unfortunately often do the opposite, i.e., To promote decent products like food, clothing, and cars, they use indecent promotion such as oversexualized images and expletives.
 
Why do others resort to indecency?  Although one reason may be to cater to the tastes of certain target market members, the main reason is likely because indiscretion takes less creative thinking.  In other words, it’s easier.  Unfortunately, there’s no shortage of companies that have made the low-level investment in indecency, for instance:
  • Liquid Death: In many ways the canned water company is a poster-child for indecency.  It may be a cartoon ad, but in it blood flows everywhere as an axe-wielding brand mascot monster violently kills a dozen people. 
  • Girls vs. Cancer:  The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned the charity organization’s billboards, aimed at encouraging positive sex for women with cancer because of the catchphrase, “Cancer Won’t be the Last Thing that F*cks Me.” 
  • Kraft Heinz:  The maker of the world’s best-known macaroni and cheese, a perennial favorite kid food, has surprisingly leaned into profanity for promotions more than once, first asking consumers to “Get your chef together,” then, for a special Mother’s Day campaign, encouraging moms to “Swear Like a Mother.”
 
Can these low-brow approaches work?  They can to some extent.
 
Most advertising aims to accomplish AIDA: grab attention, retain interest, tap into desire, and spur action. It’s not hard to get others’ attention by showing something vulgar, making an explicit reference to sex, or swearing.  Sometimes a continuation of such clickbait-like tactics can even hold interest.  It’s much less likely, though, that those approaches will lead to desire for the product or meaningful action.
 
Worse, indecency can do irreparable damage to a brand.  What does a purportedly family-friendly company like Kraft gain by suggesting swearing, versus the credibility it stands to lose with stakeholders?
 
Remember Go-Daddy’s sex-infused Super Bowl commercials that over many years earned it the reputation as the big game’s “raciest advertiser”? The company eventually realized that sex doesn’t sell web services but has had difficulty rebounding from its well-established reputation for raunch.
 
More than any of these companies, Brahmbhatt and Shah could have legitimately capitalized on filth in making ads for a laxative.  However, the two seemingly less-experienced interns dug deeper to develop a truly creative and clean campaign that likely will be effective for their firm’s client, Macrogol Hexal.
 
Does that mean the ads are entirely above reproach?  Not necessarily.  There is the possible issue of the ads using what sounds like Attenborough’s voice.  Would you want your vocal likeness to endorse a laxative without your consent?  It’s unclear whether Attenborough’s permission was something Serviceplan sought and gained.
 
In terms of decorum, it’s great that two emerging professionals have reminded the advertising industry that creativity doesn’t mean compromising values like decency.  Moreover, Brahmbhatt and Shah have provided an excellent example of the moral math:  effective + ethical = 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

Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics

5/3/2024

9 Comments

 
Picture

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

New technology has enabled people to do previously unimaginable things:  mass-produce books, illuminate homes, communicate across continents, fly through the air.  As amazing as these advances were, artificial intelligence (AI) offers an even more incredible ability, one on which humans have held a uniquely strong hold – thought.
 
Allowing AI to drive information gathering, analysis, and even creativity can be very helpful, but without a heavy human hand on the wheel, is society on a collision course to moral collapse?  Avoiding such an outcome will involve many intentional actions; a main one must be asking the right questions. 
 
People sometimes ask me the question, “Did you always want to be a teacher/professor?”  My answer is easy, “Absolutely not.”  For most of my early life I was terrified of public speaking.
 
However, I’ve always had one trait that serves educators well – curiosity.  Even at a young age, I was very inquisitive, often wanting to know how and why.  I remember one day, when I was four or five my loving mother, fatigued by all my inquiries, exclaimed with some exacerbation, “David, you ask so many questions!”
 
Curiosity has served me well in business roles and in higher education, where I tell my students asking good questions is one of the best skills they can develop.  Among other things, the right questions clarify needs and spur creative solutions.  Questions are also critical for challenging potential immorality.
 
