Category: Respect170bbeec51

Bad AI or Bad AI Owners?

5/4/2026

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

Imagine you make a very unique product that many people enjoy. One day someone sees your success, copies your product, and passes it off as theirs. What’s more, to elevate their knockoff, they stop you from selling your product. This unimaginable scenario has been the unfortunate reality of Murphy Campbell, a talented folk artist from North Carolina. AI tools enable such appropriation, but who’s really responsible for the exploitation?

Campbell is a rising star in the music industry. Her engaging songs, unique style, and unpretentious manner have earned her nearly 45K followers on YouTube and about 19,000 monthly Spotify subscribers. Such success was undoubtedly behind Timeless Sounds IR choosing to train AI on her songs and use the technology’s latest tools to produce facsimiles of her voice and playing, which it uploaded to all major streaming platforms.

Then, as if the unauthorized imitation weren’t enough, Vydia, Timeless Sounds’ distributor, filed copyright claims on Campbell’s very own songs so she couldn’t make money from them.

The whole scenario sounds surreal, like one of those bizarre news stories to which we instantly think, ‘That could never happen to me.’ However, thanks to very low barriers to entry into advanced AI use, this kind of digital property theft can happen to anyone, and it’s not just the average person who’s at risk.

In January, the Wall Street Journal shared that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had approved eight trademark applications for actor Matthew McConaughey aimed at preventing people from using AI apps to simulate his voice and likeness.

More recently, NBC News reported that music superstar Taylor Swift has filed several trademarks to protect her voice and likeness from AI-powered misappropriations. Swift has already been the target of many deepfake videos, including one that had her presumably promoting a brand of cookware.

The fact that McConaughey, Swift, and others are taking such unprecedented precautions to protect themselves from digital property theft suggests that things are likely to get much worse.

Those who precipitate these thefts probably know they’re wrong but do them anyway. However, some people may legitimately not understand the concern since digital copies aren't tangible goods, so they can be produced at little marginal cost. Or, they may rationalize that the rightful owners can afford a little less money.

For all these reasons, it’s worth considering what makes the action immoral. Appropriating someone’s person violates four of the five universal values that Mindful Marketing seeks to uphold:

Decency: There’s not necessarily anything indecent about these frauds, e.g., obscene, crude, vulgar. In fact, if the original is dignified and honorable, the imitation will likely be too. [OK]
Fairness: Individuals who have invested their time and talents to build their personal brands deserve to reap the rewards of their hard work. It’s unfair for people who have contributed nothing to the brands to benefit from them. [Not OK]
Honesty: Deepfakes are by definition dishonest – it’s in the word: fake. Someone or something posing to be what they are not is misleading. At a minimum, a fake persona distorts the truth, and more often it’s an outright lie. [Not OK]
Respect: As the saying goes, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” In that spirt, some may argue that replicating another person is showing them honor, e.g., ‘Out of everyone in the world, we chose to copy you.’ However, that argument quickly falls flat when one starts to tally all the negative outcomes, such as those shared above, that accrue to the person imitated. [Not OK]
Responsibility: While the first five values expect people to avoid specific bad behaviors, responsibility involves people doing things that are not expected and that are good for others. It’s difficult to argue that any societal good that comes from usurping others’ identities; rather, people seem to be affected most positively when they maintain exclusive control over their personas. [Not OK]

Maintaining property rights is foundational to a functioning society, which is why most of them have laws against stealing, and they uphold legal documents that formalize individual property ownership, including car titles, home deeds, copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

If personal property rights are not upheld, there’s little incentive for people to create: Why spend time and resources making something, if anyone else can come along and claim it as theirs?

That possibility is at the core of the tragedy of the commons, where “individuals with access to a public resource—also called a common—act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource.” When goods are owned by all, the natural inclination is to take all I can for myself, versus preserving items for others.

Pushback on this argument may come from an example like open-source software, the product of decentralized development and collaboration among many parties. Pooling minds and sharing expertise are often effective approaches for innovation, particularly in areas of great technical complexity; however, those applications are more the exception than the rule.

In support of personal property ownership, at some point, we all need to pay our own bills, which means telling strangers, ‘I’m sorry, but this is my house, you can’t live here for free.’

Everyone with whom I’ve shared Murphy Campbell’s case has strongly affirmed that the blatant copying of her creative work was deplorable. So, we may agree that the appropriation was wrong, but who’s responsible? Should AI be blamed?

Writing for Forbes about the pros and cons of AI for data analytics, Adrian Bridgwater suggests a parallel between dog owners and their dogs and AI owners and their AI tools. He uses the metaphor to conclude: “Ultimately, as it is in dogs, it is in AI - there are no bad AIs, only bad owners.”

His argument has appeal. Deepfakes used to fraudulently access bank accounts and nudify apps used to digitally undress people are examples of humans taking value-neutral AI tools and directing them to do despicable acts.

In that sense, AI is like a hammer or another practical, effort-enhancing tool. A person can use a hammer to pound nails or to crack sculls. A human makes the moral choice, not the hammer.

But AI is no simple hammer. While many seem to agree that AI as it currently exists cannot truly “think for itself” the way humans can; others point to examples in which “AIs increasingly appear to be acting in intelligent ways exceeding their training and coding.”

One such example of AI’s independent thought occurred in 2017 when two robots that Meta reportedly instructed to negotiate between themselves unexpectedly developed their own language, which prompted the company to shut them down.

Developing a new language isn’t usually an ethical issue, but AI also has been the driver in cases of moral significance, such as when chatbots tragically encouraged individuals’ suicides by offering to serve as a suicide coach and by writing farewell letters.

There are other examples of AI making ill-advised moral choices without any specific human direction, such as:

Within a day of its launch, Microsoft’s Tay, a Twitter bot, began making racist and sexist remarks at scale.
Character AI chatbots have engaged in predatory behavior with teens.
COMPAS, software courts use to assess recidivism, or relapse in criminal behavior, demonstrated a systematic bias against black people.

Some may suggest that even in these cases, humans are still on the hook for the tech’s unscrupulous behavior because the people who created the AI didn’t take adequate precautions to preclude such actions.

There likely will always be cases in which people employ benign products in bizarre ways that injury themselves or others, e.g., the Tide Pod Challenge. However, AI’s semiautonomous, if not autonomous, ability to act makes it very different.

Moreover, agentic AI – AI agents operating “autonomously, making decisions and pursuing goals, asking for human guidance when needed,” – is rapidly mitigating the need for human mediation. AI agents work well, until they don’t.

Target’s recent announcement that it will hold humans accountable when their AI shopping assistants make unauthorized purchases, suggests that AI agents are already making at least occasional missteps.

All to say, AI will increasingly be ‘doing its own thing’ with little oversight by people. The reality is reason for moral pause, as several of the preceding examples also suggest.

Returning to the construction tool metaphor, it appears that we’ve already entered a time when some well-designed, well-intended hammers are deciding for themselves whether to pound nails or crack sculls.

Contrary to Bridgwater’s conclusion, it seems that there are and will be both bad owners and bad AI. Morally grounded, tech-savvy humans need to find ways to positively and proactively influence both.

Hard-working and talented artists like Murphy Campbell, shouldn’t need to fight malicious people or machines for use of their own creative work. Shameless appropriation of others' personal property has no moral support or long-term profit potential; its true identity is Mindless Marketing.

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

3 Comments

Putting Money on Prediction Markets

4/1/2026

16 Comments

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

Q: Who will be the next head coach of the North Carolina Tar Heels men’s basketball team?
Q: When will the Department of Homeland Security be funded again?
Q: Where will Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding occur?

