Mindful Marketing
  • Home
    • Ethics Challenge
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Mindful Marketing Book
  • Mindful Ads?
  • Contact

Putting Money on Prediction Markets

4/1/2026

0 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 

Q: Who will be the next head coach of the North Carolina Tar Heels men’s basketball team?
Q: When will the Department of Homeland Security be funded again?
Q: Where will Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding occur?
 
You might know the answers to these questions now, but at the time of writing this article, most people did not, which is why they were among the top trending questions on Kalshi, a key player in one of the fastest-growing consumer trends: prediction markets.
 
It’s human nature to speculate, and in many ways the habit is helpful – we need to anticipate future events and outcomes so we can prepare for them, e.g., natural disasters, economic cycles. But will betting on the outcomes of all manner of life events pay out as simple diversion or social/economic disaster? Now that’s a great question for Kalshi!
 
What are prediction markets and how does betting in them differ from other common kinds of gambling, e.g., casinos, lotteries, sports?
 
At the most basic level, prediction market betting is the same as other gambling in that the bettor places a wager on the outcome of an event, e.g., at a casino, where the ‘pill’ will land on a roulette wheel; for a Powerball drawing, what the winning numbers will be; in the NCAA Division I basketball tournament, which men’s/women’s teams will win.
 
However, a key difference is that betting in prediction markets is not limited to one or a few specific types of  bets; rather, people can wager on the outcomes of virtually any activity, which players seem to be doing with increasing enthusiasm.
 
For instance, for the 2026 Super Bowl, Kalshi alone handled over $1 billion worth of bets – an increase of 2,700% from 2025. One of the most popular wagers was, ‘What will be the first song that halftime performer Bad Bunny will sing?’ Bets on that ‘event’ alone surpassed $100 million. People wagered on many other incidental Super Bowl outcomes such as ‘Will Elon Musk or Lionel Messi attend the game?’
 
Thanks to companies like Kalshi and Polymarket, the other main purveyor of prediction bets, this kind of gambling doesn’t need to wait for a once-a-year sports spectacle. People can wager on virtually anything that gains the interest of enough people to create a betting market. For example, while writing this paragraph, some of the trending bets only Polymarket are:
  • Who will be the winner of Eurovision 2026?
  • When will the U.S. and Iran reach a ceasefire?
  • What will SpaceX’s IPO closing market cap be?
  • What will be the price of crude oil by the end of March?
  • Who will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2028?
  • How many Elon Musk # tweets will there be March 31 - April 7?
 
The great variety of bets and ease of placing them from almost anywhere have spurred a prediction market boom. In December of 2026 alone, Kalshi and Polymarket collectively saw almost $12 billion in wagers, an increase of more than 400% from the previous year.
 
Another important difference: prediction markets don’t serve as the ‘house’ like sports books do; rather, markets like Kalshi and Polymarket earn money by charging trading fees for bringing together opposite sides of a bet. The price of a bet on their sites indicates the likelihood that a given outcome will occur, e.g., a $0.20 bet = 20% probability of ‘yes, it will happen.’
 
The screenshots below from Kalshi show a bet on whether the government shutdown will last for at least 70 days. Given the market-calculated 62% probability of ‘yes,’ $1.00 bet on the affirmative earns $2.00, if the shutdown reaches 70 days, while $1.00 wagered on ‘no’ earns $3.00, apparently because of its lower, 41% chance, of occurring.

​
Picture

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

That’s a quick primer on why prediction markets have grown so rapidly, what they are, and how they work. However, the most important question, which more individuals and organizations have begun to ask, is, Should they exist? Just because they’re popular and profitable doesn’t mean they’re desirable, or right. So, what are the pros and cons of prediction markets?
 
Prediction Market Positives
 
Diversion: For people who like to bet, prediction markets offer a plethora of possibilities. As mentioned above, the types of wagers are virtually limitless, far exceeding the options in sports and casinos. For some, betting is entertainment – something that brings them enjoyment and/or escape from life’s daily challenges.
 
Income: People who are good prognosticators can make money in prediction markets. As the example above from Kalshi illustrated, a person can wager a little or a lot and, if skilled/lucky, earn a sizable return on their ‘investment.’
 
Information: At a minimum, prediction markets allow anyone who visits their sites see what the betting public perceives will be the outcomes of a wide variety of events. Some proponents maintain that the markets “generate real-time information beyond traditional news or intelligence analysis.” (Bloomberg Morning Briefing: The Americas, 3-2-26). Organizations could conceivably use such insights in their planning as part of a situation review or SWOT analysis.
 
Kalshi cofounder Tarek Mansour agrees with that informational utility, arguing that prediction markets are “the most effective way to aggregate information and the crowd wisdom,” and “People don’t lie when money’s involved. You want to be right about your predictions so you don’t lose money.”
 
Hedging: The uncertainly of economic, political, and other events often lead businesses to try to manage financial risk by taking positions on opposite sides of a given outcome. Prediction markets offer such opportunities in ways that would not have been possible decades ago.

For example, Kalshi is reportedly partnering with the insurance company Game Point Capital to help “college athletics departments, sports teams and sponsors to manage the financial risks of performance incentives in athletes’ and coaches’ contracts” (New York Times DealBook, February 10, 2026).
 
Just as there are apparent benefits of prediction markets, there are likely disadvantages.
 
Prediction Market Negatives
 
Time-Sink: Although many different activities can become unproductive, wasteful uses of time, betting in prediction markets seems to hold greater than average potential both because of the exceedingly wide variety of types of trivial bets and because of the addictive nature of gambling where ‘increasing tolerance for [the activity] requires more gambling as time goes on to feel satisfied.”
 
Minimalization of meaningful life events: While the topics of some prediction market bets are clearly trivial, e.g., ‘What will be the top U.S. Netflix show this week?, for others the markets minimize serious topics by encouraging bets to be placed on them. Although Kalshi prohibits wagers involving death, such as the demise of a nation’s head of state, some prediction markets have no such exclusions, and some, like Polymarket, accept bets related to war – see below. Such bets beg the question:
 
Do we want people pulling for destruction and reducing other human beings’ deaths to a wager won?
​

Picture
​
Difficult Regulation: While the 39 U.S. states that allow sports gambling regulate it within their own borders and the U.S. Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) regulates the trading of stocks, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulates prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket.
 
