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

Apps that Imagine People Undressed

5/1/2025

2 Comments

 
Picture

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

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.
 
Picture

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?”
  • Who will be the Adult in the Room with AI?
  • What Sales AI Can and Can't Do
  • Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics
 
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.



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

Who will be the Adult in the Room with AI?

4/1/2025

11 Comments

 
Picture

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

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


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

What Sales AI Can and Can't Do

3/1/2025

2 Comments

 
Picture

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

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

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

Resolving to be More Moral

1/5/2025

4 Comments

 
Picture

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

With a new year come resolutions, often aimed at life-changing actions like exercising more and working less. Any effort to become the best version of ourselves is commendable, so why haven’t we heard this resolution? “In 2025, I want to be more ethical.”
 
As 2024 ended, it was interesting to read articles that curated top headlines from the prior twelve months, which reminded us of major life-altering and world-shaping events. Like other years, 2024 saw continued war and devastating natural disasters, and who can forget the contentious U.S. presidential election or the inspiring Paris Olympics?
 
Certain people commanded news coverage in good ways, while others did for the wrong reasons:
  • P-Diddy was accused of sex trafficking that involved drug-fueled orgies. 
  • Luigi Mangione has been charged with the murder of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO.
  • Former U.S. congressman Matt Gaetz purportedly paid tens of thousands of dollars to women for sex and drugs, including to a minor. 
  • Dominique Pelicot was sentenced in France to 20 years in prison for drugging and abusing his then wife while also inviting dozens of strangers to rape her.
  • A fifteen-year-old girl in Madison Wisconsin reportedly killed a fellow student and a teacher.
 
Regrettably, poor moral choices weren’t restricted to individuals. Several large companies pooled employee maleficence, leading to these newsworthy corporate scandals:
  • Mineral water producer Perrier utilized banned water purification processes.
  • Commodity trader Trifugura engaged in data manipulation, inflated payments, and concealing overdue receivables – fraud that will account for approximately $1.1 billion in losses.
  • The U.S. Justice Department found multinational software company SAP guilty of bribery in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), fining the company $220 million. 
  • The U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) fined the Netherlands affiliate of accounting giant KPMG $25 million for cheating on mandatory internal training exams. 
 
Of course, there were also millions of other unscrupulous acts that were too trivial to be newsworthy or that evaded public scrutiny for other reasons. However, in terms of morality, 2024 was not much different than 2023, and 2025, unfortunately, probably won’t see significant improvement.
 
So, given people’s proclivity to mess up and our perennial need for moral development, why don’t individuals make New Year’s resolutions to be more ethical?
 
Of the many plausible explanations, here are several that are most likely:
  • People don’t see a need: If asked if they’re ethical, most people would probably respond that they are, which by and large is true. Although we all make mistakes, it’s likely a small percentage of people who commit unethical acts routinely.
  • It’s a very broad pledge: Without a detailed action plan, it’s hard to even begin to approach such a far-reaching and expansive goal, i.e., “It’s a good objective, but how exactly do I accomplish it?”
  • It’s difficult to measure: At year’s end, how does one know if they’ve been more ethical? The goal’s ambiguity and lack of clear benchmarks make it hard to easily see success. How exactly do you quantify and appraise ethical behavior?
  • It’s daunting: Possible failure is likely why many potential resolutions never occur. No one likes to fall short of goals, particularly if they share them with other people.
 
That said, the most challenging goals are sometimes the most worthwhile ones, which is certainly the case for ethics. As rational, caring humans, we should want:
  • To be the best version of ourselves, which connects closely to our moral choices
  • To be true to our values and employ consistency across moral decisions
  • To be good stewards of our actions, realizing their impact on others, including on our family, friends, the organizations we serve, as well as on our world.
  • To avoid the major moral meltdowns described above that profoundly altered individuals lives and/or came at tremendous costs to organizations.
 
