Subscribe on

Enjoy this episode? Leave us a review.

All Episodes

Episode 146

How Established Brands Can Still Grow

Research from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute proves 18% of established brands grow market share by 5% or more in a single year. The real question isn't whether growth is possible—it's how to sustain it.

This week, Elena, Angela, and Rob explore what separates the 7% of brands that maintain growth over multiple years from the rest. They cover fundamentals like mental and physical availability and unpack the tension between board pressure and patient, long-term strategy.

This video is hosted on YouTube and requires cookie consent to display.

Topics Covered

• [01:00] Why growth isn't rare for established brands

• [04:00] Only 7% of brands sustain meaningful growth over three years

• [06:00] How consistency beats novelty for long-term success

• [09:00] What it means to become a category leader

• [13:00] Creative fundamentals that build mental availability

• [17:00] Physical availability matters as much as mental availability

• [21:00] Playing "Grow or Go" to evaluate marketing decisions

Resources:

2025 MarketingWeek Article

Today's Hosts

Elena Jasper

Chief Marketing Officer

Rob DeMars

Chief Product Architect

Angela Voss

Chief Executive Officer

Transcript

Rob: I think big one too is we often, and that just really gets in the way of being memorable when you spend too much time trying to explain all the differences, the features and the benefits. We're human. We love to talk about ourselves, right? Our favorite topic is themselves, but your brand shouldn't stoop to that level. It can rise above.

Elena: Hello and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions. I'm Elena Jasper. I run the marketing team here at Marketing Architects, and I'm joined by my co-hosts Angela Voss, the CEO of Marketing Architects. And Rob DeMars, the Chief Product Architect at Misfits and Machines.

Rob: Hello.

Angela: Hey guys.

Elena: We're back with our thoughts on some recent marketing news, always trying to root our opinions and data research and what drives business results. Today we're pushing back on a marketing myth that just won't die. That brand growth for mature companies is basically impossible. John Dawes says that's wrong, and he's got data to prove it, but we want to know what does it really take to grow a brand once you've already, quote unquote, made it. I'm gonna kick us off, as I always do with some research, and today's article is titled, Established Brands Can Grow. Here's the Proof, and it's by John Dawes. It takes aim at the narrative that real brand growth is a black swan event. The Ehrenberg-Bass Institute looked across countries in 37 categories and found that over 18% of brands grow their market share by 5% or more in a single year, over two years. The number gets smaller, but it's still meaningful. This proves that growth isn't rare, it's just not universal, and it's definitely not instant.

Research also showed a fascinating split. Small brands pop more often, but struggle to sustain it. While big brands grow less often, but when they do, they tend to hold onto that growth. Their size gives them the stability and the real drivers of growth aren't mysterious. They're the same fundamentals Aaron Byron Bass has been hammering for years. Mental availability and physical availability. Are you first to mind and easy to buy? When brands improve these durable assets, they give themselves a realistic shot at multi-year growth. So growth isn't a miracle, but it does require patience and adherence to the fundamentals.

All right. So I was interested in this topic because I've heard that more and more recently that once you get to a certain size, it's like nearly impossible to use advertising to help yourself grow. And I think that this research is saying, hey, that's not true. Might be harder, but it's possible. So, and I wanted to start with kind of a big question. You've worked with brands across nearly every growth stage, so what's your take? Does this research match what we see with clients and what does realistic brand growth look like in your experience?

Angela: Yeah, it's really grounding for us. It very much matches what we see. There's always variance and exceptions to research and rules and things like that. Most established brands are not chasing explosive unicorn style growth. They're operating in mature competitive categories where moving market share even a few points is really hard to do, and it can be incredibly meaningful to them as a business. Realistic brand growth usually looks incremental before it looks super impressive and something that you want to celebrate. It's just about building enough mental and physical availability that the brand steadily shows up more often in buying situations. Sometimes it's not splashy and I think what Dawes's work reinforces is that growth is absolutely achievable, but it's uneven.