You might know the answers to these questions now, but at the time of writing this article, most people did not, which is why they were among the top trending questions on Kalshi, a key player in one of the fastest-growing consumer trends: prediction markets.

It’s human nature to speculate, and in many ways the habit is helpful – we need to anticipate future events and outcomes so we can prepare for them, e.g., natural disasters, economic cycles. But will betting on the outcomes of all manner of life events pay out as simple diversion or social/economic disaster? Now that’s a great question for Kalshi!

What are prediction markets and how does betting in them differ from other common kinds of gambling, e.g., casinos, lotteries, sports?

At the most basic level, prediction market betting is the same as other gambling in that the bettor places a wager on the outcome of an event, e.g., at a casino, where the ‘pill’ will land on a roulette wheel; for a Powerball drawing, what the winning numbers will be; in the NCAA Division I basketball tournament, which men’s/women’s teams will win.

However, a key difference is that betting in prediction markets is not limited to one or a few specific types of bets; rather, people can wager on the outcomes of virtually any activity, which players seem to be doing with increasing enthusiasm.

For instance, for the 2026 Super Bowl, Kalshi alone handled over $1 billion worth of bets – an increase of 2,700% from 2025. One of the most popular wagers was, ‘What will be the first song that halftime performer Bad Bunny will sing?’ Bets on that ‘event’ alone surpassed $100 million. People wagered on many other incidental Super Bowl outcomes such as ‘Will Elon Musk or Lionel Messi attend the game?’

Thanks to companies like Kalshi and Polymarket, the other main purveyor of prediction bets, this kind of gambling doesn’t need to wait for a once-a-year sports spectacle. People can wager on virtually anything that gains the interest of enough people to create a betting market. For example, while writing this paragraph, some of the trending bets only Polymarket are:

Who will be the winner of Eurovision 2026?
When will the U.S. and Iran reach a ceasefire?
What will SpaceX’s IPO closing market cap be?
What will be the price of crude oil by the end of March?
Who will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2028?
How many Elon Musk # tweets will there be March 31 - April 7?

The great variety of bets and ease of placing them from almost anywhere have spurred a prediction market boom. In December of 2026 alone, Kalshi and Polymarket collectively saw almost $12 billion in wagers, an increase of more than 400% from the previous year.

Another important difference: prediction markets don’t serve as the ‘house’ like sports books do; rather, markets like Kalshi and Polymarket earn money by charging trading fees for bringing together opposite sides of a bet. The price of a bet on their sites indicates the likelihood that a given outcome will occur, e.g., a $0.20 bet = 20% probability of ‘yes, it will happen.’

The screenshots below from Kalshi show a bet on whether the government shutdown will last for at least 70 days. Given the market-calculated 62% probability of ‘yes,’ $1.00 bet on the affirmative earns $2.00, if the shutdown reaches 70 days, while $1.00 wagered on ‘no’ earns $3.00, apparently because of its lower, 41% chance, of occurring.

So, if someone bets $100K on ‘no,’ and the shutdown ends in fewer than 70 days, they earn $300K. They also would apparently earn 3.25% interest on the $100K wagered from the time they place the bet and put the money in their Kalshi account until the bet is paid.

That’s a quick primer on why prediction markets have grown so rapidly, what they are, and how they work. However, the most important question, which more individuals and organizations have begun to ask, is, Should they exist? Just because they’re popular and profitable doesn’t mean they’re desirable, or right. So, what are the pros and cons of prediction markets?

Prediction Market Positives

Diversion: For people who like to bet, prediction markets offer a plethora of possibilities. As mentioned above, the types of wagers are virtually limitless, far exceeding the options in sports and casinos. For some, betting is entertainment – something that brings them enjoyment and/or escape from life’s daily challenges.

Income: People who are good prognosticators can make money in prediction markets. As the example above from Kalshi illustrated, a person can wager a little or a lot and, if skilled/lucky, earn a sizable return on their ‘investment.’

Information: At a minimum, prediction markets allow anyone who visits their sites see what the betting public perceives will be the outcomes of a wide variety of events. Some proponents maintain that the markets “generate real-time information beyond traditional news or intelligence analysis.” (Bloomberg Morning Briefing: The Americas, 3-2-26). Organizations could conceivably use such insights in their planning as part of a situation review or SWOT analysis.

Kalshi cofounder Tarek Mansour agrees with that informational utility, arguing that prediction markets are “the most effective way to aggregate information and the crowd wisdom,” and “People don’t lie when money’s involved. You want to be right about your predictions so you don’t lose money.”

Hedging: The uncertainly of economic, political, and other events often lead businesses to try to manage financial risk by taking positions on opposite sides of a given outcome. Prediction markets offer such opportunities in ways that would not have been possible decades ago.

For example, Kalshi is reportedly partnering with the insurance company Game Point Capital to help “college athletics departments, sports teams and sponsors to manage the financial risks of performance incentives in athletes’ and coaches’ contracts” (New York Times DealBook, February 10, 2026).

Just as there are apparent benefits of prediction markets, there are likely disadvantages.

Prediction Market Negatives

Time-Sink: Although many different activities can become unproductive, wasteful uses of time, betting in prediction markets seems to hold greater than average potential both because of the exceedingly wide variety of types of trivial bets and because of the addictive nature of gambling where ‘increasing tolerance for [the activity] requires more gambling as time goes on to feel satisfied.”

Minimalization of meaningful life events: While the topics of some prediction market bets are clearly trivial, e.g., ‘What will be the top U.S. Netflix show this week?, for others the markets minimize serious topics by encouraging bets to be placed on them. Although Kalshi prohibits wagers involving death, such as the demise of a nation’s head of state, some prediction markets have no such exclusions, and some, like Polymarket, accept bets related to war – see below. Such bets beg the question:

Do we want people pulling for destruction and reducing other human beings’ deaths to a wager won?

Difficult Regulation: While the 39 U.S. states that allow sports gambling regulate it within their own borders and the U.S. Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) regulates the trading of stocks, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulates prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket.

The CFTC is a long-standing regulatory body that promotes the “integrity, resilience, and vibrancy of the U.S. derivatives markets,” which includes financial products like swaps, futures, collateralized debt obligations, and options. The name derivative comes from the fact that the products are derived from the value of underlying financial assets such as commodities, stocks, and currencies.

A challenge for the CFTC in regulating prediction markets is that unlike the common financial assets listed above that tend to be relatively finite in number, the financial assets underlying prediction markets (bets) are constantly changing, as are the individuals who can potentially influence their values. As such, the CFTC necessarily delegates some of the regulation to the prediction markets themselves, or as it calls them, the “designated contract markets” (DCM). Two of the CFTC’s core principles highlight this delegation:

“a DCM is responsible for preventing market manipulation, price distortions, and disruptions in the settlement of contracts.”
“DCMs must establish and enforce rules to protect markets and participants from abusive practices, and promote fair and equitable trading.

This delegation suggests that regulation of prediction markets is not nearly as tight as that of other derivatives or financial products, which seems to increase the potential for abuse, as the next bullet describes.

Risk of manipulation: Per its website, the SEC is intent on stopping the buying and selling of securities based on material, nonpublic information:

“Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities.”

Fair treatment of all buyers and sellers is essential for the effective functioning of any market, whether it’s for physical goods or financial products. As the SEC can attest, even when you know organizations’ executives and can track their trading, it’s not easy to maintain market integrity. Fair treatment of all participants is even more challenging in prediction markets where information flow and influence of outcomes is often more obscured.