Fortunately, most people don’t face significant ethical choices each day. However, moral dilemmas are unpredictable: They’re like tornados that can arise with little warning and quickly become severe.


Picture
 
People who live in Tornado Alley understand the uncertainty and danger of the weather, so many there take necessary precautions and “have a safety plan in place.”
 
We each should follow that example and have a plan for moral decision-making, so when issues arise, we’re ready for them. Such a plan should involve specific actions like:
  • Adopting a model for ethical decision-making, i.e., a set of moral standards that can be used for any ethical dilemma.
  • Keeping ethics top-of-mind by reading thought-provoking opinion pieces and engaging with others who are interested in moral decision-making
  • Enlisting others to act as sounding boards for our decisions and to help hold us accountable
  • Making moral choices preemptively, or deciding before we actually need to decide.
 
These are several of the specific action steps I unpack in the final chapter of my new book (shameless plug), Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick.

Picture
  
Yes, we should resolve to make more moral choices, but do such resolutions really help? The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which I used for my doctoral dissertation and hundreds of other researchers also have used successfully, suggests that they do.

According to the TPB, our intentions are the main determinant of our behavior. There are very few actions people take that they don’t first intend to take.
 
Have you made a New Year’s resolution? Any time of year is a good time to resolve to act ethically. Doing so brings many benefits, including more “Mindful Marketing.”


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

A Decade of Very Demure, Very Mindful Marketing

10/1/2024

1 Comment

 
Picture

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

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

Picture

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

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


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

Making Money from People Who Talk Funny

6/29/2024

4 Comments

 
Picture

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

“Don’t make fun of the way others talk.”  It’s a rule most of us learn early in life, but apparently not all advertisers have adopted it.  Humorous ads can be entertaining and effective, but is it okay for them to poke fun at the speech patterns of specific people groups?
 
As a marketing professor, I probably pay more attention to advertising than most people do, which sometimes leads to seeing similarities among ads and noticing interesting trends.  I recently saw several video spots, all from different advertisers, each lampooning the ways specific nationalities/ethnicities communicate:
  • Meineke
  • Scotts
  • Etsy Gift Mode
  • Wendy’s
 
It’s important to note that each portrayal is intended to be funny, which is certainly common for national ads – think Super Bowl commercials.  But like beauty, humor is in the eyes and ears of the beholder, so when do commercials move from silly/stupid, to annoying/irritating, to distasteful/objectionable, to repugnant/offensive?  Or, more specifically, when does mocking people’s accents become unethical?
 
Like communication in general, humor is highly contextual, which is why there are inside jokes that only people aware of a specific backstory understand.  Mocking accents can be acceptable and even desirable in certain contexts of social intimacy.  For instance, two friends – one from New York City and the other from Boston – might playfully tease each other about their different food preferences, favorite sports teams, and distinct ways of speaking.
 
With advertising, backstories aren’t between just a few people; rather there’s common knowledge and shared experiences among people regionally, nationally, or even globally, some of which are positive and others, negative.  Advertisers should be especially sensitive to the latter.
 
At some point in their lives, most people probably have had someone comment on the way they talk, perhaps in a complimentary way or maybe critically.  However, some people endure daily comments about their accents that often turn into ridicule and even racism.  Unfortunately, it’s not hard to find examples of such verbal abuse online, like the following:
 
  • Terry Nguyen is an effective writer, but she thinks twice before speaking because she sometimes mispronounces words, which came from growing  a home with two Vietnamese parents who spoke rough English.
  • Sharada Vishwanath tells the story of a classmate imitating her Indian accent, which began as lighthearted and fun but quickly changed to annoying and offensive, as the agitator mentioned the words curry and cheaper.
 
Belittling people because of the way they talk can be “linguistic racism,” which in work environments may cause those targeted to refrain from speaking and to miss opportunities for professional advancement.
 
