Category: Respect170bbeec51

Ensuring Ethical Advertising

12/18/2022

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

We’ve all said things we later regretted. Fortunately, a personal apology can often atone for such individual indiscretions. Advertising gaffes, which may reach millions, are much more damaging and difficult to roll back, so why do some of the world’s most creative companies and brightest people continue to make promotional faux pas, and what can be done to avoid them?

When people think of advertising, they often envision iconic Super Bowl commercials like Budweiser’s Clydesdales playing football, model Cindy Crawford sipping a Pepsi, or basket legends Michael Jordan and Larry Bird competing at H-O-R-S-E for a McDonald’s meal. They probably don’t picture “children holding teddy bears in bondage gear.” Unfortunately, that’s the image that many people now associate with the luxury brand Balenciaga.

The century-old Spanish fashion house recently made headlines for the wrong reasons when it released a series of ads that not only featured kids posed with adult-themed props but also included photos in which appeared “paperwork about child pornography laws.”

Severe backlash against the brand has included stinging social media posts and celebrity condemnations. Balenciaga, however, is no stranger to controversy. Among its other contentious tactics have been “selling destroyed sneakers for $1,850” and “sending models who looked like refugees down the runway carrying trash bags made of expensive leather.”

The company has apologized for its latest gaffes, with representatives saying that they take “full accountability for our lack of oversight,” as well as that they are “closely revising our organisation and collective ways of working.” Balenciaga’s creative director Demna also offered a mea culpa, saying that it was "inappropriate to have kids promote objects that had nothing to do with them."

It would be convenient if Balenciaga could be considered some kind of an advertising anomaly, but unfortunately, over the years, other companies have made their own promotional blunders, some arguably as bad or worse than that of the high fashion firm, for instance:

Dove created a campaign in which Black women pulled their t-shirts off over their heads, transforming into white women.
Reebok put up posters that read “Cheat on your girlfriend, not on your workout.”
In a commercial called “Pipe Job,” Hyundai used a man’s failed suicide to show that its vehicle produced no harmful emissions
A line-up of uniformly thin young female models served as the central visual for Victoria Secret’s “Perfect Body” ad.

It’s easy to scoff at these ads and think, “How could those companies be so rash to release such obviously offensive advertising?” “Couldn’t anyone see the probable PR crises and pump the brakes?”

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and it’s easier to criticize than it is to create. It’s also hard to know the circumstances surrounding the decisions. Still, here are two misguided motives that probably contribute to what seems like a never-ending series of advertising missteps:

1) Coveting Awards: The goal of any advertising should be meaningful ROI for the client, e.g., brand building, website views, sales. However, those practical objectives can fall prey to creative staffs’ desires to win advertising awards like Clios and Webbys.

To achieve such recognition, some advertisers feel needs to test social norms and push moral envelopes. Meanwhile, consumers sometimes see uber-creative ads but when asked what they’re for, they respond, “I have no idea.”

2) Creating Buzz: Relatively few advertisers compete for major industry awards, but millions would love their organization to be the focus of the next viral video. Unfortunately, the very unique content that people love to share with friends on social media is often not what translates directly, or at all, to bottom-line advertising results.

Worse, things like sexually explicit images may stimulate thousands of shares, but they also have negative impacts on social issues such as body image and gender stereotypes and ultimately backfire on the firms’ brand images.

Those are two of the most likely reasons why morally questionable advertising occurs, but what can be done to avoid it? Here are four strategies that can help:

1. Create a culture of questioning: People at all organizational levels need to feel they have the freedom to ask things like, “Could some people find this offensive”? or “Is there approach that would be equally effective but less risky?” If employees worry they’ll be shunned or punished for raising a red flag, those kinds of questions will seldom arise.

Crafting such an open culture is much easier said than done, but a few necessary prerequisites are top management support, rewarding people for asking hard questions, and continually reminding associates of the desire for moral accountability.

2. Identify corporate values: One of the best reminders of where a company stands ethically is a clearly articulated set of moral standards. Some companies suggest such principles in their mission statements. Other firms go a step further and outline a list of corporate values, such as these that form the foundation for Mindful Marketing:

Decency: avoiding behavior that people tend to regard as crude, heartless, immodest, obscene, profane, or vulgar
Fairness: treating others equally based on their personhood and equitably based on their individual contributions
Honesty: not lying or distorting truth
Respect: holding others in high regard
Responsibility: fulfilling duties to others, especially those that society tends to marginalize

3. Avoid time pressure: Given that most of us don’t do our best work when rushed, a hastily created ad campaign will likely suffer the same results. It’s helpful when there’s time to put new work aside and return to it several hours, days, or weeks later with fresh eyes that can then more clearly see any shortcomings.

Similarly, it’s much better to identify serious deficiencies, moral or other, early in the process. People increasingly resist change as more effort and expense are invested. It’s best to nib potential ethical offenses in the bud.

4. Ask for assistance: After we’ve been exposed to something for a period of time, it becomes harder to see it objectively. In fact, we may even forget about the thing, like a painting on the wall of our home, until a visitor’s comment reminds us it's there.

For any significant work, it’s very helpful to ask others to review it. Inevitably, they’ll see things we missed. For an ad, that should mean at a minimum of others outside the department or division, and perhaps someone outside the organization. Companies ask consultants to advise them on all kinds of business strategies. Given the havoc that an ill-conceived ad campaign can wreak, they also should ask outside experts for ethical input.

Balenciaga wasn’t the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last advertiser to overstep moral boundaries. However, steps like those above can guide firms around ethical infractions. Making morality an advertising priority alongside creativity is “Mindful Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

When Organizations Give Thanks

11/20/2022

16 Comments

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

At Thanksgiving, individuals often express gratitude for what they’re personally appreciative, e.g., family, friends, health. It’s less common to hear of organizations’ gratitude, but if they were to count their blessings, what would they be? Answers to that question could provide each of us with valuable perspective and perhaps help recalibrate our own thoughts of thankfulness.

These have been tough times for organizations in most industries. Factors such as inflation, natural disasters, health/safety concerns, and supply chain setbacks have made it very difficult to succeed, and in some cases to survive, let alone to give thanks, for instance:

A chip shortage has plagued tech firms and many other manufacturers.
Shipping companies have had to navigate record-high fuel prices.
In the first half of 2022, natural disasters led to insurance losses of $39 billion – 18% higher than average.
The slowdown in the housing market, an industry that impacts many others, shows no signs of subsiding.

This isn’t the kind of news most companies care to celebrate, nor should they. Yet, even under dark clouds, strong organizations see silver linings and reasons to be thankful. Although organizations can’t speak, their leaders have unique vantage points from which they can identify and express genuine collective gratitude.

I recently reached out to colleagues/friends in several industries who lead for-profit and nonprofit organizations, asking each to share something for which their organization is thankful. Their following five responses have enlightened and encouraged this marketer and hopefully will do the same for anyone who looks to see the good in business and other enterprise.

1) Messiah University: I begin with my own organization and employer whose president, Dr. Kim Phipps, reflects, “At Messiah University, we are grateful for increased enrollment, financial stability and a cohort of new innovative partnerships that broaden our institutional scope and impact.”

No organization exists without demand for its products and services. For more than a decade, demand for higher education has declined throughout much of the nation, mainly because of demographic trends. I know many at Messiah echo President Phipps’ deep appreciation for our students as well as other institutional partners who embrace the University’s mission and invite opportunities to extend it.

2) West Shore Chamber of Commerce: The leader of the second organization, another nonprofit, expresses similar gratitude for continued demand for its services. As the president of West Shore Chamber of Commerce (WSCC), based near Harrisburg, PA, George Book, Jr. articulates his organization’s appreciation:

“At the West Shore Chamber of Commerce, we are thankful for our members, first and foremost. We are also thankful for the communities we serve. We have the privilege of being located in South Central PA, which is a very diverse economic region that allows us to reach and help many different types of businesses. I am thankful for the grit and determination of our business leaders to keep our region strong and work together to positively impact our businesses and communities.”

