Blog Posts

Marketing Must Fight Fakes

11/6/2022

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

I recently received LinkedIn connection invitations from two different recruiters – It’s nice to be wanted; although, it’s nicer when the people pursuing you actually exist, which I’m certain wasn’t the case for either. As rapidly advancing technology helps blur lines between fact and fiction, does marketing have any obligation to stand for truth?

Deception has been part of human history since the serpent misled Adam and Eve. Over millennia, certain marketers have misguided consumers, whether they were ancient merchants using rigged weights and measures, snake oil salesmen pawning impotent elixirs, or auto dealers turning back odometers.

In recent years, the growth of social media and advances in digital technology have helped deception proliferate like never before, both in volume and sophistication. Most of us are all too familiar with fake news, clickbait, and other forms of deceptive communication that cross our paths dozens of times a day.

The two LinkedIn invitations from imaginary people I mentioned above are cases in point; I’ve received many more, as others reading this piece probably have also. Some telltale signs of the fakes are the model-worthy headshots, scarce background info, few existing contacts, and no recent posts.

These forgeries are fairly easy to spot, but others can be much more challenging. Really good photoshopping can be completely undetectable. Although someone occasionally sees and points out part of an image that was secretly altered, such as a celebrity’s unusual narrow waistline, these detected cases are only a fraction of those in which pictures are materially changed and which sometimes deceives others.

As a user of graphic design software since the mid-90s, I know these techniques firsthand. One of my earliest photoshops involved our family’s promotional products business, which was based in a century-old Victorian house. Unfortunately, a large telephone pole with wires projecting in four different directions made it impossible to get a clean picture of the building, so I used Photoshop’s clone stamp tool to make the pole and wires magically disappear.

While digital manipulations of static images have some potential to portray alternate realities, they pale in comparison to what deepfake video can do. Driven by “deep learning,” a form of artificial intelligence (AI), and using face-swapping autoencoders, these extremely realistic videos can make their subjects seem to say and do things they’ve never done or said, which might be completely out of their character.

Most of us have seen lifelike deepfakes, which are easy to find on the web, but the most eerily realistic ones likely have been created by the Belgian company Metaphysic, whose viral videos employing American actor Miles Fisher to deepfake Tom Cruise were highlighted in an illuminating NBC Today segment about the technology.

In the segment, NBC reporter Jacob Soboroff asks Fisher about the ethics of deepfake video and whether it could be a threat to democracy. Fisher replies that the technology is “morally neutral,” adding, “as it develops, the positive output will so far outweigh the negative nefarious uses.”

Fisher’s response is reassuring, but how believable is it given that he does deepfakes to advance his career, and he has a business relationship with a firm that’s monetizing the trend?

As Business Insider has reported, others are also rightly questioning the potential repercussions of deepfakes:

“Many experts believe that, in the future, deepfakes will become far more sophisticated as technology further develops and might introduce more serious threats to the public, relating to election interference, political tension, and additional criminal activity.”

A recent New York Times article shared similar social and political concerns about deepfakes specific to their unsettling spread on TikTok. Times reporter Tiffany Hsu also suggested another very important reason for pumping the brakes on deepfakes:

“But more than any single post, the danger of manipulated media lies in the way it risks further damaging the ability of many social media users to depend on concepts like truth and proof.”

It sounds cliché, but honesty is a foundation of every strong relationship and of every highly functioning society. Productive interactions become impossible when people are unsure who’s lying and who’s telling the truth.

While it’s true that any individual can potentially get ahead by lying, no one gets ahead if everyone lies. As purveyors of what might be the world’s most pervasive communication, marketers should understand the magnitude of their influence and be resolute guardians of truth, for their own livelihoods as well as for the preservation of society.

Here are three ways marketing should fight falsity:

1. Ensure no harm: Not all digitally altered content is created equal. Some is much more likely to significantly change people’s beliefs and actions, often in undesirable ways, while other tactics are more benign. My analysis is biased, but I would put my telephone pole removal example in the harmless category. It’s doubtful that anyone saw the building photo without the wires and developed a significantly different impression of the business.

2. Reveal the truth: If there’s a compelling reason to alter reality, let people know what’s been done. In cases like the Tom Cruise deepfakes that are so good they fool most people, there should be clear disclaimers, e.g., “This is a deepfake.” In other instances, the unrealistic or playful nature of the altered content is enough of a signal. For instance, this past July I wrote an article titled “Cultures of Corruption” for which I photoshopped a winking/smiling Ben Franklin on the front of a $100 bill. It’s doubtful that anyone believed the comical counterfeit.

3. Avoid a deception arms race: Unfortunately, marketing often involves one-upmanship, e.g., if one advertiser employs sexually provocative content that’s effective in attracting attention, other advertisers will insert even more explicit elements in their ads. Meanwhile consumers’ thresholds of tolerance get pushed higher and higher. There’s a real danger of the same kind of advance occurring with deepfakes unless firms follow the previous two prescriptions and refrain from pushing the envelope on realism past the point of easy recognition.

