Love's names first chief marketing officer
Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores has named Patrick McLean as its first-ever chief marketing officer, according to a Monday press release.
McLean will be responsible for aligning Love's marketing efforts with the company's strategic priorities and values, according to the press release. He will lead a team of nearly 300 in the marketing and customer experience departments and will report directly to Love's President Shane Wharton.
'Strategic investments in marketing and customer experience will elevate this already strong brand and unlock further growth for the business,' McLean said in a statement.
McLean brings more than 30 years of experience across a variety of industries to Love's. He most recently was head of his own marketing consultancy, according to his LinkedIn bio. In that role, he offered strategic marketing consulting and interim or fractional CMO support.
Before that, he served as senior vice president and CMO for drug store chain Walgreens, where he helmed the launch of the "My Walgreens" customer engagement and loyalty platform, according to the announcement. He has also served as CMO for TD Bank, vice president of digital brand strategy for Capital One bank, and in various marketing roles with telecom companies Verizon and Bell Canada.
At Love's, McLean has succeeded Vice President of Marketing Dave Frankenfield, who is retiring after 28 years with the Oklahoma City-based retailer. Frankenfield will stay with the company through the end of the year to help ensure a smooth transition.
'Patrick's B2B and B2C experience in multiple industries, and with some of the largest and most successful retail brands in the world, stood out to us as we searched for a leader who could take our efforts to the next level and fit into our award-winning culture,' said Wharton in the press release.
Recommended Reading
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
The hidden risks of ‘quiet firing'
As economic pressures force companies to make tough staffing decisions, an increasing number are turning to quiet firing — a subtler cousin of formal layoffs — to trim their workforce, especially through return-to-office mandates. Although this strategy may appear to be a discreet way to manage headcount, it is becoming alarmingly clear that using remote work preferences as a proxy for performance is a dangerous miscalculation. New research and surveys suggest that when remote or hybrid employees are targeted for exit, companies may inadvertently be pushing out their most skilled, experienced and irreplaceable talent. In 2025, 53 percent of U.S. businesses report using quiet-firing tactics, such as delaying raises, mandating additional office days and cutting benefits, according to a ResumeTemplates survey of more than 1,100 business leaders. For many, these measures serve as a silent nudge for employees — particularly those resistant to return-to-office mandates — to leave voluntarily. It's a move designed to reduce severance costs and avoid the negative optics of formal layoffs. The rationale may seem simple: If employees resist return-to-office policies, they're less committed. But this thinking collapses under scrutiny. A major study led by Mark Ma at the University of Pittsburgh analyzed LinkedIn data from millions of professionals across large S&P 500 tech and financial firms. The results reveal that employees most likely to leave under office mandates are not low performers or disengaged slackers. They're top-tier talent. Turnover spiked by 14 percent after office mandates were introduced, with women leaving at 20 percent higher rates than before. Senior or highly skilled employees, as well as top managers, depart at nearly the same rate: 18 to 19 percent. These are the people companies can least afford to lose — the mentors, the innovators, the institutional memory keepers. They're heading for the exits not because they're underperforming, but because they expect flexibility. Executives often equate a desire to work remotely with a lack of dedication. But the data tell a different story. Workers who prefer remote or hybrid arrangements are not shirking responsibility but balancing it. Especially for women, who traditionally bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities, remote work isn't a luxury — it's a necessity. Quiet-firing tactics, such as increased in-office demands or benefit cuts, disproportionately target this group. But when these employees leave, it's not the laggards who go. It's the professionals with options — the ones most likely to be recruited by companies offering more flexible terms. The idea that employees will quit when conditions deteriorate also ignores another uncomfortable truth: Many stay, and not because they're disengaged but because the job market is uncertain. They endure toxic environments, rising workloads and micromanagement out of financial necessity. According to the ResumeTemplates survey, 77 percent of companies say quiet-firing sometimes fails simply because workers hang on despite the pressure. This creates a grim dynamic: Companies