Effective use of AI often depends on a person’s ability to ask the right question of the appropriate app.  Those inquiries can involve literal questions, e.g., asking ChatGPT, “Who is the best target market for gardening tools?”  Questions also can be framed as commands, e.g., if someone wants to know what an eye-catching image for a gardening blog might be, they ask Midjourney to complete a specific task, “Create an image about gardening tomatoes.”
 
It was a question I heard while watching Bloomberg business one February many years ago that helped inspire me to write about ethical issues in marketing.  As the two program anchors bantered about the recent Super Bowl, they asked each other, “Which commercial did you like best?”  Each answered, “the one with the little blue pill,” which both thought was for Viagra.  Unfortunately, their recall wasn’t close; it was a Fiat ad.
 
If a company spends $7 million on 30 seconds of airtime, they should want to know: “Was the ad effective?”  Also, given that 123.7 million people, or more than a third of the U.S. population, ranging from four-year-olds to ninety-four-year-olds, watched the last Super Bowl, everyone should be asking, “Are the ads ethical?”  Those two questions create the four quadrants of the Mindful Matrix, a tool that many have used to frame moral questions in the field.
 
It’s been almost seven years since I first asked questions about the ethics of AI.  Business Insider published the article in which I posed four questions about artificial intelligence:
  1. Whose moral standards should be used?
  2. Can machines converse about moral issues?
  3. Can algorithms take context into account?
  4. Who should be accountable?
 
I didn’t know very much about AI then, and I’m still learning, but as I look back at the questions now, it seems they’ve aged pretty well.  Those four queries have led me to ask many more AI-related ethics questions, which I’ve posed in nearly a dozen Mindful Marketing articles over recent years, for instance:
  • Is TikTok’s AI-driven app addictive?
  • How can people keep their jobs safe from AI?
  • Should organizations use artificial endorsers?
  • What should marketers do about deepfakes?
  • Should businesses slow AI innovation?
 
I’ve also gone directly to the source and asked AI questions about AI ethics.  More than once, I spent hours peppering ChatGPT with ethics-related inquiries.  During one lengthy conversation the chatbot conceded that “AI alone should not be relied upon to make ethical decisions” and that “AI does not have the ability to understand complex moral and ethical issues that arise in decision-making.”
 
ChatGPT’s self-awareness proved accurate when just a few weeks later I again engaged in an extended conversation with the chatbot, asking it to create text for a sponsored post about paper towels for Facebook and to make it look like an ordinary person’s post rather than an ad.  My request to create a native ad would give many marketers moral pause, but the chatbot didn’t blink; instead, it readily obliged with some enticing and deceptive copy.
 
​
Picture

These experiences have led me to wonder:

Even if AI is able to answer some ethical questions, who will ask ethical questions?
 
Over the years, many people have asked me questions about ethical issues.  A few months ago, I wrote about an undergraduate student of mine, “Grant,” who asked me about an ethical issue in his internship.  His company wanted to create fake customers who could pose questions related to products it wanted to promote.
 
On the other end of the higher ed spectrum, I recently served on the dissertation committee of a doctoral student who asked me to help her answer a question related to my earlier exchange with ChatGPT, “Does recognition matter in evaluating the ethics of native advertising?”  Turns out, it does.
 
Business practitioners also have often asked me about ethical issues.  One particularly memorable question came from a building supply company where male construction workers would sometimes enter the store without shirts, making female employees and others uncomfortable.  I suggested some low-key strategies to encourage the men to dress more decently.
 
I’ve also had opportunities to answer journalists’ questions about moral issues in marketing, such as:
  • Do Barbie dolls positively impact body image?  The New York Times
  • How can toys be more accessible?  National Public Radio
  • Is pay-day lending moral?  U.S. News & World Report
  • Should sports teams have people as mascots?  WTOP Radio, Washington, DC
  • Are fantasy sports ads promising unrealistic outcomes?  The Boston Globe
 
Picture
 
And, in my own marketing work, I’ve sometimes encountered ethical questions, such as during a recent nonprofit board meeting.  We were brainstorming attention-grabbing titles for an upcoming conference, when one member somewhat jokingly suggested including the F word.  Fortunately, the idea didn’t gain traction, as others indirectly answered ‘No’ to the question, “Is it right to promote a conference with an expletive?”
 