The CFTC is a long-standing regulatory body that promotes the “integrity, resilience, and vibrancy of the U.S. derivatives markets,” which includes financial products like swaps, futures, collateralized debt obligations, and options. The name derivative comes from the fact that the products are derived from the value of underlying financial assets such  as commodities, stocks, and currencies.
 
A challenge for the CFTC in regulating prediction markets is that unlike the common financial assets listed above that tend to be relatively finite in number, the financial assets underlying prediction markets (bets) are constantly changing, as are the individuals who can potentially influence their values. As such, the CFTC necessarily delegates some of the regulation to the prediction markets themselves, or as it calls them, the “designated contract markets” (DCM). Two of the CFTC’s core principles highlight this delegation:
  • “a DCM is responsible for preventing market manipulation, price distortions, and disruptions in the settlement of contracts.”
  • “DCMs must establish and enforce rules to protect markets and participants from abusive practices, and promote fair and equitable trading.
 
This delegation suggests that regulation of prediction markets is not nearly as tight as that of other derivatives or financial products, which seems to increase the potential for abuse, as the next bullet describes. 
 
Risk of manipulation: Per its website, the SEC is intent on stopping the buying and selling of securities based on material, nonpublic information:
 
“Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities.”
 
Fair treatment of all buyers and sellers is essential for the effective functioning of any market, whether it’s for physical goods or financial products. As the SEC can attest, even when you know organizations’ executives and can track their trading, it’s not easy to maintain market integrity. Fair treatment of all participants is even more challenging in prediction markets where information flow and influence of outcomes is often more obscured.

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

I’m not familiar with the event, but as it appears 11 cast members will be involved in broadcasting the competition for BLAST.tv, it’s easily imaginable how someone remotely connected to the broadcast could either find out what will be said or influence the dialogue, then either place bets for themselves or advise others’ betting, all while avoiding detection.
 
Betting based on inside information for esports commentary is one thing; betting involving covert military operations is another. “Hours before the U.S. military captured Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, an anonymous user on Polymarket bet tens of thousands of dollars that Mr. Maduro would fall.” The bettor, who some believe may have been a government official with inside information about the operation, pocketed $410,000.
 ​
Picture
​
Similarly suspicious, six newly created Polymarket accounts bet that the U.S. would strike Iran by February 28, and earned about $1 million. Bets on when the U.S. would attack were the only bets the accounts had placed. Apparently, some offshore prediction markets allow betting from anonymous or pseudonym accounts, which makes tracking insider influence all-the more difficult. Such systemic flaws provide a segue into the last point – danger.
 
Danger: Of course, the signaling of secretive military operations through prediction market bets places service personnel at great risk. However, almost anyone who doesn’t confirm, or validate, an event outcome that bettors desire also can be at risk. Such was the case for Times of Israel journalist Emanuel Fabian, who gamblers threatened to kill because the story he wrote about Iranian missile strikes on Israel didn’t support their side of a Polymarket bet.
 
Unfortunately, such gambling-related aggression is not an anomaly. Even in the case of sports betting, a recent NCAA study found that bettors harassed more than a third of Division I men’s basketball players. When money is at stake, people who gamble often don’t take their losses lightly, and sometimes they take out their frustrations on others in violent ways.
 
To plan for future events, individuals and organizations often need to try to predict them, then allocate resources, e.g., time and money, accordingly. Such ‘bets’ are crucial for our own effective functioning, as well as for those who rely on us.
 
That kind of ‘betting’ (i.e., planning) is different than wagering on the outcome of events that don’t involve us. While such betting can offer entertainment, afford income, and provide information, it also carries significant concerns including addiction, financial disaster, and even death. 
 
Anticipating future occurrences for purposes of better planning is wise. Betting on largely irrelevant events invites unnecessary risk and introduces an array of unfavorable outcomes, beyond losing a bet. Encouraging others to play prediction markets may be profitable, but it's an investment in Single-Minded Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
0 Comments

The Over-Under on Sports Betting

3/1/2026

0 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 

Can you guess the percentage of people who have placed a sports bet within the past year? Hint, it’s roughly the same number as those who have gotten a tattoo, run a 5K race, or been in a wedding party. The answer, one in five, may seem high, but the gaming industry is growing by leaps and bounds, which calls for a timeout to ask: Should we be all-in on sports betting?

It’s the eve of March Madness, the NCAA Division I basketball tournament that’s one of the biggest sports seasons of the year and one of the biggest sports betting opportunities. Estimates are that $3.1 billion was legally wagered on March Madness 2025 – a little less than the $3.3 billion GPD of Belize. This year’s betting will likely easily eclipse 2025’s.
 
Taking a broader view, in 2017, legal sports betting in the U.S. was mainly confined to Nevada and totaled about $4.27 billion. The following year the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law that prohibited sports gambling, which “opened the floodgates to [the] legalized sports-betting industry” and “paved the way for meteoric growth in legal sports betting.”
 
With 13 states allowing active sports betting in 2019, the total handle, or amount wagered, rose to $13 billion. By the end of 2021, the number of legal states had doubled to 26 and wagers had grown to $58 billion. In 2025, the handle hit $165 billion – larger than the $154.5 billion GDP of Kuwait.
 
