I saw this one on my way home last night and was captured by it's simplicity. Heinz has brought out a new and improved microwaveable version of their famous tomato soup. #YUM.

Ensuring the busy passerby knows what the ad is all about and who it’s from, the ad is smothered in recognisable properties. The infamous Heinz red and all those KBAs (Key Brand Assets) are clearly visible. But for me, the use of the sound, a microwave makes when your food is ready, is what made me smile. It's such a simple yet eloquent way to communicate that this is a new variant, the key point of difference and how to easy it is the make. All this encapsulated in the use one word. Ping in this context is imbued with so much meaning, and is an apt example of how sometimes less is more in advertising. We see here the weight that words carry, so make sure you are purposeful and deliberate with yours!

Love it or hate it, the new ad for Mcdonald's monolopy game is infectious.

That piffy, catchy phrase is a clever way to get people talking about a brand property that is no longer new news. To borrow a phrase from the Adlandian dictionary, this campaign was about "evolution not revolution" (yes, it made me cringe too). The golden arches took a common behaviour (how we all take off that sticker) and made it virtuous. I love me a likkle behavioural economics and this one uses social herding in a clever and humorous way. But can 'peely, peely' become a thing , and by 'a thing', I mean can 'peely peely' become part of our cultural parlance.

One brand that has been able to embed a brand-out phrase in culture is Nando's with 'cheeky nando's'. The phrase is so ubiquitous that when someone says they are going to grab a bite from these chicken connoisseurs and they don't put "cheeky" in front of the brand name, it somehow seems less appealing. I guess the addition of  the word makes it more naughty and therefore makes getting one even more desirable.

So can ' peely, peely' get to that status?

Sadly, I don't think so. Cheeky Nando's refers to eating at the establishment at any time throughout the year and isn't product specific. Monopoly isn't evergreen and will be gone again soon so people won't have a need to use the phrase once the promotion is finished. However, it can own a similar space in our vernacular to Meerkat's "simples". Now, we don't often use "simples" in our day to day lives but when someone does say it you instantaneously recognise it and the brand is once again top of mind.  "Simples" success was partly due to media spend and the heavy use of the phrase in all of Compare The Market's ads gave us time to overboard the catch phrase. This campaign will not get the same run time but due to the warm sentiment around it, if someone does use the phrase it is likely to evoke similar warm brand feelings.

Let's watch this space!

Spotify are one of the most culturally relevant brands out there. They killed it last year with their clever use of data to talk about their various playlists and this year they are again speaking with a human voice. They are one of the rare people to talk like a consumer and do it right.

Love it.

I don't think Maccy D's got the memo about the wellness trend.

I mean, now there app sits right next to my fitness plan I know which one I am going to being on more often than not. I guess my the summer body goals can wait another year. Sigh.

So what are some of the ways McDonald's have communicated their new mobile app?

Whacking out the recognisable brands codes that we all know and love. Mark Ritson recently wrote about the importance of brands codes (KBAs) in praise of Mastercard’s decision to drop the name from its logo. The renowned marketer spoke eloquently about codes being “sensationally important to a brand in achieving distinctiveness in the market”. He bemoaned that fact that so many agencies are reluctant to emphasis their brand codes and implored them to buck this trend by peppering all their tactical work with these symbolic and graphical devices.
Now the ones McDonald's use are not exactly trademark-able or legally ownable per say. But they are definitely synonymous with the big arches.

Check out the clever use of mobile phones to make up some of the classic yummies we buy from the brand. We recognise the food, the mobile phone and brand colourways so when we see “Mobile Ordering is here” it all makes sense and our brains love that!


No cognitive dissonance over here thank you!

I saw this from UFIT on the underground which, based on this ad, is aiming to be a healthy protein drink option for individuals who want to eat right but also enjoy life’s pleasures. So basically, every millennial in London?

Now, I don’t think there is much wrong with this insight. It’s true, we want to make healthier life choices but a combination of financial constraints, lack of time and the “foodie revolution” means we don’t always want/choose what’s good for us. We look for brands that make it easy for us to live well without compromising on taste or flavour.

But the issue I have is that all the newbies to the “easy health” space are singing from the same hymn sheet. Remember Popchips “Be A Bit Good” campaign? It also plays on the daily battle we face between good choices and bad ones and appearing to be the perfect go between (all done in a tongue-in-cheek manner). I think they were one of the first and did the best.

While I don’t think there is anything wrong with tapping into a common mindset, nowadays brands are currently leaning too heavily on this “easy on-the-go health” message and it’s getting a bit old, especially  the “We Have Protein" song.

I think brands need to sit down and ruminate on the “so what” a bit longer, and really think about what only they can offer. They forget that they are not just competing with brands in their immediate category, they are also competing with every other brand that gives you easy, fast and tasty nutrition – Innocent, Nakd, Bounce, need I go on?

Relying on this quite frankly lazy, no shit Sherlock truth ain’t going to fly anymore….not for me anyway.

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.