Few organizations were hit as hard by the pandemic as WSCC since the services of most chambers of commerce rely heavily on in person events, which COVID 19 largely cancelled. So, when Book speaks of the dedication and resilience of his Chamber’s members and their communities, he speaks from heartfelt experience and is understandably eager for opportunities that lie ahead.

3) Pierson Computing Connection, Inc.: The first for-profit company of the set is thankful for a different but equally important stakeholder group. Deb Pierson serves as president and CEO of Pierson Computing Connection, which she founded in 1993. She says, “We are primarily grateful for our people. We have a great team that values deep relationships and embraces our core values. Without our people, Pierson wouldn’t be growing and thriving.”

Some may find it ironic that the leader of a company that supplies technological solutions places greatest importance on its people. However, Pierson rightly recognizes that it takes dedicated and gifted people to manage software, install hardware, and train others who will use them. Great technology doesn’t matter much without great employees who are highly skilled in its use.

4) LINKBANK: When people of a certain age think of banks, they likely envision people – tellers, loan officers, etc. When Brent Smith, president of LINKBANK, considers his bank’s people, he sees much more than the roles they fill:

“We are grateful at LINKBANK to have deeply committed staff members who are passionate about our clients, communities, and each other. We are also very appreciative of all the employees’ families and the ongoing support they give, allowing each of us to pursue our passions in the workplace.”

Good leaders know that their staff members are also spouses, mothers, fathers, daughters, etc., with responsibilities outside the workplace. Leaders like Smith also are very grateful for the support that these family members graciously give and, in that way, also help to fulfill their firms’ purposes.

5) Ten Thousand Villages: Finding people who will work for pay and effectively support a nonprofit organization’s mission can be difficult. Identifying dedicated volunteers who will do so can be extremely challenging. The realization of both of these goals has led Dan Alonso, the CEO of Ten Thousand Villages to share:

“We are thankful for the passionate people who are part of the greater Ten Thousand Villages family/network and who go above and beyond to support our mission, often with no direct connection to the organization itself. We also have a core of devoted staff members who want to make a difference and who continue to do so on a daily basis, despite the challenges of being the rare combination of a mission-based nonprofit and a successful retail organization.”

As is the case for many nonprofit organizations aiming to fulfill their unique missions, creating fair trade market opportunities for artisans around the world requires a special combination of devoted staff members and faithful volunteers.

A university, a chamber of commerce, an IT company, a bank, and a fair-trade retailer: One might guess that they would be thankful for very different things, but ultimately the gratitude of each reflects the same priority – people.

Although it should happen each day of the year, in this season of Thanksgiving it is particularly fitting for every marketer and other organizational member to renew their appreciation for the individuals who purchase their products, provide their services, and in other ways partner to help fulfill their missions.

Thankfulness can be a recalibrating factor and a grounding force for each of us. It’s also an important prerequisite for “Mindful Marketing.”

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

16 Comments

Should Consumers Smile at Guerrilla Marketing?

10/9/2022

1 Comment

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

Millions of baseball fans were recently watching televised games when they were unexpectedly hit by a pitch! An errant slider didn’t fly through their screens; rather, they were beaned by a very unconventional advertising curve. The promotional pitch for Smile didn’t leave any bruises; in fact, many even liked it, but is this kind of guerrilla marketing fair or foul? A veteran marketer and an up-and-coming rookie argue the call.

About a week ago, before a Consumer Behavior class, one of my students asked, “Dr. Hagenbuch, I have an idea for a Mindful Marketing topic — Did you see the promos for Smile?” I hadn’t experienced the creepy tactics live, but like many, I was caught in their viral wake.

Smile is a psychological horror movie featuring murders that begin and end with evil smirks. Like most production companies, Paramount Players and Temple Hill Entertainment made the obligatory film trailer and television spots. However, to capture even more interest ahead of the Halloween horror movie season, the film makers executed a truly menacing marketing strategy.

Among other events, Paramount targeted a few specific Major League Baseball games that were being broadcast to national audiences on September 23, such as Yankees vs. Red Sox and Mets vs. A’s, and in each game managed to seat an actor behind home plate, in perfect view of outfield television cameras. Some of the actors stood, while others remained seated; some wore neon “Smile” T-shirts; all “donned creepy, unflinching smiles for the duration of the game.

As television crews zoomed in on the unsettling smirks, social media quickly caught wind, and coverage snowballed into mainstream media, which is where I encountered Paramount’s bizarre promotional play. This wasn’t, though, my first exposure to guerrilla marketing.

Not long after I began my marketing career, I bought one of Jay Conrad Levinson’s books on Guerrilla Marketing. During my time in higher education, I’ve conducted research on shock advertising, which shares some ‘unhealthy’ overlap with guerrilla marketing. I’ve also written about these unusual tactics for Mindful Marketing a couple of other times:

For those new to guerrilla marketing, or anyone wanting a reminder, Investopedia offers a nice description of the strange strategies:

“Guerrilla marketing is a marketing tactic in which a company uses surprise and/or unconventional interactions in order to promote a product or service. [It’s] different than traditional marketing in that it often relies on personal interaction, has a smaller budget, and focuses on smaller groups of promoters that are responsible for getting the word out in a particular location rather than through widespread media campaigns.”

In college marketing classes, we don’t spend much time talking about guerrilla marketing, mainly because there are so many other foundational concepts students need to learn, and in many instances, guerrilla marketing isn’t a good fit for brands’ goals. It’s also not easy to teach something that hinges so much on deviant creativity and precise timing. Still, many marketers find it fascinating.

So, when Thomas Murray, the student in my Consumer class, mentioned Smile’s guerrilla marketing during MLB games, I wasn’t surprised for a few reasons. Not only is he a sharp emerging marketer, he’s an NCAA baseball player, and he knows something about going viral: A couple of years ago, he made a TikTok video of himself throwing a football over his house and catching it. Before long, ESPN’s Sportscenter and some other very popular media sites were sharing the clip.

During our brief before-class conversation, Murray told me he appreciated Smile’s unconventional approach. As someone who’s been skeptical of guerrilla marketing on whole, I was eager to hear more of his perspective, so I asked him to share his thoughts for this piece. He did, making several compelling arguments for why the unusual tactics worked for Smile:

Word of mouth marketing: Placing actors in public settings and having them wear bright shirts and creepily smile at baseball and football games and outside the Today Show, was a perfect recipe for attention. People took notice while casually watching those programs and within minutes the actors were all over social media.

Product placement: Part of the genius of the campaign was taking something right out of the movie and putting it into real life. If you watch the trailer, you’ll notice that is how eerily the people are smiling. Both in the movie and in real life it creeps people out, but it also lures them in as they have to look and wonder why they’re smiling like that.

Budget-friendly: The overall cost of this campaign was likely minimal as well. Tickets for high profile seats at top sporting events are expensive, but in a feature film’s marketing budget, they would barely make a dent. The return on investment for this campaign must have been massive given it relied on going viral and certainly delivered as the campaign grew organically throughout various social media platforms.

Great timing: The launch of the campaign meshed perfectly with the release of the movie. By placing the actors in public a week or so before the premiere, the producers were able to build exceptional interest, and excited movie-goers only had to wait until the following weekend to see it in theaters.

That’s some solid support for the campaign’s effectiveness; it’s hard to discredit any of Murray’s points. What I can do is raise what may be some helpful questions/concerns about guerrilla marketing’s morality:

Target market creep: Of course, horror movies are not everyone’s thing, so it could well be that such a broad-reaching campaign creeped out some of the wrong people, like children. The lack of audience selectivity with many guerrilla tactics is certainly something to consider.

