Last month, Netflix released Pepsi, Where's My Jet?, a documentary series on the infamous Harrier Jet consumer-promo-gone-wrong scandal. It's a real David and Goliath story. Deep into the Cola Wars of the 90s, Pepsi launches a loyalty program, and jokingly advertises the opportunity to purchase a US$23m military aircraft for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. One enterprising young man discovers you can buy the required points for just US$700k, and a very public legal battle ensues. The marketing industry has been quick to criticise Pepsi, suggesting the negative PR back then, and now with the doco, could easily have been avoided by ponying up for the jet. Spin a negative into a positive. But does the scandal actually harm Pepsi? Or help them? Indeed, Byron Sharp suggests in How Brands Grow to never give people a reason not to buy you. But we might be stretching the definition of "a reason". People don't walk through the supermarket debating the morals of brands. In fact, we don’t really make rational decisions at all. For the most part, we’re in zombie mode, not overthinking, grabbing whatever is easiest. Our brain doesn’t like to think too hard. We like choices, and brands, which are no-brainers. In that way, brands are like safety nets. Rory Sutherland says "brands don’t exist to make you think a product is excellent, rather to reassure you it won’t be terrible". If it does what it says on the tin, and if I believe people like me won’t think I’ve made a bad decision, it’s a no-brainer. Of course, for brands to be a safe choice, they must still tick the right boxes. You don’t want to be famous for unsafe reasons. When Vodafone's poor network trended in Australia as #vodafail, it became a lot less choosable. But is the questionable moral behaviour of a company really enough to make a brand unchoosable? And does it affect purchasing behaviour? How does Volkswagen fare when they're outed in the 2015 emissions scandal? Four years of consecutive growth (disrupted only by COVID-19). Likewise, what happens after the Pepsi scandal plays out in the media over years? US market share grows +0.9pp between 1995 and 2000. Can't have been too harmful, hey? The best marketing science tells us humans choose brands which easily come to mind. Ehrenberg-Bass Institute calls it 'mental availability'. Stand out, be noticed, and be recalled when needed. Years of media coverage over a scandal which isn't really a scandal, may have only helped Pepsi. And when millions of people spend hours once again with the brand watching the doco, I suspect PepsiCo won’t be too upset. Of course, the lesson here is not "Do bad things". As a general rule, people and brands should live by the motto "Don’t be a dick". And there’s plenty of research suggesting consumers increasingly seek brands which align with their values (although I remain cautious of stated behaviour). But we must be careful in overstating the extent to which a brand acting like a dick adversely influences buying behaviour. Unless it breaches the 'safety' requirement with something truly heinous, some bad PR and a few negative tweets likely help a brand in the long term. Not harm it. BrewDog has largely built its business on this approach. The latest is a campaign calling out the World Cup. Cue massive criticism once it was revealed they’re still streaming games in their pubs. This is the BrewDog playbook. Do things which stand out, even if it means some backlash. Maybe, in hope of some backlash. And it works, they grew 31% last year. It's a good reminder of Les Binet and Sarah Carter’s research in How Not To Plan: "In over 30 years of evaluation research, we've not seen a single example of an ad campaign that’s been shown to have a negative effect on sales. Not one." So, what is the lesson? Salience really matters. Do things to grab attention and disrupt. Push your brand into culture. Create work which people talk about and share. Aim for fame. And yes, do good as well, but don’t forget the getting-noticed part. Heck, maybe even do both. But there's no point being right if no one notices. Zac Martin is a Planning Director at TBWA\Melbourne. This article was originally published in Mumbrella....

There's a tradie at my house. We're talking about a local bar, who have gone full QAnon. Like, anti-vax posters in the windows. "I guess we'll have to hit up the other pub from now on" I say. He looks at me and shrugs: "Nah, as long as the beers are cold." It was a good reminder we don’t spend nearly enough time talking to real people. Desktop research and bouncing ideas around your marketing/agency bubble really is a dangerous place to view the world (to butcher a quote from John Le Carré). Real people don't overthink brands. Only marketers and their agencies worry about "being authentic". Or changing the world. Or whatever the latest white paper is claiming based on stated behaviour supposedly representing an entire generation. People don’t need more purpose from their brands. Yes it can be a valid way to position your brand, or to build a campaign around, but it’s not the only way. When you talk to real people you find it’s not that they don’t spend time thinking brands should be doing more, it’s that they don’t spend time thinking about brands at all. In his book Decoded, Phil Barden shares a study where people were asked to purchase either their favourite brand or their non-favourite brand. Which one lights up the brain like a Christmas tree? Despite common rhetoric, those buying their favourite brand are the ones who don’t light up (the left). Choosing something familiar to you is easy and doesn’t require thought. That’s how we like it. When we have to process the decision, we have to change gears. Which is hard. Humans are hard-wired to be lazy. We don’t like to overthink. Or think at all. Tom Roach says we need to “make our brands no-brainers”. When we’re deciding where to grab a beer, most Aussies don’t have an internal debate about the pub’s position on vaccines. Or any other matter. Most people are ‘satisficers’ – good enough is good enough. We must remember this when we’re building brands and creating ideas. Our job as marketers and advertisers isn’t too difficult. Understand Clayton Christensen’s ‘jobs to be done’. Build distinctive brand assets. Connect your brand to a need. Invest in creativity to stand out, be famous and remembered. Then spend as much as you can building mental and physical availability. Before worrying about your brand’s social cause, or how you might be able to save the world, consider if you’ve done enough to cover the basics needs real people want from you. Be the car brand who comes to mind most easily when someone wants to keep their family safe (Volvo). Be the thing to bring when you’re told not to bring a thing (Favourites). Be the computer for creative people (Mac). Be the chocolate you eat when you’re not being yourself (Snickers). Don't overthink the importance of your brand. Or its role in the world. Because consumers don't. Instead, be the brand who comes to mind when someone wants a cold beer. Zac Martin is a Planning Director at TBWA\Melbourne. This article was originally published in B&T Magazine....