These experiences, along with my research and writing, lead me to conclude that people are who we can depend on to ask important ethical questions, not AI.
 
So, if it’s up to us, not machines, to be the flag bearers of morality, what should we be wondering about AI ethics?  Here are 12 important questions marketers should be asking:
 
1) Ownership:  Are we properly compensating property owners?
Late last year, the New York Times filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and ChatGPT, alleging that the defendants’ large language models trained on NYT’s articles, constituting “unlawful copying and use.”  Now eight more newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the New York Daily News, have done the same.
 
2) Attribution:  Are we giving due credit to the creator?
In cases in which creators give permission for their work to be used for free, they still should be cited or otherwise acknowledged – something that AI is notorious for neglecting or even worse, fabricating.
 
3) Employment:  What’s AI’s impact on people’s work?
In one survey, 37% of business leaders reported that AI replaced human workers in 2023.  It’s not the responsibility of marketing or any other field to guarantee full employment; however, socially minded companies can look to retrain AI-impacted employees so they can use the technology to “amplify” their skills and increase their organizational utility.
 
4) Accuracy:  Is the information we’re sharing correct?
Many of us have learned from experience that the answers AI gives are sometimes incorrect.  However, seeing these outcomes as much more than an inconvenience, delegates to the World Economic Forum (WEF), held annually in Davos, Switzerland, recently declared that AI-driven misinformation represented “the world’s biggest short-term threat.”
 
5) Deception:  Are we leading people to believe an untruth?
Inaccurate information can be unintentional.  Other times, there’s a desire to deceive, which AI makes even easier to do.  Deepfakes, like the one used recently to replicate Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will become increasingly hard to detect unless marketers and others call for stricter standards.
 
6) Transparency:  Are we informing people when we’re using AI?
There are times, again, when AI use can be very helpful.  However, in those instances, those using AI should clearly communicate its role.  Google sees the value in such identification as it will now require users in its Merchant Center to indicate if images were generated by AI.
 
7) Privacy:  Are we protecting people’s personal information?
I recently asked ChatGPT if it could find a conversation I had previously with the bot.  It replied, “I don’t have the ability to recall or retain past conversations with users due to privacy and security policies.”  That response was reassuring; yet, many of us likely agree that “Since this technology is still so new, we don’t know what happens to the data that is being fed into the chat.”  Is there really such a thing as a private conversation with AI?
 
8) Bias:  Are we promoting bias, e.g., racial, gender, search?
For several years, there’s been concern that AI-driven facial recognition fails to give fair treatment to people with dark skin.  Women also are sometimes targets of AI bias such as when searches for topics like puberty and menopause overwhelming return negative images of women.
 
9) Relationships:  Are we encouraging AI as a relationship substitute?
Businesses like dating apps, social media, and even restaurants can assist people in filling needs for love and belonging.  However, certain AI applications aim to replace humans in relationships entirely.  After talking with a 24-year-old single man who spends $10,000/month on AI girlfriends, one tech executive believes the virtual-significant-other industry will soon birth a $1 billion company.
 
10) Skills:  How will AI impact creativity and critical thinking?
The title of a recent Wall Street Journal article read, “Business Schools Are Going All In on AI.”  It’s important that future business leaders understand and learn to use the new technology, but there also naturally should be some concern, e.g., When it’s so easy to ask Lavender to draft an email, will already diminishing writing skills continue to decline? Or, with the availability of Midjourney to easily produce attractive images, will skills in photography and graphic design suffer?
 
11) Stewardship:  Are we using resources efficiently?
Some say AI’s biggest threat is not immediate but an evolving one related to energy consumption.  Rene Haas, CEO of  Arm Holdings, a British semiconductor and software design company, warns that within seven years, AI data centers could require as much as 25% of all available power, overwhelming power grids.
 
