‍

M&M adverts have gone from weird to weirder, having their fair share of the limelight in recent years - specialising in eccentric marketing and bizarre soap opera-style narratives. Working in a similar way to the memification of Crocs, for a long while M&M’s thrived from and fed into this culture of eccentricity with the characterisation of their candy.

Sure, it’s funny and a bit weird. But there’s something more bubbling away beneath the surface. Let’s think about the relationship between brands and their customers resulting from these interactions. 

So, what’s the secret ingredient? And what’s the context of this specific interaction?

‍

Unpacking M&M's Marketing Strategy 

‍

Running for an impressive fifty years, the iconic characters have had a solid streak. Premiering in 1954 and doing the rounds ever since, going from one bizarre scenario to another. These ads have loosely evolved over time whilst maintaining a general theme of obscure crudeness throughout. However, their characterisation remained fairly ambiguous even in their weirder moments, keeping each ad unpredictable.

Mars Wrigley achieved this by giving the tasty little freaks a persona of their own, crafting an obscure but entertaining narrative around them. This technique, known as anthropomorphisation, is a popular one amongst marketers and is highly effective in leaving a lasting impression on the audience. 

Anthropomorphisation makes us more attached to non-human things by humanising them, making it easier for us to feel the attachment and trust we feel towards other people. This can be used to encourage consumers to invest in ‘characters’ rather than ‘things’, making them more likely to stay invested in their ‘stories’ as the marketing develops over time. 

In short, this can be described as the humanisation of a brand. Giving their product a persona makes it much easier for brands to build a narrative, keeping people interested in a way that they otherwise would not be. A few notable examples include Snap Crackle and Pop, the Michelin Man and Julio (bet you didn’t know he was called that, did you? Ignorant consumer). 

Mars Wrigley has made subtle changes to their characters over the years, in more recent years focussing on the footwear - revoking the green M&M's heels in favour of more practical shoes. A decision that Anton Vincent, president of Mars Wrigley North America, described as being one in a series of calls to make the female characters more “current” and “representative of our customers”. 

‍

‍

Participation in the Culture war

‍

The little chocolate people have long been the focus of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who has railed against the decreased sexualisation - as he puts it - of the female characters. “M&M’s will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous, until the moment you wouldn’t want to have a drink with any one of them. That’s the goal,” complained the then 53-year-old. Even as far-right punditry goes, this is another level of weird. 

Long story short, M&Ms caved to the pressure and have since decided to drop their mascots. Which as you can imagine, was a big day for Tucker. 

But of course, deeply strange as it may be, it does get people talking. Carlson’s faux-outrage is a performative rallying cry for all those frustrated souls out there who see the world changing around them and want to stop it in its tracks. 

I’m sure most of the people agreeing with him aren’t at home wringing their hands in despair about the increasingly emancipated sweets dominating the market, but it sure is an easy thing to latch their other frustrations about gender politics onto. 

M&Ms abandoning their mascots in the face of this pressure is a clear indicator to customers that any ‘modernity’ they sought to portray was not a value they held dear. Hence being dropped so readily in the face of backlash. This sort of thing is an indicator of why brands must commit to their strategy to avoid seeming inauthentic. 

‍

‍

So, what’s really going on?

‍

Context without theory isn’t all that useful. So, with that in mind let’s unpack this particular brand-consumer dynamic some more.

‍

Listening and Responding to Feedback 

‍

It’s no secret that brands monitor social media, reviews and direct customer feedback to gain a better understanding of customer sentiments - adjusting their messaging and products accordingly. Brands adopt this responsiveness to suggest to customers that their opinions matter​ and are listened to.

Those who actively seek customer feedback to improve their products and image demonstrate a commitment to evolving based on the customer’s needs and preferences. Much like human relationships, people like being listened to. 

This is perhaps the most basic level of understanding to have when approaching things like this: the attentiveness of the relationship brands and consumers have should never be overlooked. 

‍

Engagement

‍

By actively engaging with their customers in this way, brands can echo customer sentiments and participate in relevant conversations, reinforcing a sense of community and trust​. By nurturing communities around these ‘shared’ values, brands allow customers to feel connected to them as well as each other.

