The "his & hers" ad campaign is upon us

Fast food chain KFC has announced its intention to roll out its first 'his and hers' TV advertising campaign to support the release of its 'healthy' non-fried BBQ Rancher burger. But is it really important for brands to target men and women separately to achieve coverage or can marketing to both sexes be less gender specific?

KFC is not an obvious candidate for gender bending, so will assume that this is a straightforward male vs female perspective on the same proposition. Makes sense given the wealth of evidence suggesting that men and women are, in fact, different and might have a different perspective on food. Contrast this with the approach of Lynx who, launching their female range, have chosen to stress the shared territory of youthful sexual attraction for their “Unleash the Chaos” TV ad.

This all introduces a really interesting and conceptually simple way of targeting. For example, many grocery brands are now bought by men rather than just “housewives”, but I wonder whether advertising has really kept up with this in anything other than token ways. Yes advertising might focus on a gender-less product truth or human insight that the brand addresses, but developing comms which address only a predominantly female or male or mono-gender audience must be a compromise.

However, given that KFC is embarking on two separate advertising campaigns, what happens if I as a bloke watching "women's TV" I see the women's version first and vice versa? Might this give me the impression that I believe the product is aimed at women, which influences my behaviour towards the product moving forward. 

This in turn could affect potential reach. One of my colleagues did some exploratory work on this for a beer brand in the US where they would shift advertising around states. Normally they would assume reach is a combination of spend versus ability to find a target population. Given the chances of a woman and a man seeing a single advertisement are about the same, a brand would have to spend twice as much (or something similar) to achieve the same level of reach as a traditional, more generic ad, although the impact you would expect would be greater as the ad is targeted. The big question is whether the impact advantage outweighs the extra cost of advertising to reach your total target.

Which brands would be ripe for this double-gender approach? First of all let’s re-imagine classically but perhaps mistakenly gendered categories and see what we can do with those – “male” categories like cars, technology, finance and “female” categories like food, laundry and household cleaning. Would a more overt and genuine addressing of the female perspective on cars break the stranglehold of the “metal porn” and twisty mountain road formula? And would an authentically male perspective on household cleaning do better than resort to tired stereotypes of modern “life juggling” but still caring housewifery? Or is this an old fashioned stereotype of what advertising is like?

So things have changed somewhat since the 70s, but actually a lot of the modern gender-neutral advertising seems to ignore the gender angle on brands and products. Lots of products that are used in different ways by men and women (mobile phones for example) often feature non-gendered people of generally trendy man-woman appearance/persuasion communicating and connecting...but in identical ways.

Perhaps we should call for a refreshingly adult approach to gender, as KFC seems to be adopting. Whether because of nature or nurture, men and women ARE different, whilst they increasingly use and buy the same products and brands, they use those products differently, they respond to those brands differently, they respond to emotional and rational messages differently, they like and engage with different styles of media, advertising, content. And so maybe the age of the “his and hers” ad is upon us.

The "his & hers" ad campaign is upon us

Fast food chain KFC has announced its intention to roll out its first 'his and hers' TV advertising campaign to support the release of its 'healthy' non-fried BBQ Rancher burger. But is it really important for brands to target men and women separately to achieve coverage or can marketing to both sexes be less gender specific?

KFC is not an obvious candidate for gender bending, so will assume that this is a straightforward male vs female perspective on the same proposition. Makes sense given the wealth of evidence suggesting that men and women are, in fact, different and might have a different perspective on food. Contrast this with the approach of Lynx who, launching their female range, have chosen to stress the shared territory of youthful sexual attraction for their “Unleash the Chaos” TV ad.

This all introduces a really interesting and conceptually simple way of targeting. For example, many grocery brands are now bought by men rather than just “housewives”, but I wonder whether advertising has really kept up with this in anything other than token ways. Yes advertising might focus on a gender-less product truth or human insight that the brand addresses, but developing comms which address only a predominantly female or male or mono-gender audience must be a compromise.