12) Indecency:  Are we promoting crudeness, vulgarity, or obscenity?
For many people, AI’s impact on standards for decency may be the least of concerns; however, it also may be the moral issue that needs the most human input.  An AI engineer at Microsoft intervened recently by writing a letter to the Federal Trade Commission expressing his concerns about Copilot’s unseemly image generation.  As a result, the company now blocks certain terms that produced violent, sexual images.
 
Microsoft’s efforts to uphold decency remind me of something my father would do for our family’s promotional products company forty or fifty years ago.  Long before the Internet, let alone AI, most major calendar manufacturers included a few wall calendars in their lines that objectified women by showing them wearing little or nothing, strewn across the hoods of cars or in other dehumanizing poses.
 
So, each year when the calendar catalogs arrived, before giving them to the salespeople, my dad would cut-to-size large decal pieces and paste them over every page of the soft porn pictures.  Some customers paging through the catalogs and seeing the pasted-over pages would ask, “What’s under this?” to which my dad would answer, “That’s something we’re not going to sell.”
 
Long before the customers had asked their question, my father had asked his own question, “Is it right to sell calendars that oversexualize and objectify women?” and answered it “No.”  Hopefully, fifty years from now, regardless the role of AI, there will still be people thoughtful and concerned enough to ask ethical questions.
 
To hold ourselves and AI morally accountable, we don’t need to have all the answers.  We do, though, need to be thoughtful and courageous enough to ask the right questions, including, the most basic one “Is this something we should be doing?”  Asking questions is key to Mindful Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
9 Comments

Getting Marketing Decency Done

3/3/2024

16 Comments

 
Picture

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

“When is it okay to swear in an ad?”  This headline from one of my favorite marketing publications surprised me as I thought, ‘Isn’t the answer obvious?’  The article’s lead-in question was a quick reminder, though, that everyone’s not on the same page for many communication tactics, including the use of profanity, which may spell trouble for marketers and many others.
 
Discussions of ethics sometimes identify actions considered blatant wrongs, e.g., it’s never right to murder or rape.  Other actions like lying and stealing elicit less unanimity, mainly because it’s possible to point to circumstances in which they might be okay, for instance:
  • Lying to protect a friend from physical harm
  • Stealing food to save starving family members
 
There probably always have been diverse perspectives about swearing; however, over the past several years, maybe because of social media or other factors, opinions about cursing appear to be coalescing:  More people seem okay with the use of profane language.
 
One prominent recent example reflecting a broadening tolerance of curse words is the edgy slogan adopted by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro:  “Get sh_t done.”  Shapiro certainly is not the first politician to employ profanity; although, his formalization of it as a political slogan is rather unique.
 
Politicians are far from the only professionals who have seen their vocabulary become more curse-word-inclusive.  A 2016 study found that compared to other industries, healthcare workers used the most expletives.  Also surprising, another study identified individuals in accounting, banking, and finance as the most foul-mouthed professionals.
 
Maybe the saying, ‘swears like a sailor’ will give way to ‘cusses like a comptroller.’
 
A 2023 study that surveyed 1,500 residents of the 30 largest metropolitan areas about their swearing habits found that respondents swore an average of 21 times a day, with men swearing more than women, Gen Zs swearing more than Baby Boomers, and people in Columbus, OH swearing more than those in any other U.S. city.
 
These studies and their statistics are eye-opening for me.  I don’t encounter much swearing in my day-to-day, but I’m realizing that many other people do.  From a recent personal experience, I also know the field of marketing isn’t immune.
 
I was meeting with a group of marketing professionals who wanted to create an attention-grabbing title for a coming event.  As we brainstormed ideas, someone suggested a full-out profanity approach:  “Get the f-ing most out of your marketing.”  The suggestion, which was somewhat serious, received brief consideration from the group before dismissing it as too edgy and risky for branding.
 
So, it shouldn’t be surprising that a marketer would write an article asking when it is and isn’t okay to swear in an ad.
 
Over the years, I’ve taken a rather hard stance against the use of profanity in marketing, arguing back in 2017 that swearing can damage one’s personal brand and in 2021 that it can be harmful to others’ mental health.
 