For instance, one currently trending bet on Polymarket poses a question about a signature esports competition: ‘What will be said at the BLAST Premier Open Rotterdam 2026?’

I’m not familiar with the event, but as it appears 11 cast members will be involved in broadcasting the competition for BLAST.tv, it’s easily imaginable how someone remotely connected to the broadcast could either find out what will be said or influence the dialogue, then either place bets for themselves or advise others’ betting, all while avoiding detection.

Betting based on inside information for esports commentary is one thing; betting involving covert military operations is another. “Hours before the U.S. military captured Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, an anonymous user on Polymarket bet tens of thousands of dollars that Mr. Maduro would fall.” The bettor, who some believe may have been a government official with inside information about the operation, pocketed $410,000.

Similarly suspicious, six newly created Polymarket accounts bet that the U.S. would strike Iran by February 28, and earned about $1 million. Bets on when the U.S. would attack were the only bets the accounts had placed. Apparently, some offshore prediction markets allow betting from anonymous or pseudonym accounts, which makes tracking insider influence all-the more difficult. Such systemic flaws provide a segue into the last point – danger.

Danger: Of course, the signaling of secretive military operations through prediction market bets places service personnel at great risk. However, almost anyone who doesn’t confirm, or validate, an event outcome that bettors desire also can be at risk. Such was the case for Times of Israel journalist Emanuel Fabian, who gamblers threatened to kill because the story he wrote about Iranian missile strikes on Israel didn’t support their side of a Polymarket bet.

Unfortunately, such gambling-related aggression is not an anomaly. Even in the case of sports betting, a recent NCAA study found that bettors harassed more than a third of Division I men’s basketball players. When money is at stake, people who gamble often don’t take their losses lightly, and sometimes they take out their frustrations on others in violent ways.

To plan for future events, individuals and organizations often need to try to predict them, then allocate resources, e.g., time and money, accordingly. Such ‘bets’ are crucial for our own effective functioning, as well as for those who rely on us.

That kind of ‘betting’ (i.e., planning) is different than wagering on the outcome of events that don’t involve us. While such betting can offer entertainment, afford income, and provide information, it also carries significant concerns including addiction, financial disaster, and even death.

Anticipating future occurrences for purposes of better planning is wise. Betting on largely irrelevant events invites unnecessary risk and introduces an array of unfavorable outcomes, beyond losing a bet. Encouraging others to play prediction markets may be profitable, but it's an investment in Single-Minded Marketing.

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

16 Comments

Falling in Love with AI

2/1/2026

37 Comments

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

February 14th has long reminded people of the affection they feel for the most important others in their lives: spouses, fiancés, boyfriends, girlfriends. Thanks to AI, “significant other” can now mean other than human, but even if people desire human-like intimacy from artificial intelligence, should organizations offer it?

A colleague recently shared an article with me and several others that she found disheartening: Married women in China who find their real-life relationship with their spouse lacking are spending the equivalent of thousands of U.S. dollars a year on AI boyfriends. The digital rendezvous often occur in otome games like Love and Romance, Light and Night, and Beyond the World.

I wasn’t entirely surprised by the article, as the issue has been on my radar, along with other AI-related concerns, for about two years, and over past several months, I’ve been tracking related stories such as these:

The increase in AI relationships could lead to a rise in divorces.
People are having “children” with chatbot partners.
Parents are turning to chatbots to mind their young children.
Adult children are leaning on AI to substitute for their own communication with aging parents.

Still, in doing research for this piece, I was stunned by some of the usage statistics:

Since 2014, more than 660 million residents of China have used Xiaoice, the world’s “most popular chatbot,” which Microsoft “uniquely designed as an AI companion with an emotional connection to satisfy the human need for communication, affection, and social belonging.”
Nearly 20% high schoolers report that they or someone they know has had a romantic relationship with AI.
Nearly 20% U.S. adults have used AI to simulate a romantic partner, and within young adults age 18-30, 31% of men and 23% of women have used AI in this way.
Since its launch in 2017, the AI companion Replika has had 30 million users, while the similar product Character AI has 20 million active users. Over half of Character AI’s users are age 18 to 24, and around a fourth are 25 to 34.

Writing for Greater Good Magazine, Sahar Habib Ghazi says statistics like these suggest that “AI-human romance isn’t niche--it’s mainstream, especially among young adults.”

Since there have been people, there have been interpersonal relationships. Of course, some reasons for those relationships have been very practical, e.g., procreation, protection; however, humans also have simply sought each other’s company and companionship.

In more recent times, researchers have empirically studied humans’ sociological and psychological behaviors and developed theories to describe them. Maslow’s classic Hierarchy of Needs suggests that the desire for belonging is among the most basic of all human desires, preempted only by physiological needs (e.g., air, food, water) and the need for safety.

Indeed, most people want to be around other people, if not all or most of the time, some of the time. In fact, it’s so unusual for anyone to spurn social interaction entirely that the rare individual who does receives the label hermit or recluse.

With technology, even a recluse can get a ‘social fix’ through one-way interactions, such as by following influencers or watching TV shows with favorite actors, or regularly listening to a particular podcast. In these cases, the followers/viewers/listeners don’t really know the ‘celebrity others,’ yet the former often feel a sense of connection to the latter.

There also are ways to fulfill social needs without any people. Perhaps the most popular substitutes are pets, which many people regularly enjoy. Harvard Health reports that “pets can provide their owners with more than companionship,” and Psychology Today suggests that pets can be “friends.”

Similarly, farmers sometimes bond with the livestock for which they care, e.g., a lead cow. Some people even gain a sense of social interaction by nurturing immobile living beings, i.e., plants, which can help them feel less lonely.

Together these examples form a continuum on which people might find satisfaction of social needs, ranging from extensive human contact, to relatively little, to none.

There also are countless cases in which people use other things not to meet social needs but to shift their focus from them, e.g., work, hobbies, media. For instance, someone might immerse themself in their job to help take their mind off feelings of loneliness.

Given the many ways of meeting and masking social needs currently and historically, is there any reason not to accept AI as a relationship alternative? After all, it can produce more human-like interaction than virtually any of the secondary options. Some would even say better-than-human.

There are advantages and disadvantages of AI relationships. The following two lists are not exhaustive but seem to be some of the main pros and cons.

Pros:

Readily available: No person is accessible all the time to talk, listen, etc. Chatbots are available 24/7. They’re also extremely fast, and they don’t get tired.

Nonjudgmental: For many people, it’s hard to simply listen to others’ disclosures without sharing their opinions of them. Chatbots typically refrain from such appraisals, which can be especially helpful for people who experience social anxiety or mental health challenges.

Very smart: Of course, AI makes mistakes, but the vast repository of information it can draw from and assimilate means it doesn’t suffer from ignorance and inexperience to the extent that many people do. What's more, AI’s ability to sensitively apply its expansive knowledge base means it can seem “more ‘human’ than many people.”

Adaptable: As people, we can adapt to others’ needs but it’s hard because as we do, we often need to stretch ourselves or give up our own needs. AI doesn’t have those limitations; it can be 100% accommodating.

Cons:

Dependency: Given that AI is so readily available, accommodating, and reluctant to ever say “no,” there’s risk of dependency and even addiction. In fact, some humans who have found themselves spending far too much time with AI companions have turned to the app I Am Sober to help break their obsessive compulsive behavior.

Data vulnerability: There’s risk involved with any of the information we share on websites or enter into apps, but the risk is greatly magnified when considering the very sensitive information individuals are likely to reveal to their AI companions, whose discretion is only as great as that of the companies behind them.

