The Pratfall Effect: When Mistakes Can Make (or Break) a Brand

Bite-size: Mistakes don’t always spell disaster. In fact, psychology tells us that small blunders can actually increase likability—a phenomenon known as the Pratfall Effect. When someone (or a brand) perceived as competent makes a harmless mistake, they become more relatable and endearing. However, when applied incorrectly, it can backfire, making a brand seem careless or inauthentic.

Full-size:
Let’s break down why the Pratfall Effect can be a powerful tool for marketers, where it works, and where it fails—using Coors Light’s Case of the Mondays campaign and KFC’s FCK apology as examples.

Why Brands Should Leverage the Pratfall Effect

1. It Humanizes the Brand
   Consumers connect with brands that feel real. KFC’s FCK campaign in 2018, responding to a supply chain disaster that left them without chicken, is a perfect example. Their self-deprecating apology—rearranging their logo to spell “FCK”—felt authentic and relatable. It made them seem accountable, self-aware, and ultimately more likable.

2. It Enhances Likeability Through Humor
   People enjoy brands that don’t take themselves too seriously. When a brand acknowledges a blunder with humor (instead of ignoring or over-explaining it), it creates a more approachable image. KFC’s playful response worked because the humor felt natural—it wasn’t a gimmick, it was a smart reaction to a real issue.

3. It Boosts Engagement and Talkability
   When executed well, a small, controlled mistake can spark conversation. The FCK campaign became a viral moment, with consumers and media outlets praising KFC’s response. The key? It was an actual problem they had to address, not a fabricated one.

When the Pratfall Effect Backfires

1. If the Mistake Feels Manufactured
   Coors Light’s Case of the Mondays campaign, launched during the 2025 Super Bowl, deliberately misspelled “refreshment” in outdoor ads to spark conversation. Unlike KFC’s FCK campaign, which addressed a real supply issue, Coors’ approach felt forced and gimmicky. Rather than making the brand more likable, it came off as a cheap attempt at engagement. If consumers sense a mistake is staged, they’re less likely to find it charming and more likely to feel manipulated.

2. If the Brand Isn’t Seen as “Competent” Enough
   The Pratfall Effect only works when a brand is already perceived as strong. KFC, despite its missteps, has a solid reputation and a loyal fan base. Coors Light, on the other hand, doesn’t hold the same prestige in the beer world—it's often seen as just another generic light beer. A deliberate typo didn’t humanize the brand; it just reinforced perceptions of carelessness rather than playfulness.

3. If It Comes Off as Disrespectful to Consumers
   There’s a fine line between being self-deprecating and looking down on your audience. KFC’s FCK campaign worked because it empathized with frustrated customers. Coors Light’s misspelled refreshment felt more like a joke on consumers rather than a joke with them. When brands try too hard to be clever, they risk alienating their audience instead of engaging them.

Selling Creative with Psych

Bit-size: Next time you're selling a creative idea internally, try using the framing effect to influence stakeholder decisions. How an idea is presented (e.g., situation, context) can change how people think about it.

Full-size:
Here’s one example: gain-framed messages are more effective for people who are more approach-oriented, and loss-framed messages are more effective for people who are more avoidance-oriented. To make a case for elevating the creativity in a campaign, a CMO might be motivated by, "to gain market share," while finance or procurement departments are comforted by, "to avoid wasted ad spend."

Selling emotional creative to exec teams that often see advertising as fluffy – at best – is no easy feat. This is where cognitive psychology (how people process information) can come in handy.

It's important to understand the motivations behind key groups to overcome the negative impact that they can have on producing exceptional creative work. So you have to understand who you are selling to to sell good creative. Some common challenges marketers face:

(1) The effect of risk-averse committees that are limited by common-ground thinking.
*Days have changed from one CMO (or one key marketing decision maker), to half a dozen (or more) people that have to come to an agreement on creative. Consensus can be good for smaller decisions but carries risks with more complex decisions, like those in advertising that require creativity (aversion to change, desire for harmony, groupthink). Make sure stakeholders have a structured decision-making process. 

(2) The procurement departments are limited to financial-only decisions
*Procurement departments, which have always been influential in large companies, have crept down to smaller departments. And they all too often are being filters to the creative.

Consider the motivations/priorities of key stakeholders or even the emotional influence that goes into their decisions. Try framing problems/ideas differently for your stakeholders. For example, gain-framed messages are more effective for people who are more approach-oriented, and loss-framed messages are more effective for people who are more avoidance-oriented. To make a case for elevated creativity in a campaign, a CMO might be excited by, "to gain market share," while finance or procurement departments are comforted by, "to avoid wasted ad spend."

This is #Bitesize #BehavioralScience for #Brands. A little series on psych shortcuts that marketers can use without more research or data.

Do we do a lot or a little thinking? ELM and a theory on persuasion.

Bite-size: When forming (or changing) an attitude, our judgments involve different cognitive processes: people either do a lot or very little thinking. The depth of your message should match.

Full-size:
The central route of processing, which requires conscious or elaborative thinking, usually leads to longer-lasting attitude change. The peripheral route, which is a less conscious, more superficial view (e.g., on the surface, not the actual content) tends to lead to fleeting, and temporary attitude change. This theory on attitude change is called the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM).

Unfortunately, markets too often use logic or facts to persuade people and try to create some thought-provoking or clever message. In some cases, very simple emotional appeal will do (e.g., "that looks nice" turns into, "I feel good it"). Marketers, consider the level/depth of the message you're trying to convey while also considering what wavelength your audience is on.

Side note: If you're familiar with "System 1" and "System 2" processing, as taught by Daniel Kahneman in 'Thinking Fast and Slow,' this relates to this concept by explaining how persuasive messages can be processed depending on the individual's motivation and ability to elaborate on the information.

Recency Bias: why we believe recent events will occur again soon.

Bite-size: People incorrectly believe that recent events will occur again soon. This is called recency bias.

Full-size:
How this works: A consumer is choosing between insurance providers. Insurer X offers standard coverage but prominently features flooding events in their ad. Insurer Y offers the same coverage at a lower price showing a mix of covered events. Guided by rational decision-making, the consumer would choose Y, the better price. But we don't make decisions like this rationally (more on that later). In this scenario, the consumer chooses X instead because, as recency bias suggests, since flooding has been a big part of US news lately, Insurer X is more appealing.

Unless it’s a BIG personal, ethical, or moral decision, your customers are making instinctive, lightning-quick decisions when evaluating, judging, remembering and ultimately purchase a brand or product. It is human nature to form biases—shortcuts to quicker thinking. Sometimes that's beneficial sometimes it's not. Marketers, consider what biases might be in play and use them to your advantage.

Why are we so irrational? Well, to act according to perfect rationality would require us not to be influenced by any cognitive biases, to be able to access all possible information about potential alternatives, and to have enough time to calculate the pros and cons of each. But since we are only human after all, it is nearly impossible to satisfy all these factors. This is referred to as bounded rationality, which explains why humans do not make decisions that are perfectly rational. So, instead of striving to make the “best” choices, we often settle on making merely satisfactory choices.