It's slow. It requires patience and the brands that tend to focus less on chasing those short-term spikes and more on consistently reinforcing the same ideas, the same assets, the same buying cues over time. And when that happens, that growth compounds. When it doesn't, brands end up, I think mistaking volatility potentially for progress. And that can become really dangerous. It gets you into a spot where you don't really know what's north.

Elena: Yeah. And most brands are probably more in that bucket where they're investing a lot in those short term spikes. I mean, the research found only 7% of brands sustained meaningful share growth over three years. So I think earlier I had shared it was something like 18% can grow in a year, but we're getting down even smaller when you're talking about sustaining that growth over multiple years. So my next question is, what separates that special 7% from the 93%? Why is it so hard to sustain growth? What do we feel like gets in the way of that?

Angela: I think the urge to change too quickly is a big thing. Sustained growth is hard because brands get bored with their own story long before the market does. You know, after an initial win, maybe leadership pressure ramps up. Boards want more growth, faster results. They want visible proof that momentum is continuing and that pressure often pushes brands into short-termism. They're chasing those quick wins instead of reinforcing that long-term strategy that actually worked. Creative often gets refreshed too soon, and there are messaging shifts before the market is fully learned or understood what the brand stands for. The investment ends up shifting towards tactics that promise those immediate returns.

But they might be sort of quietly eroding brand memory. And so I think the challenge is staying committed when results don't spike every quarter. That long-term brand growth requires that consistency and patience, but we potentially have leadership incentives in place that are wired for speed and big showy results. And that tension between how brands grow and how organizations measure success is what knocks most brands out of the growth curve after that first big win.

Rob: You're totally right, Angela. I mean, people confuse consistency with laziness when they should see it as discipline. Especially when they're building their brand. I think the other thing creatively that growth is actually success. You know, that first big win usually comes from something really bold, you know, a really clear point of view, a distinctive idea, creative, system that people can actually remember. But then the organization, they get that success and then they get nervous, you know? And instead of repeating that entrepreneurial mindset, going big, they start polishing it, softening it over, explaining it, and it loses that edge.

Elena: Not to blame digital marketing for this, but we published a report a couple weeks ago on like short and long-term measurement. And one thing I was thinking about when we shared that was I don't think most marketers are bad at measurement. They've just been lied to about how it's supposed to work, and we're all expecting those immediate results, but having, like you said, answer, the patience to wait and invest and know exactly what timetable you're expected to see a return.

Some, I think there needs to be a reframe. Sometimes a certain marketing channel is like exactly when, like what are some signals I can see along the way, but having the patience to not saying you have to wait it out necessarily, but things work on different time horizons. It's like if I planted an oak tree and I walked out the next day and I said, where's my oak tree? You know, like, okay, this has this growth has a little bit of a different timetable than something like a weed. And I thought about of that metaphor off the top of my head, okay. Thank you.

Rob: Elena, right.

Angela: Stop being a weed.

Elena: Stop being a weed. A little more context on this research that Dawes has shared. For this study in particular, they defined brand size based on market share. So they called very small brands those that had less than 2% of share. Small brands had two to five. Medium had five to 10 and large had 10% or more market share. So how would a brand know when they've made it into that upper echelon of category leaders with lots of market share?

Angela: I think the data sets vary depending on the space that you play in, the category you're in, whether you're public or you're not. So there's a lot of just data that you can go to, to see are you in the five to 10%, where are you? But I think beyond that, are you a reference point in the category versus just another option within it? Competitors start framing their positioning against you. Sales teams reference you in pitches. Analysts use you as the baseline for comparison. That's a signal you've achieved that meaningful mental availability at scale. I think another clear marker is when you can ease off performance spend and the business doesn't immediately stall.

That demand continues because the brand itself is doing work in the market, not just the last click tactics that are coming into play. And at that point, growth is no longer solely dependent on constant activation. It's supported by accumulated memory and familiarity in the market. Category leaders win because they're already top of mind, and that gives them that resilience that the smaller brands just don't have.