Manipulation: Along with potential misuse of users’ data is the potential for users to be unknowingly manipulated into buying products that a chatbot’s parent company wants to promote. It’s hard to imagine that companies won’t seek to monetize those intimate relationships – something that would almost never happen with a human partner.

Unrealistic expectations: In keeping with the previous point, AI’s varied advantages over people can cause its users to show little tolerance for human imperfections. Instead, they expect the people in their lives to offer support at an AI level.

Not true love: Although those who use AI companions may experience a “form of ‘love,’” it’s not likely real love given that genuine love involves the desire to nurture another’s well-being, and chatbots “don’t have well-being to nurture.” By the same token, AI can “replicate” some dimensions of love, but what it’s offering is just that – imitation, not genuine love.

Mistakes: As time goes on, AI seems to be making fewer mistakes and having less frequent hallucinations; however, the nature of the mistakes have sometimes been disastrous, such as when AI has offered to serve as a suicide coach and write troubled teens’ farewell letters.

Another possible con I was going to list for AI companions was the inability for physical expression, e.g., a touch, a hug, a kiss. However, it probably shouldn’t be surprising that some technically savvy companies have integrated AI into sex dolls to create life-like sex robots.

Also, while writing this piece, I learned of a platform called Moltbook, a website where AI agents interact with each other. Humans can only observe; they cannot enter the conversations. The dialogue is both interesting and disconcerting. It portends a time when AI agents might go rogue, working against their human principals, not for them. If this prediction is in any way a real possibility, engaging a bot as a companion seems even more precarious.

Although my secondary research for pieces like this is helpful, it’s often even more valuable for me to gain insights directly from experts. In this instance, I reached out to Dr. John King, an associate professor of counseling at Liberty University, who is a Licensed Professional Counselor, a National Certified Counselor, and a former pastor. I asked for his perspective on human-AI relationships.

Dr. King has “seen firsthand the devastation affecting a generation” – addiction to gaming and particularly online pornography, especially among young men. He’s also witnessed a rise in mental illness from addiction to phones and related technologies, which he believes has resulted in “a second pandemic: Generalized Anxiety Disorder.”

He adds, “When ethics and morality lag behind technological advancement, it seems inevitable that AI‑based romantic relationships will further increase mental‑health struggles, particularly among adolescents and young adults whose brains are still developing.”

Dr. King, whose Christian faith informs his professional perspective, believes that because God created people for relationship with Him and other people, trusting technology for companionship risks idolatry and will inevitably result in harm. For these reasons he hopes parents, religious leaders, educators, and government officials “will have the wisdom to address these issues proactively.”

Dr. King isn’t opposed to AI use. Like many of us, he uses AI for certain methodical tasks like proofreading; however, he stops well short of suggesting AI as a soulmate.

His perspective speaks to me, as I find it increasingly hard to envision the rewards of human-AI relationships outweighing the risks, either to the individual or to society.

As is the case with the six “pros” I outlined above, discussion of benefits of human-AI relationships almost always focuses on what the human user gains from the interaction. Benefits like 24/7 access are certainly appealing; however, the exclusive emphasis on getting misses the entire other half of healthy relationships – giving.

To at least some extent, the more people are getting their social needs met through AI, the less people are giving human support to others. Perhaps some individuals can effectively manage both types of relationships simultaneously, but it seems more likely that human-bot relationship time comes at the expense of human-human relationship time.

However, there’s another important concern beyond simple social need supply and demand. Humans are wired to give. Often the greatest satisfaction and fulfillment in life comes from giving: parents caring for children, spouses supporting each other, friends loving friends, neighbors helping neighbors, people uplifting strangers.

When individuals are engaged in AI relationships, to whom are they giving? The answer to that rhetorical question – no one – may be the foremost flaw of human-AI relationships.

Is there a place for human-AI relationships? Should companies offer them? Given some of the benefits mentioned above, I hesitate to answer “no” unequivocally. However, it seems AI organizations and the entities that regulate them should think very carefully about who has access to AI companions, for what reasons, and under what conditions.

For instance, age restrictions are an absolute necessity, minimum ones and perhaps maximum ones, or some type of cognitive test to protect people susceptible to manipulation because of cognitive decline. Should AI relationships be regulated like some pharmaceuticals are and require a prescription, or should AI relationships be subject to outside monitoring?

I wish I had better insights. What I do feel certain about is companies that make AI relationships easily available without setting limits and carefully considering likely individual and societal tolls are courting Single-Minded Marketing.

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

37 Comments

Cracks in the Branding Barrel

9/1/2025

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

When you write about current ethical issues in marketing, there are sometimes trending topics you feel compelled to discuss. That’s the case with Cracker Barrel, which has stirred up two hot questions: 1) Is the company’s rebranding as unpalatable as some say, and 2) Has the “Old Country Store” cooked up something unethical?

To call the current conversation surrounding the half-century-old restaurant known for downhome southern atmosphere and comfort food a “controversy” is a bit of a misnomer. True controversies are pretty evenly split between proponents and detractors. Looking online and talking with people about Cracker Barrel’ rebranding, it’s hard to find many who like the restaurant chain’s new direction.

A basic Google search of “Cracker Barrel rebrand” produces these kinds of harsh responses:

“So Arrogant”
“The Worst Rebrand of All Time?
“How Cracker Barrel’s Rebrand Went So Wrong”

Even one of the restaurant’s co-founders, 93-year-old Tommy Lowe, has called the logo resign “pitiful.”

When I asked a couple of my classes for their thoughts, responses to the rebrand were also chilly. Most of the students are in Gen Z, not the stereotypical Cracker Barrel customer, and only a few had visited the restaurant recently, but many still voiced strong negative reactions. One student suggested the whole thing might be a PR stunt.

Although anything’s possible, I doubt the company would have 1) expected such backlash and 2) been willing to risk the long-term repercussions of things going sideways. That’s not a risk many companies would be willing to assume, particularly a restaurant as traditional as Cracker Barrel.

So, why did it decide to do such a bold rebranding? The company needed to reverse a downward slide and better position itself for the future.

On April 9, 2021, Cracker Barrel stock (CBRL on NASDAQ) traded at a high of $175.09. Since then, the stock has charted a rather consistent downward path.

About a year ago on September 6, 2024, its stock reached a low of $37.33, a decrease of $137.76, or 78.7% of the stock’s value from the April 2021 high.

The precipitous loss of equity would be concern enough, but demographics also suggest a challenging future for the restaurant chain that for many years has targeted Baby Boomers and older adults. As those customers keep aging, their restaurant visits decrease and will eventually dry up. Like any organization, Cracker Barrel must ensure there are new, younger consumers to replace the ones who age out of its products/services.

Although this generation-to-generation transition is a perennial challenge for restaurants and other businesses, significant industry changes have made life even harder for Cracker Barrel. Fast casual chains like Panera, Chipotle, and Cava are now the eateries of choice for many consumers, including Gen Ys and Zs, who often would rather not spend the time and money on a more traditional table-service meal.

In addition, food tastes have changed considerably over recent years. Comfort food for millennials is more likely to be a bowl with brown rice and falafel than a plate of mashed potatoes and meat loaf.

These trends have already severely impacted sit-down dining restaurants such as Applebee’s, Red Lobster, and TGI Fridays. Cracker Barrel likely has lasted longer because its older and more loyal customers helped insulate the company from the trends, but that insulation is now wearing very thin.

To its credit, Cracker Barrel’s rebranding has involved much more than just revising its logo, or graphic icon.