However, briefly seeing a few creepy smiles probably didn’t traumatize any adults or kids. Most people seemed to think they were funny. The fact that Smile is a horror movie is another issue, which can be a topic of future analysis since the focus here is not on product but promotion.

Murdering the game: A very legitimate complaint to levy against guerrilla marketing is that it disrupts the natural settings in which it appears. For instance, wouldn’t someone sitting directly behind home plate, wearing a bright shirt and a creepy smile break a pitcher’s concentration?

I threw that question to one of Murray's teammates who pitches. Surprising to me, he said it wouldn’t matter—his focus is entirely on the catcher and batter. Although the Smile actors did draw some camera close-ups and comments from broadcasters, they didn’t seem to significantly detract from the television programs in which they appeared.

Encouraging copycats: Even if a given guerrilla marketing tactic is okay, what about all the other would-be marketers who see it and say, “That’s the kind of thing we need to do”? If every company implemented such strategies, our lives would be awash in a never-ending stream of commercialism.

Realistically, however, such advertising overflow is unlikely to occur. For the vast majority of business-to-business firms, guerrilla marketing is a mismatch for their target markets, and even for most business-to-consumer companies, the tactics aren’t the best promotional option. Moreover, it’s very challenging to create and execute effective guerrilla marketing, which when done wrong, can easily betray a brand – those are natural deterrents for firms that might consider using such strategies.

When I began to write this piece, I believed I had a good case against Smile’s strange promotion, but Murray’s analysis has made me reconsider my views. I still don’t think guerrilla marketing is good in all cases, but I believe the rookie was right to call this specific instance ‘fair’ and for both of us to consider it “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Should Employees' Looks Matter?

9/10/2022

27 Comments

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

Despite her aging appearance, Queen Elizabeth II kept her job for an unprecedented 70 years! A Canadian news anchor who let her locks go grey wasn’t as fortunate. Her seemingly heartless dismissal has aroused widespread empathy, including from some of the world’s leading companies, sounding an alarm against ageism. However, in an era when brand-building is of utmost importance, shouldn’t companies have a say in the looks of those they pay to be the faces of their firms?

Before she was “blindsided” by her abrupt termination, fifty-eight-year-old Lisa LaFlamme was “the face of the most-watched nightly news show on Canadian television.” Her 34-years of industry experience combined with a keen intellect and engaging communication style made her the Canadian equivalent of Katie Couric or Barbara Walters.

However, those talents and experience didn’t stop Bell Media from firing LaFlamme from CTV News. Mirko Bibic, the president and CEO of BCE and Bell Canada, denied that hair color had anything to do with LaFlamme’s release, but LaFlamme’s stunned reaction along with CTV News head Michael Melling’s question of who approved the decision to “let Lisa’s hair go grey,” suggest that hair color was at least part of the reason.

Known for speaking out on body image-related issues, Dove, subsidiary of the Dutch conglomerate Unilever, shared its opinion of the incident: Just a week after LaFlamme’s release, Dove Canada unfurled a #KeepTheGrey social media campaign that included the greying of its iconic logo across social channels “to show support for older women and women with grey hair who may face undue workplace discrimination.”

Fast food chain Wendy’s also took up the mantle, temporarily turning grey the red pigtails of its namesake logo.

It’s nice that brands like Dove and Wendy’s care enough to stand against apparent ageism—an often-overlooked issue, especially in societies that tend to glorify youth. But, what about the companies paying, in some cases very significant sums, to people to represent them and, in some cases, to be the faces of their franchises? Shouldn’t these organizations have a say in how their employees look?

When thinking of organizations that dictate their agents’ appearances, one of the first that comes to mind is Disney. At its theme parks, the company carefully curates a wholesome, family-friendly image that stems in large part from the looks and actions of its staff. Personal branding that’s edgy and provocative may have its place in other firms but not at Disney.

Is it legal for Disney to be so prescriptive with its employees’ looks? Yes, since “no federal law bans employment decisions based on appearance in general.” However, employers must ensure that their looks-related rules don’t intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against people because of their race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.

Even then, though, there are legally acceptable exceptions if a case can be made that a specific personal trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). For instance, a film studio can exclude adults from auditioning for children’s roles, and a synagogue can stipulate that rabbi candidates must be Jewish.

As in these examples, for a BFOQ argument to be successful, the required personal characteristic must be essential to job performance. If it is, the discrimination is likely legal.

Of course, just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral, but legislation related to employee looks does do a pretty good job of supporting values of decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility. For instance, if a certain personal characteristic is critical to job performance, it wouldn’t be fair to those hired or to those who rely on their work (coworkers, customers, shareholders) to disregard the criterion.

To determine what’s fair, honest, etc., organizations should consider three questions:

1. Are the firm’s performance assumptions accurate? A company hiring for a web development position might assume that only those 30 years old or younger have the skills and understanding needed to do the work effectively. It could be, though, that the best candidate is a 60-year-old who has many years of industry experience and has kept themself on the cutting edge of their field.

Similarly, corporations fail when they misinterpret what consumers really want. First, it’s important to emphasize that companies are under no legal or moral mandate to cater to customers’ discriminatory and irrational tastes, like only wanting a Caucasian waiter.

Firms sometimes wrongly assume how customers expect employees to look. Disney recently walked back its longstanding policy of no visible tattoos and now permits employees to display “appropriate” ones — an implied admission that it had fallen out of touch with what its customers viewed as family-friendly physical appearance.

2. Are their double standards? Even as America aspires for equality, there are sometimes conflicting norms for different people-groups, e.g., women vs. men, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, Black people vs. white people.

LaFlamme’s termination is a case-in-point. If she were a man, would it have mattered that her hair was gray? Men may face some stigma for coloring their hair, but when they go grey, they’re often described as looking mature, sophisticated, and wise.

Women with the same hair color enjoy few such positive associations; rather, like LaFlamme, they’re more likely to be the victims of age discrimination: “Because of ‘lookism,’ women face ageism earlier than their male counterparts.”

3. Can the firm help precipitate social change? Given that cultural values and norms are much bigger than any one organization, it’s understandable that companies often believe there’s little they can do to have a social impact, particularly with an issue as far-reaching as people’s appearances.

However, even small businesses can help move the needle on such perceptions with their affirming employment practices (e.g., hiring and retaining older workers), as well as by voicing their disapproval if/when their customers discriminate. Global brands like Dove and Wendy’s can have an even greater impact by virtue of their scale and scope.

In the end, the workplace should be a two-way street:

Employees should appreciate that they’re agents of the organizations for which they work and as such, need to respect reasonable appearance-related requirements, for their own benefit, as well as those of their coworkers and the organization on whole.
Organizations should treat their employees with respect and try to truly understand what appearance characteristics are critical to job performance and which are not, while also refusing to cater to customers whose tastes are discriminatory.

There could be a case in which a certain hair color is a BFOQ that a company could legally and morally require. However, that likely wasn’t true in LaFlamme’s situation. She could have reported the news just as effectively with grey hair, and although certain viewers may not have liked her look, many others probably appreciated her authentic appearance and would have welcomed the network’s support of her and other older women.

“Queen of England” shouldn’t be the only occupation accepting of grey hair. Looks matter to individuals and organizations, but requiring employees to change theirs for less-than-compelling reasons appears to be “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

27 Comments

Should AI Impersonate People?

7/1/2022

2 Comments

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

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”—it is a high compliment when people respect someone’s work enough to replicate it. But, when one of the world’s largest companies’ smart speakers start imitating people’s voices, has flattery drifted into deceit?

