Let's chat some behavioural economics (BE). Yeah, that sciencey bit in advertising that we all seem to agree with, but seldom what to use or talk about. I get it. It's not the know the sexiest or coolest thing in adland. Chatting about holograms, VR or the latest leap in automation is perhaps a little bit more in vogue but the geeky planner in me still salivates when I see BE in action.

One of the most commonly used BE techniques is “Framing” - The framing effect explains how we alter our decisions depending on how information is presented to us. We’ll react in a completely different way when the same choice is presented to us in the context of a loss or a gain.

A simple example of this is, by labelling a product bar of chocolate as “91% fat free” rather than “9% fat”, it frames it as a healthy product.

But there are even more subtle ways to use the framing effect.

Quaker's used it to market their product - “Porridge To Go”. It is essentially a flapjack, but we associate flapjacks with treats, sugar and definitely don’t see it as a healthy breakfast treat. But by calling it or “(re)framing it” as “Porridge On The Go”, what was once a no-go for brekkie is a now a permissible, nutrition breakfast because of the positive, healthy associations we have with porridge.

Pretty cool, eh?

Well, that was unexpected.

Polarising is perhaps the nicest way to summarise the divergent opinions that arose in the wake of Gillette’s monumental brand shift.

Maybe “shift” is a bit of an understatement. Hmmm, how about Gillette’s ‘360, double backflip with a Russian twist’.

Yes, that’s better.

If you have read any of my other posts, you will know I’m not one to mince words. I am the type to call a spade a spade, and you certainly won’t see me perching contently on the proverbial fence. So, I am going to say it outright.

“I like the Gillette advert”

Yes, this is indeed a post in defence of what Ritson dubbed “the year's worst marketing move"

Now, let me be clear. I have not gone mad. I can understand why Mr Ritson would say what he said. This advert and brand strategy is riddled with flaws and missteps. However, taking a holistic perspective of Gillette's brand overall, I am #TeamGillette.

As this is my first post of 2019, I will shake it up a bit in terms of how I will present my case.  

It will go: a statement that summaries a line of argument based on reviews and social commentary (Prevailing Opinion), followed by my response (My Rebuttal). 

All clear? Right, the defence is ready your honour.

Prevailing Opinion: “Gillette has no place in starting such a debate, especially given their traditional portrayal of masculinity.”

My Rebuttal: “Gillette isn’t the obvious choice to lead this debate, but isn’t that the point?”

Admittedly, at first I was like so many others, I was a bit like Gillette, “U okay hun”. But then I took a step back and thought, well on the subject of toxic masculinity, someone has to go first and why shouldn’t it be one of the biggest proponents of any outdated notion of what it means to be a man. If Nike, or another millennial friendly brand did this, would it be as poignant? Would it invite as much debate on how we should define masculinity in this day and age? The answer is no. The Gillette brand was part of the problem and realised it could be part of the positive, inevitable change or go down with the sinking ship HMS misogyny. They wisely choose the former and decided to change of their own volition before they were forced to do so with their tails firmly between their legs.

I can assure you there was considerably less risk for Nike when they ran the Colin Kappernick ad. So even if you ardently hate the ad, you have got to admit this is truly brave advertising!

Prevailing Opinion: “They are just jumping on the gender issue like everyone else”

My Rebuttal: “Yes, they are and just like (most) brands, they should be.”

In this day and age, where anyone with an opinion can share it with the world while on their bathroom thrones, brands can’t shy away from the culture shifting debates that engulf the world around us. According to YouGov, more than half (52%) of people in Britain think that brands should be able to express how they feel on a certain topic, and this number increases with younger demographics. Consumers expect brands to take an active part in cultural debates and so there is nothing "backwagony" about this move from Gillette, in fact it's the logical one. For me, if the brand has permission to speak in the space then it should, the conversation should always be about what they are saying, not that they spoke in the first place.