Fortunately, I’m still able to tell when a LinkedIn invitation is a fake. Regrettably, I shouldn’t have to. Organizations that resort to any form of deception in order to change people’s beliefs or cause them to take actions they wouldn’t otherwise choose are truly practicing “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

6 Comments

Play with a Purpose

10/19/2022

5 Comments

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

Bobby eagerly opens his Happy Meal box, tossing the chicken nuggets and fries aside to find the special toy tucked inside. Kids have repeated that ritual for decades, but Bobby is 32. While it’s nice that McDonald’s and other companies increasingly meet the need for nostalgia and help grown-ups relive childhood highlights, is selling sentimentalism a good adult-use of time and resources?

Cobranding with the apparel company Cactus Plant Flea Market, McDonald’s recently released a limited-edition Happy Meal intentionally targeted to adults. At $12.69 each, the big kids’ meals aren’t very wallet friendly. They’ve also disappointed some who couldn’t find a restaurant that had them or who got Cactus Buddy, the apparel brand’s mascot, instead of the classic McDonald’s character they wanted.

Still, buzz has been strong and sales brisk, leading some to conclude that “the promotion has been hugely successful for McDonald’s.” The fast-food icon is just one of many firms that are playing on nostalgia to target adults for kids’ products, for instance:

American Girl Cafes host birthday parties and other gatherings just for grown-ups and the dolls they bring.
Play-Doh has created several varieties of its finger-friendly clay in grown-up scents including mom jeans, latte, six-pack, and lawn scent.
Kohl’s carries a 4 ft. high legacy Pac Man video arcade game for $450.
Amazon has an entire category of “nostalgic toys” that includes the Magic 8 Ball, Lite Brite, Lincoln Logs, Slinky, Spirograph, Candy Land, Operation, Evel Knievel, and Etch a Sketch.
LEGO sells a mini version of Jerry Seinfeld’s bachelor pad from the 1990’s sitcom. [More about LEGO below]

Are these nostalgic products always profitable? Probably not. It’s doubtful that any approach the sales volume they once enjoyed; however, given that their design costs have long-since been covered, manufacturing processes have likely improved, little advertising is needed, and they can be sold online with relatively low overhead at premium prices, most of these items probably do make money — their proliferation is evidence.

So, it seems that selling nostalgic play to adults is often effective marketing, but is it ethical?

Two plausible moral concerns are that when adults play, they waste resources, namely time and money:

There’s an opportunity cost that comes with play – when we’re playing we’re typically not doing other things, like working, so we’re being unproductive.
Play can be expensive. Some people spend thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars a year on hobbies such as mountain climbing, boating, skydiving, and car collecting.

However, there also are very compelling arguments supporting that people of all ages need to play, or be “joyfully immersed in the moment.” While there are undoubtedly other benefits, here are five reasons why adults should play:

1. To learn: Videos like this one of lion cubs stalking and pouncing on each other show how play helps them begin to learn to hunt. Most of us also learned specific and generalizable skills through childhood play.

2. To maintain skills: As we grow older, our physical and cognitive abilities naturally decline. Play is one way to slow that descent, whether it’s by participating in a low-intensity sport or doing word puzzles.

3. To develop relationships: People build bonds with others in many different settings, e.g., work, school, church, and play. Friendships often form among individuals on sports teams, chess clubs, hiking groups, etc.

4. To reduce stress: Life at times has hardships and frustrations. Physical play helps us burn off anxious energy, while mental engagement in play often elicits laughter, positive thoughts, and good memories that help keep bad ones at bay.

5. To serve others: Each of the above reasons for play are pretty intuitive. This last one isn’t, at least it wasn’t for me until I connected with a colleague, RJ Thompson, who takes play to another level that one might call play with a purpose.

Thompson is the director of digital marketing in the Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business and College of Business Administration at the University of Pittsburgh. He’s also an award-winning graphic designer and the president of the Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Marketing Association. Those are impressive credentials, but the reason I reached out to him is because he’s a grown man who still loves Legos.

A resident of Bellevue, PA, Thompson recently completed construction of a 45 ft. Lego model of his town’s Lincoln Avenue using over 20,000 of the tiny bricks. What’s more, with only photos for reference and using as many as 30,000 bricks, he spent six months building a 30”L x 30”W x 45”H model of Bellevue’s Andrew Bayne Memorial Library that splits in half to reveal its fine inside detail. Each model cost thousands of dollars.

Why would an accomplished professional spend so much time and money playing with building blocks? Thompson credits LEGO for fanning his creative flame at a very young age and opening for him doors to design, teaching, and entrepreneurship. However, the impact of these epic Lego projects extends far beyond his personal enjoyment of the pastime.