Of course, the legalization of sports betting has been its main enabler, but what other factors have contributed to its extremely fast ascent?  A few key influences have been:
  • Online and Mobile Options: The vast majority of sports bets are placed online (~95%). Apps on mobile devices, such as those of BetMGM, Caesars Sportsbook, and DraftKings, have made it very easy for people to “bet anywhere, anytime, [as] these apps blur the boundaries of when and where gambling happens.”
  • Partnerships with Teams: Most major professional sports teams have signed deals with betting companies. A few specific examples are: New York Yankees and San Antonio Spurs – Bally Bet Sports & Casino;  Philadelphia 76ers and  Pittsburgh Steelers – BetMGM; New York Mets and Philadelphia Eagles – Caesars Sportsbook; Detroit Pistons and Chicago Bulls – BetRivers.
  • Advertising: Promotions for these betting companies and others are ubiquitous. The firms frequently air commercials during professional sports contests. Viewers also often can spot signage for the companies inside the stadiums and along the courts where athletes compete.
  • Endorsers: As in many product categories, celebrity endorsements seem to be very effective for betting companies, hence firms such as BetMGM partner with A-list actors like Jamie Foxx and Jon Hamm. Professional sports leagues generally prohibit their current players from endorsing gaming apps; however, one notable exception is the NBA, which has allowed LeBron James to serve as a spokesperson for DraftKings. Otherwise, betting firms have been very successful attracting many of professional sports’ top retired athletes including, Shaquille O’Neal, Jerry Rice, Wayne Gretzky, Mike Tyson, Peyton Manning, Connor McDavid, Barry Sanders, David Ortiz, Marshawn Lynch, Drew Brees, Charles Barkley, and many more.
  • Variety of Bets: The sheer number of wagering options also makes it likely that a person will find a bet that beckons them. Betting on just the outcome of a game now seems passé thanks to sports betting apps that allow users to make microbets, or bets on “events that are resolved quickly” like how far an MLB player will hit a homerun or whether two NBA teams’ halftime scores will total more than 110 points.
 ​
Picture
 
In short, sports betting companies have done a great job marketing their product. They’ve made wagering extremely accessible, easy, and attractive.
 
That was a brief rundown of how sports betting has raced to become a $165 billion industry. By 2030, sports wagering is projected to reach $256.5 billion and by 2035, $325.7 billion – more than Peru’s $318.5 billion GDP, the 48th largest in the world.
 
Let this sink in: If sports betting were a country, only 47 nations’ economies would be larger.
 
Economic growth is often a good thing, correlating with higher employment, greater variety of products, better infrastructure, and enhanced public services. However, will so much given to gambling equal greater good?
 
Is wagering that sports betting will produce good outcomes a winning bet?
 
Despite the great momentum gambling has gained, there have been very notable skeptics. One of them is someone who knows sports better than most – legendary sports broadcaster Bob Costas. When asked about sports betting in a July 2025 interview, he warned that some people will become addicted and lives will be ruined. He saw that destructive power firsthand through his own father’s sports gambling addiction.
 
Costas also reminded us that the house always wins: “It’s inevitable if in fact as a group and over time gamblers didn’t lose more than they win, then no back alley crap game, no casino in Atlantic City or Vegas, no racetrack, and now Bet MGM, Draft Kings, whatever it is, would ever exist.”
 
I share Costa’s concerns, which I’ve described a few times in articles such as one about a major restaurant chain embracing sports gaming and another about universities partnering with betting firms.
 
In those pieces, I offered statistics related to gambling’s often addictive grip, and I shared the story of a woman I interviewed whose father’s sports gambling addiction broke up their family and left him in need of his daughter’s financial and other support decades later.
 
I believe Costa’s and my views are valid, but at the same time I realize we’re not young, as are the individuals who seem to be the main target market for sports gambling: Gen Zs and Millennials. Also, among them, men are more likely to engage in betting than are women.
 
In a recent marketing course, during the semester’s final class period, a conversation about ethics turned to sports betting. Over the years, I’ve been privileged to moderate many engaging student discussions, but this one truly took on a life of its own. For perhaps 20 minutes and without my prodding, students from around the room passionately argued for and against the activity. I kept silent until the end when I finally needed to ‘call time’ because of the end of class; otherwise, the debate might still be going!
 
I recently reached out to two of the participants in that conversation, asking if they would be willing to share their perspectives on sports betting for this piece. Most students in that class were Gen Z men, and both of these students are part of the young male target market gaming firms like BetMGM and DraftKings covet.
 
Dane Mark, a sophomore finance major and sports fan, expresses concern for the integrity of the games, citing the recent high-profile case of Cleveland Guardian Emanuel Clase who allegedly altered pitches in 48 contests for the benefit of bettors. Mark also fears for the safety of players, such as those on men’s Division I basketball teams: Over a third report harassment by bettors.
 
​
Picture
  
However, what weighs heaviest on Mark’s mind are the many people who unwittingly fall into gambling addiction, “throwing money on longshots” because they believe “a huge win is coming.” Mark maintains that even those who set limits on how much they’ll wager can easily succumb to the illusion that they’ll win back money lost. This common rationalization, he contends, is truly “dangerous to people’s lives.”
 
Jed Colyer, a junior accounting major, shares many of Mark’s concerns about the nature of sports betting, agreeing that it’s empty promise of “more, more, more” encourages addiction, as bettors lose their sense of how much is enough.
 
Colyer also cares about what  motivates people to gamble, which he views through the lens of his Christian faith and Bible passages such as 1 Timothy 6:9-10 and Matthew 25:14-30. While he believes money is an important God-given tool that serves useful purposes, he sees gambling  as a “misuse of the tool,” stemming from a fixation on wealth and being rich – preoccupations that ultimately lead to personal “ruin and destruction.”
 
Admittedly, Mark and Colyer represent one side of the debate about sports betting. Also in their class were several students, mainly men, who offered rational arguments in support of gambling, such as:
  • Personal choice for entertainment
  • Ability to bet responsibly
  • Positive economic impact
 
Sports betting is already very widespread and growing rapidly, which means profound impact on even larger numbers of people. For these reasons, it’s important to invite the perspectives of individuals living at the frontlines of the trend – young men, particularly ones like Mark and Colyer who have shown the ability to step back from the legal context, marketing messages, and social pressure and apply moral reasoning.
 
What does it mean to “gamble responsibly” – an admonishment that many betting companies make but do little to unpack?
 
Likewise, what does the need for this upfront warning suggest about the activity and the probability that users will suffer financially, socially, or in other ways? Snack food can become a vice for some, but potato chip marketers don’t need to warn us to “eat responsibly.”
 