However, given that KFC is embarking on two separate advertising campaigns, what happens if I as a bloke watching "women's TV" I see the women's version first and vice versa? Might this give me the impression that I believe the product is aimed at women, which influences my behaviour towards the product moving forward.

This in turn could affect potential reach. One of my colleagues did some exploratory work on this for a beer brand in the US where they would shift advertising around states. Normally they would assume reach is a combination of spend versus ability to find a target population. Given the chances of a woman and a man seeing a single advertisement are about the same, a brand would have to spend twice as much (or something similar) to achieve the same level of reach as a traditional, more generic ad, although the impact you would expect would be greater as the ad is targeted. The big question is whether the impact advantage outweighs the extra cost of advertising to reach your total target.

Which brands would be ripe for this double-gender approach? First of all let’s re-imagine classically but perhaps mistakenly gendered categories and see what we can do with those – “male” categories like cars, technology, finance and “female” categories like food, laundry and household cleaning. Would a more overt and genuine addressing of the female perspective on cars break the stranglehold of the “metal porn” and twisty mountain road formula? And would an authentically male perspective on household cleaning do better than resort to tired stereotypes of modern “life juggling” but still caring housewifery? Or is this an old fashioned stereotype of what advertising is like?

So things have changed somewhat since the 70s, but actually a lot of the modern gender-neutral advertising seems to ignore the gender angle on brands and products. Lots of products that are used in different ways by men and women (mobile phones for example) often feature non-gendered people of generally trendy man-woman appearance/persuasion communicating and connecting...but in identical ways.

Perhaps we should call for a refreshingly adult approach to gender, as KFC seems to be adopting. Whether because of nature or nurture, men and women ARE different, whilst they increasingly use and buy the same products and brands, they use those products differently, they respond to those brands differently, they respond to emotional and rational messages differently, they like and engage with different styles of media, advertising, content. And so maybe the age of the “his and hers” ad is upon us.

Is there really such a thing as customer loyalty?

Dunkin’ Donuts, that staple of the American mall, has just been named by Brands Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Index as number one in customer loyalty for the highly competitive US coffee sector for the sixth year in a row. It doesn’t take a marketing guru to see that they’re obviously doing something right, but is customer loyalty a genuine phenomenon and, if so, what can brands do to influence it?
On one level, of course, loyalty schemes have as much to do with loyalty as reality television is about reality. Loyalty cards are simply promotional devices that work in both directions; as a customer I get money off my next bill and the retailer in turn collects a lot of data about me they wouldn’t otherwise have got. But is this really inspiring my loyalty?
There will always be individuals or groups of consumers who align themselves with brands with which they think they have something in common or which they feel say something about them and their status. This is particularly the case with high end fashion or jewellery brands or consumer electronics, of which Apple is the prime example.
But this aside, when it comes to brands are we really talking about loyalty or are we talking about convenience and opportunism on the part of the consumer. Loyalty as a concept speaks of our unwavering need to stick by something even in the face fierce opposition – the way football supporters, for instance, stand by their team through thick and thin.
Convenience, though, is something different. I may have a Tesco loyalty card because I shop there three times a week. I may not be doing that out of loyalty, but out of convenience. If I move house and Sainsbury’s becomes my nearest supermarket, the likelihood is that because of convenience my “loyalty” would transfer to them. It is too easy to confuse loyalty with frequency. Loyalty is much more about emotion and an instinctive reaction to a brand and this has to be considered differently.
Good customer service is certainly an important factor in brand loyalty but there has to be a good product too. Brands also have to stand for something; if you know what the brand is about and why it is right for you, you will almost always pick that brand over a competitor at price parity and most likely even at a premium price position. Sometimes, though, what we believe is loyalty may just be inertia. We may be inherently dissatisfied with our bank, utility company or broadband provider, but we simply can't be bothered to switch because it seems like such a hassle.
The flip side to this loyalty question is the lack of rewards for being loyal versus the bonuses you might get for switching brands. This is more likely to occur in the services sector but there don't seem to be many advantages in staying with say a bank or a savings provider. Often introductory offers are better than the ones available to current customers. The 'savvy' consumers are thought to be those who are the most promiscuous in terms of brand behaviour.

