Merchandising for Different Demographics

Is THIS the best ad campaign ever? In 2015, Sport England challenged ad agency FCB Global to close the 2 million strong gender gap by getting women more active. The agency used the insight that women often feel 'fear of judgement' in exercise, to create the campaign 'This Girl Can'. The campaign is a rallying cry to women to get active in THEIR own way by replacing fear with a 'don't give a damn' attitude. This is shown with bold copywriting, relatable casting, REAL moments (the make-up smudged under the eyes, normal jiggling bodies, menopausal sweat, period cramps, tampon string hanging out your pants) and a true sense of female camaraderie. Since it's launch: - 3 million women were inspired to exercise as a direct result of seeing the campaign - 1000+ social media mentions each day - 37m views across social media - 500,000 active members in the This Girl Can community - Cannes Lions award The campaign is evidence that advertising can make great impact and drive change in many little corners of the world. THIS is the result of a clear brief, unifying insight and - in this case - a dedicated female creative team who truly 'understand' their audience. But more than that, it's the result of a LONG-TERM campaign that has been running for almost decade, and continues to re-engage the audience in various different ways, globally. I think there is such a short-term mindset in advertising nowadays. Mainly due to the fast-paced nature of social media, the need to 'go viral' and the economic need for performance marketing tactics to generate cashflow. But without the longer-term brand campaigns, we are missing the ability to build strong narratives and make REAL change in the world. And with that, stronger brand salience, brand love and LEGACY. This is an element of advertising that I fell in love with years ago. And an element that I see really defining which brands stand the test of time, an which fall apart years down the line.

HOW CRAPPY IS DIGITAL AD TARGETING, REALLY? Like, one of the big promises of digital media is targeting. HYPERtargeting, even. But how accurate is the data these big ad platforms have on us? Adlook decided to find out. They bought a bunch of banner ads from several popular data providers. They targeted specific segments with broad socio-demographic variables like gender or education. And then instead of running ads, they showed in-ad-unit survey questions asking about those exact socio-demographic questions. (“Do you have kids?” “Do you rent or own your home?” etc.) They got about 2,500 responses. And the results were cray cray. F’rinstance, 40% of the folks who were tagged as homeowners were actually renters. Roughly half of everyone was tagged the wrong gender. And a whopping 76% of folks tagged as being married were not. (They didn’t ask if “it’s complicated”….) That’s pretty craptastic. Several of these basic questions are WORSE than a coin toss.Granted, demographics might not matter if you’re selling coffee. But it might matter a ton if you’re selling mortgages or diapers. I mean, how’s P&G gonna get their Venus & Gillette ads to the right audiences if half of the gender tags are wrong? Caveats galore, of course. But this isn’t the first study to show how bad digital targeting seems to be. And hopefully won’t be the last. But the big data providers have very little incentive to fix things right now. Some lessons: 🍊 When it comes to digital ad targeting, don’t trust; verify! (E.g., run experiments to check your provider’s work.) 🍊 Consider paying more for high-quality & first-party inventory. ~~~ Sign up for The Irregular News & never miss a post, at AppliedBrandScience com/signup

Your Target Audience Profile is Garbage  And here is why Most brands are still defining their customers using "Social-Demographics." They think that if they know the age, gender, and location, they’ve struck gold. They are wrong. Dead wrong. Look at these two individuals:  – Male  – Born in 1969  – Lives in USA  – English is a native language  – Started career in early 1990s  – Author, wrote an autobiography  – Living in a luxury estate  – Wealthy and financially successful On paper, they are the exact same person.  But in reality, one is Marilyn Manson and the other is Matthew McConaughey. If you try to sell the same product to both using the same "Demographic" hook, you will fail.  One is the "Prince of Darkness" living in a gothic cocoon;  The other is the "Golden Boy" of Texas sunshine and "Greenlights." Why this kills your margins: 🔹 Logic vs. Emotion: Demographics tell you who they are;  Psychographics tell you why they buy. Manson buys to provoke; McConaughey buys to enhance his "living." 🔹 Wasted Ad Spend: Targeting "Males, 55, High Income" will put your yoga mat in front of a rock star who hasn't seen the sun in weeks, or your industrial leather boots in front of a guy who only wears flip-flops. 🔹 The "Vibe" Gap: Their values, fears, and daily rituals are 180 degrees apart.  Your brand voice cannot resonate with both simultaneously without becoming "beige" and forgettable. The Fix: Move from "Who" to "How" – Identity, not Age: Are they rebels or traditionalists? – Values, not Income: Do they value shock value or wellness? – Environment, not Location: Is their "luxury estate" a dark studio or an open-air ranch? Stop marketing to spreadsheets. Start marketing to humans. If your audience profile allows both a shock-rocker and a rom-com legend to fit in the same box, your box is broken.