Rob: You're not just trying to impress the category anymore. You're teaching the category, right? You're seen as that leader without even having to say it. And your audience really plays a big role in helping, you know, if you've made it. They're, they recognize your work without even seeing your logo or quoting your work, becoming a part of the cultural language of the category. You can definitely feel those, you said, Angela, the hard metrics that we can pull, but then there's soft ones that are actually in some ways more exciting and more meaningful.

Elena: Well, speaking of growing within a category, in the research they talk about how not all brands can grow every year. And share gain often means you're stealing it from a competitor within your category, but that's not the only way to grow. You could also grow as your overall category does. So kind of a fun question, what do we think is better? Growing your category and growing with it, or growing your slice of it, so kind of stealing from the competition?

Angela: I know this is hard. I think it really depends and I hate that answer, but it does on the maturity of the category that you're operating in. And I think this is where a lot of brands get tripped up. In younger or underdeveloped categories, growing the category can be a smart move because increased awareness and adoption disproportionately benefits the brands that are most visible and easiest to buy, but in a mature, competitive category, category growth can kind of be a trap. If you're advertising primarily educates people about the category, rather than anchoring that demand to your brand, you risk doing the hard work of growth only to potentially have your competitors capture it.

I think that's the mistake that we see most often is brands investing heavily in messaging that expands the market, but doesn't clearly differentiate who should win, and in those cases growing your slice of the pie matters more than growing the pie itself. Effective growth strategy requires being honest about where your category is and ensuring your advertising doesn't just stimulate demand, but stimulates it in your direction.

Rob: Yeah, I'm gonna refuse to answer that question 'cause great work should do both. At the end of the day, that is what you're trying to achieve, right? Creative doesn't just say, pick me instead, it helps you pick me and understand why you should pick me more often, because they understand the why of it. And I, it's a fair, snarky answer, but at the end of the day, hopefully we don't have to choose between the two.

Elena: Yeah. I think, and you mentioned this, like the spooky part is if some brands, you know, you add more advertising and you're actually just driving to your competitor more than you, like that to me is my biggest fear. Like, all right, you're raising awareness of the category, but if you don't have clear, distinctive assets, if it's not clearly tied back to you, then you risk just driving share to others. That part would make me worried if I was a brand where at least if you're stealing share, you know that it's going directly to you. But I see what you mean, Rob, where like ideally you would have both and your work would be doing both. But that's the concern is if it's not clearly tied to you, you could be just working for your competitor.

Rob: Right? Yeah. And everyone's done it. You know, everyone's done it. I don't care if you say no, I've never done it, baloney. You know, we've all had to sit back and go, dang it. We could have switched out our competitor in that ad and it would've worked just as well. And that's the time you kick yourself. You learn from it and go, okay, how do we do better?

Angela: Well, and I think it's a space where something like putting concerted effort around identification of new category entry points could be really interesting. Where it's hard if you're in a competitive category to maybe not just educate the market on everyone that's out there and grow the pie, but are there spaces where you can identify and kind of own a category entry point where consumers are gonna think of you first in that specific area?

Elena: That's a really good idea. Category entry points, sort of marketing effectiveness fundamentals. And this article talks about going back to fundamentals to grow, which isn't a surprise since it was written by someone from Ehrenberg-Bass. So Rob, I wanted to ask you, are there creative fundamentals and you just kind of teased one earlier, that help a brand become more mentally available, which in turn helps them grow?

Rob: They're not sexy, and we've talked about 'em a lot and I think that's why they're fundamentals, right? We've even talked about some of them already, like distinctive assets, of course, right? Not just having them, but actually using them and using them consistently long enough that your audience can remember them. You know, really steeping the tea. The second is creative consistency right? Not just repeating the same ad, but repeating the same idea, voice, same emotional posture, the same role in category that you're playing in. Clarity, of course, clarity over the cult of cleverness.