This ties into the idea of corporate social responsibility. In short, brands align their business practices with societal values like environmental sustainability and social justice, in theory demonstrating a commitment to the causes their customers are invested in.

However, this can be prone to backfiring. Such as with the M&M absurdity in the face of right-wing outrage, as it proves the brand’s alignment to be a facade. Appealing to the popular voice in order to maximise profits: riding the wave of progressiveness for as long as it is convenient. In reality, engagement must at least appear committed in order to seem authentic. 

‍

Influencer Partnerships

‍

Another way brands can try to show their audience that they share their values is by Collaborating with influencers who champion these values. Thus leveraging the influencer’s trust and credibility with their followers​.​

This also works in reverse, as when brands listen to external voices it shows customers their true colours. In the case of M&M’s, bending to Carlson’s bizarre rant speaks volumes. It also reminds us why people shouldn’t look to brands as beacons of social change, and rather accept them for the purveyors of goods that they are. Businesses will reframe their product in whatever way makes them the most money whenever their current stance becomes inconvenient. 

‍

Authenticity

‍

One of the many ways brands can build trust is by being transparent about their operations, values, and decision-making processes. This authenticity reassures customers of the brand's integrity​. Reflecting customer values in marketing allows companies to incorporate themes that are important to their customers. 

For example, a brand might emphasise sustainability if its target audience values environmental responsibility, but if they are revealed to rely on unsustainable materials then their customers will recognise their inauthenticity and they’ll obviously be unhappy. Common sense​.

Flip-flopping on these things undermines said trust by making it clear that they don’t stand by what they’re saying unless they’re benefiting from it. In this instance, caving to pressure and wheeling back on your messaging indicates you fear financial repercussions more than damaging your integrity. As is often the case, authenticity is at odds with profit more often than aligned with it.

If you’re interested in learning how to make customers trust you, check out our blog. 

Now, focus. Back to M&M’s. 

‍

‍

The absurdity of it all

‍

Evidently, changing your ways according to feedback isn’t always a good thing. Some voices might be louder, but do they speak for the majority of your customers? Always keep in mind that wherever you look there’ll always be a few crazies screaming about something. Does that mean you should rebrand just because they’re barking above everyone else? Probably not! 

rThat said, the idea that a confectionary company would be a pivotal factor in societal change is just as bizare as Carlson’s outrage. It’s easy to point the finger at the far-right and comment on the undeniable absurdity of this sort of thing, but the reality is that some people seem more concerned about whether the chocolate mascot is emancipated than they are about the individuals making the product. 

In the words of Audre Lorde, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” Food for thought. 

But anyway, let’s get back to business. 

‍

Many such cases 

‍

Brands doing the ol’ switcheroo and mixing things up isn’t new. There’s been plenty few examples of big brands doing the same, for better or for worse. And who can blame them? Adapt or die, as the saying goes. 

So without further ado, let’s wrap things up with a few of the juicier morsels…

‍

Lego 

‍

Having stagnated in 2004, the titan of toys decided they needed to invest in different streams or face the music. Specifically focussing on adapting to the digital age, they dived into films and video games. Not only maintaining relevance in the lives of children but also tapping into nostalgia for older generations.  

‍

Ryanair 

‍

Perhaps the first name that pops into people’s heads when discussing weird marketing, Irish airline Ryan Air have unleashed a slew of obscure video content on the world. Love it or hate it, this huge social media push has broadened their appeal to a younger generation by tapping into the weird stuff - and I don’t see them changing anytime soon. 

‍

Victoria’s Secret

‍

Though they may have attempted to claw back a semblance of diversity, Victoria's Secret used to exclusively model their garments on thin white people. Their (Gen Z) audience wasn’t a fan of this and gave them a lot of backlash. As a result, the brand tried to come back as being more inclusive, making some effort to rebrand with a hint of half-arsed diversity. 

‍

Swarovski

‍

Once considered purveyors of high profile luxury, Swarovski faced issues when customers began expecting cheaper prices due to a variety of factors. In response to this, they opted for a luxurious rebrand. Altering their logo to remove the blue, instead choosing a more opulent green, dropping the blue from their selection entirely.  

‍

If you run an e-commerce brand and are looking for a digital marketing partner to take your business to the next level, book a call with one of our team.

‍

Written by Conel Freeman Harrison - Content Marketing Executive