First, the projects have afforded some priceless family time for Thompson and his daughter, who has inherited her father’s curiosity and creativity. Furthermore, with help he moved the massive models from his home to the Library where they served as the centerpiece of a fundraiser that drew hundreds of people and raised $1,500 for renovations to the Library’s children’s areas. Many kids were fascinated by the models and inspired to start their own Lego building projects.

As Thompson’s experience illustrates, play can be more than respite from work, mental relaxation, etc. Those personal benefits are very important in their own right; however, play can achieve a whole other level of significance when used like Thompson uses it, to serve others.

His examples left me wondering, though, with his play becoming so other-oriented, does he still find the same pleasure he once did, building with the miniature bricks? Thompson says he “definitely does,” adding:

“There are some models or kits I see that I absolutely have to have - so there is an anticipatory angle to it where I get excited just as much as my kid does about certain sets. When it first came out, I had to have Dr. Strange's 'Sanctum Sanctorum' model.”

As an artist and a marketer with a heart for play, Thompson shows how a pastime can become even more than a win-win: Purposeful play can have a triple or even quadruple bottom-line of positive impact. Those that sell nostalgic play help bring back fond childhood memories and remind us of the benefits of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

5 Comments

Should Consumers Smile at Guerrilla Marketing?

10/9/2022

4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Comments

Buy BRADY, But Don't Be Like Brady

9/24/2022

4 Comments

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

Tom Brady is one of few professional athletes who transcend their field. While many football players and fans revere him, even those who pay little attention to sports know his name. In a new video ad, Brady surprisingly suggests that aspiring athletes shouldn’t aim to be like him. That advice sounds self-effacing, but how does it fit with other messaging surrounding Brady’s brand?

Sports analysts love to debate who’s the GOAT—greatest of all time. When talking football, it’s easy to make a case that it’s Tom Brady. No one has come close to his seven Super Bowl wins in what might be the most challenging position in all of sports, NFL quarterback. He’s also the all-time leader in passing yards, completions, and touchdowns. Then there’s his incredible longevity—still going strong at age 45.

It’s not surprising that Brady, like other top-tier athletes, has also been a prolific product endorser. He’s promoted brands that include, but aren’t limited to, Beautyrest, Disney, Snickers, UGG, and Visa. Most Brady ads garner little extra exposure, but his most recent commercial for Under Armour has captured added attention.

The ad includes another legend, actor Morgan Freeman, who reads a letter that Brady has purportedly penned to a hypothetical football prodigy who some are calling “The Next Tom Brady.” Brady says to reject any such associations and instead to “compare yourself to nobody but the kid in the mirror.”

One can imagine at least a couple reasons why the GOAT might give that advice: 1) He genuinely wants young players to chart their own unique course and not be saddled with expectations to be someone they’re not; or, more cynically, 2) He doesn’t want anyone matching or exceeding his accomplishments, thus dimming the light of his star.

Each of these motivations is possible, but given that the celebrity friendship and letter are almost certainly contrived, the most plausible motive is the one that drives virtually every commercial — selling product.

Both Brady and Under Armour want people to buy the brand’s athletic equipment and apparel. It’s been their common cause for more than a decade and a partnership that has rewarded Brady handsomely: in the ballpark of $10 million to $15 million a year.

In fact, one might even say that NFL quarterback is Brady’s side-hustle and product endorser is his day job, at least in terms of income. In 2021-2022, Brady’s compensation from quarterbacking was $31.9 million while his endorsement earnings totaled $52 million.

To his credit, Brady has positioned himself well for life after football, as an endorser and in other ways. His ever-expanding business portfolio includes such ventures are TB12, 199 Productions, and Autograph. There’s also his namesake BRADY brand, which takes us back to the central question of this piece:

Does the living legend really want aspiring athletes to avoid comparisons to him?

BRADY, which calls itself “The Next Generation Apparel Brand,” seems intent on living up to that label. From the website’s photos, the brand appears to be targeting young male athletes.

The brand features a wide variety of athletic apparel from underwear and socks, to t-shirts and sweatshirts, to complete training, golf, and lifestyle collections. The common component on each article is the BRADY trademark, embroidered on the front panel of hats, heat-pressed on the left shoulder of training Ts, and silkscreened in 4” high letters across the chest of sweatshirts and hoodies.

Therein lies the advertising irony. Through Under Armour's commercial and the BRADY brand, Tom Brady passes mixed messages to young athletes, telling them:

“Don’t let anyone compare you to me, but please wear my name across your chest.”

Just as basketball players who sport #23 on their jerseys encourage comparisons to another GOAT, Michael Jordan, any high school or college quarterback who wears BRADY emblazoned on his football training shirts invites comparisons to Tom.

These associations aren’t unique to athletics; they occur most times famous people put their names on products. Virtually every celebrity endorsement benefits from such classical conditioning as the admiration that people have for the celebrity transfers onto the product they’re promoting.

Whether it’s verbalized or not, the celebrity in the ad suggests, “I use this product, so you should buy it and be like me.” The consumers' emulation can extend to other products the celebrity endorses as well as to other attitudes and actions.