Whether it is loyalty or not, what is clear is that people warm to brands that show a degree of humanisation. Consumers like it when they can see a brand that displays the characteristics of its community, no matter how large a corporate it is, and avoids adopting a rather soulless "one size fits all" approach. McDonalds and Dunkin’ Donuts are particularly good at this. Although the consistency of the brand experience is paramount it is the little things that make the difference that makes customers want come back and repeat purchase.

The Brand Battle of the Sexes

So Lynx launches a female product – does this mean that feminism has finally run its course. Well maybe not, but it has certainly generated a lot of interest in the marketing community. One could argue that in our “lady to ladette” culture, it is surprising that it has taken so long for a brand which is all about youthful sexual attraction to extend its reach to women. But the more interesting questions are: whether this necessarily represents a game changer for the sector? Does it swing both ways – can female brands crossover to men, especially as the male grooming category has grown by adopting traditionally feminine products and behaviours? And are there any implications for other gendered categories and brands?

The rise of the unisex fragrance sector in recent years has shown, particularly in the bathroom, that the boundaries between the genders are beginning to blur. The impact of programmes like The Only Way Is Essex on crossing over grooming and tanning products from the women's to the men's markets had underpinned the success of the sector. However, this has largely been on the back of discernibly male brands developing new products, rather than established female-friendly brands breaking into the men's market.

Developing cross gender brands, though, is nothing new. It is something that Levi's has successfully done in the jeans market and Gillette has achieved with razors, though both are examples, like Lynx, of a male brand being adapted to target a female audience. There are fewer examples of it working as successfully the other way around. Unilever’s other global personal care brand phenomenon, Dove, has arguably made the move from female to male, especially given its assertively female positioning, with the male equivalent Men+Care successfully launched a couple of years ago. However before the Campaign for Real Beauty came along, Dove was a more gender neutral soap and its challenging of gender stereotyping has also made it something of a post-gendered brand.

It is interesting that this is a lack of female to male brand extension, whilst products freely travel, suggesting that there is something insecure in men’s psyche which makes “appearing female” far less acceptable than women adopting some male traits. This despite years of the apparent “feminising” of traditional masculinity (male grooming, male parenting, male emoting...). So it seems that it would take a brave brand to make that particular play. So where do we see more gender ambiguity in branding?

Chanel, widely perceived as a predominantly female brand, has had success winning men over to its range of watches, but less so to its core fragrance products. Success seems to come most readily at the luxury end of the market, where there is less of an obvious demarcation between male and female product use than elsewhere. Brands like Hugo Boss, Louis Vuitton, Chanel and Cartier seem to say more about the user's status and success than they do about their gender and this seems to override any gender sensitivities.

Some companies have succeeded in developing genuinely unisex brands, most obviously in the fragrance market, whilst others, like the watchmaker Swatch, have developed as distinctly gender-neutral brands. Perhaps the future lies in this continued development of androgynous brands, like Calvin Klein, which will challenge established brand demarcations head on, both in product design and brand positioning, and may well win.

So what might this tell us about other gendered categories : cars, media, clothing, technology...Lynx’s move must question the assumption that brands targeted largely at men OR women are basing their gender bias on functional needs, historical precedence, even the idea of psychological pre-disposition (which seems to have become fashionable again as the nature nurture debate lurches back towards “nature” in matters of gender). So will we see hitherto staunchly “male” brands such as Yorkie following Lynx and targeting a female audience and, hopefully, classically “female” brands like Comfort successfully targeting men. Then surely the post gendered brand world will have arrived.

Celebrity Brand Match

Using celebrities to advertise products is nothing new. Even before Hollywood legends Rita Hayworth and John Wayne took up the challenge of promoting Tru-Color Lipstick and Camel cigarettes respectively in the 1940s and 1950s, brands had recognised the allure of being associated with the idols of the day.