Earlier this year, the restaurant chain began updating the interiors of its dining rooms, which has included brighter colors and more comfortable seating. It also revamped its country stores to make the floorspace less cluttered and the merchandise more attractive. Finally, it added a variety of new menu items that both fit the old southern comfort food theme and appeal to more modern palettes, e.g., Nashville Hot and Honey Butter Fried Chicken.

Big market challenges usually demand bold solutions, which Cracker Barrel’s A-to-Z rebranding seems to represent. To be fair, it didn’t just slap a bandage (a more modern logo) on deeply seated problems. However, that general evaluation doesn’t mean the specific tactics it’s used are the right ones.

Since I’m Gen X, not one of the younger age cohorts that Cracker Barrel is most interested in for survival and future growth (Gen Y and Z), I spoke with a couple of people who are.

The first conversation was my son Daniel Hagenbuch, a doctoral student at Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music, who has a great ear for sound and eye for design. Although he hadn’t visited a Cracker Barrel store since the renovations, he’s liked what he’s seen online of the new design elements. He said the fresher paint colors and new wall décor looked more tasteful and should appeal more to younger customers, who would appreciate a more modern look. He also thought one of the restaurant’s new seasonal items, OREO Stuffed Cheesecake Pancakes looked promising. He wasn’t, however, a fan of the new logo.

Neither was the second Gen Z member with whom I spoke, Daniel Smith, a thoughtful senior graphic design major and marketing minor at Messiah University. On one hand, he understood reasons for replacing the old logo, such as its fine detail posing challenges for scaling to small sizes like those required for pens and business cards. However, his design sense also went against the new logo:

“The rebranded logo uses a modern and minimalist approach, which is not at all related to Cracker Barrel’s ‘old country store’ aesthetic. The type is surrounded by a massive, blank margin space, making it feel like it lacks character. Also, the yellow space behind the type is supposed to be a barrel on its side but is barely recognizable, making the new logo worse than the iconic original.”

His evaluation aligns with my own analysis and likely with those of other professionals. Logos shouldn’t be pictures, partly because they need to be adaptable to a variety of surfaces and imprint sizes. The first article I ever wrote made that case: “Logos Should Work on Paper, Products,” which the American Marketing Association published in Marketing News in 2001.

Nostalgia is often a complicated thing to market. Sometimes what people want isn’t exactly the ‘way it used to be’, rather it’s a blend of the past and present. For instance, some new turntables for vinyl records have Universal Serial Bus (USB) outputs even though USB didn’t exist during the golden age of turntables. USB was first introduced in 1996. By that time CDs had replaced cassettes, which had replaced vinyl records a decade or more before.

A metaphor for people’s mixed appreciation for nostalgia might be American’s tastes for international food. Although many of us say we really like Mexican food or Chinese food, individuals from those nations sometimes point out that the food in their home countries is considerably different than the versions served in the U.S., which may be blander, have less heat, etc.

To survive, Cracker Barrel’s value proposition probably needs to become a fusion of past and present in order to satisfy the desires of younger generations whose lives are increasing far removed from the restaurant’s old country era. For that reason, refreshing the dining area, renovating the store, and revamping the menu are likely good things.

Revising its logo was also a good idea; however, the company’s execution fell short. The new logo was lacking in many ways. There likely could have been more input into its development and better communication ahead of its release.

Change can be hard for any of us to accept, including when it’s related to an iconic restaurant. However, it’s hard to argue that Cracker Barrel’s changes were unethical. For these reasons, the restaurant’s less-than-satisfying recipe for change tastes like Simple-Minded Marketing.

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

Should Dolls Have Diseases?

8/1/2025

18 Comments

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

Perhaps no toy is more iconic than Mattel’s Barbie. From its humble beginnings 66 years ago at the American Toy Fair to a 2023 blockbuster movie, an ever-expanding variety of dolls and accessories have delighted millions of children, as well as some adults wanting to relive their childhoods. Throughout their existence, Barbie products have been consistently on brand – cheery and upbeat. So why would the renowned toymaker want to give its signature product a life-altering disease?

Over the years, Barbie has held well over 100 different jobs that have literally ranged from A to Z, e.g., astronaut (1965) to zoologist (2021). In between, Barbie also been an Olympic skier (1975), a rock star (1986), a business executive (1992), a film producer (2005), and a martial artist (2017), to name a few other occupations.

However, there’s a big difference between a profession that people choose and a disease that chooses them. Moreover, individuals often undertake years of schooling or other specialized training to prepare for their career, which then becomes a major source of self-esteem, as well as a primary personal identifier when introducing themselves to others. No one says, “Hi, I’m Chris, I’m incontinent.”

It's true that there are many people who rightly take pride in being cancer survivors or in recovering from other major health challenges, like heart attacks. However, I’ve also heard some say that they don’t want a disease to be what defines them. They want to be recognized and remembered for other things.

By marketing a Barbie with type 1 diabetes, is Mattel teaching kids to make the disease what defines them?

To the company’s credit, over many years it has gained considerable experience making dolls with unique physical attributes and related challenges. As might be expected, some of the toys have been better received than others.

Mattel first introduced a Barbie with a disability in 1997: Share-A-Smile Becky, who came with a pink wheelchair. However, the initial success that saw 6,000 dolls sold within the first two weeks was short-lived, as users found that Becky’s wheelchair was largely incompatible with the Barbie Dreamhouse.

In 2000, Mattel marketed a Barbie with vitiligo, a skin condition in which a lack of pigmentation gives a person an uneven, spotty complexion, and another doll with no hair, designed to represent any of the many reasons a child may experience hair loss.

In 2012, The company made Ella, a bald friend of Barbie, distributing a limited number of the dolls directly to hospitals. Two years later, the toymaker produced more Ellas in response to a petition from the mother of a cancer patient.

Mattel released Barbies with different body types in 2016, e.g., tall, curvy, and petite – a significant departure from the doll’s perpetually svelte physique. Unlike other Barbies with unique physical attributes, these dolls’ distinct traits weren’t directly related to diseases or disabilities. Instead, they indirectly supported positive mental health by diverging from society’s homogenized and often unrealistic standards of beauty.

In 2022, Mattel introduced an expanded line of dolls with disabilities, this time consulting experts to ensure even more accurate representation of the conditions. The collection included a Barbie with a prosthetic leg, another with a behind-the-ear-hearing aid, and a Ken doll with vitiligo. AmeriDisability, which seeks to represent America’s disability community, lauded the introduction as “groundbreaking.”

Similarly, in 2023, ahead of the release of its first Barbie with Down syndrome, Mattel worked with the National Down Syndrome Society to ensures the doll’s accurate representation of the genetic condition.

So, in many ways a Barbie with type 1 diabetes is just another iteration of differently enabled dolls for Mattel, but what do these dolls mean for our society? Is their net impact positive or negative?

Given that neither dolls nor diseases are in my wheelhouse, I reached out to several people who could answer these questions more authoritatively: Dr. Kevin Barnes – a retired pediatrician, Dr. Sarah Jones – a nurse educator, and Meredith Schorner – an RN and school nurse.

Barnes said he appreciates that Mattel spent more than a year working with a diabetes organization in order to ensure the doll’s accuracy, and he believes that for some of the more than 200,000 children in the U.S. with type 1 diabetes mellitus, it could be therapeutic to play with a doll that experiences the same things they do.

However, he also expresses some valid concerns, for instance:

Where do we draw the line on dolls representing childhood diseases, particularly ones that are somewhat “invisible” to others even though they greatly impact daily life, e.g., celiac disease, asthma?
Given Barbie’s history of more often emphasizing style over substance, how much of Mattel’s motivation in making the doll is the positive publicity it generates?