You know, if the audience has to work to figure out what your brand is and what it does for them, it's being too clever and not being clear enough. And then of course, emotion. Right? Emotional relevance. People don't remember information. They remember how something made them feel. Emotion is really that accelerator to memory. And when all those things come together, it's a beautiful thing, right? But it's not rocket science, sometimes it's science you have to remind people of on an ongoing basis.

Elena: Harder question. What about the flip side of this? Like what are some common mistakes or things that marketers do that maybe they think is helping their brand stick or grow, but is actually maybe working against them a little bit too much?

Rob: Again, newness, for newness's sake, already talked about that. Definitely mistaking novelty for memorability. Going back with the new look, the tone, the new campaign, every quarter. Like you just start to lose the ability to build that emotional relationship with your audience. And I think big one too is we often, and that just really gets in the way of being memorable when you spend too much time trying to explain all the differences, the features and the benefits. Too many proof points, too many layered messages. Just keeping that simple. Advertisers, we're human. We love to talk about ourselves, right? Our favorite topic is themselves, but your brand shouldn't stoop to that level. It can rise above.

Elena: One thing I was thinking about is, I think sometimes it's a mistake brands make is they are trying to follow the principles and have every intention, but it's going haywire. Like for example, emotion matters. You create a big anthem spot, it's very emotional, but you don't reveal your brand till the end. It's like you had the right principle, but the application didn't work out. Or even celebrity, like I remember a Super Bowl a couple of years ago, they were like three brands with Kevin Hart. It's like investing in celebrity or in a brand mascot. Like that's not a bad thing. Ehrenberg-Bass, American effectiveness would tell you to do something like that occasionally, but sometimes I think it can backfire too, just in the application of the theories.

Rob: For sure. If you're doing it by paint by numbers, and not doing it with some level of taste as well, it can just feel like an overstuffed Chipotle.

Angela: I know you love overstuffed Chipotle. You would never complain about that.

Rob: Double wrap.

Elena: I've never, I'd be so embarrassed if that happened to me, if my burrito just exploded. I'd have to double wrap. I don't know why I get embarrassed by everything though, so no one should take that as judgment. Chipotle is delicious.

Yeah. Must be. Okay. So we kind of covered mental availability a lot there, Ange. What about physical availability? I know we've covered this on the show before, but what should marketers be thinking about there if they're looking to defy the gravity of brand growth?

Angela: Yeah, it's foundational and I think it is often underestimated and doesn't get enough attention. Maybe it just doesn't feel as creative or glamorous as brand storytelling, but at its core, it's just about the simple question: can people easily act on the demand that your marketing creates? These are very practical questions. Are we easy to find where people actually shop? Where are they going? Are we there? Are we present across the right channels, the locations, the moments? Are there unnecessary points of friction in how either people shop us or compare against our competitors, choose us, buy us? If a brand builds strong mental availability but lacks that physical availability, then this demand simply leaks to probably competitors who are easier to buy. We're very habitual in how we buy. So when a brand introduces a new idea, we may just fall right to that competitor. And this is especially critical for established brands who, where growth often comes from being consistently present and very convenient, rather than from persuasive efforts or offer strategy. Long-term growth depends on aligning that availability with just real buying behavior as it exists in our everyday lives.

Elena: Let's say we're marketers and we're getting pressure from the board. You gotta grow. Let's put on

Rob: Our, let's pretend for a minute. Okay. Ready?

Elena: That was a bad way to tee that up. We are marketers.

Angela: We have to live it.

Elena: Yes. I guess just pretend you're a brand side marketer for a moment. You're getting pressure. You gotta grow right now. Based on this research, what advice would we give 'em?

Angela: I think we've said a lot of it already. I'd tell 'em that demanding immediate growth from a mature brand is like demanding compound interest on day one. It ignores how value is actually created. When boards push for speed over strategy, they often force brands into these short term tactics that trade long-term strength for these temporary optics. You might get a bump, but you weaken the very assets that make that future growth possible. And if the goal is sustainable growth, then the question isn't how fast can we grow right now? But are we building something that can still grow three years from now, five years from now? Because brands don't often fail from lack of effort.

They fail from impatience and a lot of times that's dressed up as urgency. I would also say though, it's on the CMO to give the executive team a playbook of leading indicators of what a sustainable growth strategy looks like. This doesn't mean we're ignoring outcomes of today, but that we have a balanced decision making system about how to invest in the future.

Rob: Well said, Angela. I mean, are we doing the boring well?

Angela: Mm-hmm.

Rob: It's not about what we're trying to do this quarter, but how are we, to recognize? Are we showing up where people want us to, want to buy us, those memory structures? Right?

Elena: Good advice. I, one thing I was thinking about was the importance of understanding your situation and communicating that to somebody like a board, because not to use another metaphor, but your ability to grow is going to depend a lot on where you're at now. Like a marathon runner like Conner Mantz, his ability to get better at running a marathon is a lot, it's a lot slimmer margins than me who's never run a marathon. There's just more room to improve. And I think there's also, one thing I was thinking about the other day is so much of your growth in your category, if you're trying to grow through advertising, depends on what the rest of the category is spending on advertising. And if you're entering the TV channel and you're in a category that has a lot of spend already on TV, you're gonna have a harder time exceeding, like your share of voice, exceeding your share of market. Like you need to think about how to get an outsized advantage because you could go to the board and say, we need an invest in marketing, and you're not seeing a lot of growth.

Well, if you started from a place of this is where we're at, it's not, maybe it's not great. Maybe you're in a very competitive situation. But then, like you said, Ange, painting the picture, the story of here's how we could improve, oh, here's how we can get there. But if you're smaller in your category, you're gonna have to be a little bit scrappier about how you spend and where you go and how you grow. Like a lot of it depends on the place you're starting from as well. When you're looking for long-term impacts. We've got a game today. We haven't done a game in a while. There might have been a reason for that we're gonna do on today.

Rob: Elena is a sore loser.

Angela: I hate losing. I really do.

Elena: It's hard. These games are hard 'cause there's always like a lag in how people answer, but this one is not, there's not really a right answer. So it's not too much of a competition. It's called Grow or Go. So I'll share a hypothetical marketing decision, a marketing move. Then you decide whether it's a smart growth play, grow, or a waste of budget, go. Okay?

Angela: Got it.

Elena: All right. First one, a mature snack brand launches a podcast network.

Rob: Go.

Angela: Yeah, I would say go too. We're supposed to have debate, aren't we? Only

Rob: Only if they're, if only when you're wrong. How's that?

Elena: Well, you could defend your answer.

Rob: I mean, I

Angela: I can defend my answer. I think for an established snack brand, a podcast network is far removed from the buying context and offers, I would say very limited reach relative to the investment. Snacks are bought frequently. They are often bought impulsively and just driven by salience at the shelf, and I think long form audio content probably in this case reaches a small, self-selecting audience and probably doesn't build that mental availability at scale from my perspective.

Rob: I think it's potentially brand damaging. I don't mind listening to a podcast that's by Doritos. But I don't want to listen to the Doritos network.

Elena: Yeah. Something feels wrong about that. Okay. Next one. A D2C mattress brand runs a Super Bowl ad after six months in market.

Angela: I would say go on this one too.

Rob: My hard go on that one.

Angela: Yeah. What's your defense, Rob?

Rob: If you're only six months in, there's no way you've explored all that you need to yet before spending your entire budget on one TV commercial. Yeah. I'm not saying a mattress company shouldn't advertise in it, but they've got a lot of runway to cover first.

Angela: Agreed. Yeah. I feel like it's a classic case of just confusing fame with effectiveness.

Rob: Yeah.

Elena: Okay. A global brand tweaks their logo and calls it a rebrand.

Angela: Go.

Rob: I would call it a rebrand if it's a global brand. If Coca-Cola tweaked their logo, that's a rebrand. So I mean,

Angela: Does it make it a good growth strategy or not?

Rob: Oh, it's a, is it a smart growth, okay, got it. I read this one wrong. You're right. It's ah,

Angela: It might be a rebrand, but

Rob: This is a hard one.

Angela: I just think there's a, it's

Rob: It's not a big move. I totally agree. I'm just thinking whenever like Pepsi changes their logo, it's like national news and people are like, it becomes a thing. Now growth or not? I don't know. I mean, man, when they changed the taste of Coke, obviously that's a bigger move.

Angela: Mm-hmm.

Elena: These are

Rob: Big, it's the global brand where I got a little tripped up on it 'cause man those small moves can make big impact.

Elena: When's the last time a rebrand happened at a national level and people liked it? I feel like the best rebrands, no one talks about it, like those are the most successful.

Rob: That's

Angela: You don't even, yeah,

Elena: Don't promote it.

Angela: In most cases they just introduce confusion. So you're more likely, I think to destroy memory structures than build it. I think,

Rob: She, she gets, I'm convinced me.

Angela: Yes.

Elena: All right. A payroll software company launches a Netflix style docuseries.

Angela: I hate all these ideas.

Rob: I love this one.

Angela: Do you? I hate this idea too.

Rob: I

Angela: I think this type of move would overestimate how much attention buyers want to give to a category, especially in B2B. Like payroll is low interest, low emotion. I think growth in B2B still depends on mental availability and buying moments, not necessarily deep storytelling consumed by probably a tiny audience. And so the risk is investing heavily heavy in a docuseries.

Elena: Yeah. Netflix style too.

Angela: Yeah.

Rob: Loving this idea. And part of it is probably 'cause I love the show, the Profit. Have you guys ever watched the Profit? It's the CEO of Camping World. And he goes in and he helps businesses kind of figure themselves out, and it's really good. So I have that in my head going, gosh, if you're a software company, especially to small businesses, people would, you're positioning yourself as kind of the thought leader in the space and yeah, it's the boring product, which is actually more reason because no one in your category is thinking about doing a docuseries. So I could see the audience getting, I would watch it if there's an upstart docuseries on Netflix and you're watching small business owners making big moves, super interested. And then sponsored by the boring accounting software. Sure.

Angela: What do you think a Netflix style docuseries would cost, Rob?

Rob: I don't think a lot because it's really just shooting people in their situations. You're not, it's not involved with huge sets and big actors and you're

Elena: It'd be more like the production, like the directing costs, the storytelling, like that'd

Rob: Yeah, which is big, and promotion on the other side of the equation. Now the question was, is this better than another marketing strategy?

Angela: Well, no, it is. I mean, if you're gonna invest in this, you're not investing in something else. So that was kind of what I was trying to get to is like, you're not going to purchase B2B payroll software, A, if you're not in market, or B, if you don't know who this payroll company is. And so my brain went to what's the investment into this versus is just creating broader awareness in the market by more potential category buyers a better play?

Rob: I hear ya. On the short-termism there, you're favoring more of like doing down and dirty fast. Like let's

Angela: No, I'm saying, I'm actually saying

Rob: I mean, I, I hear ya. You just, you know, you needing that, you needing that response now, you're trying to answer to the board saying, what are we gonna, what are we gonna do this quarter?

Angela: Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that we need it today. I'm saying that first of all, a docuseries has a shelf life to it. After it's done, it's just off completely. But I'm saying that the investment into that would better be served with millions of, not billions of impressions in the marketplace against a broader audience than would otherwise view this series.

Rob: Go watch the Profit on CNBC and see if you still feel that way.

Elena: Okay, we're gonna move on.

Angela: All right. All right.

Elena: All right. We're almost done. An established insurance company introduces a new CGI mascot.

Angela: Yes. I'm in on this one, Rob.

Elena: Rob, can't, so no.

