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.

Social vs. Behavioral Psychology: Which is a Better At Predicting of Consumer Behavior?

Bite-size: Social psychology and behavioral psychology both study human behavior, but they take different approaches to explain (or predict) behavioral patterns. The difference in analysis lies in what (or rather where) the main influence is coming from. Both fields recognize the interplay between internal states and external actions, but they differ mainly in their level of analysis.

Full-size:
Social psychology and behavioral psychology focus on different aspects and employ distinct approaches when studying human behavior. Social psychology examines how internal attitudes, beliefs, and emotions drive behavior. It focuses on the cognitive and affective processes that precede—and sometimes fail to align with—our actions. In contrast, behavioral psychology starts with observable behavior and explains it through external influences such as conditioning, reinforcement, and environmental cues, treating actions as primary and often viewing attitudes as secondary or emerging from those behaviors.

Focusing on consumer attitudes is crucial for advertisers because deeply held beliefs and values not only drive immediate purchasing decisions but also foster long-term brand loyalty. For instance, Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign taps into underlying attitudes of empowerment and resilience, encouraging consumers to adopt an identity centered around overcoming challenges rather than merely reacting to a discount or promotion. Similarly, Apple’s advertising emphasizes innovation and creativity, aligning with consumers’ desire to be seen as forward-thinking and unique. These campaigns do more than trigger a momentary response—they shape the way consumers view themselves and the brands they support.

In contrast to a behavior-first approach—which might rely on short-term incentives or promotions (for example, a 20% discount for Nike Club members) to condition immediate responses—the attitude-first strategy focuses on engaging deeper, intrinsic motivations. While a behavior-first approach may successfully prompt a purchase through temporary discounts, it rarely builds an emotional connection or long-term loyalty. By crafting messages that resonate with core attitudes and values, advertisers not only influence behavior but also create enduring relationships that persist beyond the initial transaction, leading to a more sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The Halo Effect: Marketing’s Not-So Magic Trick

Bite-size: Our brains prefer efficiency over effort—rather than analyzing every attribute independently, we rely on existing impressions to guide our judgments. One heuristic you can use is ‘The Halo Effect.’ One domain (context of the ad) will spill over into the other (your brand or product) unconsciously and without objective assessment.

Full-size:
You see a new commercial and while you don't recognize the brand, you like the dancing monkeys. You might not realize it but a positive association is being developed by brand you know nothing about. One domain (context of the ad) spills over into other domains (the new brand) unconsciously and without objective assessment. This is known as The Halo Effect— a mental shortcut where our brains use a single positive trait to fill in the blanks about other unrelated characteristics. 

Using celebrity endorsement is a popular choice—In 2024, more than 68% of Super Bowl commercials featured at least one celebrity (source). But using a celebrity can be risky and almost always is VERY very expensive. (IMO it’s a bit played out) Creating a brand personality is a more creative alternative that can be more effective and give you the marketer more control.

Coca-Cola has spent decades crafting an image associated with happiness, nostalgia, and togetherness through its marketing. But not all brands have the luxury of time or mountains of marketing dollars. A great recent example of the halo effect in action is Oatly, the Swedish oat milk brand that has rapidly gained popularity in the U.S. market by positioning itself as more than just a dairy alternative—it crafted a brand identity around being quirky, sustainable, and health-conscious. Its minimalist packaging, playful tone, and environmental messaging created a strong emotional appeal, making consumers associate the brand with being cool, progressive, and better for the planet.

The incumbent competitor in the space, Silk brand, stood no chance. Even with bigger budgets, celebrity endorsements, and an iconic ad rip-off of epic proportions (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners would like to have a word).  

A lesson in behavioral science, by President Trump: Part 2

Bite-size: Another hallmark of Trump’s communication style is repetition. He repeatedly asserts a claim or idea to build familiarity and reinforce belief. He does this to either, (A) create a sense of consensus and normalize his position, or (B) exploit the tendency for people to believe something is true because they’ve heard it multiple times.

Full-size:
By repeatedly asserting a claim or idea (e.g., “Make America Great Again,” for example), President Trump reinforces this idea through “Repetition for Social Proof”. Repeated use and exposure to his position creates a sense of acceptance and accord, a tactic often seen in marketing to convince consumers of a brand or product’s popularity or reliability.

This also exploits the tendency for people to believe something is true simply because they’ve heard it multiple times. This is called the “Illusory Truth Effect.” By repeatedly stating false or exaggerated claims (even if the claim is debunked), the constant repetition leaves an impression and can subtly, unnoticeably alter perceptions, creating doubt about opposing views.

Brands use this effectively (and ethically) by:

• Repeatedly reinforcing how many people are actively engaged (e.g., fitness apps and their users) to make people feel like they’re missing out on some global movement. Or…

• Brands lean on familiar associations (e.g., beauty brands using influencers) to repeat subtle phrases of “effectiveness” and create a perception of legitimacy.

Over time, customers hear and see these numbers or phrases often enough to perceive the brand as credible and superior, even without hard proof.

You’re underestimating context, here’s why.

Bite-size: We often overestimate the character or personality of a person when making a judgment or evaluation, and instead ignore the very powerful influence of the context or situation we’re in.

This is called the Fundamental Attribution Error and it is the main argument for the importance of social psychology.

Full-size:
You're at a coffee shop, and the barista gets your order wrong. You might think, "They're careless and not paying attention to their job". However, they might be dealing with a rush of orders, feeling stressed, or new to the job. You initially attributed the error to a personal trait but in reality, there are situational factors that are more likely to have caused the mistake.

This example reminds us how easily we can overlook external pressures in everyday interactions. But it’s also something that plagues client-agency teams.

Perhaps misattributing lower-than-expected sales from a campaign due to audience preference, when situational factors might be at play. Message misalignment or customer journey gaps are two obvious ones, but it could also be (something that gets in the way of purchase), or less obvious factors like 

You launch a high-budget campaign for a luxury watch brand—it features stunning visuals, celebrity endorsements, and a focus on exclusivity—but the brand sees little uplift in sales. People within the agency might conclude, "Consumers just don’t care about luxury watches anymore" (attributing the poor performance to a lack of interest or changing tastes). But what’s likely to be the case can be attributed to situational factors. Examples: message misalignment, customer journey gaps, over-saturated message or fatigue, or it was just a timing issue. 

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.