So, do the commercials mentioned at the onset represent linguistic racism?  Possibly.  An important distinction is whether depictions are of race vs. ethnicity vs. nationality.  Another issue is that not all accent imitation is the same – as mentioned earlier, the interpretation of any communication is partly a function of the backstory, or broader context.
 
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
 
Historically, in many English-speaking western nations, people of color from places like Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been the recipients of far more accent abuse than Europeans whose first language is not English.  For Terry and Shandra, mentioned above, criticism of their speaking is not a one-off experience but a regular occurrence.
 
Over the past century, television shows and movies have cast Asian, Black, Latino, and Native American actors and often had them speak broken and improper English, which has contributed to shameful stereotypes of people of color being less intelligent and more socially inept.
 
One common troupe is that of an Asian who adds “ee” to the ends of words (e.g., “talkee”), omits definite articles (e.g., this, that), and replaces L’s with R’s (e.g. Herro instead of Hello).  In one of its final scenes, the classic Christmas movie A Christmas Story employs this Asian stereotyping.
 
Indians are also frequently stereotyped for a particular style of English speaking.  Such accent mocking is what led The Office’s Kelly Kapoor in Season 1 to slap her bigoted boss Michael Scott. For decades, the animated TV show The Simpsons lampooned Indians through its reoccurring character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, until he was finally removed from the show in 2017.  Imitation of Indian accents is so common that there is a word for it – brown voice.
 
Ridicule is bad enough, but “At worst, linguistic racism can lead to deprivation in education, employment, health and housing,” as benefits and opportunities are sometimes withheld from those who talk differently.   Perpetuating negative perceptions easily leads to social stigmas that carry significant physical and economic consequences. 
 
However, mockery of the accents of French, Dutch, Germans, and other Europeans who are not native English speakers is not only much less common, when comments about their accents are offered, they usually take on a different tenor.  Their speech is more often complimented as sounding cute, sexy, or sophisticated, whereas that of Asians and Indians tends to be criticized for grammatical errors and pronunciation mistakes.
 
So, does this asymmetry in experience make it acceptable to mock Europeans’ accents?  I’d like to offer three reasons why it does not:
 
1. People are still hurt.  Isabelle Duff, a native of Ireland whose job took her to London, recounts how she often felt harassed by coworkers who continually imitated her Irish accent.  Scottish actor Billy Boyd, who played “Pippin” in Lord of the Rings, refuses roles, common in scripts, that call for an incomprehensible Scottish accent, which is an unfair and demeaning stereotype of Scots.  A similar example is the unintelligible babble of Sesame Street’s Swedish Chef, who many Swedes don’t find funny.
 
2. Wrong for one should mean wrong for all.  There aren’t many examples in ethics where compelling cases can be made that it’s okay to harm certain groups of people, but not others.  A proponent of capital punishment might argue it’s right to execute murders but not others; however, murders aren’t a distinct, demographically identifiable people group.  Also, unlike Scots, Irish, and Swedes, murderers have done things that arguably warrant differential treatment.
 
3. Don’t imply permission.  People expect consistency.  If a parent tells one child they can stay up late, their sibling will expect the same privilege.  So, if it’s acceptable to mock Scots, some people will deduce that it’s okay to mock Indians too.  The safest approach is to not offer any basis for making that inference by maintaining that it’s inappropriate to mock the speech of any people group.
 
When we open our mouths to speak, funny things sometimes come out.  It’s okay to laugh about those silly sounds and statements with people we know, in the right context, and with pure intent.
 
However, the standards that fit individual incidences cannot be morally stretched to cover broad cases involving the accents of entire people groups.  Although it may seem funny and be effective, advertising that mocks the speech of any race, ethnicity, or other demographic should be considered “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
4 Comments

Does Selling Love Risk Relationships?