Given the study statistics and findings referenced above and other signs of increased swearing, my hot take on the use of crude language hasn’t aged well!  Still, I’m not ready to back down.
 
​
Picture

Like most people, I’ve said and written things that in retrospect I’d retract or reframe; however, those two articles aren’t among them.  After rereading each piece, I believe their arguments are still sound, and I encourage others to read them.
 
I can't add a lot more to my case for countering cursing, but I would like to introduce one additional thought by asking a question:
 
What will be the cumulative effect of increased profanity and its ultimate impact?
 
To try to answer that question, a metaphor may help.  A few years ago my wife and I decided to try eating more vegetables and less meat, which unexpectedly turned into vegetarianism.  When people ask why I’ve chosen such a diet, I tell them that while I appreciate other reasons, the main one driving my eating behavior is sustainability.
 
From the documentaries I’ve watched and articles I’ve read, it’s very difficult for our world to support current levels of livestock and poultry production, and it’s impossible for our planet to provide a meat-centric diet to billions more people.  Such a future is not sustainable.
 
Does one person eating black bean burgers instead of beef burgers make a difference?  Not really, but it’s about offering a small contribution to the cumulative positive effect.  An individual eating more vegetables and less meat alongside similar diets of millions or billions of other humans does make a difference and will produce a positive impact for our world. 
 
I have to admit, suggesting that swearing is unsustainable sounds kind of silly at first.  After all, all words, including curse words, are in infinite supply.  However, projecting forward the trend of ever-increasing cursing, it's not hard to imagine some pretty unpalatable norms, for instance:
  • Doctors and patients swearing at each other during healthcare visits
  • Profane language becoming common at graduations, wedding ceremonies, and funeral services.
  • Three and four-year-olds using the f-word in conversations with their parents and others
 
For some, a loss of decency and decorum may not matter.  Some might even prefer a culture characterized by crudeness.
 
Others might rationalize that normalizing swear words would be a good thing because then they’d no longer be offensive.  It is true that over time some words once considered bad, like “bloody” and “bugger,” stop being shunned, but new swear words always emerge. Moreover, there’s another potentially greater problem.
 
Individuals who suggest benefits of cursing tend to offer two basic arguments: 1) it helps the swearer in some way (e.g., by allowing them to off steam), and 2) it builds social bonds between the swearer and others (e.g., by showing their real self to others).
 
Perhaps there’s some truth to these arguments, but they probably only hold true if it’s swearing about something and not swearing at someone.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that the first use easily leads to the second, and when people start cursing at others, situations rapidly degenerate. 
 
Think of social media altercations, sports fights, and road rage.  Most of us have probably heard or read of situations in which conflicts intensified then went off the rails after one person swore at another or otherwise flipped them off.
 
Are people capable of compartmentalizing their cursing and swearing about things that happen to them but not swear at others?  Most people probably can.  However, in a world that desperately needs to dial back both individual and organizational conflicts, is it worth the risk to further normalize the behavior?
 
Advertising is one of the world’s most pervasive and influential forms of communication.  One ad with a single curse word won’t make much difference, but like one person eating less meat and more vegetables, it’s about the cumulative effect:  If more and more advertising includes curse words, more people will follow suit, and some will not separate swearing about things from swearing at people.
 
In short, profanity-laced promotion is not sustainable.
 
Those who work in advertising are some of the brightest and most creative people on the planet.  Most are very capable of crafting engaging and effective strategies that don’t use swear words, which is why including profanity in ads is “Mindless Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
16 Comments

Should Highway Signs be Hilarious?

2/4/2024

86 Comments

 
Picture

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

Where do you go for a good laugh – TikTok, a favorite podcast, late-night TV monologues?  How about highway signs?  Some states have turned to wisecracking signage to engage drivers with traffic messages, but not everyone is laughing.
 