Prevailing Opinion: “This isn’t what masculinity should be, this is Gillette’s effeminate branded manifestation”

My Rebuttal: "If we can’t agree among ourselves what it means to be man, how can we expect Gillette to come up with a consensual definition for us?"

Masculinity as a concept is very complex. You have those who feel affronted by the fact that what they believe to be normal or acceptable expressions of manhood are now under intense scrutiny and face fierce criticism. Then you have those who have grown up in era of metrosexuality and are more receptive and active in the conversation that challenges the toxic elements of the masculinity. But even they (I am very much speaking to myself) are at a loss as to what is a decent, inoffensive expression of masculinity against the current and vibrant backdrop of the fourth wave of feminism.  The common themes at both ends of the spectrum are confusion and frustration, but the idealist chasm that exists  between the two opposing sides has bred contempt between the two parties. 

Now, Gillette has step out and said what it feels needs to change. This is one opinion, from one brand with one creative team. Obviously, it is not be everyone's cup of tea and everyone is going to judge it based on their own perspective of masculinity so it would be foolish for us to think they were going get it right straight of the bat.

Just like the Colin Kapernick ad, not everyone agrees with it but at least the brand took a stance.

Prevailing Opinion: “This is the end of Gillette, no one is going to buy it now"

My Rebuttal: "Never understand estimate the power of habitual behaviour and remember who buys, and who is going to be buy the brand"

We are creatures of habit. We make a lot our decisions based on system one processing (Thinking Fast And Slow) and buy the same thing over and over again because it is easier and time saving. This behaviour is even more common with low involvement products like butter, milk and disposable razors. Let's face it, if your not a citizen of adland, you will probably see the ad and think "Nope, I don't agree with that" and think you won't buy Gillette again. Then a couple of days later you will think "I need a pack of razors" and pick up your usual (Gillette) without thinking twice about. Remember, it takes a lot to get us to switch into the slower, more purposeful system two decision making when it comes to things like disposable razors. Repeat exposure will be massively important in this context for existing powerful, positive brand memory structures to be altered. Also it depends on how much you are care that your perspective on manhood is reflected by your brands. So If the consumer only sees it once, doesn't care that much about what brands say and do, he is still likely to buy Gillette in his lifetime.

We also need to remember who is doing the shopping. If you don't buy your own razors and you don't go out of your way to make a point of  informing your partner not to buy Gillette, then you are likely to get it brought for you if that is your usual brand. Finally, it's the younger male who is wrestling with new ideas of masculinity so if Gillette can finesse their point of view this rhetoric is certainly in line with Gillette's next cohort of consumers.

Engagement doesn't equal sales.

So where did Gillette go wrong?

Tonally - This was a little finger waggy for me. It was a too preachy and talked down to the consumer rather than overtly invited them into a debate with the brand on an equal footing.  It could be a bit more uplifting but don't ask me how i'm just a strategist.

It's needs truly be a 360 brand overhaul - While the brand has changed their strapline, this brand move needs to be reflected across all touchpoints. Presently the website is the same and you wouldn't know that Gillette has made this bold leap. They need to do more than just an ad or two. They need to live this brand purpose.

But with all that said like, I'm still team Gillette.

Now, if I may, I would like to present my closing statement.

We are living in an era of massive cultural change. Entrenched norms are being challenged in a culture where “wokeness” champions once marginalised lifestyles, groups and identities. But this cultural flux is messy and has caused friction between values, tribes and vocabularies as the new and old collide. This is what I believe can explain a lot of the backlash against Gillette's ad especially because Gillette is the first high profile brand to wade into the debate of toxic masculinity.

Even the flaws in the ad will be forgiven. Big brands like Starbucks  and Airbnb have made advertising faux pas and it hasn't ruined business for either of them. I acutely remembering having to cue for some time for my hot chocolate and oat meal and didn’t see a website error when logging into Airbnb last week. That’s because if the mistake isn’t too big and you have a decent product or service, you can tend to weather such storms.