6/4/2024

4 Comments

 
Picture

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

Love, exciting and new . . . come aboard, we’re expecting you.  Those lyrics from one of the most popular TV sitcoms of the 1970s – ABC’s The Love Boat – are a reminder that people have long-been fascinated with others’ romances.  Offering entertainment that people enjoy is a good thing, but are new marketing strategies for monetizing love courting immorality?
 
A former student of mine, Kaylee Enck, recently messaged me to ask my opinion about a rom-com.  I’m not the best person for questions about romantic cinema, but Kaylee wasn’t really interested in my perspective on the movie, Anyone But You; she wanted to know my thoughts about a very unconventional tactic used to promote the film, as she explained:
 
“The movie went viral because everyone thought the two leads had fallen in love with each other off-screen---even though both were in serious, committed relationships with other people at the time. They played the ruse really well. It's hard to know if it was the pretend relationship or something else, but the male lead's real-life finance actually called off their engagement. A few days ago, it was revealed that the whole thing was a marketing ploy invented by Sydney Sweeney, the lead actress and an executive producer on the film.”
 
With Kaylee’s clear event summary and some additional background from a link she provided, I was glad to offer my perspective:
 
Thank you for sharing this story.  It seems like a very lowly strategy both because of the wide-spread intentional deceit and the negative impact on real relationships.  As I think of broader issues involved, the strategy may reflect a growing tendency to put work ahead of the people in our lives and a willingness to do anything for money or fame.
 
Kaylee thanked me for my reply, and we could have been done there, but her question got me thinking . . . the markets for products related to love are many and huge!  Besides certain movies genres, there are dozens of other products that are often, if not always, connected to love, for instance:
  1. Television shows: old ones e.g., the Love Boat, the Dating Game, soap operas, and new ones e.g., 90-Day Fiancé, the Bachelor, the Bachelorette, Golden Bachelor, Love Island
  2. Plays/musicals
  3. Songs:  so much music has been written about love
  4. Books: romance novels
  5. Dating apps
  6. Greeting cards
  7. Flowers
  8. Candy
  9. Romantic dinners
  10. Jewelry:  particularly engagement rings and wedding rings
  11. Clothing:  wedding apparel, lingerie
  12. Wedding venues
  13. Wedding photography
  14. Honeymoons
  15. Perfume and cologne
  16. Toothpaste and mouthwash
  17. Teeth whitening
  18. Makeup
  19. Hair and skincare products
  20. Cosmetic surgery
 
There are likely more, but this is at least a good start for a list that can be categorized in several different ways e.g., goods vs. services, romantic love vs. friendship love.  Another way to slice it is products that offer a direct, personal love benefit vs. a vicarious one i.e., enjoying someone else’s love experience.  Dating apps and wedding rings are the former, while rom-coms and romance novels are the latter.
 
Picture
 
Is one of these value propositions (direct or vicarious) more moral than the other?  Probably not.  Just as it’s great that resorts offer honeymoon vacation packages for newlyweds, it’s nice that people who enjoy romance novels can read about couples going on their honeymoons.  Buyers and sellers of both benefit without anything being inherently unethical.
 
Then, what’s wrong with a business model based on love?
 
That’s not a rhetorical question – There are, unfortunately, many specific ways such a model can be misappropriated, but the general downfall is when profit takes precedent over people and individuals are injured physically, emotionally, or relationally.
 
Sometimes called “the oldest profession,” prostitution is the classic example of such harm and the reason why historically most societies have considered harlotry immoral.  Even if there are two ostensibly willing parties, this selling of “love” causes relational harm to family members of those involved in the act, as well as broader harm to the family as a societal institution.
 
Movie and TV show sex scenes are another example of potential harm.  Even if camera angles and editing suggest more to physical intimacy than actually occurs, the actors involved in the loveless, commitment-less contact expose themselves to what may be lasting emotional harm, as Nedra Gallegos, an instructor at the Los Angeles Campus of the New York Film Academy, implies: “The narrative may be fictional, but the contact is real.”
 