It’s difficult to keep pace with innovation in artificial intelligence (AI), but one particular advance that's certainly worth attention is the impending ability of Amazon’s Alexa to mimic voices. After hearing no more than a minute of audio, the smart speaker reportedly will be able to deliver a plausible impersonation.

Alexa’s voice is apparently one that appeals to a very large number of consumers: A 2021 Statista study showed that Alexa was the most widely used assistant across four of six age demographics. So, why would Amazon want to mess with the sound that’s helped it sell so many smart speakers?

According to Amazon senior vice president Rohit Prasad, the change “is about making memories last,” particularly remembrances of those who’ve passed.

In many ways that motive makes the voice mimicking technology seem like a great idea. For those who have lost loved ones, one of the greatest blessings would be to hear their dearly departed’s voice again.

Since my father passed away last August, I’ve thought several times how nice it would be to talk with him again—to hear his opinion about the latest news, to ask him questions that only he could answer.

On a lighter side and also related to Alexa’s voice imitation, I’ve always enjoyed good impressionists. It’s fun to hear comedians who can act and sound like famous people. One of my favorites is Frank Caliendo, who is best known for impressions of famous sports figures; his John Madden and Charles Barkley impressions are great!

Frank Caliendo impersonating John Madden on the Late Show with David Letterman

So, I can see why Alexa doing impressions of people we knew and loved could be popular. However, AI impersonations should also give us pause for at least four reasons:

1. More than a voice: Of course, just because someone, or something, sounds like a person we know, doesn’t mean they are that person. Every individual is a unique curation of beliefs, affections, and experiences that influence what they say and even how they say things.

Frank Caliendo may sound like Charles Barkley, but he obviously isn’t the NBA legend and popular sports broadcaster. Consequently, Caliendo can never truly say what Barkley would say and neither can AI. Only a person knows what they themself would say.

2. Respect for the deceased: Per the previous point, if AI speaks for anyone, beyond playing back a recording of them speaking, it’s putting words in that person’s mouth. A living person could conceivably give such permission, but how would a dead person do the same, short of adding some kind of addendum to their last will and testament, allowing AI impersonation?

I’m not sure it would be fair to ask anyone before their passing to give a smart speaker carte blanche use of their voice. As hard as it is to let go of people we loved, it’s something we must do. The longer we’d allow AI to speak for a loved one, the greater the probability that the technology would say things to tarnish their memory.

3. Vulnerable consumers: Given how good machines already are at imitating life, it will likely become increasingly easy for techno fakes to fool us. However, there are certain groups of people who are at much greater risk of being duped than the average individual, namely children and older people.

It’s scary to think how those with heinous motives might use AI voice imitation to make young children believe they’re hearing the words of a trusted parent, grandparent, etc. Similarly, the Mindful Marketing article, “Preying on Older People” described how senior citizens are already frequent targets of phone scammers pretending to be someone they’re not. AI voice imitation could open the flood gates for such abuse.

4. Distorting the truth: Thanks to fake news, native advertising, deepfake video and the like, the line between what’s real and what’s not is becoming more and more difficult to discern. University of Maryland professor of psychology Arie Kruglanski warns that a truthless future is not a sustainable one:

“Voluminous research in psychology, my own field of study, has shown that the idea of truth is key to humans interacting normally with the world and other people in it. Humans need to believe that there is truth in order to maintain relationships, institutions and society.”

“In the extreme, a lost sense of reality is a defining feature of psychosis, a major mental illness. A society that has lost its shared reality is also unwell.”

While examples of the innovation in imitation are fascinating, it’s concerning that in the not-too-distant future, fakes may become undetectable. At that point, it seems like our world will be well on the path to what Kruglanski forewarned: ‘losing its sense of reality’ and becoming ‘unwell.’

In the 1994 movie Speed, Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves try to stop a city bus that’s triggered to explode if it drops below 50 mph. AI deception can feel like that runaway bus, barreling forward with no way to stop it or even slow it down.

However, large corporations like Amazon share the driver’s seat and have some control over the AI vehicle. Although having them put the brakes on innovation may be too much to ask, they can at least integrate some forms of notification to clearly indicate when people are seeing/hearing a fake and not the real thing.

Even with such notifications, Alexa’s application of voice impersonation is wrought with potential for abuse. For the four reasons outlined above, Amazon should shutter plans for its smart speaker to imitate people and thereby avoid talk of “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

2 Comments

Selling Social Issues

6/5/2022

0 Comments

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

Besides being a tasty treat that almost everyone enjoys, ice cream is a ‘celebration food’ served at birthday parties and used to reward kids' sports team success. So, why did Walmart’s new frozen dairy flavor created to celebrate Black Americans’ emancipation leave a bad taste in so many people’s mouths? Moreover, what can the failure teach organizations about commercializing social issues?

In its ongoing search for profitable new products, the world’s largest retailer recently cooked up a novel plan—tap into Black Americans’ and others’ celebrations of Juneteenth, the federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.

Walmart’s strategy to support the celebration involved a line of party products, including napkins, plates, and drink koozies branded “Juneteenth” using the black, red, and green colors often associated with Black liberation, and carrying the tagline, “It’s the freedom for me.”

Walmart also created a special food worthy of the branded partyware--Juneteenth Ice Cream, a frozen concoction resembling swirled red velvet cheesecake. However, it wasn’t long after the company launched its Juneteenth line that social media began to skewer it, as shown in these sample tweets:

“Walmart needs to do better. It shows the lack of understanding of the pain and suffering that made Juneteenth come about. It is absolutely insulting to have this special holiday turned into some commercial product.” (@The Next Ceiling)

“This isn't "wokeness", it's corporations trying to profit off of minorities by acting like they care about us.” (@DeadpoolLIFE69)

“So let me get this straight 🤔, y’all made more money keeping us enslaved after the Emancipation Proclamation, and NOW that it’s a recognized Federal Holiday y’all want to make MORE money off the same culture you enslaved??” (@MoodaSchmooda)

“White America: Mmmm...best thing we can do is some Walmart Juneteenth ice cream that we'll profit off of.” (@RedeemRobinson)

In the face of the backlash, Walmart made a quick pivot and pulled its Juneteenth-themed ice cream. It also apologized:

“We received feedback that a few items caused concern for some of our customers and we sincerely apologize. We are reviewing our assortment and will remove items as appropriate."

Companies are increasingly ‘hitching their wagons’ to social causes’—an alignment that many people prefer including 83% of millennials. Consequently, the approach often proves profitable. Furthermore, during recent years filled with race-related violence, many consumers expect companies to show their support for racial justice.

So, wasn’t Walmart right to support Black Americans by launching a line of Juneteenth products?

Although the Twitter feedback above is enlightening, social media responses often prioritize ‘quick and pithy’ over ‘thoughtful and measured.’ For that reason and to help me better understand how Black Americans might perceive Walmart’s tactics, I reached out to a colleague at my university who’s well-qualified to offer an informed perspective.

Dr. Todd Allen is Vice President for Diversity Affairs and Professor of Communication at Messiah University. He’s also the founder of The Common Ground Project, “a community-based non-profit dedicated to teaching the history of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.”

When I asked Allen about Walmart’s Juneteenth product line, he shared these insights:

“I think the timing (a new holiday) and some people still feeling burned by the promises of 2020 (which haven’t necessarily resulted in the hoped-for transformative change) just made this too soon. The fact that they pulled [the ice cream] so quickly also makes me wonder who was in on the decision making in the first place. It seems like if the TV show Blackish were still on the air, this would be an episode.”

Allen also offered one word that captured much of what he shared, “context.” For instance, he mentioned that Walmart is not known for being progressive on racial issues. He also said that the company’s approach “felt just a bit too commercial and too opportunistic.”