Perhaps I’ll be persuaded by other arguments in the future, but for now the risks of sports betting to individuals, organizations, and society seem to outweigh entertainment and economic rewards. To encourage gambling on games is a bet on 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
0 Comments

Falling in Love with AI

2/1/2026

34 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 

February 14th has long reminded people of the affection they feel for the most important others in their lives: spouses, fiancés, boyfriends, girlfriends. Thanks to AI, “significant other” can now mean other than human, but even if people desire human-like intimacy from artificial intelligence, should organizations offer it?
 
A colleague recently shared an article with me and several others that she found disheartening: Married women in China who find their real-life relationship with their spouse lacking are spending the equivalent of thousands of U.S. dollars a year on AI boyfriends. The digital rendezvous often occur in otome games  like Love and Romance, Light and Night, and Beyond the World.
 
I wasn’t entirely surprised by the article, as the issue has been on my radar, along with other AI-related concerns, for about two years, and over past several months, I’ve been tracking related stories such as these:
  • The increase in AI relationships could lead to a rise in divorces.
  • People are having “children” with chatbot partners.
  •  Parents are turning to chatbots to mind their young children.
  • Adult children are leaning on AI to substitute for their own communication with aging parents.
 
Still, in doing research for this piece, I was stunned by some of the usage statistics:
  • Since 2014, more than 660 million residents of China have used Xiaoice, the world’s “most popular chatbot,” which Microsoft “uniquely designed as an AI companion with an emotional connection to satisfy the human need for communication, affection, and social belonging.”
  • Nearly 20% high schoolers report that they or someone they know has had a romantic relationship with AI.
  • Nearly 20% U.S. adults have used AI to simulate a romantic partner, and within young adults age 18-30, 31% of men and 23% of women have used AI in this way.
  • Since its launch in 2017, the AI companion Replika has had 30 million users, while the similar product Character AI has 20 million active users. Over half of Character AI’s users are age 18 to 24, and around a fourth are 25 to 34.
 
Writing for Greater Good Magazine, Sahar Habib Ghazi says statistics like these suggest that “AI-human romance isn’t niche--it’s mainstream, especially among young adults.”
 
Since there have been people, there have been interpersonal relationships. Of course, some reasons for those relationships have been very practical, e.g., procreation, protection; however, humans also have simply sought each other’s company and companionship.
 
In more recent times, researchers have empirically studied humans’ sociological and psychological behaviors and developed theories to describe them. Maslow’s classic Hierarchy of Needs suggests that the desire for belonging is among the most basic of all human desires, preempted only by physiological needs (e.g., air, food, water) and the need for safety.
 
Indeed, most people want to be around other people, if not all or most of the time, some of the time. In fact, it’s so unusual for anyone to spurn social interaction entirely that the rare individual who does receives the label hermit or recluse.
 
With technology, even a recluse can get a ‘social fix’ through one-way interactions, such as by following influencers or watching TV shows with favorite actors, or regularly listening to a particular podcast. In these cases, the followers/viewers/listeners don’t really know the ‘celebrity others,’ yet the former often feel a sense of connection to the latter.
 
There also are ways to fulfill social needs without any people. Perhaps the most popular substitutes are pets, which many people regularly enjoy. Harvard Health reports that “pets can provide their owners with more than companionship,” and Psychology Today suggests that pets can be “friends.”
 
​
Picture
 
Similarly, farmers sometimes bond with the livestock for which they care, e.g., a lead cow. Some people even gain a sense of social interaction by nurturing immobile living beings, i.e., plants, which can help them feel less lonely.
 
Together these examples form a continuum on which people might find satisfaction of social needs, ranging from extensive human contact, to relatively little, to none.
 
There also are countless cases in which people use other things not to meet social needs but to shift their focus from them, e.g., work, hobbies, media. For instance, someone might immerse themself in their job to help take their mind off feelings of loneliness.
 
Given the many ways of meeting and masking social needs currently and historically, is there any reason not to accept AI as a relationship alternative? After all, it can produce more human-like interaction than virtually any of the secondary options. Some would even say better-than-human.
 
There are advantages and disadvantages of AI relationships. The following two lists are not exhaustive but seem to be some of the main pros and cons.
 
Pros:
  • Readily available: No person is accessible all the time to talk, listen, etc. Chatbots are available 24/7. They’re also extremely fast, and they don’t get tired.

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

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

  • Adaptable: As people, we can adapt to others’ needs but it’s hard because as we do, we often need to stretch ourselves or give up our own needs. AI doesn’t have those limitations; it can be 100% accommodating.
 
Cons:
  • Dependency: Given that AI is so readily available, accommodating, and reluctant to ever say “no,” there’s risk of dependency and even addiction. In fact, some humans who have found themselves spending far too much time with AI companions have turned to the app I Am Sober to help break their obsessive compulsive behavior.
 
  • Data vulnerability: There’s risk involved with any of the information we share on websites or enter into apps, but the risk is greatly magnified when considering the very sensitive information individuals are likely to reveal to their AI companions, whose discretion is only as great as that of the companies behind them.

  • Manipulation: Along with potential misuse of users’ data is the potential for users to be unknowingly manipulated into buying products that a chatbot’s parent company wants to promote. It’s hard to imagine that companies won’t seek to monetize those intimate relationships – something that would almost never happen with a human partner.
 
  • Unrealistic expectations: In keeping with the previous point, AI’s varied advantages over people can cause its users to show little tolerance for human imperfections. Instead, they expect the people in their lives to offer support at an AI level.
 
  • Not true love: Although those who use AI companions may experience a “form of ‘love,’” it’s not likely real love given that genuine love involves the desire to nurture another’s well-being, and chatbots “don’t have well-being to nurture.” By the same token, AI can “replicate” some dimensions of love, but what it’s offering is just that – imitation, not genuine love.
 
  • Mistakes: As time goes on, AI seems to be making fewer mistakes and having less frequent hallucinations; however, the nature of the mistakes have sometimes been disastrous, such as when AI has offered to serve as a suicide coach and write troubled teens’ farewell letters.
 
Another possible con I was going to list for AI companions was the inability for physical expression, e.g., a touch, a hug, a kiss. However, it probably shouldn’t be surprising that some technically savvy companies have integrated AI into sex dolls to create life-like sex robots.
 
