Latest / Marketing Psychology with Fexingo: Behavioral Triggers, Persuasion, and Consumer Behavior / How the Pratfall Effect Makes Flawed Brands More Likeable
Transcript
- Lucas: I was thinking about that Domino's 'Pizza Turnaround' campaign from a few years back, where they basically admitted their pizza crust tasted like cardboard. Luna: Oh yeah, the one where they put the focus groups on billboards? Brutally honest. Lucas: Exactly. And instead of destroying their brand, that admission actually made people like them more. That is the Pratfall Effect in action — the counterintuitive idea that a small flaw can boost likability. Luna: So you're saying brands are better off being imperfect? That feels risky. Lucas: It does, but there's real psychology behind it. The term was coined by social psychologist Elliot Aronson in 1966. He had participants listen to a quiz show contestant — a smart, nearly perfect person — and then in one version, that contestant clumsily spilled coffee all over themselves. Luna: And people rated the clumsy version as more likeable? Lucas: They did — significantly more. The reasoning is that perfection creates social distance. It signals superiority. A minor blunder makes the person seem human, approachable. Luna: I can think of a few brands that lean into this deliberately. Wendy's with their snarky tweets, or even how some car ads show a little dirt on the vehicle. Lucas: Right, but not all flaws work equally. The effect only holds if the person or brand is already perceived as highly competent. If you're mediocre to begin with, a mistake just confirms it. Luna: So it's like: you need to earn the right to be flawed. Lucas: Exactly. Aronson called it the 'competence prerequisite.' In his experiment, the contestant first answered 92 percent of questions correctly — that established high ability. Only then did the spill boost likability. Luna: What about Apple? They're the poster child for perfectionism, but they've had some very public stumbles. Lucas: Apple Maps in 2012 is the classic case. It launched with terrible data — misplaced landmarks, wrong directions. But Tim Cook issued a rare public apology and even recommended competitors' apps. That moment of vulnerability actually softened Apple's image. Luna: So a CEO saying 'we messed up' can be a brand asset if done right. Lucas: If the apology is sincere and the product is generally excellent, yes. But there's a fine line. When Volkswagen admitted cheating on emissions tests, that wasn't a pratfall — that was a fraud. No one thought 'oh, how human of them.' Luna: Right, because the flaw wasn't minor, and it violated ethics, not just expectations. Lucas: Exactly. The pratfall has to be a small, non-central flaw — like spilling coffee or a minor product hiccup — not a core failure of integrity. Luna: That reminds me of the 'messy desk' trend on LinkedIn. People posting slightly disorganized workspaces to seem more relatable. Lucas: That's a perfect example. If you're a top performer, a messy desk signals 'I'm so focused on results that I don't have time to tidy up.' If you're a low performer, it just looks like you're disorganized. Luna: So how do marketers actually use this? I'm thinking of that 2018 campaign by a luggage brand — they showed their bags being thrown around by airport workers, scratches and all. Lucas: Away, the luggage company. They ran a campaign showing their suitcases battered after travel, with the tagline 'Built for the real world.' It was brilliant because the flaw — scuffs — actually reinforced the durability message. Luna: So the 'flaw' becomes proof of use. Like Patagonia's 'Worn Wear' program celebrating repaired gear. Lucas: Yes, and that taps into another layer: the pratfall effect works best when the flaw signals authenticity. In a world of polished, airbrushed marketing, a raw moment stands out. Luna: There's also the 'unboxing fail' trend on YouTube, where influencers deliberately fumble opening products — it gets more engagement than smooth unboxings. Lucas: Because the stumble feels real. It breaks the fourth wall of perfection. But you have to be careful — if the flaw seems staged, it backfires. Audiences hate manufactured vulnerability. Luna: Like when a brand suddenly posts a 'typo' that seems too convenient. It feels manipulative. Lucas: Exactly. The pratfall has to be unintentional, or at least feel unintentional. That's why Aronson's coffee spill worked — it was clearly an accident. Luna: So if a brand wants to use this, they can't just plan 'a mistake.' They have to be genuinely transparent about a real shortcoming. Lucas: And the shortcoming has to be one the audience can forgive. Domino's admitted to bad crust — that's fixable. If they'd admitted to using expired cheese, that's a health violation. Luna: Right, safety-related flaws don't get a pass. Lucas: There's also a gender dimension in the research. Aronson's follow-up studies found that the pratfall effect was stronger for male contestants than female ones. Women who made a mistake were judged more harshly. Luna: That's frustrating but not surprising. Society holds women to higher perfection standards. Lucas: And that likely carries over to brands with female-associated personas. A feminine-coded brand might not get the same forgiveness for a blunder. Luna: So there's nuance here. It's not a one-size-fits-all tactic. Lucas: No, and the context matters enormously. A tech startup that admits to a bug during a demo — if they fix it quickly, that can build trust. A luxury brand that shows a loose thread? That undermines the whole value proposition. Luna: I suppose it's about knowing what your core promise is. If you sell reliability, a flaw is dangerous. If you sell innovation, a messy prototype can be charming. Lucas: That's a great framework. The flaw must be in a dimension that's peripheral to your core value. For Domino's, taste was core but crust was a subset — they fixed it. For Apple, maps were a feature, not the whole phone. Luna: And this is the kind of thing we talk about on this show every week. If these conversations spark something you've actually used at work or just in your thinking, you might want to support the show. We deliberately keep it ad-free — no sponsors, no interruptions. If that model works for you, there's a link at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: Yeah, it's a small way to keep this independent and focused on the research rather than selling something. And we appreciate it. Luna: But back to the pratfall — do you think the rise of 'authenticity' in social media has made the effect stronger or weaker? Lucas: I think stronger, paradoxically. Because as more brands try to appear authentic, the real moments of vulnerability stand out even more. But it also means audiences are more skeptical of fake flaws. Luna: So the bar for 'real' keeps rising. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why the best application of the pratfall effect isn't a campaign — it's a culture. When a company genuinely admits a mistake, apologizes, and improves, that's a pratfall that builds long-term trust. Luna: You mentioned Domino's earlier — they didn't just admit fault, they overhauled their recipe and invited customers to taste the difference. That's commitment. Lucas: They turned a liability into a brand story. And it worked — their stock price more than doubled in the following years. Luna: So the pratfall effect isn't about being careless — it's about being brave enough to show imperfection when you've earned the right. Lucas: That's the takeaway. Competence first, vulnerability second. Get the order wrong, and you're just another brand making excuses.