When I was growing up, some young basketball players wore white and red Converse sneakers, #6 jerseys, and patterned their game after Dr. J, while others wore similar shoes with green trim, #33, and imitated Larry Bird. Aspiring athletes have likely been doing the same for more than a century. So, it’s no stretch to suggest that many young football players who wear the BRADY brand emulate #12 and welcome comparisons to him.

It's fine for Tom Brady and other famous athletes to serve as spokespeople for products they genuinely believe in and that benefit those who follow in their footsteps. However, telling young athletes to buy their branded merchandise but not be like them is disingenuous and a trick play that should be flagged for “Single-Minded Marketing.”

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

4 Comments

Should Employees' Looks Matter?

9/10/2022

27 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 Comments

Should Anyone Advertise Alcohol?

8/27/2022

24 Comments

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

Drive slower, pay taxes, vote — While we expect governments to tell us to do those things, we wouldn’t imagine they’d urge more alcohol intake, yet that’s exactly what one of the world’s leading nations is doing. Why a country would encourage sipping more sake is an interesting question, but it begs a much bigger one: Is it possible to promote alcohol responsibly?

The nation imploring intoxication probably isn’t one you’d expect — Japan. The world’s third largest economy and a leader in culture and industry has uncorked a contest called “Sake Viva” that asks citizens in their 20s and 30s for new ways to make and market alcoholic beverages. The term sake refers to both a Japanese rice wine and to alcohol in general.

Most of us are familiar with the risks of excessive alcohol consumption, which can lead to everything from disease (heart, liver), to poor mental health (depression, dementia), to social problems (broken relationships, unemployment), to DUI accidents (serious injury, death), all of which enact high financial and other costs on a country. So, why would Japan intentionally invite these expenses?

Ironically, the answer is money. As many governments have experienced, Japan is dealing with decreased tax revenue, partly because of an aging population and shrinking tax base but also because consumption of one of its most highly taxed products, alcohol, has been declining.

In the mid-1990s, alcohol consumption in Japan averaged over 26 gallons per person — a number that by 2020 dropped by about a third. What’s more, as younger Japanese are drinking less than their elders, the sobering trend seems likely to continue.

In only one year, from 2019 to 2020, tax revenue from liquor sales fell by $813 million, which was “the largest decline in three decades — and a cause for alarm for a government facing broad fiscal challenges.”

Given that in many countries, alcohol advertising is commonplace – on television, in magazines, and on billboards – why have many taken issue with Sake Viva on social media? The backlash seems to be based not so much on the message but who’s delivering it.

Ryo Tanabe, a Japanese man in his 30s, expressed this sentiment in an interview with NPR: “The fact that the National Tax Agency is doing this makes it a different story. I feel something is wrong with it. I understand they need the tax revenue, but I don't think they have to go this far.”

Tanabe’s reticence about his government advocating more alcohol consumption is easy to appreciate, especially given the increased individual and collective costs excess liquor can levy and the fact that we expect our governments to protect us, not put us in harm’s way.

But, if promoting alcohol is bad, should anybody be doing it? Claiming it’s okay for some to advertise alcohol but not others, seems a little like saying certain people can lie or cheat, but others shouldn’t. If something is wrong for one, shouldn’t it be wrong for all?

I have to admit that alcohol advertising is a difficult issue for me to approach objectively. My personal choice is not to drink, and I work for a university that maintains a dry campus. Over the years, I’ve also written several pieces about potential alcohol abuse by marketers, including:

Still, I have friends and family members who drink, and I respect their choices. I also remind myself and other Christians that Jesus’s first miracle was turning water into wine. There were likely then and there are now many people who subscribe to different worldviews and drink responsibly, in moderation, posing little or no risk to themselves or others.

There’s also scientific evidence that small amounts of certain alcohol, e.g., a glass of wine, hold some health benefits.

So, it’s possible to argue that it’s moral to consume alcohol in moderation, which suggests that it’s also acceptable to produce it for others to consume. But does this moral leeway also mean that alcohol producers can advertise their products?

As I’ve considered advertising, which is paid-for mass communication by an identified sponsor, I’ve often thought that if society allows production of an item, it should also permit its promotion, within reason; otherwise, a moral contraction handcuffs the producer — it’s very difficult for most products to succeed without advertising.

That doesn’t mean, though, that any advertising goes. A product like alcohol, in particular, shouldn’t be promoted to the wrong people (e.g., children), in the wrong places (e.g., near schools), or in the wrong ways (e.g., associated with athletic performance).

Another wrong way to promote alcohol or any product is to suggest its excessive use. Whether it’s food, or clothes, or entertainment, too much of even a good thing can cause people harm.

As suggested above, alcohol poses greater risk when consumed in excess than do most products, which brings us back to Japan’s Sake Viva campaign: Encouraging people to drink more, is tantamount to promoting drinking in excess, given that for most people the middle ground between current consumption and intoxication is likely very narrow at best.

