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

Dress Codes for Customers

3/31/2017

3 Comments

 
Picture

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

United Airlines recently created a flap when it refused two young women entry onto a flight because they were wearing leggings.  Not surprising, social media’s response was swift and severe:  Many decried the airline’s decision, in support of the travelers.  Underlying the incident is an interesting ethical question:  Should companies be in the business of telling their customers what to wear?
 
Organizational dress codes are very common.  The rules are typically for employees, who companies feel free to restrict since they are paying for the completion of specific tasks.  In some cases, workers put themselves and others at risk if they are not properly attired (e.g., food production, firefighter, lifeguard).  In most instances, there’s no physical danger, but there’s the risk of violating social norms and creating unproductive environments, for instance, by wearing bathing suits in an office setting.
 
So, it makes sense for organizations to prescribe, at least to some extent, what their employees wear, but why should firms try to make that decision for their customers?  Companies aren’t paying their clients; their customers are paying them!  If anything, the nature of the relationship suggests that customers should tell the companies what to do, after all, “the customer is always right.”
 
So, then, how do restaurants and a variety of other retailers get away with posting signs like “No shoes, no shirts, no service”?  If a consumer desires to dine in a state of semi-undress, shouldn’t the restaurant oblige?  Likewise, why shouldn’t other businesses show acceptance of each customer’s wardrobe wants?
 
It’s true, meeting customers’ needs lies at the heart of the marketing concept; however, there are at least two important qualifications for implementing this central tenet of the discipline:
 
First, as consumers, we don’t always know what’s best for us.  In fact, sometimes marketers need to protect us from ourselves, which may mean telling us what to wear.  For instance, on Segway tours, few people probably want to wear helmets, but tour operators insist that they do so for the riders’ own protection.  In other situations, consumers balk at putting on protective gear like life-vests, safety goggles, and even long sleeves, unless the service provider insists.  Thankfully these companies look after our welfare by demanding that we wear what’s best for us, even when we don’t want to.
 
Second, as individuals, each of us must remember that we’re not the only consumer.  In service situations, production and consumption happen concurrently, so our behavior directly impacts the experience of others who are consuming the service at the same time.  On an airline flight, then, even though playing music without headphones or wearing a t-shirt with offensive language may be what one person wants, it’s not what the rest of the passengers prefer.  It is that collective preference, however, that the airlines must honor, especially if they want to stay airborne.
 
So was United Airlines right to deny entry to the young women wearing leggings?  To continue the story, the two girls weren’t typical customers.  They were flying on “buddy passes,” which are special tickets reserved for family and friends of airline employees.  With those vouchers come some unique requirements, including that the holders wear more professional-looking attire.
 
United was, therefore, within its rights to enforce the dress code to which all employees and their guests must agree.  However, should United even have such a policy?  As I suggested above, organizations need to have influence over what their employees wear.  Likewise, it’s prudent to prevent individual consumers from behaving in ways that endanger themselves or that infringe on the rights of others.
 
But, does wearing leggings do either of those two things?  It’s unlikely that any physical harm will come from leggings.  The notion of restricting others’ rights might apply in as much as fellow passengers may feel uncomfortable seeing others in clothing that is skin-tight or otherwise revealing.  This standard, however, is difficult to discern for much apparel, including leggings, given that other clothing, like a long top, might help create a more modest look.
 
To finish the story, it wasn’t the young legging-wearing women who vehemently objected to United’s decision, but rather a passenger at another gate who witnessed the exchange, assumed they were ordinary travelers, and tweeted her displeasure.  The airline, then, exacerbated the situation by tweeting back a rather terse reply that failed to explain the peculiarities of the situation (i.e., the buddy passes).  Consequently, the social media firestorm ensued.

So, misunderstandings and miscommunication were largely to blame for the United leggings debacle.  This unfortunate incident, however, shouldn’t become precedent for denying organizations’ influence over what their customers wear.  Sometimes companies need to protect us from ourselves and ensure that the exercise of our ‘rights’ doesn’t diminish the consumption experience of others.  In such situations, enforcing a customer dress code can be “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
3 Comments
Osmar
4/18/2017 07:31:21 pm

I think you did a great job approaching this highly controversial topic in a clear and professional manner. It is true that sometimes companies have to enforce a certain dress code for our own protection or for the protection of other consumers. Is it right for 1 consumer to ruin the comfort of the rest because the company refuses to act due to fear of backlash or is it better to risk having one angry customer if it means protecting the comfort of the remaining consumers? I do not know the answer to that question but it seems that many companies are faced with similar situations today. I do not believe this leggings incident was that big of a deal to where it would cause other passengers to be uncomfortable but I do believe it was the right thing to do because it was the principle behind that decision that matters. Rules are established because they are expected to be followed. If United would have looked the other way then they would have sent a message of tolerance to their employees saying that it is ok to break the rules without consequence. Unfortunately, things can get blown out of proportion and the media can intentionally leave out key points of information in order to make a story more interesting.

Reply
David Hagenbuch link
4/19/2017 08:07:52 am

Thank you for your kind feedback, Osmar, and for sharing your own insights on the issue. You bring up good points, including the purpose of rules and the need to enforce them. You've shed additional valuable light on this topic.

Reply
Daniel jang
7/7/2017 03:29:53 am

I think the article addresses the unseen parts of what United Airlines was trying to do. It wasn't wrong for United to exercise its principles and standards but the way they went about it was not good. Since they failed to communicate their policies well, it can cost them future customers. But essentially they needed to not overlook this situation because it opens a door for the employees start breaking the ethics in place.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

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

    Archives

    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 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly