Ting’s rebrand proves that the only thing better than a busy marketer is a lazy one

In Thinking Fast and Slow, a book I can only assume the Ting marketing team hasn’t read, Kahneman explains that people use two main systems for thinking: System 1 (fast, automatic, emotional) and System 2 (slow, deliberate, analytical).

With System 1, most consumer choices are made quickly and intuitively, relying on habits, heuristics, and immediate impressions rather than careful reasoning, as Sian Conway-Wood questioned yesterday when looking at Nike’s new ‘Why Do It?’

Brands that are easy to recognize and make people feel good are most often chosen, even when people don’t consciously analyze their options.

It’s a theory that exposes how lazy consumers are. Therefore, it stands to reason that an effective advertising strategy plays into the hands of lazy, unchanging marketers.

Communications must consistently build (ideally positive) relevant memory structures that bring a brand to mind during the purchase occasion. Byron Sharp and the gang call this mental availability. To access these memories and make it easier to build new ones, we must create distinct brands with codes that uniquely bring our brand to mind when they are seen, heard, smelled, felt, etc.

This is why Coca-Cola’s logo and bottle have largely remained unchanged since the 1800s: repeated exposure to these assets builds distinctiveness; it’s how memories are accessed and used.

This makes Coca-Cola look lazy AF, right? Why haven’t they reinvented their brand for the modern age? Won’t consumers be bored with this bottle by now? What about some new news to spice things up and get attention?

They look especially lazy when compared with the ever-growing collection of drink brands that have decided to change everything up. Busy marketers who must have poured a lot of time, cash, research, and agency hours into these rebrands. Meanwhile, lazy marketers shrug, have a fag, and just keep the red can and bottle from a century ago.

First, Lilt was killed for a Fanta SKU, then Old Jamaica went all “very new, unfamiliar new Jamaica.” And now Ting’s had a facelift (and the rest). I’m not 100% sure what’s going on in the world of soft drinks, but I reckon there’s a new, very rich change-mongering consultant in town.

Now, I haven’t even bothered studying the category dynamics, revenue, or brand health of these brands before these busy changes (I have. They were all flatlining or shrinking. With pretty much non-existent ad budgets since the 90s). But one of the most important marketing laws sadly states these moves normally fail.

And that law is...

Lazy marketers always win

Marketing science is the study of marketing laws and principles that don’t guarantee outcomes but load the dice in your favor.

There is piles of academic research showing that consistency leads to brands being chosen more and generally leads to much better marketing outcomes. In other words, lazy, unchanging marketers are good.

I’ve researched this myself for about three years now using System1, IPA and Effie data as I think the current advice on this is a bit thin (basically, “don’t change anything,” which isn’t that useful). We need to able to leverage change, but knowing how much is the sweet spot.

In Compound Creativity, which I recently updated and presented at Cannes, there are 13 clearly defined ways to help marketers be lazier. To change less. To accidentally commit harder. To sit back, kick their feet up, and let the work of their predecessors compound.

I use these 13 factors to rank brands based on their consistency. It’s rather complex, as you need to evaluate a brand over at least five years to really judge it, and ideally, you need every piece of advertising that has been created during that period. Luckily, System1 tests every UK and US TV ad with millions of people as they air, so I’ve been able to completely study about 150 brands now.

It’s not definitive, marketing science never is, but judging brands like this makes selecting winners easier. Sure, some totally inconsistent brands manage to grow, but there’s much less chance.

Sadly, like Old Jamaica, I think Ting now sits in the bottom 20% of brands for consistency. Sure, it sort of managed to keep the same color and logo. But I had the dystopian supermarket experience that marketers assume we all have. I needed to grab some Ting for a cocktail and spent about 10 minutes pacing the aisle, unable to find it, before realizing it’d done a handy new rebrand. [Editor’s note: I had the same issue with Old Jamaica ginger beer weeks ago.]

Look, I understand that these decisions are complicated. And I haven’t worked on these specific brands.

And Ting has done this to launch a clearer flavor architecture to expand its share. And I’m sure research was done to justify this change. But the evidence shows that these busy marketing moves dramatically stack the odds against you.

Just think of the incremental cash it will need to spend on advertising alone to get people to simply recognize these brands again. And all the calls it’ll need to make to convince Tesco that it knows what it is doing. It’s tiring me out just thinking about it.

Please, for effectiveness’s sake, clock off at 4pm today. Ignore a couple of emails. Go for a walk. Call a loved one. Change less. Be a lazy marketer. Marketing science demands it.

Andrew Tindall is a senior leader in the advertising industry and SVP of Global Partnerships at System1, where he champions creative effectiveness and evidence-based marketing. Known for his sharp thinking on out-of-home, emotional advertising, and brand growth, he’s become a go-to voice on how creativity and data can work together. With experience across major brands like Diageo and Bacardi, Andrew now helps global agencies and marketers make better ads that actually work, contributing regularly to panels, podcasts, and the occasional punchy LinkedIn rant.

Get in touch with Andrew on LinkedIn

Read more opinion on The Drum