So this week’s news that chocolate bar Snickers is replacing A-Team hero Mr T with former Dynasty sirens Joan Collins and Stephanie Beacham shouldn’t be that much of a news story. Except it raised eyebrows in our office and nobody I have spoken to since can see an overt Joan Collins – Snickers connection. But we also remembered that some initially arresting associations turn out rather well (John Lydon with Country Life); and some which look solid gold (Tiger Woods and Gillette) can become somewhat tarnished.

Is the use of Joan Collins an example not of direct “endorsement” or association, but of the way that some brands are abandoning the traditional view of needing a celebrity that has an obvious brand fit in favour of one that offers talkability? Or is the brand merely continuing to tap in to the prevailing mood of 80s nostalgia providing a warm feeling from the past as we contemplate a somewhat chilly immediate future ! Time will tell when we see the campaign.

Whilst ad agencies might be nervous of the role of research in such “irrational” celebrity associations, we think that good research should be key. It can be fundamental to understanding how to maximise the value of this style of campaign and can explore irrational appeal of an apparently unconnected character, as in this case, as well as the more straightforward fit of an obvious celebrity link (Parky with over 50s life assurance for example). Ensuring that you bring on board the right ‘face’ (one which can resonate with your target audiences whether rationally or irrationally) as well as getting the tone and humour content of the campaign is essential and research will help here.

We can only presume that research has been undertaken that shows Joan Collins works – in the context of this campaign - for Snickers’ target audiences. Although an older celebrity like Joan Collins significantly reduces the risk of tying your campaign up with a one hit wonder, none of that is beneficial if it doesn’t achieve the desired cut-through and again good research which “gets” the creative idea can help here.

The choice to link Snickers with Mr T was clearly well researched. Not only was he retro and identifiable to those of us of a certain age, he was also cool to a younger generation through a resurgent interest in The A-Team on the back of the Hollywood remake of the television series. It remains to be seen how well Joan Collins will straddle these various demographics.

Can brands feel consumers’ pain?

A report by the housing charity, Shelter, this week has confirmed that almost one million Britons have taken out an emergency ‘payday’ loan to help pay their rent or mortgage in the last year. In addition, the charity also reported that seven million Britons – that’s 10 per cent of the population - are relying on some form of credit to help pay their housing costs.

With so much of the population under such fundamental financial pressure this situation necessarily has implications for brands.

Consumers will likely be more vigilant and more eagle-eyed than ever and are likely to be not only rationally searching for the best bargains but will be willing to put more effort into securing them. They will also be looking for emotional pay offs: higher level benefits such as “doing the right thing”, “being responsible” etc as well as more basic “animal” drivers such as “competing for scarce resources”, “protecting your family” etc. It will be interesting to see how people’s well developed need to be part of herd and community plays out against this background.

Whilst brands might be tempted to introduce “value” variants of their best loved products we would caution against straying too far from accepted brand values and setting the brand up for a later fall. Brands could more fruitfully consider greater innovation in promotional strategy (we have seen iterations of this with retailer schemes such as Asda’s “Price Guarantee” and Sainsbury’s “Brand Match”). They could do this by applying product innovation research techniques to create, develop and test truly innovative new value/promotional ideas rather than relying on the classic well-trodden path. Larger, global brands may even look to see what has worked for them in less well off, emerging markets to see whether messaging or products for ‘poorer’ consumers might be transferable.

In this sense, there is also a communications role here for brands. They, a little like MPs during this period of austerity, could do worse than to try and look like they are feeling the pain too. It’s tricky to pull off authentically but can cement the relationship with your customer base if you can do so.

As much as there may be temptation for brands to set themselves up to operate within a recession, they often forget to plan for leaving a recession. Launching value brands might bring some dividend now but longer term could damage their positioning if it they operate in a more premium segment. Own Label will by default boom right now, and may be the trick for brands and retailers alike is to promote ‘the game’ of saving money with rewards who can shop savvy whilst still retaining the brands to which they are emotionally and behaviourally are too strongly connected. Who can be the first supermarket to genuinely reward consumers by spending less or buying more efficiently? It is something energy companies have tried in the past – rewards for being more energy efficient. Let’s try rewards for being more shopping efficient.

Brands will need to work harder to put themselves in a position that they do not become the ‘dropped brand’ so that when the inevitable exit from recession arrives they are, from a value perception, in the right place for their brand. In a current economic climate dominated by us having to ‘make do’ with a raft of bland value brands, there will always be a place for more premium products that we aspire to, those brands have to work harder though to keep those emotional ties both through maintaining their position but without appearing to be out of touch with the financial reality people face.

Getting out the crystal ball – what does 2012 hold in store?

With the outlook for 2012 not exactly optimistic, I’ve dusted off my crystal ball to try and see what the next year hold for brands, marketers and consumers.

The continued economic trouble will see will see consumers continuing to become more careful - which for people with little will mean an everyday focus on best value and for the better off will be more thrift and localism. Everyone will be looking for comfort or escape as well as some sense of hope. I think people will become quite cynical and will wish for a greater sense of community and support but will look after number one - this will translate into even further decreasing brand loyalty and continued "forced experimentation" to get the most from your cash.

Supermarkets will maintain their push to appear on the side of the consumer, with the public either sticking with supermarket closest to them because they will be less able to afford to drive to a cheaper one or favouring the more budget supermarkets if they are within close proximity. We anticipate a return to make it yourself food and there may be a push to support local shops in the light of the recent Portas Report, provided the price differential isn’t too great.

As times get tougher mental health may become more significant for the mainstream and brands might reflect this - expect wellbeing to emerge with a harder more urgent edge - functional foods for the mind (fighting depression and dementia as much as cholesterol and cancer).

We also see brands that continue to innovate and add interest in small areas (new flavours. new tastes, new ways of cooking) appealing to consumers as a way of spicing up their everyday lives in small (cheap) ways and as alternatives to more costly eating out. Brands in some categories may have to rethink how and why consumers buy their products and adjust to ensure they ride the tough times.

Culturally we will continue to be increasingly mobile, less patient and more stressed. The mobility will increase. The fact that I can put money on my pay as you go mobile phone and pay for shopping with it also means brands should be able track exactly what consumers are doing and therefore more accurately market their products.

Brands will need to stay close to their consumers and to see where consumers are lapsing in their purchasing. It may be a time for brands to revisit fundamental questions about their relationship with their consumers in an effort to consolidate existing customers but more importantly build a new base as well. Research into why buyers buy, why people stay loyal or move away from certain brands during periods of austerity and why some people have never bought particular brand will provide a level consumer understanding that could inform post-recession planning now.

In the marketing and research sectors we anticipate pressure to drive more value from every project; engaging consumers to get better data and therefore understanding, which ultimately enables us to inspire marketing teams with our 'voice of the consumer' to make better, more successful products. In a recession price becomes a dominating factor, leading to further heavy promotions. Brands, though, can be better served understanding the more subtle drivers of purchase to be more profitable, as well as the obvious BOGGINGOFF that we know and love. We are likely to see brands going into more in depth in their understanding of consumer drivers of purchase.

Apparently there’s also going to be a big sporting event in 2012. We will see lots of Britishness coinciding with the Olympics and I think brands will interpret this in lots of different ways from the reactionary (Rule Britannia nostalgic values) through the inclusive (modern multi-cultural Britain) to the purely aesthetic (Union Jack everywhere) also linked with our floating off into the Atlantic away from the EU. But the Brit's love affair with exotic products, tastes and new brand experiences will continue so innovation will remain key - it is a constant in the nation's ever evolving DNA. The biggest game, though, may be to spot the brand with no link to the Olympic Games and to see whether anyone really suffers because of non-association.