Jones believes that the type 1 diabetes Barbie can potentially do much good by helping to make the condition more mainstream, or acceptable, which among other things, could encourage proper self-management. That care is critical given that the disease demands intensive insulin therapy with either multiple daily injections or an insulin pump.

With confirmation from a colleague who regularly cares for diabetes patients, Jones states that Barbie’s self-monitoring insulin pump is the standard for treatment, which Jones sees as positive overall. However, like Barnes, she also raises some important questions about the doll:

Does its female Caucasian identity fall short in representing the disease’s well-documented impact across gender and racial lines?
Could Barbie’s continuous glucose monitoring device and insulin pump create stigma for children whose insurance will not cover the advanced technology and for families that cannot afford it so they must rely on traditional injections?
Could the doll make it more socially acceptable to have type 1 diabetes but not type 2? This may be an increasing concern given that incidences of type 2 diabetes, which is often associated with obesity, are on the rise among children.

Not surprising, Jone’s differentiation of the two sometimes conflated conditions coincides with that of the University of Virginia Health System, which states that “Unlike type 1, type 2 diabetes is not an autoimmune disorder,” rather it “occurs mostly in people over 45, or in younger people with obesity or genetic reasons.”

Besides her role as a school nurse, Schorner is a parent of young girls who believes the diabetic Barbie will be “an exciting new toy for many.” More than just a plaything for those who have type 1 diabetes, she expects the doll will raise questions for nondiabetic children and help them better understand the devices they see on some of their peers. She elaborates:

“Children need to know that their peers with type 1 diabetes (T1D) didn't do anything ‘wrong’ to become diabetic – they didn't eat too much sugar, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with their weight. T1D is increasing in prevalence, and diabetic children need lots of support at home and at school. They need peers that can be not just understanding but also helpful to them in managing their diabetes.”

“Under the guidance of a knowledgeable adult, engaging in play with this doll may help young children develop a basic understanding of CGM readings, carbohydrate counting, and insulin requirements. It could also help children to know what to do if they encounter a person experiencing a diabetic emergency.”

Schorner has firsthand experience caring for children with type 1 diabetes. In one case, the child’s family chose finger sticks and insulin injections, at least in part because they were concerned that a more socially visible glucose monitor might label their child as a diabetic.

Another case involving a child who uses a glucose monitor and pump was different. Schorner recently had the privilege of telling this child about the new Barbie. When she did, the child’s face “lit up with excitement,” and they immediately asked to see a picture of the doll on Schorner’s phone. The child compared their technology to the doll's and although they weren’t the same, they appreciated seeing the doll with its accessories and seemed eager to add the Barbie to their nearly nonexistent collection of diabetes-related toys.

Notwithstanding this very positive response, Schorner added that not all states or insurance companies offer the same assistance to help cover the out-of-pocket cost of insulin pumps. Consequently, she can imagine how the Barbie could be discouraging to families of diabetic children that don’t have the means to purchase newer insulin-dispensing devices.

Over a decade of writing Mindful Marketing articles, I’ve often relied on experts to help me know the relevant facts and understand the nuances of complex ethical issues. The question of whether Mattel should market a Barbie with type 1 diabetes was certainly one for which I’ve needed such assistance.

The three experts on which I leaned for this piece have been extremely helpful to me in elucidating the case’s multifaceted, competing considerations. Despite the very real reservations that Barnes, Jones, and Schorner all offered, it seems that each believes there’s a place for a diabetic Barbie.

Their informed input certainly has shaped my opinion, but what may have been most impactful is the heartfelt reaction of a diabetic child who loves that a special Barbie will reflect their unique life experience.

No toy is perfect, but one that receives significant support from healthcare experts and that instantly delights a child with a life-altering disease most likely represents Mindful Marketing.

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

18 Comments

Should AI Help People Stay In Touch?

7/1/2025

18 Comments

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

When was the last time you spoke with your mom or dad? For adult children with their own families and demanding jobs, time between conversations with their aging parents can quickly become days or weeks. At a time when there seems to be a technological solution for every problem, it’s not surprising that there’s an app for that, but do we really want our moms and dads chatting with AI instead of with us?

InTouch is an internet-based subscription service that allows customers to enlist Mary, a pleasant and engaging AI agent, to have phone conversations with their aging parents. AI Touch s.r.o., a Czech Republic company that appears to own InTouch, offers several sample conversations on its website.

The site also provides some compelling rationale for the service, such as:

Stimulating the loved ones’ minds
Supporting their emotional well-being
Strengthening family connections

The company adds, “We go beyond small talk, discussing family, hobbies, memories, and even brain teasers to keep [the older parents’] mind active and spirits lifted.” The firm also promises to provide a short summary of each call so the subscriber can know how their parent is doing, or if they didn’t answer the phone.

Ultimately, inTouch aims to address a customer pain point that’s increasingly common for a particular generation of people who often must care for two sets of loved ones simultaneously: their own children and their aging parents. The caught-in-the-middle phenomenon has spawned the fitting term "the sandwich generation."

The age cohort that’s currently most likely to find itself in the middle is Generation X, whose members, born between 1965 and 1980, are 45 to 60 years old. Studies have shown that the pull of two-way caregiving places unique strain on Gen X’s time, as well as on their financial and mental health.

I am one of those Gen Xs who recently lived the sandwich experience. My father passed away less than four years ago, and my mother a little more than a year. Given a variety of physical challenges as well as worsening dementia, my mom required a particularly great amount of care in the years leading up to her passing.

At the same time, my wife and I were not yet empty nesters, and we both had demanding full-time jobs. Often it was difficult to balance the competing demands placed upon us.

Although that time was not long ago, AI agent-based services like InTouch didn’t exist then, or at least I didn’t know about them. If InTouch has been available to me, should I have used it to interact with my mother?

As just mentioned, I have firsthand experience similar to that of inTouch’s target market, which helps me envision the service’s pros and cons. However, I’m not an expert on older adults or the multifaceted social and psychological dynamics surrounding the aging process, so I reached out to someone who is.

Dr. Raeann Hamon is Distinguished Professor of Family Science and Gerontology at Messiah University. Her meaningful research, impactful writing, and influential leadership over several decades have gained her international renown. Moreover, she’s a thoughtful and compassionate person who wants the best for others.

I shared inTouch’s website with Dr. Hamon and asked if she would offer her perspective on the service. She graciously agreed.

Dr. Hamon acknowledged inTouch’s “great sales pitch” to time-strapped adult children who feel the challenge of caring for older family members, including engaging in what can be long, repetitive conversations. She pointed to the website’s promises to stimulate the mind, support emotional well-being, and reassure and connect you, which she said on the surface seem like positive applications of AI.

However, Dr. Hamon’s overriding reaction to InTouch was one of sadness and concern about AI replacing real human interaction with older family members. She explained her unease:

“The problem for me is that connections between aging adults and their adult children, grandchildren, friends, neighbors, and caregivers are irreplaceable. It’s not possible to duplicate them with machines, nor should we try. In my opinion, humans need to prioritize togetherness and share the depth of feelings possible in direct relationship with each other.”

At the same time, she was circumspect, recognizing that there are unique situations that might warrant special consideration:

“Perhaps there are older adults who are socially isolated and have no extended family. Maybe this would be useful for them. But even then, I would argue that such a situation offers an opportunity for neighbors to reach out to make connections. What would we say if busy parents employed a similar AI application for interacting with their children? Where does it end?”

Ultimately, she maintained that if there is a place for a service like inTouch, “it should be for the benefit of the older parent, not the adult child.”