Unlike the previous two examples, the issue with Anyone But You was not overtly sex but rather the costars putting the success of their movie ahead of their own real relationships/significant others.  In this instance, the relational harm was direct, as suggested by the breakup of actor Glen Powell and his girlfriend Gigi Paris.
 
I'd shared with Kaylee my opinion of  the movie’s marketing tactics, but I really wanted to hear hers, since she’s a communications and marketing professional who knows more about the rom-com genre than I do.  Here’s her perspective, which is influenced by her Christian faith:
 
“What marketing really boils down to providing value to the consumer. What is more valuable to us as humans than love, though? When tapping into that sacred emotion, one has to do so cautiously, because no matter how hard we try, no product/service we offer can actually bring someone lasting love---only our relationships, especially our relationship with Christ, can provide that. Transparent, honest advertising, even if not as monetarily successful in the here-and-now, will always win out in the end.”
 
Her admonitions for transparency and not allowing anything to replace real relationships are great ones for everyone.  Coincidentally, they are also consistent with some other Love Boat theme song lyrics that identify love as “life’s sweetest reward,” and that prioritize love that “won't hurt anymore.”

There are good ways that marketing can help start, strengthen, and celebrate real relationships, as well as provide edifying relationship-focused entertainment.  However, even effective strategies that place profit ahead of people are “Single-Minded Marketing.”


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

Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics

5/3/2024

9 Comments

 
Picture

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

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

These experiences have led me to wonder:

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

Dos and Don'ts of Personal Branding with AI

11/18/2023

31 Comments

 
Picture

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

AI’s meteoric rise has encouraged companies to quickly embrace the transformative technology while countries have raced to erect guardrails on the all-powerful algorithms.  These strategies are critical, yet such collective actions are often a function of individuals’ attitudes, which prompts the question:  What's a personal approach for ethical use of AI?
 
If your newsfeed is like mine, it overflows with articles describing organizations’ creative and sometimes controversial use of artificial intelligence; for instance, recent news stories have included:
  • A Beatles song made with AI
  • Results showing that ChatGTP makes up things 3% of the time
  • Tom Hanks disavowing a deepfake dental ad video
  • Empathetic AI helping to heal broken office relationships

By now, AI has touched most industries in more ways than one, which is part of the reason the U.S. government and those of several other nations are taking more active and deliberate approaches to support AI development.  By doing so countries can gain competitive advantage, enhance national security, and reduce negative impacts on their citizens.
 
On a personal level, parallel goals should motivate individuals’ use of AI.  I’m not a tech expert or an authority on artificial intelligence, but several years ago I suggested a simple model for personal branding that might also serve as a useful guide for individual AI use.  The 3Cs of personal branding – competencies, character, and communication can help frame how individuals should and shouldn’t use AI.
 
1. Competencies:  What a person can do well; their skills, talents, and aptitudes.
 
The ability to use AI is already a competency that many employers want and that many more will demand over the coming months and years.  However, experience alone with AI won't suffice.  Competent users of AI should be able to:
  • Choose the right AI tool – since the rapid ascension of ChatGPT, a variety of other chatbots and AI tools have emerged, some of which are tailored to particular types of information, e.g., Jasper for business and marketers and Chatsonic for news content creators.
  • Ask AI the right questions – ones that effectively and efficiently enable the chosen chatbot to locate the right information and offer truly helpful responses
  • Identify errors – those that use AI often mention times when the technology makes mistakes, sometimes retrieving the wrong information and other times even fabricating facts.
 
2. Character:  The kind of person someone is – Are they decent, fair, and honest?  Do they show others respect and demonstrate social responsibility?
 