Also, while writing this piece, I learned of a platform called Moltbook, a website where AI agents interact with each other. Humans can only observe; they cannot enter the conversations. The dialogue is both interesting and disconcerting. It portends a time when AI agents might go rogue, working against their human principals, not for them. If this prediction is in any way a real possibility, engaging a bot as a companion seems even more precarious.
 ​
Picture
  
Although my secondary research for pieces like this is helpful, it’s often even more valuable for me to gain insights directly from experts. In this instance, I reached out to Dr. John King, an associate professor of counseling at Liberty University, who is a Licensed Professional Counselor, a National Certified Counselor, and a former pastor. I asked for his perspective on human-AI relationships.
 
Dr. King has “seen firsthand the devastation affecting a generation” – addiction to gaming and particularly online pornography, especially among young men. He’s also witnessed a rise in mental illness from addiction to phones and related technologies, which he believes has resulted in “a second pandemic: Generalized Anxiety Disorder.”
 
He adds, “When ethics and morality lag behind technological advancement, it seems inevitable that AI‑based romantic relationships will further increase mental‑health struggles, particularly among adolescents and young adults whose brains are still developing.”
 
Dr. King, whose Christian faith informs his professional perspective, believes that because God created people for relationship with Him and other people, trusting technology for companionship risks idolatry and will inevitably result in harm. For these reasons he hopes parents, religious leaders, educators, and government officials “will have the wisdom to address these issues proactively.”
 
Dr. King isn’t opposed to AI use. Like many of us, he uses AI for certain methodical tasks like proofreading; however, he stops well short of suggesting AI as a soulmate.
 
His perspective speaks to me, as I find it increasingly hard to envision the rewards of human-AI relationships outweighing the risks, either to the individual or to society.
 
As is the case with the six “pros” I outlined above, discussion of benefits of human-AI relationships almost always focuses on what the human user gains from the interaction. Benefits like 24/7 access are certainly appealing; however, the exclusive emphasis on getting misses the entire other half of healthy relationships – giving.
 
To at least some extent, the more people are getting their social needs met through AI, the less people are giving human support to others. Perhaps some individuals can effectively manage both types of relationships simultaneously, but it seems more likely that human-bot relationship time comes at the expense of human-human relationship time.
 
However, there’s another important concern beyond simple social need supply and demand. Humans are wired to give. Often the greatest satisfaction and fulfillment in life comes from giving: parents caring for children, spouses supporting each other, friends loving friends, neighbors helping neighbors, people uplifting strangers.
 
When individuals are engaged in AI relationships, to whom are they giving? The answer to that rhetorical question – no one – may be the foremost flaw of human-AI relationships.
 
Is there a place for human-AI relationships? Should companies offer them? Given some of the benefits mentioned above, I hesitate to answer “no” unequivocally. However, it seems AI organizations and the entities that regulate them should think very carefully about who has access to AI companions, for what reasons, and under what conditions.
 
For instance, age restrictions are an absolute necessity, minimum ones and perhaps maximum ones, or some type of cognitive test to protect people susceptible to manipulation because of cognitive decline. Should AI relationships be regulated like some pharmaceuticals are and require a prescription, or should AI relationships be subject to outside monitoring?
 
I wish I had better insights. What I do feel certain about is companies that make AI relationships easily available without setting limits and carefully considering likely individual and societal tolls are courting Single-Minded Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
34 Comments

Does the World Need "Moral Police" for AI?

11/1/2025

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 

Open AI’s recent announcement that it would free ChatGPT to engage in erotica sparked backlash and prompted CEO Sam Altman to defend the decision: “we are not the elected moral police of the world.” At first glance, it’s difficult to deny the AI visionary’s disclaimer, but his statement raises important questions: Should there be people appointed to monitor AI morality and if so, who?
 
In an October 14 post on X, Altman shared, “In December, as we roll out age-gating more fully and as part of our ‘treat adult users like adults’ principle, we will allow even more, like erotica for verified adults.”
 
The CEO then defended the firm’s controversial new initiative with a follow-up X post on October 15: “But we are not the elected moral police of the world. In the same way that society differentiates other appropriate boundaries (R-rated movies, for example) we want to do a similar thing here.”
 
It’s doubtful many people have ever used the term “moral police,” or something similar, in a positive way. Instead, Altman’s implication seems akin to the way “police” is used pejoratively in this office scenario:
  • Joe: “Bob, are you going to the bathroom again?!”
  • Bob: “Who are you, the bathroom police?”
 
On one hand, Altman’s defense is reasonable. Who can possibly judge the ethical actions of the planet’s 8 billion-plus residents? Besides being logistically impossible, some may say it’s philosophically undesirable, as many different worldviews and multitudes of corresponding moral standards drive individuals’ actions.
 
Furthermore, as two research colleagues and I found in a recent study we conducted about marketing ethics, people’s opinions of what constitutes sex-related indecency tend to vary more than perspectives on issues involving other values like fairness and honesty.
 
It’s also easy to understand the financial incentives Open AI may gain by enabling more adult content. The adage “sex sells” rings true even when the ‘personal interaction’ for sale doesn’t involve a real person.
 
In a BBC interview, Parmy Olson of Bloomberg Opinion reported that about 30% of prompts typed into AI assistants were of a romantic or sexual nature. She also stated that chatbot companies that restrict adult content “lose millions of users.”
 
Regardless whether the percentage of X-rated interactions is 5% or 35% of total chatbot use, it’s likely a multibillion-dollar market opportunity for OpenAI and a very significant amount of revenue for any company to reject, especially one that’s not yet profitable.
 
In 2024, OpenAI had about $5 billion in losses on $3.7 billion in revenue. The firm’s revenues are expected to reach $12.7 billion in 2025, but OpenAI isn’t projected to make money until it reaches revenues of $125 billion in 2029.

​
Picture

Despite these logistical and financial reasons for refraining to act as “moral police,” Altman’s hands-off approach to ethics is alarming. ChatGPT accounts for 80.92% of chatbot use worldwide. It’s very troubling that a world leader in artificial intelligence seems to decline ethical accountability for the transformational technology.
 