Sometimes people don’t always need more information. Sometimes they need a different way to experience it.   Readers of South African newspapers were left puzzled this week when they spotted what looked like a red stain splashed across the front pages. What initially appeared to be a printing error was, in fact, a deliberate creative intervention designed to spark a conversation around period poverty.   The campaign draws attention to a harsh reality in South Africa, where millions of girls and women still lack access to basic menstrual hygiene products. According to the MENstruation Foundation, many schoolgirls are forced to rely on newspapers, rags or toilet paper during their periods because they cannot afford sanitary pads.   What I love about it isn’t the shock value. It’s that it turns understanding into an experience.   So often communication tries to explain. But some of the strongest work creates a moment where people immediately feel what something might be like. That shift is HUGE.   People rarely change behaviour because they receive more information. They change when something becomes relevant, emotional, understandable, or impossible to ignore.   If we think about brand and communication as a form of translation of a big idea, this campaign does that so beautifully. Helping people not just know something, but to truly help them understand it.   Who: MENstruation Foundation Joe Public

Sometimes, the smartest way to fight unfair laws is with a loophole. To challenge Germany’s tax system that treated tampons as luxury items, The Female Company launched a powerful protest disguised as a publishing project - with bold results. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦: In Germany, tampons and other menstrual products were taxed at 19% - the same rate as luxury goods like caviar and paintings. Meanwhile, items like books and paintings were taxed at a reduced 7%. This unjust classification placed an extra financial burden on women and perpetuated gender inequality in the tax system. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Instead of launching a traditional protest or petition, The Female Company sold tampons inside a book. Literally. “The Tampon Book” was a beautifully designed, cleverly packaged book that told stories about menstruation, taboos, and gender politics - while hiding 15 tampons between its pages. Because books were taxed at 7%, the product bypassed the “luxury” tax applied to tampons. The campaign went viral, selling out its first 10,000 copies within days. It sparked outrage, conversation, and support from politicians, influencers, and media outlets. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲: Creativity can expose injustice where petitions can’t. By using legal loopholes as storytelling tools, “The Tampon Book” not only avoided an unfair tax - it forced a national conversation. The campaign received global acclaim and ultimately helped push legislation forward: Germany reduced the tampon tax from 19% to 7% in 2020. It’s a reminder that when it comes to activism, design, wit, and persistence can be powerful tools for change.

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 "𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴," 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴. 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘦𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. I have made a new article in Greenbook's Behavioral Insights Academy, link below. Here's the number no one wants to see in a targeting brief: 𝘿𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙨 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙮 𝟰–𝟲% 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙫𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚. Not 40%. Not 15%. Four to six percent. Rachel Kennedy and colleagues analyzed 110,000+ brand user profile comparisons across 40 industries. Ford buyers and Chevrolet buyers looked statistically identical. Nike and Adidas buyers? Same. (https://lnkd.in/eU894pAx) Catalina Marketing's analysis of $415 million in TV ad spend found 53% of brand sales came from entirely outside the conventional demographic target. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘞𝘐𝘓𝘋 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺, 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘦𝘵𝘤 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯! However, the brain doesn't check your age when it processes an ad. It asks three questions, almost entirely below conscious awareness: • 𝗗𝗼 𝗜 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱? Knowledge determines whether your ad is processed smoothly or with skepticism. • 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝗜 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁? Strong brand attitudes activate instantly, filtering attention before deliberation begins. • 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲, 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄? Self-referential encoding produces better memory than any other strategy — confirmed across 129 studies. Two consumers with identical demographic profiles but different answers to those three questions will process the same ad as if they were different species. 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗳𝗮𝗿. 𝗨𝗽 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄. Those are not the same thing. And we have been optimizing for the wrong one for decades! One thing I have learned over the past years is that there is plenty of room to challenge even the most firmly held assumptions in marketing. Read the article here: https://lnkd.in/ese5YCW5 #neuromarketing #consumerneuroscience #marketingscience #behavioralinsights #advertising

Who is noticing how F1 is quietly evolving into one of the most exciting playgrounds for brands—beauty included? 🏎️ 💄 OLAY just dropped the “Super 5-in-1 Pit Stop" in Toronto, an F1-inspired pop-up designed to showcase their 5-in-1 Super Collection, complete with “Super Fuel” pumps, hands-on trial zones, and even a custom Olay race car. Here’s why this move is so smart from a marketing standpoint: 1. It expands the audience—not just the reach. Beauty brands traditionally target women aged 25–45. Meanwhile, F1’s fanbase is exploding among Gen Z women thanks to social storytelling and Drive to Survive. By entering this arena, Olay isn’t just showing up—it’s repositioning skincare as performance-driven and tapping into an emerging demographic convergence. 2. It builds emotional relevance through cultural association. Racing’s core cues—speed, endurance, precision—fit perfectly with Olay’s “supercharged skincare” narrative. It’s a symbolic link where beauty and performance collide. 3. Experience drives retention. People may forget a billboard, but they won’t forget “fueling” their skin like a race car. This kind of activation creates sensory memory, deepens brand recall, and fuels social virality (UGC gold). 4. Beauty brands have a massive, time-sensitive opportunity with women’s sports. Women’s sports—from F1 fandom to the WNBA, NWSL, and beyond—are experiencing unprecedented cultural momentum, visibility, and emotional investment. Beauty brands are uniquely positioned to align with this rise because they naturally intersect with identity, empowerment, and self-expression. But the window is now: brands that move early get to shape the narrative and earn long-term relevance, while those that wait will be playing catch-up in a rapidly maturing space. This campaign shows what modern marketing is really about: Not just selling more products, but merging cultural worlds that were never meant to overlap—until now. That’s how cultural relevance becomes commercial impact.

