Sunaina Parihar

This is interesting. I like how its taking the initiative to halt its usage of social media especially since its main audience is teen girls. But I’m not sure how to feel about it on the business side. I feel like they will lose presence and eventually money. I think they’re hoping that by being a revolutionary on refraining social media, new users will flock to them. I’m honestly not sure what other brands will follow. Maybe Roblox? Its audience is mainly younger kids.

Wow. I think this is perhaps the first notable brand I know to be removing themselves from the big-four. From a business perspective, Instagram was truly one of their biggest market reaches. It’s true that social media has affected our mental health greatly but out of other content that drives anxiousness – Lush wasn’t one of those content producers (in my opinion.) Most of their posts are about products and not people to compare yourself to.
While this is a great step into their philanthropic efforts there’s a part of me that feels this brand will come back to social media. Maybe Lush die-hards will buy the app and explore new products in their version of Instagram stories but I feel their customer base would prefer seeing Instagram content of bath bomb test videos.

Really interesting to see a brand remove itself from the majority of social platforms! I wonder how this will impact Lush’s bottom line? Beauty brands rely so heavily on social media to not only push products but create a brand image.

I wonder does this mean that Lush will cease working with influencers on social, which you note has been a big part of their current digital strategy.

Adding social elements to their own app is a pivot to monitor, as it presents both a risk and a unique opportunity to manage online interactions of the brand’s most dedicated fans.

I think it’s a good move on their parts. I like how they used a positive message to make changes to how they use its networks. I suspect before all these changes were made they realized all these social media channels might not be necessary. Good for them for breaking from the pack. I could see success for other companies that are built on similar ideals and priorities.

It’s a no from me, dawg! I appreciate the effort towards mental health, but feel like this strategy will be a loss for them in the long run. Yes, there target market are millenial and GenZ women and they are on these 4 social platforms. I personally think it’s a lost opportunity to communicate directly with this audience. Instead of taking social media out of the equation, create content that promotes the mission and values. Just because this demographic suffers from mental health and social media related diseases, doesn’t mean they are going to hop off these platforms.

Agreed to the comments above, I see why they’re taking that step towards a social media blackout, however I feel like it could be harmful to their business. I feel like they would have to have a pretty loyal following in order to keep up with their products outside of social media. If this shows to be successful I could maybe see other brands taking that initiative as well, but we’re in the middle of the biggest social media age. I guess if the algorithm continues to score over businesses then I could see more of a following going that way especially depending on what the brand is knowing they have customer loyalty.

I don’t think this is a wise business move. Like Phil, I appreciate the effort toward mental health, but I don’t see how removing themselves from social platforms is helping that larger issue. Content is not inherently toxic because it’s on social media, so by passing on the opportunity to put positive, self-love messages out there (like Dove and Billie do), all Lush is really accomplishing is giving up space for potentially more toxic content.
Essentially, Lush can’t make things better by sitting on the sidelines hoping people know to find them there, because most of them won’t.

This is a really ballsy move (sorry for the language). I think that LUSH have already discovered who they are as a brand and managed to create a large and loyal following and therefore do not need to constantly focus on their social media. Promotional emails, a loyalty program, access to stores and collaborations are enough to build upon their already established success. As much as some of us couldn’t imagine a world without social media, it’s brands like LUSH that are taking a unique stance that many brands are scared to do, and maybe just maybe it will create a domino effect.

I think this is brilliant. I have subconsciously fallen away from many of the social media platforms because of the algorithm gets me captured in this rabbit hole that I didn’t want to go down. And good for them in recognizing they don’t want to be part of the problem. However, I think there is still an opportunity to have influencers on other channels like YouTube. And I think YouTube is a great 1 to 1 platform, I can search and find exactly what I want by who I’m looking for, and not be led down an endless tunnel of non-relevant ads or posts by people I’m not interested in. This talks so much as to who they are as a brand and makes me think right back to the Glossier case study. I really hope other brands take note of this and learn from companies like lush that is out there for their customers.

What a great discussion here, everyone! Agree — it’s a bold move. In addition to the public-facing mental health rationale, we also have to wonder about the upside of them getting more opt-in, first-party data with this move. (events, email newsletters, catalogues…) Time will tell, won’t it?

It’s a lot like Alexa or Siri. In 2019, the average McDonald’s drive-thru took six minutes and 18 seconds. The company trimmed that to five minutes and 49 seconds in 2020, according to an annual report from market researcher SeeLevel HX. In addition, McDonald’s is now in a lawsuit for allegedly recording voiceprint details of its customers at the robot drive-thru. The lawsuit claims that McDonald’s makes the recordings “to be able to correctly interpret customer orders and identify repeat customers to provide a tailored experience.” Illinois, however, is one of 12 states that require both parties to consent to a recording of a voice conversation, and the lawsuit claims there’s no warning to customers that recordings are occurring. Instead, Mcdonald’s should detail a process model for users to order through the mobile app and then go through the drive-thru and pick up their order by confirming the name to the attendee.