Again, it’s true that opinions about decency vary greatly, especially when it comes to sexual liberties; however, the specific issue here isn’t the most important point. If OpenAI doesn’t want to act as “moral police” on this issue, can we expect it to accept moral responsibility for any ethical issue involving AI?
 
Perhaps Altman believes that AI will handle moral issues involving AI. That belief seemed wishful to me eight years ago; now it appears increasingly naïve.
 
In September 2017, I wrote an article for Business Insider in which I posed for the first time the question, “Can machines can learn to be moral?” It was five years before ChatGPT’s public release, so the essay was largely speculative, based on the little experience most of us had with AI at the time. Still, it was hard to imagine how an algorithm could make subjective decisions about what’s decent, fair, honest, respectful or responsible.
 
Over the years since, I’ve increasingly used AI, including chatbots, as many people have. In a Mindful Marketing article in May of 2024, I proposed that “Questions are the Key to AI and Ethics,” and ultimately concluded that we can’t rely on AI for moral accountability, rather it’s up to people to hit the brakes, or press pause, when AI-related ethical issues arise.
 
Even as AI grows more adept at completing nonmoral tasks (ones not involving ethical issues), there are still strong signs moral accountability must come from outside algorithms, for example:
  • Just a few days ago, a deepfake of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang promoting a cryptocurrency scam performed better than the firm’s real GTC 2025 keynote, fooling tens of thousands of viewers.
  • Chatbots have been implicated in the deaths of teenagers who have taken their own lives, as AI has offered to write farewell notes and serve as a “suicide coach.”
  • Nudify apps leverage AI to digitally remove clothing in photos of unsuspecting individuals. The apps users, who have included middle schoolers, often share the lewd results with others, causing great emotional and social pain for the victims.
 
If AI has a sense of right and wrong, why hasn’t it stopped these acts, which most reasonable people would call ‘reprehensible’? What’s worse, AI not only didn’t pump the brakes, or hit pause, it’s what enabled these actions to occur; it made them possible. Examples like these have led me to conclude:
 
If left unchecked by humans, AI will continue to enable unethical behavior.
 
So, opposite Altman’s abdication of ethical accountability, we do need “moral police,” badly. The question, then, is who should they be?
 
I asked a similar question in an April 2025 article, “Who Will be the Adult in the Room with AI?” and suggested several sets of complementary accountability partners: legal systems, industry associations, organizations, and individuals.
 
In a recent talk I’ve given titled, “Exercising Our Moral Leadership,” I’ve continued to press the theme of broad-based moral responsibility, arguing that each of us needs to lean on others for support in our ethical decision making, ranging from clarification of factual information to serving as moral sounding boards and accountability partners.
 
Ultimately, I believe ethics is a team sport – every stakeholder employing thoughtful analysis and engaging in constructive conversations. Still, the idea that ‘ethics is everyone’s job’ can seem like a platitude if people don’t genuinely embrace moral responsibility and seriously prepare themselves for ethical decision-making, which involves intentional actions like:
  • Adopting a moral anchor, or a set of moral standards, such as the Golden Rule or specific moral principles like decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility.
  • Thoroughly knowing one’s field because making ethical decisions also demands firm grasps of objective, factual information
  • Looking beyond immediate circumstances to consider long-term consequences and impacts on secondary stakeholders
  • Questioning the consensus because task definitions and time pressures sometimes lead teams to choose what can be done versus what should be done
 
Artificial intelligence appears to be as transformative a technology as our world has ever seen. Most of us have experienced firsthand how it can help us work more efficiently and effectively. We’ve also collectively witnessed how, if left unchecked, it can enable actions that are morally suspect.
 
We do need moral police for AI. You and I should be part of that patrol. Leading the force should be those who are most knowledgeable about AI – police chiefs at Alphabet, Microsoft, Nvidia, and  . . . OpenAI.
 
It’s understandable that Altman wants to respect personal liberties and make Open AI profitable. However, allowing AI to police itself is asking for moral anarchy by way of 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
11 Comments

Whether to Work in Multilevel Marketing

6/1/2025

12 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 

Marketing ethics demands special care for vulnerable consumers – individuals who are at greater risk of being deceived or treated unfairly because they have less life experience, diminished senses, reduced cognitive skills, etc. While children, people with disabilities, and older adults are often considered vulnerable, one group that’s rarely included is college students; however, these young people are particularly susceptible to the practices of a specific category of employment: multi-level marketing.
 
I was glad to receive an email a few weeks ago from a student who had recently completed my business ethics course, “Morality in the Marketplace.” Rachel Sealover was an excellent participant who continually asked good questions, made insightful comments, and challenged my own thinking. However, my gladness turned to sadness as Rachel shared she had endured two very uncomfortable interviews with individuals attempting to recruit her for multilevel marketing (MLM). She then asked if I had ever written a Mindful Marketing article about MLM.
 
Having authored more than 320 ethics pieces during the last decade, I sometimes forget which issues I have/haven’t addressed. MLM seemed like one I had treated, but when a search of my master file produced no hits, I realized my recollection wasn’t from a Mindful Marketing article but from an email exchange I had with a fellow Messiah University professor more than ten years earlier.
 
In January of 2015, Professor of Philosophy Tim Schoettle contacted me after one of his former students asked to meet with him to talk about the multilevel marketer Primerica. Tim was troubled because he had seen several other MLM companies target recent college grads with unrealistic promises of clear paths to success and wealth. What’s more, just before his wife entered college, some of her mother’s Amway “upline,” higher-ups in the pyramid, told his wife that she would be more financially successful if she skipped college in favor of a career as an Amway “Independent Business Owner” (IBO).
 
Coincidentally, just a few days after I received Rachel’s email, I was seated at a table with Tim for an end-of-year “Ethics and the Common Good” retreat, as we each teach an ethics course in our university’s new general education curriculum. Without prompting or remembering our correspondence ten years earlier, Tim again brought up the topic of MLM. I was happy he did and told him that I planned to write a long overdue article on MLM and would invite his input. This, of course, is the article!
 