On the other hand, alcohol producers can advertise their individual brands without necessarily encouraging consumers to drink more. The reason lies in the difference between primary and secondary demand, or demand for a product category versus demand for a particular brand.

In this comparative ad for Miller Lite, for instance, the beer claims to have “more taste and only one more calorie than Michelob Ultra.” Miller Lite isn’t encouraging people to drink more alcohol, rather it’s asking them to switch their beer purchases from its competitor.

Given my personal consumption preference, I wouldn’t choose to promote alcohol, but I can understand how others might in order to support demand for specific brands. I can’t comprehend, however, how a country, tasked with protecting its citizens’ well-being, can promote more drinking. Encouraging excessive consumption of any kind equals “Mindless Marketing.”

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

24 Comments

Are There Rules When Everyone's an Endorser?

8/13/2022

6 Comments

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

There was a time when only celebrities and aspiring actors were spokespeople. Now the friend you’re having lunch with tomorrow may, unbeknownst to you, have an endorsement deal. It’s nice that company sponsorship has been democratized, but with so many people pushing products, how can consumers survive the promotional onslaught?

The great expansion of spokespeople hit home for me a few months ago during a discussion about personal branding in our university's capstone marketing course. As we considered the notion that those present might be future endorsers, a student in the front row spoke up, “Do you know Rachel Delate? She’s already endorsing products.” A classmate quickly added, “Yeah, she has a deal with Body Armor.”

A year earlier, Rachel was in my intro to marketing class where she distinguished herself as a strong student. She’s also a very good lacrosse player, e.g., first team All-Conference, first team All-Region, third team All-American. After the NCAA’s recent relaxation of rules involving name, image, and likeness (NIL), that talent put her in a position to accept endorsement deals.

Besides Body Armor, Rachel also has enjoyed sponsorship experiences with TreadBands, Barstool Sports, and LiquidIV, which have provided her with a variety of branded gear. She says the experiences have been very worthwhile, as she summarizes in a sentence, “I’ve had the opportunity to connect with awesome brands and people and receive cool stuff!”

Knowing Rachel, I’m confident she’s a responsible influencer, but what about many others who have suddenly become spokespeople and might be looking to make quick money, not caring much about what they’re selling or to whom. How should they see their roles? But first, how did we get to this point of influencer inundation?

The rapid rise in number of endorsers has been the result of a perfect storm of at least three interwoven social trends and economic incentives.

First, over the last several years, new ecommerce platforms and tools have made it relatively easy and inexpensive to operate online shops, which has encouraged many people to start, run, and promote their own businesses.

Second, there’s been a steady increase in influencer marketing due mainly to the seismic shift from traditional media to social media. Advertisers have always needed to be where consumers are, which has recently meant firms moving money from the likes of NBC and the New York Times to an up-and-coming influencers’ TikTok and YouTube channels.

Third, crypto currencies and NFTs, two new categories of virtual products that were virtually unknown a few years ago, have offered an array of endorsement opportunities not only because they’re new but because many people still don’t know exactly what they are and, therefore, lean on endorsers to guide them.

It’s this third trend that recently grabbed product endorsement-related headlines, but not for good reasons:

Bloomberg described “the disastrous record of celebrity crypto endorsements,” such as that of actor Matt Damon who plugged cryptocurrency exchange Crypto.com, only to see Bitcoin’s price plummet by 60%.
BuzzFeed News reported that the watchdog group Truth in Advertising warned Jimmy Fallon, Gwyneth Paltrow, and fifteen other celebrities that they violated Federal Trade Commission guidelines by failing to disclose on social media their money-making connections to certain NFTs.

The proliferation of new and experienced influencers playing fast and loose with their referral power, makes me wonder: Have we entered the Wild West of product pitching where laws are lacking and consumers must take their protection into their own hands?

Hopefully, most influencers will have the conviction to self-regulate. For those who are so morally and professionally inclined, here are four best practices for product endorsement:

1. Know the product: An endorsement is basically a recommendation. People want recommendations because there’s something they don’t know well, and they’d like someone who’s more knowledgeable to guide them.

For that reason, every endorser should be very familiar with the product and/or company they’re recommending; otherwise, they’ll fail to offer value or worse, they might mislead the people who are trusting them for help.

2. Believe in the product: Although information is very important, head knowledge is only half the product-endorsement equation. Spokespeople should also believe in the merits of what they advocate.

Several years ago, a reporter asked basketball great LeBron James how he had improved his game and physique over the off-season. James unwittingly replied that he stopped eating at McDonalds, which was one of his main sponsors at the time. James’ slip underscores the fact that knowing about a product is not the same as believing in it. Endorsers shouldn’t recommend to others products they wouldn’t want for themselves.

3. Ensure the product is a good fit for the target market: Notwithstanding the previous point, there are instances in which endorsers don’t use the products they’re recommending because they’re not in the target market. In those cases, it is especially important that influencers understand the needs of those who do use the product.