Precise marketing is fragile marketing. If you design a campaign that only works if it reaches the exact right person, at the exact right time, with the exact right message --- then you've built something that breaks the moment any one of those things goes sideways. And at least one of them always goes sideways. So let’s say you publish "The Big Pharma CMO's Guide to Marketing." You're assuming it lands in front of actual pharma CMOs. But it won't. Targeting is a hot sloppy mess --- third-party data can't guess your gender right half the time, and identifies B2B decision-makers correctly about one time in seven. And the good stuff gets forwarded and screenshotted anyway. So at the end of the day, you have minimal control over who sees your work. So the wrong people see it. A non-pharma non-CMO reads the "Pharma CMO's Guide…" and tunes right out --- the message was built for one condition, and this isn't it. Stop designing for the best case scenario. Design something that still works when it reaches the "wrong" person at the "wrong" time. That's brand marketing --- broadly targeted, for buyers who might buy now or in three years, anchored in the customer’s problem and not specs or price. Fragile marketing breaks, broad marketing bends.

The story of how Gillette used advertising to convince women to start shaving their body hair is more profound than you think. In 1915, Gillette had a problem. Their men's razor business was plateauing. They wanted to expand their market, but everyone who needed a razor already had one. Then someone had an idea: "What if we created a new target market?" At that time, women's fashion was changing dramatically. Sleeveless dresses were becoming popular, hemlines were rising, and women were showing more skin than ever before. But there was one minor issue. Most women weren't shaving their body hair. They'd never needed to. Gillette spotted an opportunity. In May 1915, Harper's Bazaar featured the first ad for a women's razor, claiming it was "necessary for the removal of objectionable hair." Note the word "objectionable." Before this, female body hair wasn't considered objectionable at all. It was just... normal. So Gillette created a problem they could solve. Not beauty or comfort. But freedom from embarrassment. The strategy worked brilliantly. Within a single generation, what had been completely normal became socially unacceptable. Today (despite TikTok trends advocating for the opposite), it is estimated that 88% of women remove their leg hair with a razor making Gillete's strategy perhaps the most successful example of manufactured demand in advertising history. Not by selling a product. But by creating an entirely new cultural standard. Some people think that this is the primary lesson here. They think the real genius wasn't in the razor design but in convincing half the population they needed something they'd never needed before. So they'd end this post with something like: "Advertising doesn't always solve problems. Sometimes, it creates them." But that's not the main lesson here. Because women didn't start shaving simply because an ad told them to. They started shaving because the ads strategically leveraged the deep social anxieties (especially among women). "Don't be the odd one out." So what made this campaign so powerful wasn't just that it created a problem... It was how it tapped into women's desire to be attractive and socially accepted and remained consistent. Gillette simply connected this timeless human need to their product. Most companies and agencies get distracted trying to predict the next shift or cultural trend. But truly successful ad campaigns aren't built on focusing on or predicting change. They're built on recognizing and focusing on what never changes. #advertisinghistorytoday #advertising #marketing #copywriting

Most marketers are wasting money targeting demographics. Here's why: I was working with a meditation app recently who kept targeting 'women 35-50'. But after analysing their best customers, we found their highest-value users had nothing in common demographically. Some were 25-year-old entrepreneurs. Others were retired teachers in their 70s. What united them? They were all trying to achieve the same thing - find calm in their busy lives. This is why demographic targeting alone fails. Two 70-year-old British millionaires living in castles might seem identical on paper... but would you market to Ozzy Osbourne the same way as King Charles? 😅 Instead of demographics, focus on Jobs to be Done: → Talk to your best customers (aim for 10+) → Ask what they were trying to achieve when they found you → Note their exact language → Group responses into common "jobs" → Create ads speaking to each job → Test them against each other → Scale what works Since implementing this framework with our partners, we've seen: → 55% creative test success rate (vs 5% industry average) → 70%+ reduction in acquisition costs → Messages that actually resonate Stop guessing what matters to your customers. Let them tell you. - I'm Hannah Parvaz. I've been running ads and scaling businesses for 12+ years. I share insights that people pay thousands for, here, every day, for free. Follow along and say hey :)