"It's Not a Problem!"

"You can change the name of your "Alexa." Problem solved." ~Twitter user   

Yes, we are aware you can change the wake word with *some products. We're also aware Amazon doesn't allow a wake word change for 700+ "Alexa" Built-In products.   Is it reasonable and ethical to expect people to continuously request a wake word change just so a group of people can use their birth name? This not only affects Alexas {& similar} but users as well.  "Just change the wake word! " is one of the most common assumed solutions, yet blind spots persist.  When we first started this grassroot movement, our hashtag was #ChangeTheWakeWord. However, as we began to research this specific voice tech issue and discovered you can't change the wake word on 700+ products, the trajectory shifted. We began to recognize the absurdity and ultimate flaw of this "solution." 

Changing the wake word is a short-term solution.   

Should people named Alexa depend upon the kindness of strangers to be able to use their own names? Does Amazon really think it's ethical that their product puts these people in the position of negotiating for something that every human is entitled to? 

When people complain about someone named Alexa setting off their devices is to say "this is why real names shouldn't be wake words" which puts the blame where it should be, on Amazon. Amazon would love to say if Alexas can't say their name around devices, the problem is with users, not their products. Like how they respond to the bullying issue; that's bad people, not a terrible decision to use a real name. 

We want to focus the blame for the problem, and responsibility of fixing it, squarely on Amazon's shoulders. 

"I would rather concern myself with a pandemic. People dying and much more than a term which is also a name. Maybe you should too! You're such a Karen!" ~Twitter user

If there's a problem in any industry; do we have a rubric determining if an issue can be discussed or tabled until the " bigger problems in the world "are addressed? 

Social media is a platform of mixed blessings and curses. While we have to acknowledge we're enjoying ease of global communication like never before, it's also empowered and emboldened a virulent subculture.

It's very common to reflexively react to someone else's concern based on nothing more than a superficial assessment of the issue at hand, typically acting out as derision and dismissal of the issue as "no big deal" or "first world problem." This condescension is more about the instigator than it is the recipient as these "drive by" comments are seeking to dismiss and demean.

While of course we acknowledge there are bigger issues in the world, taking this thought process to its logical extreme would then mean that no issue can be dealt with concurrently to other issues until the absolute worst crises on the planet are solved first. Seek first to understand is the cultural touchstone we rely upon to guide this movement and it's a tenet universal in its application. 

~father of an Alexa  

"It's really not that big of a deal specifically because if someone was so bothered by their name, they could simply swap to a Google device, which doesn't use "Alexa." " ~Twitter user  

Does this "solution" solve the problem?   

"My friend has a dog named Danny and I've literally never cared less." ~Twitter user  

While we hope we can all agree that mocking someone’s name and identity in any type of demeaning way is inappropriate and a form of bullying. However, the context missing in these scenarios is that none of these types of examples are backed by multi-million dollar marketing campaigns from one of the most powerful corporations in the world, zealously attempting to embed the “Alexa” brand into every facet of our lives. 

When Forrest Gump was first popular, many people named Jennifer received jokes about “Jennaaay!” and Dans were called “Lieutenant Dan!” These are a natural part of growing up and can do some good in small doses as they help develop coping skills and thick skin.   But it’s also vital to understand that they’re transient in nature. No one should be reasonably expected to tolerate that sort of mocking or dismissive behavior year after year after year in an increasingly upward trending number of life and work scenarios. 

These arguments are not the same and it’s dishonest to equate them.  

"The problem here is not Amazon Alexa. The problem is the people who are taking it upon themselves to bully and tease these individuals. Put the blame where it duly belongs; on the people who are unkind, and are making the decision to bully others. Not Amazon "Alexa." " ~writer in an article  

We happily concede that society, as a whole, should be kinder but it’s also not the entire issue. If you want to be considered a good corporate citizen, then it’s inconvenient yet critical to acknowledge this is a shared responsibility.  

Corporate ethics dictates that potential impact on not just customers but society and individuals be considered as part of the routine risk assessments every company goes through when developing a major new product or brand. This implies that Amazon has either engaged in willful blindness with regards to the Alexa impact, they performed a substandard assessment, failing to engage with all stakeholders, or they’ve actually realized the issue and have decided that real women and children are acceptable collateral damage. 

We hope for the former and fear the latter but in any case, this remains an issue initiated and propagated by Amazon and squarely within their power to resolve.  What are the real options for Alexas {and similar} here? To advocate for a corporation to act ethically or to wait for all of humanity to change their nature?   

"There cannot be a non-human name. The whole idea is to get them part of the human ecosystem. You should research some facts. "Alexa" is a well-thought out name." ~Twitter user via DM  

From an effective branding standpoint, absolutely, we agree that Amazon invested significant money, time, and effort in choosing this name. However, as we know better, we do better. What they’ve invested into the product is a sunk cost and it’s never coming back. What they can start doing to remediate the damage would not only align with corporate ethic standards but would also build tremendous goodwill in showing that their organizational values include:

1) doing what’s right, not what’s easy

2) people over profit

3) standing against unethical outcomes

The Titanic was designed and built by intelligent and skilled people and was thought nigh-unsinkable except for one famous design flaw. We can often find issues in retrospect that aren’t always apparent in the moment but we are judged by how we deal with those issues, once uncovered.  How do Amazon’s executives want to be judged?