If you’re unfamiliar with the term, multilevel marketing refers to business models that sell directly to end consumers through independent distributors (i.e., non-employees). Moreover, the distributors are sometimes highly incentivized not just to sell products but to recruit others to do the same, as a portion of the earnings from their “downline” gets paid to those above them in the hierarchy.
 
Selling directly to end-consumers is not uncommon, for instance, thousands of automotive salespeople and real estate agents rightfully earn commissions on the cars and houses they sell to new buyers each day; however, those agents don’t typically try to recruit other agents in order to increase their earnings through passive income, which is a primary objective in much multilevel marketing.
 
Picture

Still, there’s not necessarily anything wrong with someone who loves what they do recruiting others to do the same work. What becomes problematic, though, is when new recruits are promised income streams that are unrealistic for anyone far down in the expansive triangular organizational structures. It’s in such situations that MLM can become a pyramid scheme.
 
In pyramid schemes, a small number of initial, top-level ‘investors’ earn above average returns on their investments, which are funded by the contributions of a  larger number of newer second-tier investors. However, each subsequent level of the pyramid requires more investors to support the level above it, all while returns become increasingly difficult to deliver. Eventually, it becomes impossible for those in the lower levels of the pyramid to recoup their investments, and the pyramid collapses.
 
Some distinguish pyramid schemes from Ponzi schemes. Both share the triangular hierarchy. The main difference is that Ponzi schemes rely specifically on a continual flow of lower-level financial investors while pyramid schemes require the perpetual onboarding of new recruits who must pay significant entry fees to join the organization. In that sense MLM that prioritizes recruiting new representatives over the sale of products can rightly be called a pyramid scheme.
 
Such objective descriptions and definitions are useful; however, what’s even more meaningful is to hear from people who have experienced MLM firsthand. For that close-up perspective we turn to Rachel and Tim.
 
Given the multitude of moral issues that exist in business and marketing, we unfortunately didn’t discuss MLM in our ethics class; still, when Rachel interviewed for positions with MLM firms, her moral foundation informed her that things were not right.
 
A first red flag was the ease at which interviews were granted – She received an invitation to apply through the mail with minimal requirements: “No experience necessary, just apply using the QR code.”
 
Similarly, Tim has been alarmed by MLM firms’ aggressiveness in recruiting college students. In fact, he was so concerned by what he heard from former students, he decided to attend an Amway recruitment meeting so he could see the tactics himself. The meeting’s leader leveraged rhetoric in promising a path to wealth and independence, while avoiding any meaningful discussion of tangible business metrics like costs, customer demand, or return on investment. To Tim, the gathering felt more like “a motivational rally” than any kind of serious business seminar.
 
Rachel likewise observed a lack of financial transparency: “MLMs are usually not upfront with what employees are making for their first few paychecks, or how much you’ll make once you start.” Yet, when they do talk about results it’s “hyping up outcomes by highlighting the small percentage of people who do really well.”
 
For Tim, who maintains that “approximately 99% of participants in MLM lose money,” this practice of presenting the few best cases to prospective distributors is clearly deceptive.
 
In her interviews, Rachel also was unnerved by the firms’ “sketchy” emphasis on recruiting other distributors over selling their products:
 
“Selling the product to your target market is what every business does, but not every business is encouraging you to bring people in from your network or asking you to handover people's numbers.”
 
Tim’s many observations of MLM firms concur:
 
“The vast majority of profits in MLMs come not from selling products to customers, but from recruiting others and expanding one’s ‘downline.’ In practice, this model closely resembles a pyramid scheme.”
 
Rachel learned firsthand that MLM firms make much of their money from new recruits who they ask to pay “some sort of fee or startup cost” as a condition of employment. In that way, it doesn’t really matter how long new distributors last – the companies realize significant revenue just from what the recruits pay to sign-on.
 
Perhaps what troubled both Rachel and Tim most was seeing MLM firms make college students and recent grads their target market. As someone who knows this group better than most, Rachel acknowledged that many in the demographic are “vulnerable to get rich quick opportunities,” given their low economic means, their great desire to be hired, and their limited experience reasoning about vocational pros and cons.
 
Concerned about the lure of MLM on his students – past, present, and future – Tim laments, “The incentives to mislead are strong and baked into the system, making the bankruptcy of MLM difficult to detect, especially for those drawn in by the promise of personal success.” It’s not surprising, therefore, that he calls the business model “predatory.”
 
Are all MLM firms morally deficient? Probably not, but to synthesize Rachel’s and Tim’s reflections, ones that do one or more of the following five things offer reason for ethical pause:
  1. Incentivize the recruitment of new distributors over selling products
  2. Paint vague and/or unrealistic pictures of participant success
  3. Use rhetoric to play on prospects’ emotions, e.g., fear, excitement, unrealistic optimism
  4. Charge new enrollees significant nonrefundable startup fees
  5. Require new distributors to share contact information of individuals in their networks
 
In keeping with the fifth point, even if someone is successful in MLM, a downside is the potential strain their work can place on relationships with family members and friends who feel continual pressure to support their loved one’s sales and/or recruitment goals.
 
Regrettably, there will always be new moral issues for Mindful Marketing to analyze. It’s also regrettable that it took me over ten years to tackle multilevel marketing. However, thanks to Rachel’s and Tim’s insights, this article should provide a helpful rubric for determining when MLM firms are only looking out for themselves and, therefore, are guilty of Single-Minded Marketing.
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out the book, Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick
12 Comments

Apps that Imagine People Undressed

5/1/2025

9 Comments

 
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
9 Comments

Can AI Advertising be the Real Thing?

12/1/2024

16 Comments

 
Picture

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

What a Mouse Can Teach Us About Morality

1/8/2024

11 Comments

 
Picture

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

It’s interesting that among the billions of people born into this world, most seem to learn the same first words:  “Mommy,” “Daddy,” “No,” and “Mine!”  Protecting one’s own property and respecting others’ property are crucial for a functioning society, so when a near century old copyright expires on a cartoon mouse, should anyone be free to use it however they want?
 