Thanks for posting! I think it’s interesting that McDonald’s is really rolling out this kind of features when forced because of a labor shortage from COVID. There’s a lot of reasons to implement digital solutions, but I see more and more often companies investing in technology only when they are forced to because people do not want to perform the low-wage manual intensive jobs that are being replaced. I do think a lot of these changes are going to be implemented right from the start for successful businesses (like Honeygrow in Philadelphia that requires you to order from a kiosk, they don’t really have alternative methods besides online ordering). but big companies that don’t have the proper ecosystems to support these technologies should really be eager to be an early adopter of new technology because they can generate funding, but don’t because of any risk may mean less success. Instead of being forced by their workers, invest early.

As a generation excited about technology and open to the benefits we know it can bring, I am still undecided about automated ordering. I see many problems arising in an industry thats supposed to be built on speed. Other than the trouble of no understanding languages, how will it know if the franchise is able to accommodate special requests? Or who will be in charge to take over if the machine is met with a frustrated customer holding up the line? I definitely think this will be a slow rollout that picks up speed as the flaws are ironed out!

Yes, you are right about McDonalds always being the first with these innovations Gabi! I definitely feel that not being able to hear the person on the other end is one paint point that can be alleviated by the automated system, however I feel like similar problems could also occur with a robot – noting that even McDonald’s claimed this does not have a 100% accuracy rate (at least when it was first rolled out).

I’m all for automated ordering, but only if the robot can do better than 85 percent! That said, I feel like a more effective, less divisive solution already exists with mobile ordering. I usually order on apps since it makes customization way easier, and I’ve found order accuracy is superior to talking to a person (and holding up the drive thru line in the process)… trying to articulate any special request to a robot sounds like a headache.
I’m also a big fan of McDonald’s curbside delivery option where I order on the app, wait in a numbered parking spot, and an employee runs out to bring me my order (a la Sonic)… I hope they keep that!

Sunaina, I love this post! I personally don’t see a problem with a robot voice, because that is exactly what it is. It’s just the beginning so with any type of technology, there will be ways for it to improve. If this. is what McDonalds has to do in result of the staff shortage then I’m for it! However, I hope this doesn’t keep people from applying to work just because there’s an IBM. It would be better if the accuracy was more then 85%. As Jordan mentioned in his comment I personally don’t. find it creepy if they use voice recordings to help enhance the IBM in result of people having different pronunciation and accents, I mean at this point in my life, everything is already tracked on my phone. I have yet to see one of these, but do like the touch screen inside if lines are to long,

And I meant to say inflection* LOL oh man. Must have already been brain fried from work.

I’ll be honest, my first thought was, how does a robot order taker result in more data retained? Isn’t the live person behind the call punching in the order the same way as a robot would, then sending it to the kitchen? And like the others have said the accuracy of 85% is pretty low and will only cause other issues that can again slow down the process that the robot was supposed to fix. I personally like speaking to a real person. I hate robotic conversations even on support phone calls. They ofter misunderstand what you are saying. And how will they account for variations of English dialect? Sometimes we can’t even understand our own people from state to state, so how is a robot going to store the various dialects of our language and be able to differentiate between them.

From a digital standpoint, I find it interesting how catfishers subconsciously create personas based on what they think they want. Postmillennial generations are growing up with smartphones early and spending more time online than having real-life interactions. Catfishing is a way of escapism or a way of testing what life would be like. I wonder if brands adapted this technique for consumers who don’t want to spend money necessarily, how far could they keep their attention. If brands took on this mentality to match consumers to their product based on what they think they’d like, brands would have to be mindful of gender identity. People aren’t who they look to be or have the personality you believe based on exterior attributes. Some people catfish for years, and it’s not like the digital space isn’t growing.

Really appreciate the connection you drew between the class discussion and catfishing. It’s not much of a stretch to reframe the story of Evan Hansen as an elaborate catfishing exercise. Certainly it did not start out with that intent, but there’s plenty here to support Evan leaning into similar motivations as he dug further in.

I think a crucial variable here is time. Whether the “sender” or the “recipient” of the catfish, the common element is the time to “chase” the mirage. Broadly, would you agree that the same holds true for most of social media? If you paint with a very crude brush, is the primary purpose of social media one giant catfish? An effort by all who participate to present the “best” version of themselves, regardless of how distant that is from reality?

Rather than generational tastes, might the trend “away” from time spent with social (keep in mind any plateaus or declines are from a very high base) be reflective of other commitments (work, family, social circles, etc.)?

I love the insight that the pandemic and social fatigue shifting the focus to “real” experiences. Would love to hear some perspective on experiences “lost” in the past because they were “lived through the lens”. What’s the line where you take value from the experience itself vs. the value you extract from how other react when you share that experience?

Catfish is a great show, sad but great. It proves to viewers that the online community is scary if you’re not careful. Another show that is similar to this is 90-day fiancé, where real people meet other ‘real’ people online and sometimes as a viewer we exhale with relief when those on the other side of the screen are real and who they say they are. It is concerning that big social media players like Facebook don’t ask verification questions when new users are signing up like dating apps do, aka Tinder, where you can prove that you are real with certain questions and multiple images. Verification is established with a blue tick just like celebrities receive on instagram and twitter. I think that people create fake profiles because they are lonely, curious, want to be someone they are not, want access to other accounts or in some cases are the victims of bullying. Regardless creating fake profiles is unethical and unfair to others.