It might also be useful to remember the the adoption of "femvertsing" for perspective. Back in 2004 when Dove launched 'Real Women' is was all alone. Now ads that reflect changes in how society see women is a genuine chapter in feminism’s fourth wave. But it took a another 10 years for such ads to gain any real traction. Gillette have set the pace with the masculinity debate so I suggest let’s watch this space.

The defence rests your honour.

These new adverts from Spotify inspired an impromptu fit of laughter in my living room last week. Both spots were created to highlight the streaming service's family membership. Now, I could describe the ads to you but I think it is a lot funnier if you watch them yourself. Prepare to cringe but also laugh your head off at these hilarious family musical moments.

Rating: 10/10

Part of a planner's role in an agency is understanding the consumer's behaviour at key moments, or identifying tension points along the customer journey. The next task is to work out ways to alleviate them. These can be existing problems that traditional solutions can't solve or solutions that are no longer effective. Today in our digitally lead world, technology can unlock new ways to approach the same problems that have been plaguing us for so many years.

RGA did just that with their activation to mark Air Max Day 2017. To launch NIKEiD in Eastern Europe and the Middle East during this year's global Air Max Day, RGA created an interactive installation that generates custom designed Air Max sneakers based your outfit and instantly prints a photo of the shoes, along with a link to the design in NIKEiD.

So what problem are they solving? Having too much choice can be crippling. Limiting our choice or helping us to make a decision is something we as consumers carve. In the book, "The Paradox of Choice" the psychologist and author Barry Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers. RGA recognised that the “blank canvas” of NIKEiD can be intimidating, so they facilitated self-expression by designing sneakers based on what you are already wearing. Traditional methods, for example, having a shop assistant to help customers wouldn't be as effective because NIKiD is all about your individual style and the freedom to design the trainers yourself. So having someone design it for you defeats the point. However, having an unbiased AI use your swagger to help you express your own style, is solving this problem and makes this offering more attractive.

Results: In 10 days, 10,000 people got custom Air Max, and 16% followed the link to Nike.com/iD.

Rating: 10/10

"Umm, I will have a black coffee." 

"Would you like the beans partially steamed first?"

"Errr, sure why not?"

Long gone are the days when you can ask for a black coffee, and get a black coffee - well, certainly not in London anyway!

Since hipsters became London's tastemakers, everything we consume has always got to have a slight twist to it. And coffee houses are no exception to the rule. But we have lived with "normal" coffee this long and it has always got us through that Monday morning meeting so, as the saying goes, if it ain't broke why fix it? I ordered a coffee and that's what I want, you can keep your handmade straws to yourself.

Leo Burnett has picked up on the growing hypocrisy that is London's coffee shops and has used it to great affect. The campaign contrasts the simplicity and great taste of a Maccy D's McCafe with the complexity of the urban hipster coffee culture with it's high price points and extravagant menus. The ad shows increasingly confused customers finally ending up at the fast-food giant, where they get what they asked for - a nice normal coffee minus the huge price tag.

The humour filled spot shows how McDonald's is the antithesis to the complication in a way that will resonate with anyone who has tried to purchase a coffee in London in the past few years. Tapping into this often private, unspoken grievance with this overly fussy cultural moment, presents this challenger brand (McCafe) as the smart choice that will actually meet your needs - after all, you are just looking for a coffee! 

Creative director Matt Lee said, “We’re reminding people that if you’re simply after a great tasting cup of coffee, without the fuss, then McDonald’s is the place for you. If you prefer an artisanal Amazonian blend, served with a rumour of yak’s milk in a reclaimed jam jar, then you might want to go somewhere else.”

An ad decrying hipsters instead of championing them is very welcome in my eyes, although I do like a game of table tennis and if it comes free with my coffee then...