For example, doctors often prescribe pharmaceuticals they’ve never tried. They can recommend them with confidence, however, because they’ve read the drug studies and believe in the companies that provide them; then, knowing their patients’ medical histories and symptoms, they can project with some certainty that their patients will benefit from them.

4. Disclose your relationship with the organization: From native advertising to salespeople acting as if they’re customers, one of the greatest deceits in business occurs when marketing promotion tries to pretend it’s not.

Advertising and personal selling are useful tools from which consumers can gain very helpful information; however, people need to know when the information source is objective (e.g., a fellow transit rider) versus compensated by a company (e.g., an online product reviewer who receives the items for free). It’s difficult for anyone to be unbiased about an organization that’s paying them, which isn’t necessarily a problem provided consumers know the relationship.

Developments in areas such as deepfake video, the metaverse, and NIL, give reason to be both excited and anxious about the future of marketing influence. Endorsers who see their roles as involving both individual opportunity and social responsibility will likely be promoters of “Mindful Marketing.”

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

6 Comments

Do Subscriptions Make Sense?

7/30/2022

9 Comments

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

“That’s the gift that keeps on giving the whole year”—such was Cousin Eddie’s inane attempt in Christmas Vacation to console a devastated Clark Griswold after he found out his firm gave him a Jelly of the Month Club membership instead of a generous cash bonus. Clark had good reason to resent receiving a product subscription, but how should consumers feel about more companies moving to subscription models?

If you’re like most people, you’ve noticed a steady rise in reoccurring payments. Decades ago, monthly bills were restricted to things like rent and utilities, but they’ve since expanded to include regular charges for cellphone plans, movie streaming, and online news. And, the list keeps getting longer, as even more organizations find opportunities to automatically tap their consumers’ wallets for things like clothing (e.g., Stitch Fix), meal kits (e.g., HelloFresh), and shaving tools (e.g., Harry’s).

These examples aren’t particularly surprising—each day people wear clothes, eat food, and shave their bodies, so it makes sense to automate the purchase process and save consumers time shopping for such staples. However, subscription services for some other products should make any of us wonder, ‘Why?’

For example, BMW has begun to offer “heated seat subscriptions” in certain vehicles for $18 a month. According to James Vincent, writing for The Verge, “BMW has slowly been putting features behind subscriptions since 2020.” The automaker’s other reoccurring charges include automatic high beams and adaptive cruise control.

There’s also sneaker maker Cloudneo, which offers a “100% recyclable running shoe that’s only available by subscription.” For $29.99 a month, customers receive “an endless supply of shoes.” When pairs are past their useful lives, customers request new ones while returning their old ones, which the company grinds down and melts into plastic pellets used in its new product manufacturing.

These last two examples and several of those mentioned earlier are innovative approaches that reimagine marketing’s 4 Ps. All share strategic similarities as they fall under the subscription umbrella, but there also are significant and sometimes unsettling differences that make me want to better understand: When is subscription pricing right for both companies and consumers?

To answer this question, I turned to someone who has navigated the challenging process of transitioning his company’s signature product from a one-time purchase to a monthly subscription. Jason Kichline is founder and chief technology officer of OnSong, namesake of one of the world’s most widely used music performance apps. It allows musicians to digitally store, sort, and customize their music, saving them time and enabling them to focus on what they do best.

An annual guest speaker in my capstone marketing course, Kichline has told us of his firm’s deliberations about transitioning the OnSong app from a one-time Apple App Store purchase to a monthly subscription. OnSong started to offer a feature-enhanced, subscription version of its product a couple of years ago. This past June, OnSong finalized the monumental move by eliminating the one-time purchase option.

For many companies, the decision to go to full sail on a subscription model is simply a matter of what nets the most money, i.e., will more revenue from reoccurring payments offset sales not realized from potential customers who want a one-time purchase?

Although OnSong certainly considered income projections, it’s analysis was much more circumspect and other-oriented, which is evident as Kichline explains three main reasons for the move:

1. Relationships: “We’ve always placed a high value on supporting our users. A complex and full-featured app like OnSong demands a level of support that goes beyond that of a one-time purchase. A subscription creates the opportunity for a more formal relationship with users and the need to continually provide them with value. Our goal is to make our customers incredibly happy with the level of service, support, and features we offer.”

2. Continuity: “Although OnSong has been successful for more than 10 years, many software firms don’t last as long—they go out of business, or they’re acquired. A developer can keep an app around for a long time for some side money or an owner’s salary, but a buyer typically wants ROI. For this reason, new owners turn many one-time-purchase apps into subscriptions and try to ‘leverage’ the existing user base.”

“Even though app customers often assume they’ll be forced to upgrade to a subscription, we didn’t feel it was fair, so we grandfathered existing users.” Still, because going out of business also leaves customers stranded, we believe that subscribing to OnSong is the best path forward for all. A subscription to OnSong is an investment in the company and its product’s future.”

