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.