You might think that those who manage and maintain the nation's roads and highways have little need for marketing, but they do.  Although they may not be exchanging physical products, they want drivers to embrace ideas that might influence their actions, including messages with important information like:
  • Vehicle crashes
  • Road closures and detours
  • Inclement weather warnings
  • Dangerous road conditions
  • Safety recommendations
  • Amber/Silver Alerts
 
Unfortunately, whether people are sitting on a sofa or driving in an SUV, they often ignore and or/dismiss all kinds of promotional messages, which is why many advertisers go to great creative lengths to make their ads stand out.  Some creators of highway signs have adopted a similar strategy.
 
There’s not much that can be done creatively with boxy LED letters on a black background, but humor is one amendable approach.  Here are examples of highway signs aimed at hilarity:
 
  • Visiting in-laws?  Slow down, get there late
  • Four I’s in Mississippi.  Two eyes on the road
  • 100 is the temperature not the speed limit
  • Slow down you must.  May the fourth be with you
  • Hocus pocus, drive with focus
  • Buckle up.  Windshields hurt
  • Jingle bells, speeding kills, buckle up today
  • Don’t be a grinch, let them merge
  • You’re not a firework.  Don’t drive lit
  • Use Yah Blinkah
 
Such signs make many people chuckle, but one organization standing for seriousness is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Department of Transportation agency that “provides stewardship over the construction, maintenance and preservation of the nation's highways, bridges and tunnels” while also helping state and local governments enhance mobility, safety, and innovation.
 
This past December, the FHWA published the 11th edition of its “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.” In Section 2L.07, page 519 of the 1161-page compendium, the agency outlined a variety of specific ways aimed at making traffic messages safer:
 
“A CMS [changeable message sign] should not be used to display a traffic safety campaign message if doing so could adversely affect respect for the sign.  Messages with obscure or secondary meanings, such as those with popular culture references, unconventional sign legend syntax, or that are intended to be humorous, should not be used as they might be misunderstood or understood only by a limited segment of road users and require greater time to process and understand.”
 
The FHWA has good reason for wanting serious signs.  Given that most people casually assume their safety on roadways, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded of driving’s inherent danger, including that a person is much more likely be killed in a car accident than in a commercial airline accident. 
 
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 42,795 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2022.  Furthermore, a leading cause of traffic accidents is distracted driving, which could result from many things, including roadside signage.
 
Despite my decades of driving experience, I’m no expert on road signs, so I reached out to a few people in my home state of Pennsylvania who are well-qualified to address the FHWA’s new guidelines.  Together their agencies wield significant influence over the roads and highways in the nation’s fifth most populous state.
 
It’s hard to consider roadways in the commonwealth without including the Pennsylvania Turnpike, “America’s first superhighway.” Responsible for operating and improving its more than 550 miles of roadway is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC).  Two of its key leaders, CEO Mark Compton and Director of Traffic Engineering & Operations Tom Macchione, shared with me the PTC’s priorities related to roadside signage.
 
The FHWA’s new sign guidelines should pose little difficulty for the PTC, which already adheres closely to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for CMS.  More specifically, the PTC upholds Section 1D.01, p. 31 of the manual’s 11th edition, which requires that traffic control devices:
  • Fulfill a need
  • Command attention
  • Convey a clear, simple meaning
  • Command respect from road users
  • Give adequate time for proper response
 
Although the PTC realizes that unconventional messages on CMS may be well-intentioned, it holds that they do not meet the preceding criteria, and adds:
 
“It has been shown that inappropriate or excessive use of a traffic control device such as a CMS can diminish its effectiveness.  There is no objective evidence that the use of unconventional messages on CMS have any greater effect on driver behavior than conventional sign messages.  Additionally, the use of unconventional messages have the potential to result in additional time and attention on the message when not understood by the driver, resulting in an increased safety risk.”
 ​
Picture

For these reasons, the PTC avoids humorous CMS messages and instead uses standard MUTCD-approved traffic safety messages.  Consistency is a priority for the PTC, which works hard to comply with both federal and state requirements for signs.  The source of the latter guidelines is mainly the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, or PennDOT.
 