keep those who are stuck, while the best performers self-select out. The long-term consequences of these misguided layoffs are beginning to show. Firms that implement strict in-office policies face hiring delays averaging 12 days longer per role and see a 17 percent drop in hiring rates. At a time when innovation and agility are critical to business resilience, losing top talent to more flexible competitors is not just inconvenient — it's existential. When firms label remote-preference as a liability, they not only alienate their current workforce, they diminish their appeal to prospective employees. More than 91 percent of remote-capable workers now expect some form of flexibility, and nearly two-thirds prioritize it when considering new roles. Companies that quietly push out employees based on their workplace preferences are not just pruning headcount — they're hacking away at their future talent pipeline. And the irony is stark: the very employees targeted by return-to-office-enforced layoffs or quiet firing are often those with the skills to lead a company through transformation. In pressing them out, organizations dilute their intellectual capital and weaken succession plans. In short, they fire the people most capable of saving the company from the very decline they fear. There's no denying that economic constraints, from tariff-induced costs to investor pressure, are real. But targeting remote employees for elimination is a blunt and deeply flawed tool for workforce management. It fails to consider the nuanced reasons employees prefer flexibility. It overlooks the rising tide of evidence showing that hybrid models foster both retention and productivity. Companies looking to make smart cuts must shift the lens from where people work to how they contribute. Performance assessments need to be grounded in measurable outcomes, not presence in a building. It's entirely possible — and increasingly necessary — to evaluate productivity without conflating it with physical attendance. Formal layoffs, while painful, offer a more transparent and equitable approach than quiet firing. They allow companies to retain trust and morale, and ensure decisions are made based on strategy, not bias. In a market where talent is both scarce and mobile, the cost of firing the wrong people is not just internal disruption — it's a competitive disadvantage. Remote preference isn't a performance red flag. But to misinterpret it as one might instead be a red flag of managerial incompetence. Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller ' Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.'
The Onion
15 minutes ago
- The Onion
Study: Elephants Only Other Species Capable Of Leveraging Synergies In Brand Portfolio
ITHACA, NY—In a groundbreaking study published in the journal Animal Behaviour , researchers at Cornell University revealed Monday that elephants are the only known nonhuman species capable of leveraging synergies across a diversified brand portfolio. 'Conventional wisdom has long held that leveraging omnibrand fluidity to unlock cross-platform capital efficiencies was a behavior unique to humans, but in the wild we have observed multiple African elephant groups with a highly evolved capacity for optimizing cross-vertical integration through holistic brand harmonization at scale,' said Professor Mia Sherin, who noted that elephant corporate structures are matriarchal, and females consistently serve as project managers across multiplatform activations, seamlessly executing cross-functional touchpoints and asynchronous ideation cycles. 'This marks one of the most advanced examples of nonhuman tool use ever recorded. We've observed elephants utilizing Microsoft Excel for longitudinal KPI tracking, assembling low-fidelity mood boards to map brand essence, and creating rudimentary LinkedIn profiles to strengthen B2B positioning. In one case, a juvenile even led a rapid-fire ideation sprint that resulted in a fully actualized multichannel activation plan. This study brings us one step closer to the dream of true interspecies communication, should we ever manage to put some time down on their calendars to connect over a coffee.' At press time, Sherin's team traveled back to Tanzania to study how different elephant groups mourn, as they are thought to be the only other animals known to grieve their profit losses.
Epoch Times
17 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
FTC Sues Ticket Broker for Allegedly Exceeding Purchase Limit for Taylor Swift's Eras Tour
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Key Investment Group and its affiliated companies on Aug. 18, alleging that they evaded ticket purchase limits for live events—such as Taylor Swift's Eras Tour—and resold those tickets at inflated prices. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that the Maryland-based ticket broker and its affiliated companies—which operate under brand names such as Epic Seats and Totally Tix—used thousands of fake Ticketmaster accounts and other illegal tactics to bypass security measures designed to prevent buyers from exceeding ticket purchasing limits.