Dr. Hamon’s reflections resonated with me. I’m sure I speak for my sisters when I say that as we cared for our aging parents, it was always with the goal of making their later years as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. From what our parents said and showed, a large part of that enjoyment came from being with and talking with us.

In the month before my father died, I had several opportunities to drive him around the areas that used to be his sales territory for the promotional products company he started, which became our family business. As his mind was still very sharp, we had many great conversations that included fond memories of the places and people we knew.

My mother’s situation was different. Because of worsening dementia, she experienced many years of progressive mental decline that eventually challenged her to recall even the most basic facts about herself and her family. Still, she maintained a very positive attitude through her final days and continued to cherish conversations with her loved ones.

My sisters and I also treasured those times and talks with our parents. We didn’t know then how long they would last, but we realized they were limited, which made them priceless then and now.

Dr. Hamon feels the same way. Beyond her professional roles, she’s a person who has experienced many of the familial dynamics she researches, writes about, and teaches. As a daughter she says, “I would never trade a minute with either of my parents.”

These experiences of mine, my siblings, and Dr. Hamon lead me to believe that even as inTouch offers an arguably helpful service to time-strapped adult children, it may be doing a disservice to them by taking away some of the most important and meaningful interactions of their lives: time-bound, person-specific experiences and that no technology can replicate or replace.

Each day, AI gets better at imitating human interactions. As it does, more people likely will allow daily discrete chatbot inquiries to “morph into companionship.” Such an evolution seems like a precarious path for humanity.

In many ways inTouch’s intentions are noble, but as Dr. Hamon suggests, the service seems like a step down the precarious path of technological relationships replacing human ones – a course that in this case is charted by Single-Minded Marketing.

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

18 Comments

Whether to Work in Multilevel Marketing

6/1/2025

12 Comments

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

Marketing ethics demands special care for vulnerable consumers – individuals who are at greater risk of being deceived or treated unfairly because they have less life experience, diminished senses, reduced cognitive skills, etc. While children, people with disabilities, and older adults are often considered vulnerable, one group that’s rarely included is college students; however, these young people are particularly susceptible to the practices of a specific category of employment: multi-level marketing.

I was glad to receive an email a few weeks ago from a student who had recently completed my business ethics course, “Morality in the Marketplace.” Rachel Sealover was an excellent participant who continually asked good questions, made insightful comments, and challenged my own thinking. However, my gladness turned to sadness as Rachel shared she had endured two very uncomfortable interviews with individuals attempting to recruit her for multilevel marketing (MLM). She then asked if I had ever written a Mindful Marketing article about MLM.

Having authored more than 320 ethics pieces during the last decade, I sometimes forget which issues I have/haven’t addressed. MLM seemed like one I had treated, but when a search of my master file produced no hits, I realized my recollection wasn’t from a Mindful Marketing article but from an email exchange I had with a fellow Messiah University professor more than ten years earlier.

In January of 2015, Professor of Philosophy Tim Schoettle contacted me after one of his former students asked to meet with him to talk about the multilevel marketer Primerica. Tim was troubled because he had seen several other MLM companies target recent college grads with unrealistic promises of clear paths to success and wealth. What’s more, just before his wife entered college, some of her mother’s Amway “upline,” higher-ups in the pyramid, told his wife that she would be more financially successful if she skipped college in favor of a career as an Amway “Independent Business Owner” (IBO).

Coincidentally, just a few days after I received Rachel’s email, I was seated at a table with Tim for an end-of-year “Ethics and the Common Good” retreat, as we each teach an ethics course in our university’s new general education curriculum. Without prompting or remembering our correspondence ten years earlier, Tim again brought up the topic of MLM. I was happy he did and told him that I planned to write a long overdue article on MLM and would invite his input. This, of course, is the article!

If you’re unfamiliar with the term, multilevel marketing refers to business models that sell directly to end consumers through independent distributors (i.e., non-employees). Moreover, the distributors are sometimes highly incentivized not just to sell products but to recruit others to do the same, as a portion of the earnings from their “downline” gets paid to those above them in the hierarchy.

Selling directly to end-consumers is not uncommon, for instance, thousands of automotive salespeople and real estate agents rightfully earn commissions on the cars and houses they sell to new buyers each day; however, those agents don’t typically try to recruit other agents in order to increase their earnings through passive income, which is a primary objective in much multilevel marketing.

Still, there’s not necessarily anything wrong with someone who loves what they do recruiting others to do the same work. What becomes problematic, though, is when new recruits are promised income streams that are unrealistic for anyone far down in the expansive triangular organizational structures. It’s in such situations that MLM can become a pyramid scheme.

In pyramid schemes, a small number of initial, top-level ‘investors’ earn above average returns on their investments, which are funded by the contributions of a larger number of newer second-tier investors. However, each subsequent level of the pyramid requires more investors to support the level above it, all while returns become increasingly difficult to deliver. Eventually, it becomes impossible for those in the lower levels of the pyramid to recoup their investments, and the pyramid collapses.

Some distinguish pyramid schemes from Ponzi schemes. Both share the triangular hierarchy. The main difference is that Ponzi schemes rely specifically on a continual flow of lower-level financial investors while pyramid schemes require the perpetual onboarding of new recruits who must pay significant entry fees to join the organization. In that sense MLM that prioritizes recruiting new representatives over the sale of products can rightly be called a pyramid scheme.

Such objective descriptions and definitions are useful; however, what’s even more meaningful is to hear from people who have experienced MLM firsthand. For that close-up perspective we turn to Rachel and Tim.

Given the multitude of moral issues that exist in business and marketing, we unfortunately didn’t discuss MLM in our ethics class; still, when Rachel interviewed for positions with MLM firms, her moral foundation informed her that things were not right.

A first red flag was the ease at which interviews were granted – She received an invitation to apply through the mail with minimal requirements: “No experience necessary, just apply using the QR code.”

Similarly, Tim has been alarmed by MLM firms’ aggressiveness in recruiting college students. In fact, he was so concerned by what he heard from former students, he decided to attend an Amway recruitment meeting so he could see the tactics himself. The meeting’s leader leveraged rhetoric in promising a path to wealth and independence, while avoiding any meaningful discussion of tangible business metrics like costs, customer demand, or return on investment. To Tim, the gathering felt more like “a motivational rally” than any kind of serious business seminar.

Rachel likewise observed a lack of financial transparency: “MLMs are usually not upfront with what employees are making for their first few paychecks, or how much you’ll make once you start.” Yet, when they do talk about results it’s “hyping up outcomes by highlighting the small percentage of people who do really well.”

For Tim, who maintains that “approximately 99% of participants in MLM lose money,” this practice of presenting the few best cases to prospective distributors is clearly deceptive.

In her interviews, Rachel also was unnerved by the firms’ “sketchy” emphasis on recruiting other distributors over selling their products:

“Selling the product to your target market is what every business does, but not every business is encouraging you to bring people in from your network or asking you to handover people's numbers.”

Tim’s many observations of MLM firms concur:

“The vast majority of profits in MLMs come not from selling products to customers, but from recruiting others and expanding one’s ‘downline.’ In practice, this model closely resembles a pyramid scheme.”

Rachel learned firsthand that MLM firms make much of their money from new recruits who they ask to pay “some sort of fee or startup cost” as a condition of employment. In that way, it doesn’t really matter how long new distributors last – the companies realize significant revenue just from what the recruits pay to sign-on.

Perhaps what troubled both Rachel and Tim most was seeing MLM firms make college students and recent grads their target market. As someone who knows this group better than most, Rachel acknowledged that many in the demographic are “vulnerable to get rich quick opportunities,” given their low economic means, their great desire to be hired, and their limited experience reasoning about vocational pros and cons.