Rob: Instinctually I'm there with ya. I like the idea of a lovable character of some kind. I just get a little bit nauseous going another CGI character. Like, Geico, you're the CGI character of that category. Is there something else you could do that's a mascot? I don't know what it is, but I like the idea of a memorable mascot for sure. So I'm not, I don't want to be a contrarian just to be a contrarian here. It's just the only part of it. I wish there was like, even if it wasn't, it's insurance company in CGI mascot where I'm like, you sandwich those together and you're like, okay, so you're gonna go knock off Geico.

Like is there a way you could be more distinctive because they're so distinctive in that category for a CGI mascot? Could they do? But I like the idea of a mascot for sure. So is there another, make it like a marionette, make it a physical mascot or something that

Angela: So your issue is the CGI?

Rob: I am, I'm maybe overthinking it, but yes, I'm reacting a little bit to that, like, okay, another character, CGI, woo, I'm the, you know, I'm the,

Elena: You're the what, Robin?

Rob: I don't know. I don't know. I don't have it in, don't have it in the tank, Elena, but something like

Angela: I mean, to your point, and I could go with you a little bit on this just in the space, in the actual world context at the US of insurance, there's a lot of mascots, so I could go with you a little bit there. Actually, is it only Geico that does CGI?

Elena: Well, the emu, is that a real emu? I don't think so.

Angela: I was wondering if the emu was CGI.

Rob: I'm making this a bigger thing than it needs to be, 'cause CGI is even like what do you mean by CGI? I, you can have stuff that looks as real as the marionette. If you're gonna do it, it would be probably CGI. So even though it looks

Elena: Yeah.

Angela: Yeah, I get it.

Rob: The principle's a good one.

Angela: For sure.

Elena: Yeah. Okay. Good debate. Last one. A cereal brand creates a fake dating app for breakfast lovers.

Rob: Boo. This is a good one. This one's really good. And just in terms of, wow, could that go wrong? I like, it's, I mean, it could go, it could be huge, it could, man, you do that one wrong, don't, you know, of all, probably most cereal buyers, the gatekeepers are moms. Is that fair to say?

Angela: I think so.

Rob: And so is a dating, are you hitting the right genre there? I, I don't,

Angela: That's where I was going. I'm like, I would need a lot more background to get on board with this. Like, what's the insight here? What are we, what's the, what are we doing?

Rob: Yeah.

Angela: Like this feels like a novelty move for novelty's sake.

Rob: Yeah. I can go with you. Raisin Bran Crunch had a really famous ad campaign back in the nineties where they showed an example. They showed a room full of singles. Right. It's like the TV show, the commercial opens. They're all just hanging off the couches. And do you guys remember this one at all? Probably not.

And then they all just all of a sudden kind of get up groggy, you know, and they pour their Raisin Crunch, Raisin Bran Crunch cereal. They eat it and then they go back and lay on the couch and like, Raisin Bran for getting up for, and that was like the whole campaign. And they had a whole string of those where they were pretty edgy for a cereal. I can't actually tell you if it was effective. Probably, I don't, no one remembers it, so probably not, but so yeah, for a category it's certainly category busting. Is it for the right audience? I don't know.

Elena: I'm also curious what makes it fake, like so it wouldn't work, 'cause like if it does work, you're right. That does seem like a risk for the brand too. You hear about those scary dating app stories. Murdered over a shared love of Cocoa Puffs. That's gonna be, no, that's not a great headline to have.

Rob: Well, the other thing is you've got this whole dating thing and breakfast lovers. So it brought me to another place.

Angela: Right.

Rob: You know, they're having breakfast and they're lovers and you're, their dating app. It's like the hookup campaign. You know, like, I don't know. This could go bad.

Elena: Yeah, it could.

Angela: We're done. Before we have to cut, we have to cut what Rob's gonna say next. Let's just wrap it up.

Elena: Okay. All right, so that one's a no, it's a no go from us with that final one. Okay. Well, we were pretty negative on these ideas then in general. It's hard, right? It's hard to grow. I should have included just invest in TV advertising. That would have been an easy yes. But, all right, well that'll wrap us up for today.