3. Value-Added: “The defining measure for most consumers is what they receive compared to what they pay. Although a subscription costs more than a one-time purchase over time, it also provides greater benefits, including important updates and improvements in an ever-changing technological environment. A cancelable subscription also reduces financial risk for consumers by allowing for product trial, which is often not possible with one-time software purchases.”

“Looking to the future, OnSong wants to provide a web-based version of the app that will store music and resources in the cloud, as well as manage bands and teams. A subscription model supports this additional functionality and added value.”

Kichline acknowledges that the transition to a subscription model has not been without challenges, which include effective communication with consumers, who can be swayed by public perceptions in social media.

Still, the change has been a good one for OnSong and its customers. After experiencing one “tight month,” the company’s revenues quickly rebounded to previous levels with continuing growth. That success should also be taken as a sign of the strength of OnSong’s value proposition in the eyes of consumers—the benefits they receive from the app are well-worth its reoccurring cost.

For Kichline, key to the whole process has been “having the mind of the consumer.” His analysis above and this summary statement make me ask: Do the subscriptions for BMW’s heated seats and Coudneo’s recyclable running shoes show an understanding of “the mind of the consumer” and a desire to truly meet customers’ needs?

Cloudneo’s product subscription may represent such a market orientation for certain hardcore runners who cycle through sneakers at a rapid clip. They might wear out a pair of running shoes every few months and could easily spend $360 or more per year on performance footwear.

BMW’s subscription is harder to justify. In his Verge article mentioned above, Vince raises good points that call into question the automaker’s motives:

“BMW owners already have all the necessary components [for the heated seats], but BMW has simply placed a software block on their functionality that buyers then have to pay to remove. For some software features that might lead to ongoing expenses for the carmaker (like automated traffic camera alerts, for example), charging a subscription seems more reasonable. But that’s not an issue for heated seats.”

When BMW manufactures vehicles with heated seats, it likely passes on the added material and labor costs to consumers at the time of purchase. So, the automaker is essentially holding back a feature for which customers have already paid so it can charge twice for what is an increasingly common new car addition. Such a motive certainly wouldn’t represent a customer-centric attitude.

As BMW has shown, there are situations in which paying a reoccurring fee for a product makes little sense for consumers. However, when companies prioritize the three principles that Kichline has identified (relationships, continuity, and value-added), subscription pricing is “Mindful Marketing.”

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

9 Comments

Cultures of Corruption

7/16/2022

6 Comments

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

“Auditors Cheated on Ethics Exams”—a recent New York Times headline revealed. During my 20-plus years teaching college ethics courses, my students and I have sometimes joked about that kind of thing, inferring that of all places, an ethics class is one deserving of absolute integrity. Who would cheat on ethics?— apparently plenty of people in one of the world’s largest accounting firms, but why?

The company that found itself the focus of the humiliating headline was none other than Ernst & Young (EY)—one of the Big Four public accounting firms. The Security and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) reported that between 2017 and 2021, hundreds of EY employees acted unfairly either by using an ill-gotten answer key for an ethics component of the CPA exam or by cheating on ethics tests required for continuing education.

As punishment for the systematic abuses, the S.E.C. fined EY $100 million, “the largest ever imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against a firm in the auditing business” and “twice the sum that KPMG, another big auditing firm, paid in 2019 to resolve an investigation into similar allegations of cheating by auditors on internal training exams.” That’s a significant sum; although, it's almost immaterial for a firm with global revenues of $40 billion in 2021.

What made EY’s, and KPMG’s, infractions all-the-more incredible is that they involved the firms’ auditing personnel—the very people who are supposed to ensure that the financial statements of the organizations they audit are accurate and truthful, i.e., that they aren’t cheating!

What would lead people reputed as among the most moral in one of the most ethical professions to make such a breach of integrity?

As one who hopes to help calibrate the moral compasses of the next generation of business leaders, this question hits close to home. Nearly 90 percent of the students in my undergraduate ethics course are accounting majors, and most look to land jobs in public accounting. In fact, some go on to work for Big Four firms.

Although I couldn’t say that these emerging accounting professionals are any more or less moral than those entering other fields, it’s important to note the common public perception that Gallup polls often capture: Accountants are among the most ethical professionals, having moral standards that are much higher than those in many other fields, including marketing.

All this to say, there are many reasons why I’d really like to understand how a moral breach of the magnitude of EY’s happens. Given that EY personnel likely would not want to comment on the case, I reached out to an expert in the field, who was willing to offer his perspective.

A professor of accounting and public accounting firm partner, Jim Krimmel taught auditing and other advanced accounting courses at Messiah University for more than 30 years, while employing the same best practices with his own firms’ clients. Krimmel is also certified in fraud examination and financial forensics, he’s served as an expert witness in accounting-related court cases, and he has conducted fraud workshops internationally.