So, what if the context were different? For another company with a more positive race-related track record, offering different products with better messaging, public perceptions may have been more positive.

Allen’s response and the idea of context got me thinking: Beyond just Walmart and Juneteenth, are there principles that all organizations should follow when connecting with social causes? There undoubtedly are many, but here are perhaps three of the most important questions to ask:

1. What’s the company’s track record on the issue? Whether it’s an individual or an organization, we’re more likely to trust the motives of someone who has already demonstrated genuine concern about the social issue at hand. In the case of Walmart and race, results have been mixed.

On one hand, in June 2020, the company pledged $100 million over five years to address racial disparities in the U.S. However, in January of 2022 a black correction officer sued Walmart for racial profiling when he was wrongfully accused of shoplifting, then in February, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Walmart because “Walmart violated federal law when it gave a Black female employee an unsanitary lactation space based upon her race.”

In contrast, Fundraising for a Cause, the world’s largest manufacturer of awareness products, enjoys strong credibility when it comes to earning income through social causes, partly because it’s owner and CEO, Karen Conroy, founded the company after her sister was diagnosed with breast cancer and also because her company passes significant profits onto her customers, e.g., they can buy 50 silicone bracelets for $40, sell them for $5 each, and net $210 for their cause.

2. What’s the nature of the product? There’s a place and time for most products; the key is to ensure that the product personality aligns with sentiments surrounding the social issue.

Juneteenth is certainly a cause for celebration but that’s because it marks the end to several centuries of enslavement. As such, the holiday understandably evokes mixed emotions that aren’t necessarily in keeping with an all-out party atmosphere, or at least not one worthy of a namesake flavor of ice cream. Would it be right to have a dairy treat marking the end of the Holocaust?

For comparison, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) is a nonprofit organization that works in over 50 countries around the world to provide disaster relief, foster economic development, and promote peace. Among its biggest fundraisers are quilt auctions, which raise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Quilts are items of beauty and comfort that complement MCC’s three-fold mission.

3. Is the company adding value? Whether it’s a single salesperson or an entire organization, the measuring stick for any marketer is the value they add in an exchange. No company should extract more value than it gives.

It’s hard to know how much money Walmart would have made on the Juneteenth ice cream and other products. Knowing Walmart’s typical pricing approach, the profit margins on the items were likely low; however, selling them across more than 5,300 U.S. retail stores, even modest margins would have added up quickly.

Walmart also likely hoped to pocket goodwill from the products; however, the biggest grab by Walmart was its attempt to trademark (TM) Juneteenth, as if it had created the name, so that only it could sell Juneteenth branded products.

On a positive side, Walmart consumers could purchase the branded products at reasonable prices. However, it’s unlikely that Juneteenth-imprinted paper products and ice cream would deepen anyone’s understanding of and appreciation for the momentous historic event. If anything, Walmart’s products may have trivialized it.

Other companies have made money, in some cases very large amounts, from marketing race-related products; however, many times they’ve added extra value through education.

A good example of such value-added is the feature film Selma, “a chronicle of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s campaign to secure equal voting rights via an epic march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965.” An Academy Award nominee for best picture, the movie grossed over $66.7 million worldwide on an estimated budget of $20 million.

Selma was very profitable for Harpo Films and the other production companies that made the movie. However, those who watched the film also ‘profited,’ not just from two hours of entertainment but from a better understanding of a very important historic event.

As Allen suggested, context matters. Like others, he wondered why Walmart didn’t instead promote a Black-owned ice cream brand, Creamalicious, which it was already selling in its stores. Such an approach would have been a better context in at least two of the three ways described above.

Unfortunately, however, Walmart tried a more self-serving strategy that quickly melted. So instead of celebrating, the company is doing damage-control because of its “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

0 Comments

Does Free Speech Mean Unfiltered?

5/8/2022

1 Comment

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

There’s no law stopping someone from telling a coworker he has bad breath, or a friend she texts too much, or a spouse their outfit isn’t flattering. Although people have the right to offer such criticisms, they often hold their tongues. Verbal restraint isn’t always ideal, but even common communication challenges like these can inform a newly trending social imperative—free speech.

Serial entrepreneur and one of the planet’s richest people, Elon Musk is buying Twitter— perhaps the world’s most pervasive and controversial communication platform. The reasons behind the $44 billion purchase are likely multifold; however, Musk claims that one of his primary motivations is to reduce the medium’s content moderation and to allow more free speech.

Free speech is fundamental to democracy: Government of-by-for the people is predicated on individuals speaking their minds, including ideas critical of the government. That’s why the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, [emphasis added] or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Of course, the nation’s founders couldn’t have foreseen social media and how it would be used both to bolster democracy (e.g., Arab Spring in 2010) and to bash people who look or think differently. The founders were people too, who probably fell into petty squabbles and even engaged in personal attacks; however, it’s unlikely that second kind of communication is what they intended to protect in amending the constitution.

Nevertheless, because of the First Amendment, there are no U.S. laws against hate speech; rather, people are free to say pretty much whatever they want about others, without legal repercussions, as Black’s Law Dictionary explains:

“A person hurling insults, making rude statements, or disparaging comments about another person or group is merely exercising his or her right to free speech. This is true even if the person or group targeted by the speaker is a member of a protected class. According to U.S. law, such speech is fully permissible and is not defined as hate speech.”

So, based on the law alone, people can pretty much let loose: no filter needed. Likewise, Musk has suggested that people should be able to ‘say whatever is legal.’ On April 26, 2022, he tweeted his stance:

“By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”

Although it’s true that law and ethics often align, the fit is far from perfect. Some laws even encourage immorality. At a minimum, there’s a lag, sometimes of decades or centuries before legislation aimed at correcting ethical failings come to fruition.

For instance, Jim Crow laws once required physical segregation of people of different races. Likewise, from its inception in 1776, it took the United States nearly two centuries to pass laws forbidding discrimination, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Even now, a leaked Supreme Court memo has spawned demonstrations across the country about abortion law. Regardless of whether Roe v. Wade stands or falls, a significant portion of the population will contend that the law does not match morality.

In short, we all need to be careful of equating what’s ethical with what’s legal. More specifically, if legal-moral equivalence doesn't hold for other social issues, why assume it works for communication-related concerns?

So, instead of rushing ahead with the reasoning, “Because the law allows us to say anything, we should,” individuals and organizations should collect their thoughts and consider three free speech amendments:

1) Practice Self-Restraint: Most people place limits on how much they eat, sleep, watch TV, etc., for their own good and sometimes because their actions impact others. Why not apply the same principle of self-control to our words? This adapted, time-honored moral axiom couldn’t be more apropos, ‘just because we can say it doesn’t mean we should say it.’

In speaking, as in many other things in life, less can be more, and sometimes saying nothing is best. When a baseball infielder mishandles a ground ball that allows the other team to score and win the game, nothing good comes from the coach berating him for his error. The player knows he made a mistake and already feels very badly about it. Even in cases when we’re free to speak, sometimes our thoughts are better left unsaid.

2) Ensure What We’re Saying is True: With social media and little effort, anyone can say practically anything to anyone anywhere in the world, which makes it all-the-more important to prioritize truthfulness. We should be confident of the veracity of what we say, as well as what we share from others. If we’re not certain something is true, we should at least provide a clear disclaimer or even better, wait until we know.

Alec Hill describes deception as encouraging someone to believe something that you don’t believe yourself. That kind of intentional manipulation of the truth is unconscionable. However, it’s also negligent to forward unverified information. A fundamental cost of free speech is the time and effort it takes to ensure the accuracy of what we say.

3) Take Care in How We Say Things: We’ve all heard the sentiment, ‘It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it.’ We’ve also experienced how much better it feels to receive a constructive critique versus caustic criticism.