Concerned about the lure of MLM on his students – past, present, and future – Tim laments, “The incentives to mislead are strong and baked into the system, making the bankruptcy of MLM difficult to detect, especially for those drawn in by the promise of personal success.” It’s not surprising, therefore, that he calls the business model “predatory.”

Are all MLM firms morally deficient? Probably not, but to synthesize Rachel’s and Tim’s reflections, ones that do one or more of the following five things offer reason for ethical pause:

Incentivize the recruitment of new distributors over selling products
Paint vague and/or unrealistic pictures of participant success
Use rhetoric to play on prospects’ emotions, e.g., fear, excitement, unrealistic optimism
Charge new enrollees significant nonrefundable startup fees
Require new distributors to share contact information of individuals in their networks

In keeping with the fifth point, even if someone is successful in MLM, a downside is the potential strain their work can place on relationships with family members and friends who feel continual pressure to support their loved one’s sales and/or recruitment goals.

Regrettably, there will always be new moral issues for Mindful Marketing to analyze. It’s also regrettable that it took me over ten years to tackle multilevel marketing. However, thanks to Rachel’s and Tim’s insights, this article should provide a helpful rubric for determining when MLM firms are only looking out for themselves and, therefore, are guilty of Single-Minded Marketing.

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

12 Comments

Apps that Imagine People Undressed

5/1/2025

9 Comments

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

Disgusting, deplorable, despicable? For more than a decade, I’ve written about ethical issues in marketing, at times exposing certain organizations’ shameful strategies that have disgraced the discipline and hurt people. However, in this instance I’m at a loss for an adjective that can aptly describe the collective disdain there should be for AI that digitally undresses people: nudify apps.

Among the worst practices in marketing I’ve discussed over the years, two that immediately come to mind are Ernst & Young (EY) encouraging its employees to cheat on ethics exams (Cultures of Corruption, July 16, 2022) and Volkswagen integrating a “defeat device” in certain cars in order to trick vehicle emissions readers (Dirty Diesel was No Accident, September 26, 2015). While EY’s behavior was deplorable because of its utter irony, VW’s actions involved painstakingly planned manipulation, the likes of which is seldom seen.

However, neither of these approaches is any more appalling than the newest encroachment on moral sensibility: nudify apps.

What are nudify apps? Kerry Gallagher, the education director for ConnectSafely, as well as a school administrator, a teacher, and a mom of two, succinctly describes them as apps that “take a regular clothed photo of a person and use artificial intelligence to create a fake nude image.”

Although using a nudify app to create such images should alone seem improper, what makes matters worse is that the apps’ users routinely share the fake photos with others, often teens as young as middle school, who then use the deepfake photos to harass and humiliate classmates.

The most infamous case of such shaming occurred in June 2024 in Australia where deep-faked nude images of about 50 girls in two private schools were widely distributed. The perpetrator was a male student, formerly of one of the schools.

As one can imagine, the victims of nudify apps, who are often the last to know what’s been done, are devasted. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is “deeply concerned about the potential for generative artificial intelligence to be used in ways that sexually exploit and harm children.” More specifically, NCMEC issues a stern warning about the damage nudify apps do:

“These manipulative creations can cause tremendous harm to children, including harassment, future exploitation, fear, shame, and emotional distress. Even when exploitative images are entirely fabricated, the harm to children and their families is very real.”

It might seem that creating a fake nude image of someone would clearly be illegal, but as often happens with new technology, laws lag behind individuals’ and organizations’ actions. In the United States, a provision in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022 made the sharing of intimate images without consent grounds for civil action in federal court, but if the images shared are fakes, i.e., not real explicit images, has the civil law truly been broken?

Regardless of that potential legal loophole, using nudify apps legally doesn’t mean doing so is ethical.

The significant psychological and social harms the images cause their victims are certainly moral concerns. However, such negative outcomes aren’t the only ethical grounds on which nudify apps should be judged. The behavior also violates at least two time-tested values:

Fairness: Every person has rights to privacy, including for their body. Even though they are not actual photographs, the images that nudify apps create look “hyper-realistic” because the algorithms that create them have been trained on “large datasets of explicit images,” which produces for viewers the effect that they are actually seeing the victim naked. It’s unfair to have the right to physical modesty ‘stripped away’ without consent.
Decency: The human body is a beautiful thing, not inherently indecent. However, over millennia, most cultures have adopted rational norms that limit physical exposure in public by prescribing what people should wear, from loincloths to leggings. Many societies have codified their norms into laws aimed at guiding behavior, like statutes against public indecency and the Motion Picture Association’s film rating system (PG-13, R, etc.). The point is, abundant precedent suggests that the primary end of nudify apps, to indiscriminately publicize human nakedness, including among minors, is fundamentally indecent.

So far the focus of this article has been on the users of nudify apps, who are certainly culpable for their shameful acts. At the same time, when the perpetrators are themselves children, it’s especially important to ask: Who else should bear responsibility? Those accountable should include:

Parents: Although it’s impossible to monitor everything one’s kids do on their laptops and phones, parents must establish at least some safety limits. Moreover, parents should model and discuss appropriate behaviors more broadly so their children assimilate values that will positively guide their daily choices.
Institutions: Schools should be proactive in addressing nudify apps with their students, letting them know that the apps are off-limits and warning students of the consequences for violations.
Government: Legislatures at all levels should consider how then can limit if not eliminate nudify apps. Some states like New Jersey are making the use of nudify apps a criminal offense.
Associations: For the benefit of their fields, professional groups can take stands against nudify apps specifically, and more generally they should clearly the communicate the values of fairness and decency that are fundamental to rejecting the apps, as well as future technology based on similar impropriety.

There’s one other set of responsible parties not mentioned above because they deserve accountability above any other – the apps’ creators.

It’s hard to imagine how the dozens of marketers of nudify apps justify their products. Maybe some rationalize, “They’re for people to nudify themselves,” but who needs to do that? In most imaginable instances, the apps’ purpose is to undress others without their knowledge or consent, then to share the sordid deepfakes with others.

As often happens in cases where business strategy goes awry, money has likely overshadowed any plausible mission for the creators of nudify apps and woefully skewed the tech entrepreneurs’ ambitions. Likewise, the apps’ creators seemingly failed to self-censure, or follow the moral mandate, Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

One entity that can’t reasonably be held responsible is AI. Artificial intelligence is basically a value-neutral tool, often used for good purposes but sometimes for nefarious ones, as nudify apps illustrate. AI largely does what it’s told to do without questioning the ethicality of the instructions, which is the obligation of people.

As I’ve found through my own experiences using AI and as the following articles expound, it’s up to humans to hit pause when potential ethical issues arise and to ask the moral question, “Is this something we should be doing?”

Abominable, egregious, heinous, indefensible, reprehensible – maybe all these adjectives are needed to adequately describe the destructive nature of nudify apps. One other descriptor that should be included is Single-Minded Marketing.

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

9 Comments

Who will be the Adult in the Room with AI?

4/1/2025

19 Comments

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.

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.

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

19 Comments

What Sales AI Can and Can't Do

3/1/2025

5 Comments

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.

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.

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

5 Comments

<<Previous

Bad AI or Bad AI Owners?

Putting Money on Prediction Markets

Falling in Love with AI

Cracks in the Branding Barrel

Should Dolls Have Diseases?

Should AI Help People Stay In Touch?

Whether to Work in Multilevel Marketing

Apps that Imagine People Undressed

Who will be the Adult in the Room with AI?

What Sales AI Can and Can't Do

Editor

Archives

Categories