As someone well-qualified to assess integrity in the field, Krimmel shared these thoughts about EY’s ethical violations:

“The story amazed me when I read it. If this was not so outrageous, it would almost be funny. The extent of the cheating, those who participated and those who let it continue, demonstrates to me a cultural problem in EY that is bigger than this issue.”

“That kind of culture, as with any firm culture, begins at the top. Somehow, those in authority ‘signaled’ that this behavior was acceptable. My concern now goes beyond this incident and makes me question the greater integrity of the firm. If we now begin to hear rationalization for this behavior, then that only increases my concern.”

“Corporate culture will be developed one way or another. If we don't purposely direct and develop it as leaders, then by default, it will develop poorly. This better be a wake-up-call for EY.”

Krimmel’s assessment was eye-opening for me. When moral infractions occur, we usually focus on the individual and their actions—what specifically did they do and why? Those are very important questions, but they can needlessly narrow the focus of analysis and risk overlooking systemic causes, i.e., broader influences on everyone taking similar actions.

The complexity reminds me of a framework from social psychology I used in my dissertation research: The theory of planned behavior (TPB) suggests that people’s intended actions stem from three factors: 1) their own attitude toward the behavior (their thoughts and feelings about it), 2) their perceived control over the behavior (e.g., abilities and resources to do it), and 3) social influence on them (i.e., others encouraging or discouraging the behavior).

As members of a family, work team, or society, most of us want to be true to our personal beliefs and be accepted by others—Whether it’s the clothing we wear or things we say, we typically don’t want to look or sound so different that we disaffect the people we respect.

The “culture” Krimmel mentions exemplifies that need for acceptance and fits squarely in the third component of the TPB. As he suggests, company leaders bear special responsibility for shaping the cultures of the organizations they guide, for instance, by the policies they set, by the behaviors they celebrate or censure, and by their own actions.

It’s that last way that makes all of us moral leaders, regardless of any formal leadership title. We all ‘lead by example’ and constantly take cues from others for what to do or say in all kinds of social settings—I certainly do.

When I’m going out with my wife, I sometimes look to see what she’s wearing to gauge whether I should dress more formally or more casually. In a work meeting, I may look around the conference room table and decide to close my laptop if I see that others have closed theirs.

Those are easy, nonmoral choices. Ethical decisions are often more difficult and consequential, which likely makes social influence even more significant.

Imagine a newly hired staff accountant at EY who, among other things, is tasked with studying for and passing each part of the CPA exam so they can begin billing more hours. Chances are slim that the young associate would independently decide to risk their reputation and employment by cheating on part of the industry-standard certification, but if they know that others in their organization are taking such liberties and the company's culture endorses such abuse, they’ll be more likely to do the same.

Unfortunately for EY, there’s even more evidence to support that its culture has encouraged crookedness. A recent New York Times article described how consultants from the firm “devised an elaborate arrangement” to enable Perrigo, a leading pharmaceutical company, to dodge federal income taxes of over $100 million. When the original auditors from BDO balked at the setup, Perrigo moved its auditing to EY. The new EY auditors “blessed the transactions, which federal authorities now claim were shams.”

Regrettably over the years, plenty of other toxic company cultures have also precipitated major business scandals, e.g., Enron, Arthur Andersen, Lehman Brothers, Wells Fargo . . . the list goes on. Ousting an embattled CEO might make regulators and others feel better, but as Morgen Witzel maintains in writing for Mint, the bad business behavior usually stems from a much larger issue of rotten corporate culture:

“In many other cases, though, the seeds of failure stem from deep inside the company, its values and its culture. Those seeds sometimes lie dormant for years, even decades.”

Witzel acknowledges that fixing a corrupt corporate culture is a far-from-easy, long-term proposition. However, among several sensible suggestions, he offers organizations two critical challenges:

View customer as “partners in value creation . . .with needs and wants that can be satisfied” and not as “cash cows to be milked in order to boost the earnings figures for the quarterly report”
Have a “higher purpose connected with customer service and societal benefit” and don't exist “merely to make money”

Do people make poor moral decisions in the absence of social influence? Certainly; most of us probably have. However, it’s undoubtedly more likely that an individual will choose a wrong path if others they know encourage them to take it. Moreover, when a person is immersed in a culture that normalizes bad behavior, they might not even realize that what they’re doing is wrong.

To keep itself on the right path, some of the most important marketing any organization can do is internal marketing: ensuring that its own people’s vocational needs are met and with it, promoting a positive corporate culture that encourages ethical actions and condemns immoral ones.

Like many decisions we make, our ethical choices often occur with input from others, whether they realize it or not, which makes it all-the-more important for each of us to model morality everywhere, including in the organizations in which we serve.

Companies should constantly evaluate how strongly their corporate cultures embrace ethical actions. Those whose embrace is weak will be like EY, ultimately hurting themselves and their stakeholders as they chart a path of “Mindless Marketing.”

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

6 Comments

Should AI Impersonate People?

7/1/2022

2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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