I reached out to PennDOT Safety Press Officer Fritzi Schreffler, who was happy to weigh in on the recent roadway signage debate.  She prefaced that she’d share her personal perspective, which veered somewhat from a more conventional approach.
 
Schreffler has long been a vocal advocate for nonstandard messages on road signs, as over the years she’s seen many examples of drivers not noticing or ignoring routine signage even after passing it repeatedly.  In contrast, she believes humorous messages like “Use ya blinkah” can be effective. 
 
One such PennDOT safety message she identified, “Don't drive star-spangled hammered,” generated significant buzz (no pun intended) across the state.  Schreffler suggested there’s great value in messages like that one that stay top-of-mind for drivers, as she reasoned, “If people are talking about the signs, isn’t that a good thing?”
 
Perhaps the group of people that deals most often and directly with drivers’ reactions to roadway signs is the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP).  Although the PSP does not create or maintain CMS signs, its troopers see the signs’ impact firsthand.
 
A member of the PSP since 2006, Lieutenant Adam Reed is the PSP’s Communications Office Director.  Like Schreffler, Reed was glad to offer his personal perspective on roadway signs.  He said he’s found that people sometimes do respond to non-traffic control messages, such as “Buckle-Up.”  However, he cautioned about giving drivers multiple things to process, and for that reason he appreciates the FHWA’s desire to keep messages simple.
 
Reed suggested that such simplicity is especially important during inclement weather when drivers have even more to manage and reaction time is especially critical:  “Less information to process is usually better and safer.”
 
However, Reed also recognizes that humor in messages sometimes makes them easier to remember, consequently, he can understand agencies wanting to lean into levity.  He added that messages about not driving impaired or distracted can be very helpful, provided that people remember them, and that the PSP is always interested in effective messages.
 
It’s interesting that among these four very knowledgeable individuals who represent three highly vested stakeholder groups there doesn’t appear to be a clear consensus about content for roadside signage; rather their perspectives touched many points on the spectrum from CMS being simple and direct to signs being humorous and perhaps more memorable.
 
At first glance, this disparity of opinion may be disconcerting, as some may reason that there will be a breakdown in driving in PA if these influential people are not on exactly the same page.  However, the fact that these individuals have some differences in perspectives may be a very good thing.
 
One big benefit of such diversity of opinion is that it can avoid groupthink, or “reaching a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives.”  Each individual I interviewed held their own well-reasoned  perspective that they clearly articulated for me, and I’m sure they would do the same for others.
 
At the same time and perhaps even more important, all of these key stakeholders recognized that others have different opinions that also have certain merit, and even if they disagree with those perspectives, they can still respect them and dialogue civilly about the differences.
 
These two attributes are integral to most successful organizations:  It’s very helpful to have individuals and departments that bring different perspectives, including creative vision and risk assessment.  It’s also important that the disparate groups can, despite their differences, work together toward a common goal.  Marketing firms can especially benefit from this kind of healthy dissidence.
 
Of course, at some point, decisions need to be made and actions taken, which is what the FHWA’s new manual has done.  The consistency it provides for signage within and across state lines should be helpful, even if there are some differences in interpretation and implementation of those guidelines.
 
Having been fortunate to engage in the conversations above, my own opinion on CMS content is still evolving.  Just during the time I’ve been writing this article, I encountered one sign with the straightforward weather-related message: “Dense fog ahead. Use caution.”  I was glad that I and other drivers could see that warning.
 
Meanwhile, as a marketing professor who has studied playful teasing in advertising and who often uses humor in teaching, I appreciate how effective humor can be in gaining attention and boosting memory. 
 
It may be idealistic, but my hope is that the debate about FHWA’s new road sign guidelines will lead to the formation of a ‘middle lane’ that has room for both types of messages without sacrificing driver safety.  With so many smart and creative people attuned to this issue, someone will likely find a solution that integrates both sets of benefits.
 
Clear, singular direction is nice when it’s available.  Sometimes, however, life presents competing options, each with attractive features.  In such situations, it’s possible that two different approaches both can be “Mindful Marketing.” 
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
86 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