When in person, nonverbal communication like welcoming body language and a friendly tone of voice can temper a message that’s not particularly positive. Similarly, a forward-looking frame is often better than a back-facing one. For instance, rather than belittling a person for what they did wrong, “You were so bad!!” focus on the action and project a positive future one: “It might be better to . . .” Both are free speech, but the latter will almost always elicit a more favorable reaction.

Do the preceding three recommendations restrict free speech? In the sense that they urge us not to say everything we think or to say things the way we first think them, yes . On the other hand, ‘filtering’ in the ways described above adds value to the communication by casting the sender in a more positive light and making it more likely that the recipient will take action.

By virtue of their many media-related roles, marketers and Musk have unique opportunities to influence mass communication and interpersonal conversations. Filtered communication is still free speech. It’s also “Mindful Marketing.”

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

1 Comment

Harmful Humor

4/10/2022

7 Comments

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

I still don’t get it. College professors are supposed to be insightful, but I’m baffled by reactions to Will Smith’s infamous Oscars slap. Most people have rightly condemned the violent reaction, but why aren’t more talking about the joke that sparked the response? Society’s double-standard for humor can be confusing and consternating, which are reasons to consider how individuals and organizations should lean into laughter.

Most of us have now seen the clip of actor Will Smith striding onto the Oscars stage and striking award presenter Chris Rock across the face. The unimaginable physical altercation on Hollywood’s biggest night came because of a quip Rock made about the baldness of Smith’s spouse, Jada Pinkett Smith, who suffers from alopecia, a condition that causes complete hair loss.

Smith’s reaction was wrong. No matter the nature of the verbal offense, real or imagined, there was no reason for him to respond violently. Still, such condemnation shouldn’t stop anyone from asking whether Rock stepped over a line.

Of course, Rock is a comedian whose job is to make people laugh—a charge that’s particularly important when appearing at the Oscars, one of the most high-profile gigs a comedian can get.

Also, Oscars hosts and presenters have a history of lightly razzing celebrities in attendance. Legendary comedian and 19-time Oscars host Bob Hope was perhaps the earliest propagator of that tradition, making quips like this one during his 1971 monologue: “But this is a strange business. Just think, Frank Sinatra announced he was quitting show business and they gave him a humanitarian award.”

Billy Crystal, the second most frequent Oscars host (9 times), also had a habit of ribbing famous actors, as he did Clint Eastwood in 1993 for his role in Unforgiven: “Clint, of course, played that ruthless character, and you know he used those same tactics when he cleaned up that lawless renegade town of Carmel, California when he was the mayor there . . . It was Clint Eastwood who instituted the no crème brulee after 10:00 pm ordinance.”

Rock was himself an Academy Awards host in 2016, at which time he gave much of his monologue to highlighting the unsettling fact that there were no Black nominees at what he called “the White People’s Choice Awards.” He also took a jab at Pinkett Smith for boycotting ‘Oscars So White,’ suggesting it didn’t make sense for her to spurn an event to which she wasn’t invited.

Compared to the biting personal attacks for which insult comedians like Don Rickles, Lisa Lampanelli, and Andrew Dice Clay have been known, Rock’s comments may seem benign. Some might also suggest that humor is inherently controversial, i.e., some people will like a particular joke, while others will not.

It’s true that humor, like beauty, is in the ‘mind of the beholder’; however, there is a relatively clear line that individuals and organizations can avoid crossing to ensure that their jest about others isn’t injurious:

It’s usually okay to playfully point out the peculiar things that people do or say, but don’t joke about who they are.

Before offering some personal examples to support this suggestion, those who don’t know me well should understand that I’m far from a ‘wet blanket’ when it comes to humor: I love to laugh and endeavor to inject ad hoc humor into my classes, which I’ve found keeps students engaged, provides a brief reprieve from back-to-back-to-back classes, and lightens the load of weighty issues and complex concepts.

Other professors cite similar benefits. In fact, I recently read a Harvard Business article, “What educators can learn from comedians,” that offered empirical evidence for the third benefit above.

David Stolin, professor of finance at TBS education, collaborated with comedian Sammy Obeid, host of Netflix’s 100 Humans series, to create a variety of educational videos, some humorous and others serious. The researchers found that “when students were assigned humorous videos, they had consistently higher engagement and subsequent test performance.” So, among other things, humor helps learning.

I haven’t formally studied the same causal relationship, but I have done research on “playful teasing,” which suggests that good-natured ribbing helps build social bonds. I sometimes use that type of humor with my students, which brings me to my first personal example.

In one of my recent classes, a discussion about personal branding turned to ‘what coaches can do to encourage their players when they’re down.’ One of the students, who’s a college athlete, began to share her team’s current experience, saying, “It’s funny because two of my teammates tore their ACLs . . .” As she briefly paused to finish the sentence, I couldn’t resist interjecting some seemingly serious censure, “There’s nothing funny about that.”

Students, including the one who was speaking, laughed, and a classmate quipped, “I’m going to tell your coach!” The student finished her story and, of course, revealed that by “funny” she didn’t mean amusing but coincidental. People knew I was kidding because of the hyperbole of my comment, because we often joke in class, and because the students, all of whom I’ve had in other courses, know my penchant for dry humor.

The second example came a few years earlier when one of my students turned the comedic tables on me. As our class was discussing a case study about a particular west-coast-based restaurant chain, I showed a few pictures of my family and me, over the years, at various locations of the chain.

One student noticed something peculiar in the pictures and commented, “Dr. Hagenbuch, don’t you ever let your shirt out? Even on vacation, it’s tucked in!” I tried to argue that in a couple of the photos my shirt only looked to be tucked, but no one was buying it. We all had a good laugh, and shirt tucking became an ongoing joke for us.

Then, during the last class of the semester, I shared a specially made PowerPoint titled “Dr. Hagenbuch Untucked” that contained a dozen or more different family photos, all with my shirts outside my pants. The class appreciated the levity of the short slideshow and its homage to our inside joke. A couple years later, the student responsible for the original “untucked” playful tease, told me that our repartee was a highlight of his college experience.

The point of these examples is it’s very possible to laugh without shaming or otherwise hurting people, even when the humor is targeted toward one person. The key is a pure motive and playfully pointing out something silly the person inadvertently said (“It’s funny because . . .”) or did (shirts tucked in).

Rock’s Oscars jabs at Pinkett Smith failed both times to follow that protocol and instead took aim squarely at who she is. In 2016, his joke about her not being invited to the ceremony was a painful suggestion that she’s not a good enough actor. At the latest event, he made light of a physical condition that she cannot change and that likely makes her self-conscious.

For me, such humor is out-of-bounds; however, I wanted to hear the opinions of people who know much more than I do about psychology, sociology, and how Rock’s joke may have impacted not just Pinkett Smith but others. I reached out to two of my colleagues who teach in our university’s graduate program in counseling. They shared these reflections:

Dr. Leah K. Clarke, Director and Associate Professor of Counseling
“My own reaction to the joke was a resigned disappointment that women’s appearances and bodies, including black women’s hair, continue to be fair game for public discourse. Women and girls learn, almost from birth, that their bodies can be commented on, evaluated, touched, and utilized for other’s profit or pleasure. I’m not sure you could even count the number of songs that reference women’s appearances or specific body parts.”

“Pinkett Smith had previously shared about the source of her baldness, but even in doing so she acknowledged she felt she had to. Because otherwise the conversation about what was going on her scalp would happen without her. And she was right, Chris Rock and her husband had an interaction related to her appearance without her involvement or consent. The idea that her hair might be of no interest and nobody’s business doesn’t seem to occur to anyone.”