Steamboat Wille, the 1928 animated short film by Disney founder and namesake Walt Disney and animator/cartoonist Ub Iwerks, entered the public domain this past January 1, which means that after 95 years, the earliest version of Mickey Mouse is now “free for all to copy, share, and build upon.”
 
It’s no surprise that on a planet full of creative and entrepreneurial people, wheels were already turning before public domain day 2024 toward ways of monetizing the newly liberated mouse.  Some of those ways would probably make Walt shudder.
 
One company has announced a violence-filled video game featuring Mickey, while a movie producer/director is planning a Steamboat Willie horror film. Both beg the question:
 
Is it right to turn Mickey Mouse into a slasher?
 
Such as question may make some wonder – Doesn’t the Walt Disney Company have a say in this?  Can’t the “happiest place on earth” stop someone from making a maniacal Mickey?
 
To understand Disney’s control over Mickey Mouse, it’s important to distinguish two related but sometimes conflated intellectual property terms:  copyrights and trademarks.


Copyrights – Protect “original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression,” which means in a fairly permanent way, such as by writing it down, recording it, or taking a picture of it.  To be protected, works must possess some minimal amount of creativity.  Included are things like poems, musical compositions, books, photos, paintings, blog posts, computer programs, and movies.
 
The length of copyright protection varies.  In general, works created before January 1, 1978, have protection for 95 years, while those created on or after the same date are protected for the lifetime of the author/creator plus 70 years. 

 
Like other works created in 1928, Steamboat Willie’s copyright expired after 95 years and entered the public domain on January 1, 2024.


Trademarks – Are words, phrases, designs, symbols, or some combination thereof, used to differentiate one company’s goods from others in the same category.  The more creative and unique a trademark, the better protection it affords. 
 
Anyone can place a “TM” next to a special graphic or phrase they’re using to identify their unique product.  To gain more complete legal protection, firms can register their trademark with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and if approved, the unique identifier can be paired with the ® symbol, indicating that it is a registered trademark.
 
Unlike copyrights, registered trademarks never expire, but to keep them active, firms must continue to use their trademarks in commerce as well as “file certain documents at regular intervals” to show that they’re continuing to use them.
 
The PTO has a trademark search tool on its site that allows anyone interested to search the Office’s extensive database of “live” (active) and “dead” (inactive) trademarks.  A search for “Mickey Mouse” yields over 49,600 results, some alive and some dead trademarks.
 
​
Picture
 
The Walt Disney Company and Disney Enterprises, Inc. are responsible for many of the Mickey Mouse registrations, each of which tends to be specific to a particular category of products, such as:
  • Jewelry; watches
  • Action figures and accessories
  • Bathing suits; dresses; gloves; hats; caps; jackets; pajamas
  • Balloons; Christmas tree decorations
  • Plush toys and jigsaw puzzles.
 
In short, Disney has a registered trademark for just about any product on which it would likely want to place the words “Mickey Mouse.”  The company also has many live and pending trademarks for “Disney Mickey & Co.,” which include a contemporary Mickey Mouse graphic.  It would seem, therefore, that Disney is at little risk of losing rights to its heavily trademarked modern Mickey. 
 
In contrast, Steamboat Willie and a few of Walt’s other short films featuring the first Mickey Mouse were protected by copyright, but the early Mickey apparently was not trademarked.  So, legally it’s possible to create a violent video game and a horror film with Steamboat Willie.
 
As evidence, a very similar situation unfolded just two years ago on January 1, 2022, when the characters from A.A. Milne’s 1926 classic “Winnie-the-Pooh” entered the public domain.  The next year, writer/director Rhys Frake-Waterfield made the slasher film “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.”  What’s more, a sequel is due to be released later this year.  Ironically, the owner of the copyrights to the Pooh characters is/was . . . the Disney corporation.
 
Cases like these are good reminders that just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s ethical.  Historic examples of misalignment between legality and morality include the state-sponsored persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and laws that promoted racial segregation in the United States before the Civil Rights Movement.
 
So, even if law allows, should Steamboat Willie be cast as a video game or horror film slasher?  For people who don’t appreciate those genres, the easy answer is “no,” but what if Willie were made into a short-selling stockbroker, a hard-nose football coach, a doctor with curt bedside manner, an aggressive trial lawyer, etc.?
 
Although most people probably would not regard those roles as being as blatantly bad as a horror film slasher, they’re still big departures from the whimsical, fun-loving mouse that Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks created, that's the ancestor of the brand character that represents wholesomeness and joy for many, and that serves as a strong connection to fond memories with family and friends.
 
So, the question about creative works no longer covered by copyright law is this:
 
Even if law allows for their free use, is it right for others to use them in ways that denigrate, disparage, misrepresent, or malign what the original author intended and, in many cases, invested considerable time and talent to create conceptually then tangibly?
 
Certainly, the work’s author and their heirs are one very important stakeholder group to consider.  Although the author will be deceased by the time their work enters the public domain, their legacy lives on and doesn’t deserve to be tarnished.
 
Another primary group of stakeholders are the people who enjoy the work.  They would like to continue to appreciate it, if not in its original form, then in one that honors and extends its positive perceptions.
 
There’s also the notion of respecting the work for its own sake.  Just like most would consider it wrong to shout during an orchestra performance, deface a painting, litter a pristine landscape, or talk on a cellphone during a play, it also might be considered poor taste to pejoratively alter a creative work.
 
Human beings are unique in their capacity to create.  The creative process is almost always a collective endeavor – if individuals are not working together directly, then they are sharing/borrowing ideas and gaining inspiration from others across distance and time.
 
It’s good to accept and contribute to the collective nature of the creative process.  It’s also important to respect what others create by not deprecating their work in material ways that might produce a lasting negative impact.
 
Casting Steamboat Willie as a serial killer may be legal, but morally it’s gross degradation of a time-honored creative work that’s closely connected to a trusted brand, which makes the projected horror film and violent videogame strategies “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
11 Comments
<<Previous
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing  and author of Honorable Influence
    and
    ​Mindful Marketing: Business Ethics that Stick

    Archives

    April 2026
    March 2026
    February 2026
    January 2026
    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    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 2025
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly