Mustard director – Richard Walker – asks the big question. Did you ACTUALLY research that?
No, really, did you? #Facepalm
As the years tick by, this is a question I ask myself more and more. Did you ACTUALLY research that? *shakes head in disbelief*.
In some cases, the question feels (almost) rhetorical, with four possible answers.
- No, the client (or agency) obviously did NOT do their research, otherwise that pretty spectacular f-up would have been avoided;
- Yes, the client (or agency) may have done their research – but the findings were clearly superficial, or taken at face value, or out of context;
- Yes, the client (or agency) may have done their research – but did it wrong – engaging with the wrong people, engaging at the wrong time, or engaging in the wrong way (or any combination of these fails); or
- Yes, the client (or agency) may have done their research, and they may have done it well – but chose to ignore it. Someone important didn’t believe it and went with “their gut”. The “we know our brand better than them” types that believe creative trumps research.
The outcome:
- New brand logos and designs that are launched to public ridicule, embarrassment from fans, and then (sometimes) hastily shelved. Case study – Leeds United football club. Honorable mentions for Royal Mail / Consignia and Twitter / X.
- NPD and product launches doomed to failure. Case study – Nestle Wowsomes. Honorable mention for BrewDog Pink IPA.
- Campaigns that miss the mark or are, well, just plainly offensive. Case study – Heinz. Honorable mention for Peloton and Pepsi (and hundreds of others – the Internet is already awash with these).
- Campaigns that don’t adequately account for global cultural nuances or capture the right KPIs. Case study – Tourism Australia.
Case study 1: Leeds United’s new badge – 2018.
Our verdict.
Leeds United probably did do some research. The club claim to have consulted with 10,000 people during a six-month period leading up to the new badge. As a Leeds fan, I will never (ever) forget the morning it was announced.
I was having the exact same thoughts as Jonny Bairstow (legendary Yorkshire and England cricketer – and fellow Leeds fan), and thousands of others that morning when my social media feeds “exploded”.
Jonny was right to question the sampling here.
I would also question the method – 10,000+ doesn’t sound like the sort of deep qualitative exploration I would have expected for a high profile logo redesign.
I also question the timing and at what stage in the process any consultation happened.
It seems to me the design was based on an “insight” taken at face value and not sufficiently interrogated. This is all about the fist-on-heart gesture which acts as a “nod and a wink” – a show of recognition and appreciation between fans around the world. It’s unique. The problem being it is just that – a secretive thing, more akin to a mason’s handshake rather than something that we want to tell “outsiders” about.
Somebody (probably not a Leeds fan) clearly jumped on this gesture early in the creative process and then just ran with it. The design execution cannot have been adequately tested later in the process.
“What a waste of money!”… “You’re not signing anymore!”… etc. etc.
This episode is what I will forever associate with the words “fan backlash”. It was a shambles. It was parodied, and rival fans had a field day. It was pretty quickly withdrawn.
The learning: such significant “rebrands” need to include phased research throughout (with testing the execution being just as important as the idea generation), ensuring there is sufficient in-depth qualitative research with priority segments / cohorts.
Was the “consultation” independent – or did the design team just hear what they wanted to hear?
Classic Leeds, they’re quite adept at messing things up – on and off the pitch.
As a quick footnote on this one, most Leeds fans I know have “put this one to bed” – and have been more than won back by the 2024/25 new yellow away kit incorporating a modern version of the classic ‘70s “smiley”.
There are also other case studies worth exploring outside of sport. Royal Mail briefly rebranded as Consignia back in 2001. It allegedly cost £2 million and was undone a year later. This was described by the Independent as “reversing one of the most disastrous corporate rebrandings ever undertaken”.
One that hasn’t been reversed – if you know of the guy in charge you’ll know why – is the rebrand of Twitter to X. It was controversial – and it certainly created a “buzz”. It has been reported widely that ad revenues have been in decline since and Marketing Week reported in August that its reputation ratings have never been lower.
Case study 2: Nestlé Milkybar Wowsomes – 2018-2020.
Our verdict.
This is great fuel for anyone that believes customers shouldn’t be involved in the NPD pipeline. Ask what customers want – and they’ll get it wrong.
Nestlé launched a product made using technology that allowed sugar content to be reduced by a third. It was withdrawn two years after launch following poor sales.
NB: I bought it for my kids. But just the once.
What we THINK might have gone wrong here… Some Mums (and Dads) in a focus group probably said they worry about their children eating too much sugar. (that is NOT an insight).
*Moderator: “What if there was a healthier version of chocolate, with less sugar?”.
*Focus group respondents: “Ooooh yes please, that sounds good!”.
Except it wasn’t. Cue the follow-up survey:
*Survey: “How likely would you be to buy this product at Price X?”.
*Survey participant: “Top box, all the way, straight in the weekly shop basket” (or something to that effect).
Except they didn’t.
There is a detailed summary on foodnavigator.com that questions whether the failure of Wowsomes was down to poor demand or poor marketing. Perhaps it’s both – but we assume poor research was also a significant factor.
Was it a problem with the proposition? Consumers may say the concept is appealing – but is it REALLY?
Were kids excited by it? Did the research team interrogate the usage (consumption) occasions? Did they seek to properly understand what unmet needs the new product was satisfying? Did the packaging and campaign activity encourage trial? Did it have shelf appeal for parents – and snack-cupboard appeal for kids? Did they shout enough about the benefits – or were they afraid that consumers would be deterred by going harder on the “30% less” messaging?
Or was it a problem with the product? Anecdotally, the product didn’t deliver the chocolate experience that consumers (regardless of their age) need. In other words – it didn’t taste as nice as “proper” chocolate. Was it too big a cut to the sugar too soon? Was the product itself thoroughly tested with consumers (parents AND kids)?
Again, it feels like stages of research were missed, ignored or misinterpreted.
Another from 2018 – perhaps something was “in the water” – was BrewDog’s “Pink IPA”. BrewDog has never been out of the headlines for long since it was born in 2007, and has been a huge success story despite a few reputational clangers recently.
BrewDog launched a mock “Pink IPA” (as opposed to its core range Punk IPA) ahead of International Women’s Day. It was likely on good intention – with the product launched with messaging that “enough is enough with stereotypes” and that it would be sold to women for a lower price than men. It was intended as a “sarcastic way to address the gender pay gap” and have a dig at “lazy” marketing campaigns. Proceeds would be donated to women’s charities.
It backfired quite spectacularly, with fierce criticism that it was trivialising and taking advantage of serious issues regarding gender equality and the gender pay gap.
Was this product launch / campaign researched at all? If so, with whom? Or – as we assume – was it just someone’s “gut feel”?
Research – done well – would have surely stopped this from happening. It has certainly not been the last controversy for BrewDog – The Drum has a handy timeline of stunts that have gone wrong, and other controversies – most recently the abandonment of the Living Wage, its losing of B-Corp status, and the open letter from James Watt following an outpour of criticism from former employees claiming a toxic work culture.
Case study 3: Heinz – 2024.
Our verdict.
A more recent and ongoing case study – Heinz has faced a backlash for TWO separate campaigns over accusations of perpetuating racist stereotypes.
One (for pasta sauce) was criticized for downplaying the role of Black fathers, prompting an apology. The second campaign, a Halloween-themed ad featuring a Black person with ketchup smeared around their mouth, was condemned for its “blackface connotations”.
What is clear from the reporting and ongoing debates is that these campaigns have been interpreted in different ways by different audiences. Was sufficient research conducted to capture and understand these difference responses and interpretations? Clearly not, since both caused widespread offence.
There’s hundreds more examples of campaigns missing the mark (at best) and being downright offensive (at worst). There was backlash following Peleton’s 2019 Christmas ad which was widely derided and criticized for being sexist. Also the (hastily pulled) Pepsi ad from 2017, featuring Kendall Jenner giving a Pepsi to a smiling police officer at a protest that appeared to mimic (and trivialise) Black Lives Matter.
The learning: thoroughly research and consider the perspectives of diverse consumer groups to avoid misinterpretation and offence.
Footnote to this case study… If your connections are similar to mine it is likely that your LinkedIn feed is often dominated by brand and marketing peers discussing the relative virtues and shortcomings of various campaigns across media. There’s the good (e.g. Tesco’s recent billboards using grocery product in place of the letters T-E-S-C-O) as well as bad. But it’s more fun to write about the bad…
Case study 4: Tourism Australia – 2006-2007.
Our verdict.
Another “legendary” campaign, this one has its own Wikipedia page!
The “So where the bloody hell are you?“ campaign was launched by Tourism Australia in 2006 as part of an international marketing effort to attract tourists. The central premise was to showcase Australia as an exciting, adventurous, and welcoming destination, emphasizing its laid-back lifestyle, natural beauty, and vibrant culture.
The provocative tagline—“So where the bloody hell are you?”—was designed to stand out and grab attention. It was no doubt meant to be fun, bold, and slightly irreverent, using Australian slang (“bloody hell”) to convey a sense of confidence and a “come and see for yourself” attitude. Why WOULDN’T you want to see it for yourself?
But it didn’t work. And why not? Because it wasn’t researched properly.
Whilst it generated considerable buzz and was initially successful in attracting attention, it also faced criticism. Some countries, particularly in more conservative regions, found the language too bold and inappropriate.
Billboards were banned in the UK, and it was also banned in Canada. In other markets – such as Singapore – the “bloody hell” was just removed, which compromised the whole essence of the campaign.
The results, quoted by sources on Wikipedia, show the campaign had a detrimental impact on visitation. Visitor numbers were DOWN in markets that were targeted by the campaign (such as Germany, UK and Japan – the number of Japanese tourists visiting Australia fell by 5.7% in comparison with the same period in 2005) and visitor numbers UP in markets that were not targeted by the campaign (such as the People’s Republic of China).
The learning: global campaigns have to resonate globally. This one clearly didn’t. It was memorable – and the fact that it was widely parodied is testament to some strengths. But as well as failing to account for global cultural nuances (with accusations of vulgarity), it failed to drive an “action” response amongst the target audience. Visitors chose to go elsewhere.
To sum up…
This blog has featured just a few examples that have led me to question “did you ACTUALLY research that?!”). You do not need to spend long online to find countless other case studies. Companies like Kodak, Nokia and Blockbuster failing to land the insight that would have led them to adapt. Ads “bombing” or causing offence. New product launches falling flat – such as “New Coke”.
The fact is – research is important. New things, be them new logos, new products, new ad campaigns, whatever – will always be subjective and are never designed to appeal to all of the people all of the time. But that’s the point!
Do the research properly to find out if it works – as intended – with the target audience.
Don’t “DIY” it and hear only what you want to hear.
Get fresh perspectives through the development process all the way from idea generation through to execution and delivery.
And don’t be the next brand in line for my tuts, facepalms, head shakes – and the LinkedIn pile-ons that inevitably follow.