Dr. Sarah Brant-Rajahn, Assistant Professor of Counseling, School Counseling Track Coordinator
“Rock’s joke triggered the pain of many women and Black women, in particular, about ideals that are attached to appearance and hair as a beauty standard. I was surprised that such a joke would come from Rock, after his Good Hair (2009) documentary highlighted issues around Black-American women and the perception of their hair being acceptable or desirable.”

“As Pinkett Smith, like so many other women, attempt to boldly embrace their authentic selves and engage in self-love, they are met with ridicule, judgment, and shame when this true self does not align with societal notions of beauty. And to an extent, Rock’s joke and many like them can be viewed as bullying, as Pinkett Smith likely felt powerless to defend herself at a professional event, with an audience, and in a space that was being publicly recorded and viewed. There was a clear imbalance of power here where a male with a microphone and a stage demeans a female who does not have the same capacity to share her voice at the time.”

“While it is likely that Rock did not consider these implications, as he is a comedian and comedians make jokes about many people and topics, we would be remiss to not name and address the potential impact such comments have on girls and women, as well as the perpetual devaluation of them based on appearance.”

Beyond many specific truths, my overarching takeaway from both these experts’ assessments is that humor’s impact extends beyond the parties directly involved—a realization I’d also had through my research into playful teasing.

People often learn vicariously, i.e., from observing others’ firsthand experiences. Just as we can ‘feel’ that a stove is hot by watching someone else touch it, we can feel ridiculed when we hear or see someone deride a person who is in some way like us, e.g., race, body type.

Because the Academy Awards is broadcast to millions of people worldwide, Rock’s joke was at the expense of thousands of people with alopecia, not just Pinkett Smith. Furthermore, as Clarke and Brant-Rajahn have suggested, women and especially Black women were right to feel that their bodies and appearances were once more objectified for public consumption.

Their thoughts pinpoint the hypocrisy to which I alluded at the beginning of this piece. How can a society claim it’s concerned about bullying, shaming, and mental health, but be accepting of things like mean tweets, taunting, and caustic comedy? It's hard to understand why more aren’t alarmed by the troubling connections.

So, what does this analysis have to do with marketing? For any of us who aspire to make others laugh, how we handle humor becomes part of our brand, whether we’re an individual like Rock or an organization like GoDaddy, which is still trying to break free from its oversexualized Super Bowl ad humor more than a decade ago. The character of one’s comedy has long-lasting implications for one’s brand.

Just as the same medicine that helps people can hurt them if taken incorrectly, the ‘best medicine,’ laughter, can hurt people when its wrongly administered. It’s fine to playfully tease people for silly things they do or say, but we shouldn’t make light of who they are.

It seems that Rock’s stock has risen since the last Oscars, probably due to extra publicity he’s received, as well as sympathy from the slap. However, those truly deserving empathy are the ones Rock’s putdown humor belittled directly and by extension. The impact on them makes Rock’s ridicule “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

7 Comments

The Trouble with Taunting

1/28/2022

23 Comments

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

With Super Bowl LVI fast approaching, it’s a good time to analyze the officiating that’s caused so much controversy this football season. Surprisingly, the complaints haven’t been about referees throwing flags for excessive physical contact but for unnecessary psychological confrontation. The NFL’s crackdown on taunting has been widely unpopular, which could make anyone wonder if tightening the lid on trash taking was a bad business decision.

Imagine a football play in which a 320 lb. offensive lineman ‘pancakes’ a 310 lb. defensive tackle (i.e., blocks him to the turf). The defensive player wouldn’t expect anyone to ask him afterward, “How did that experience make you feel?”

Professional football is a very physical game, played by some of Earth’s biggest, strongest, and toughest people. They sign up for that kind of contact, and many even enjoy it. Hurting each other’s feelings is likely the least of their concerns. So why are NFL officials making it theirs?

This past summer, the league’s competition committee decided to try to tighten the reins on what it perceived to be a growing problem: players taunting their opponents with words and gestures, often aimed at rubbing in others’ failure, e.g., “I scored a touchdown, and you couldn’t stop me,” of course, expressed in a more ‘colorful’ and humiliating way.

Contrary to what some think, the NFL didn’t create a new taunting rule for the current season; rather, it asked officials to more strictly enforce the existing rule against “the use of baiting or taunting acts or words that engender ill will between teams.”

Most fans and analysts have blasted the stricter enforcement, especially when such calls have helped sway the outcome of close games. Given the arguably unnecessary restrictions on expression, some have snidely suggested that NFL should stand for “No Fun League.”

Lest we forget, football and all professional sports are entertainment. So, if players don’t mind taunting, and fans tolerate or even enjoy it, why not give them what they want—that’s Marketing 101—meet the target market’s wants and needs.

But, what if taunting has an impact beyond the professionals playing on fields like Lambeau and in stadiums such as Gillette?

Last February, I wrote an article, “Leaving a Legacy of Irreverence,” about an unlikely taunting incident that transpired at a teen football camp in Myrtle Beach, SC. One of the campers inexplicably began berating NFL quarterback and one-time league MVP Cam Newton, shouting at him, “You a free agent! You a free agent! You're about to be poor!”

Like most people, I said that the young man’s unprovoked antagonism was out of line. However, I also suggested that he very well could have learned his trash talking from some of the same media pundits who quickly became his most vocal critics, namely ESPN’s often acerbic analyst, Stephen A. Smith.

Amid the great derision that taunting penalties have drawn this football season, I wonder if, again, we’re failing to connect some potentially important cause-effect dots:
Does NFL players’ taunting inspire young impressionable athletes, who often idolize them, to imitate the insults?

Like many, I grew up loving sports and trying, with very little success, to pattern my play after that of professional athletes. Since my limited and dated experience doesn’t go very far in answering the question above, I reached out to someone who knows young football players better than almost anyone and can very likely project the impact that NFL players’ taunting has on today’s emerging athletes.

Jim Roth has been the head football coach at Southern Columbia High School, in Central Pennsylvania, for 38 years. That remarkable longevity alone suggests his unique familiarity with high school football; however, his years on the job are only the beginning.

Roth’s teams have won an incredible 12 state championships—twice that of any other program in the state. Furthermore, his 471 victories make him the winningest high school football coach in Pennsylvania and place him among the top ten coaches in the nation. During one recent stretch, Roth’s teams went an unimaginable four years without losing a game.

All this to say, there are few people anywhere who know high school football, its players, and what motivates them better than Roth. I recently had an opportunity to speak with him and ask his perspective on taunting in the NFL and how it might impact high school players.

Roth very clearly conveys his feelings about the league’s tough stance on taunting: “I think the rule is great.” He doesn’t appreciate a defensive lineman leaning over a quarterback he just sacked or believe it’s right for a receiver to wave his fingers at a safety he’s beaten for a touchdown.

Roth contends that professional players often take their celebrations too far: “The other team feels bad enough that they’ve gotten scored on. There’s no need to humiliate them more.”

When it comes to the possibility of his own players taunting opponents, Roth again does not equivocate, “We don’t condone taunting; we aren’t okay with our kids doing it.”

Even as Roth and his coaching staff strive to develop their players’ character and instill self-discipline, he realizes it’s become increasingly hard to do so for a variety of reasons, including that fewer grow up learning the same sense of accountability and responsibility they did years ago.

Individual upbringing, however, is not the only factor that influences behavior like taunting. Roth also believes that the actions of older, more accomplished athletes influence those of their younger counterparts: “There’s no question that when kids see certain things on TV in professional or college games, they imitate them.”

So, one of the most successful football coaches of all-time doesn’t appreciate players on any level taunting their opponents. He also confirms that younger players often emulate the behavior, good and bad, of older ones, which gives good reason for the NFL to sack taunting.