Rating: 9/10

Just like Tesco's, Sainsbury's has departed from its traditional price/ product focused executions. But unlike Tesco's "Food Love Stories", which clearly has life after the initial execution, questions remain over the longevity of Sainsbury's #fooddancing campaign?

The ad is the first execution by newly appointed W&K London and shows food lovers dancing in their kitchen as they prepare dishes. It is set to a specially-created background track Food Dancing (Yum Yum Yum) by UK artist MysDiggi that will be released on Spotify.

Now, there are some things that I really like about the campaign. It's different for one. It's nice to see another retailer moving away from a traditional approach to advertising. Watching people dance around to a catchy number, certainly brings a smile to my face especially as I can relate! I have been known to shake what my mother gave me while cooking up a storm in the kitchen. W&K have clearly looked at our behaviours when we prepare a meal and picked out a very fun and engaging one to champion. I also like the fact that given the fun and shareability of such content their pleas for people to use the hashtag on social media probably won't fall on death ears.

That being said, their are a few things that I do take issue with. Firstly, who is MysDiggi? Now, I know the hope with the song is that ‘Yum Yum Yum" will be a viral hit. But the year's of "gangnam style" and "crazy frog" are behind us (thank god) and it takes a lot more than a catchy tune to go viral. You need the right influencers, distribution and often an artist that's known!

And what's with the "fake" authenticity? The film is deliberately shot in a low-fi, hand-held style, to give an authentic perspective, as though captured by the individual featured. But I can't help but think, why didn't you just get them to film themselves in the first place. The quality is already low so that issue with UGC is irrelevant in this case. For me, if you want to be authentic, you should be authentic. You try to fake it it defeats the point. 

But my biggest question is how will this live for the next 6 months? The Sainsbury’s director of brand communications Mark Given says: “ #fooddancing...is a big part of living well" and at the end of the spot it even says "#FoodDancing is living well". So maybe this part of an overarching strategy to provide insight into what the strapline actually means. If that is the case, I can't what to see further articulations of the "Living Well" strapline.

Rating: TBD

Special offers, price points, premium ranges - traditionally, these are the areas in which supermarkets compete. Indeed in recent years the price-focused ads of Morrisons and those of Lidl and Aldi have been very effective in enticing customers away from the established powerhouses that are Tesco, 

Sainsbury and Waitrose. But, this me-too form of advertising is fast becoming tiresome and it is all about short-term, key "trade moment" gains. They are not brand building or perception changing. The only one in this category to do that was Lidl with #lidlsurprises. However, after x amount of iterations of the same campaign, their messaging no longer has the same potency. Well, last month we saw Tesco take a lap of faith and talk about something else and boy was it refreshing!

Revising the way it talks about food in its advertising, Tesco has moved away from heroing particular products or promoting individual items to instead highlighting its quality credentials and the passion and care that goes into the meals its customers prepare. It is no longer about championing their food and their brand, instead it's all about championing the customer's story.

Merely setting the parameters and context ("Food Love Stories"), Tesco's is allowing the customers to tell their own brand story in an authentic and emotive way. Using real-life stories makes it more relatable and allows you to emphasis and connect more with the campaign and, in turn, the brand. 

The power of UGC has been recognised for many years now but seldom do brands use it well or imaginatively. Asking consumers to use your hashtag and post a picture with them using your product isn't going to win fans or awards anytime soon. But setting up a platform for consumers to get peer to peer tips, advice and inspiration is a great way to engineer brand love. To this effect, Tesco has launched a content hub with ingredients and recipe cards for the featured meals, which will also be available in its large stores to ensure that customers can engage and be involved with this campaign beyond the OOH. 

While I do enjoy the refreshing nature of this campaign, in order to achieve the objective of highlighting the quality of Tesco's products, some work may need to be done to the next iterations. At present the focus is very much on the story behind the meal and not on the quality of the ingredients going into it. But I am sure this will be addressed in the future. For now, I am just going to enjoy the great recipes that are being featured!

Rating: 9/10