Picture

While personal branding for AI competency primarily involves what people should do, AI-related character largely describes things that individuals shouldn’t do, such as:
  • Suggest that work is one’s own when it was created largely or entirely by AI
  • Fail to give proper attribution, or credit, to others whose work AI appropriated
  • Forward AI results not checked for accuracy or that contain known mistakes
  • Share indecent content such as profane language, crude pictures, or other offensive subject matter generated by AI
 
3. Communication:  How a person informs, persuades, or reminds others about their brand
 
There’s a growing number of AI products that can help users communicate more effectively.  In a recent LinkedIn article,  James Lusk highlighted several of the tools.  The ones that seem best suited for positive personal branding are:
  • Grammarly – to improve one’s writing mechanics.  But users shouldn't use it to write substantial content then claim authorship.
  • Zoom.ai – to manage communication tasks, including scheduling meetings and sending reminders.  The tool also can be used to draft emails, so again, users should be careful to not give the impression they’ve written something they haven’t
  • Chorus.ai – to improve communication skills by analyzing one’s communication style, including  interruptions, tone, and speaking pace
 
AI users also should be careful not to give others a false impression of what they’re like physically or otherwise, which can happen when using apps such as  AI face enhancers.
 
Like other technology, AI is tool that can be used in good ways and in bad ways.  As its rapid evolution continues, there’s no guarantee that AI will hold itself to any compelling moral standards.  More likely, it will be individuals who accept personal ethical accountability and model it for others, thereby guiding AI's “Mindful Marketing.”


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

No Shorts, No Sunglasses, No Service

10/4/2023

4 Comments

 
Picture

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

We’ve all heard that our nonverbal communication conveys more than the words we speak.  That saying is easy to embrace in principle, but it can become harder to accept when senators and sports legends seem to suggest otherwise.  How might marketing, the banner carrier for image-building, inform the current debate of what people wear at work?  
 
In his first year of service from Pennsylvania, U.S. Senator John Fetterman’s casual attire (sweatshirt, shorts, sneakers) was the apparent impetus for Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to relax the chamber’s formal dress code.  However, that choice was negated a week later when the Senate passed a resolution that formalized the requirement for business attire on the chamber floor.
 
Meanwhile, Deion Sanders, former MLB player, NFL Hall of Famer, and head football coach of the University of Colorado, has grabbed headlines with his trademark attire, specifically his shades.  His propensity to continually wear sunglasses, even during interviews caused Colorado State football coach Jay Norvell to comment, “When I talk to grown-ups, I take my hat and my glasses off. That's what my mother taught me.”
 
At first glance, Fetterman spurring the Senate to button up its dress code and Sanders sporting sunglasses during interviews have little to do with each other.  However, both headlines are case studies in nonverbal communication – People’s clothes and how they wear them often portend their personalities and purposes; similarly, individuals’ eyes often signal what they’re thinking and feeling.
 
Still, what do a couple of guys wearing shorts and sunglasses to work have to do with marketing?  They’re relevant to the field in at least two ways:
  • Internal marketing:  Organizations market to their employees by trying to meet their needs, which can involve the policies they set and the procedures they follow, including ones related to work attire.
  • Personal branding: Each person has a unique brand, or identity, which is based on their character and competencies and is communicated to others through their words and actions, including what they wear.
 
Although I feel like I know something about nonverbal communication from my business, teaching, and life experiences, I wanted to talk to someone who is truly an expert, so I reached out to Mike True, a former coworker of mine who is an internationally renowned authority on career development and an in-demand speaker on many related topics, including professional etiquette.
 
When I asked for his thoughts on the U.S. Senate’s dress code decision, the main word that came to his mind was “decorum,” or setting high standards in specific settings.  He continued that in the senate setting, professional business attire “speaks of order, neatness, and structure,” while very casual dress “speaks of a breakdown in respect for order, neatness, and structure – It speaks of lower standards.”
 
Knowing the high standards True sets for himself and encourages for others, his response about Senate attire was not unexpected.  However, his analysis of Sanders’ sunglasses surprised me:
 
“Sunglasses are part of Deion’s persona and have been for many years. He has an eyewear deal with Blenders Eyewear, so it's a ‘product placement’ gig for which he is paid. The non-verbal here seems to be practical (protecting his eyes from the sun in outdoor practices and games, and from camera flashes and bright lights in interviews) and a brand of sorts. He is Coach Prime, and as such he seeks to project ‘coolness’ for himself, his players, and the whole Colorado football program. It's working!”
 