It’s ironic that despite society’s increased awareness of the importance of good mental health, including for accomplished athletes like Olympic gold medalist Simone Biles, many people still see no problem with players in certain sports attempting to ‘get in the minds’ of their opponents. Yes, sports are games, but they also have real life physical and psychological consequences that don’t go away when players walk off the field or leave the court.

Battle-hardened NFL players may be able to endure taunting, and their fans might enjoy watching it, but many impressionable young football players and others see it and imitate it, to the detriment of themselves and others, all in a world that's wanting for respect and doesn't need more antagonism.

With television ratings at their highest since 2015, it doesn’t seem that the NFL has taken any financial hit for penalizing taunting; still, the significant pushback it’s received could cause the league to rethink its stricter stance. Such a reversion, however, would be a loss for many inside and outside football.

After nearly four decades of incredible success, winning games and developing young men, Roth maintains, “Winning without character is no better than losing.” That’s exactly what the NFL would be doing if it stops tackling taunting. However, as long as its referees throw flags for those demeaning deeds, the league wins with “Mindful Marketing.”

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

23 Comments

Why Can't TikTok Block the Blackout Challenge?

1/1/2022

10 Comments

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

Many people’s New Year’s resolutions are to eat less and exercise more. Fortunately, few people need to promise to kill less. That goal, though, may be a good one for the world’s-fastest growing social media platform in order to better protect the lives of young users who are oblivious to the dangerous game they’re playing.

Nyla Anderson was a “happy child” and “smart as a whip”—she even spoke three languages. Tragically, the 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl’s life was cut short on December 12, when she died while attempting a perilous social media trend called the Blackout Challenge.

The Blackout Challenge “requires the participant to choke themselves until they pass out and wake up moments later.” Sadly, some who participate, like Nyla, never wake up, and if they don’t die, they may suffer seizures and/or brain damage.

It’s tragic, but young people likely have engaged in foolhardy, life-threatening behavior since the beginning of humankind. Within a few years of my high school graduation, two of my classmates lost their lives in separate car crashes caused by high-speed, reckless driving. Most people probably can share similar stories of people they knew who needlessly died too young.

In some ways it’s inevitable that young people’s propensity for risk-taking paired with a limited sense of their own mortality will lead them to endanger themselves and encourage others to do the same. What’s inexplicable is how older and presumably more rational adults can encourage and even monetize such behavior, which is what some suggest TikTok has done.

Unfortunately, Nyla is not the only young person to pass away while attempting the Blackout Challenge. Other lives the ill-advised trend has taken include 12-year-old Joshua Haileyesus of Colorado and 10-year-old Antonella Sicomero of Palermo, Italy. TikTok provided the impetus for each of these children to attempt the challenge.

Most of us know from experience that peer influence can cause people to do unexpected and sometimes irrational things. In centuries gone by, that influence was limited to direct interpersonal contact and then to traditional mass media like television. Now, thanks to apps like TikTok, anyone with a smartphone holds potential peer pressure from people around the world in the palm of their hand.

In TikTok’s defense, the Blackout Challenge predates the social media platform. ByteDance released TikTok, or Douyin as it’s known in China, in September of 2016. Children had been attempting essentially the same asphyxiation games, like the Choking Challenge and the Pass-out Challenge, many years prior. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 82 children, aged 6 to 19, likely died from such games between 1995 and 2007.

It’s also worth noting that individuals and other organizations create the seemingly infinite array of videos that appear on the platform. ByteDance doesn’t make them, it just curates the clips according to each viewer’s tastes using one of the world’s most sophisticated and closely guarded algorithms.

So, if TikTok didn’t begin the Blackout Challenge and it hasn’t created any of the videos that encourage it, why should the app bear responsibility for the deaths of Nyla, Joshua, Antonella, or any other young person who has attempted the dangerous social media trend?

It’s reasonable to suggest that TikTok is culpable for the self-destructive behavior that happens on its premises. A metaphor might be a property owner who makes his house available as a hangout for underage drinking. The homeowner certainly didn’t invent alcohol, and he may not be the one providing it, but if he knowingly enables the consumption, he could be legally responsible for “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.”

By hosting Blackout Challenge posts, TikTok could be contributing to the delinquency of minors.

I have to pause here to note an uncomfortable irony. Less than four months ago, just after Francis Haugen blew the whistle on her former employer Facebook, I wrote a piece titled “Two Lessons TikTok can Teach Facebook.” In the article, I described specific measures TikTok had taken to, of all things: 1) discourage bad behavior, and 2) support users’ mental health.

How could I have been so wrong? Although I certainly may have been misguided—it wouldn’t be the first time—TikTok’s actions that I cited truly were good things. So, maybe the social media giant deserves to defend itself against the new allegations.

TikTok declined CBS News’ request for an interview, but it did claim to block content connected to the Blackout Challenge, including hashtags and phrases. It also offered this statement, “TikTok has taken industry-first steps to protect teens and promote age-appropriate experiences, including strong default privacy settings for minors."

The notion of protecting teens is certainly good; however, it’s hard to know what “industry-first steps” are. Furthermore, prioritizing age-appropriateness and privacy are important, but neither objective aligns particularly well with the need to avoid physical harm—the main problem of the Blackout Challenge.

In that spirt and in response to accusations surrounding Nyla’s death, TikTok offered to Newsweek a second set of statements:

“We do not allow content that encourages, promotes, or glorifies dangerous behavior that might lead to injury, and our teams work diligently to identify and remove content that violates our policies.”

"While we have not currently found evidence of content on our platform that might have encouraged such an incident off-platform, we will continue to monitor closely as part of our continuous commitment to keep our community safe. We will also assist the relevant authorities with their investigation as appropriate."

These corporate responses do align better with the risks the Blackout Challenge represents. However, there’s still a disconnect: TikTok claims it’s done nothing to facilitate the Blackout Challenge, but family members of those lost say the social media platform is exactly where their children encountered the fatal trend.

The three families’ tragedies are somewhat unique, but they’re far from the only cases of people seeing the Blackout Challenge on TikTok and posting their own attempts on the app. TikTok has taken measures that have likely helped ‘lessen the destruction,’ but it’s unreasonable for it to claim exoneration.

The company’s app must be culpable to some degree, but what exactly could it have done to avoid death and injury? That question is very difficult for anyone outside TikTok or without significant industry expertise to answer; however, let me ask one semi-educated question—Couldn't TikTok use an algorithm?

As I’ve described in an earlier blog post, “Too Attached to an App,” ByteDance has created one of the world’s most advanced artificial intelligence tools—one that with extreme acuity serves app users a highly-customized selection of videos that can keep viewers engaged indefinitely.

Why can’t TikTok employ the same algorithm, or a variation of it, to keep the Blackout Challenge and other destructive videos from ever seeing the light of day?

TikTok is adept at showing users exactly what they want to see, so why can’t it use the same advanced analytics with equal effectiveness to ‘black out’ content that no one should consume?

The truism ‘nobody’s perfect’ aptly suggests that every person is, in a manner of speaking, part sinner and part saint. TikTok and other organizations, which are collections of individuals, are no different, doing some things wrong and other things right but hopefully always striving for less of the former and more of the latter.

Based on its statements, TikTok likely has done some ‘right things’ that have helped buffer the Blackout Challenge. However, given the cutting-edge technology the company has at its disposal, it could be doing more to mitigate the devastating impact. For that reason, TikTok remains responsible for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

10 Comments

<<Previous

Ensuring Ethical Advertising

When Organizations Give Thanks

Should Consumers Smile at Guerrilla Marketing?

Should Employees' Looks Matter?

Should AI Impersonate People?

Selling Social Issues

Does Free Speech Mean Unfiltered?

Harmful Humor

The Trouble with Taunting

Why Can't TikTok Block the Blackout Challenge?

Editor

Archives

Categories