I wasn’t surprised that True knows marketing and recognized successful branding and product placement.  He’s a student of business and surely read of how within one day of announcing its collaboration with Sanders, Benders “received $1.2 million in pre-orders.”
 
I thought, though, that he might take exception with the eye contact that Sanders’ dark sunglasses eliminate.  As the saying goes, the eyes are the window to the soul. When our eyes widen and our pupils dilate, we communicate interest and excitement, whereas a furrowed brow can suggest worry or concern.
 
However, having enjoyed True’s etiquette dinners and other events in which he detailed appropriate professional behavior from handshakes to table conversation, I know he would never advocate wearing sunglasses to a job interview or networking event.  So, why the apparent double standard?  Similarly, why doesn’t he cut some slack for Fetterman or other senators who might feel more comfortable in more casual attire?


Picture
 
First, True did identify practical reasons why Sanders might want to wear glasses to shield his eyes from bright light, while also suggesting they’re not the only reasons.  In short, as True alludes, Sanders’ personal brand, even for a coach at a major college football program, is a very unique one that dates back 35+ years when he first earned the nickname “Prime Time” for his exciting play and exuberant personality at Florida State University.
 
As I'm sure True would never advise emerging or seasoned business professionals to emulate Sanders’ dark shades in their interpersonal dealings, the standards for Sanders’ nonverbal communication are in many ways are a category of one.
 
Then, why doesn’t Fetterman, who probably has a more compelling reason for wearing sweats and sneakers, get a similar pass?  After all, his battle with clinical depression led him to seek treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.  There may be a few reasons for a different standard:
 
  • No slight on college football, but the business of the U.S. Senate is more important: nation- if not world-shaping policies vs. recreation or entertainment.
  • Attire often reflects expectations for the level of quality of work.  Even in a football game, if players wear worn-out or mismatched uniforms, fans will take them less seriously, and the players may start to feel the same way about themselves.
  • Clothing needs to fit the setting and related cultural norms.  People wear bathing suits on beaches not in boardrooms.  People who work in and around football, like many sports, are accustomed to very casual attire.   
  • Dress that’s deemed inappropriate in a given situation can become a distraction.  It also could be offensive if the attire reveals body parts that others don’t care to see but can’t avoid looking at when interacting with the person.
 
So, the U.S. Senate does have reasons for maintaining a dress code that aren’t easily transferrable to football.  However, that doesn’t mean that the policies must stay the same forever:  Almost two-and-a-half centuries ago, powered wigs and ruffled shirts were the style.  Any organization’s dress code needs to evolve with the times.
 
Having a dress code also doesn’t mean that special accommodations can’t be made for specific individuals who warrant them.  Those individuals and the policy also might meet somewhere in the middle, e.g., instead of shorts, full-length open-leg sweatpants, and instead of sneakers, very comfortable, sneaker-like shoes.
 
As has happened for me many times in writing this blog, the assumptions I had at the outset of this piece are not the same ones I have at the end, which leads me to two key takeaways that extend beyond best practices in nonverbal communication:
  1. Although there are certainly generalizations that can be made for personal branding, everyone’s brand is unique and there can be special circumstances that warrant some people acting differently than others.
  2. Make your brand a malleable one, or more specifically, allow knowledgeable others to inform your beliefs such that when fitting, you are willing to adapt judgments.
 
Understanding and employing effective nonverbal communication is important whether you’re calling plays or proposing national policy.  Just as important is the ability to understand others’ perspectives and learn from them.  Both life skills are critical inputs for “Mindful Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
4 Comments
<<Previous
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

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

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2024
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly