That is the surface story. The better story is bigger. People were not only trying to save yellow planes and cheap seats. They were trying to save a market choice. That is why this angle matters. Brand ownership is becoming more than a business idea. It is becoming a way for people to say, “This brand affects my life, so I want a voice in what happens next.”

Why did people miss Spirit Airlines so fast?

People often do not know what a brand does for them until it is gone. Spirit was not famous for comfort. It was famous for low fares, extra fees, tight seats, and jokes. But those low fares had power. They pushed other airlines to keep some prices lower. They gave some families a chance to fly when other tickets were too high.

That is the part many readers may not know. A cheap brand is not only useful to the people who buy it. It can help the whole market. It acts like a price anchor. If it leaves, the other brands face less pressure. That means fewer choices and, often, higher prices.

So the viral campaign was not just about love for Spirit. It was about fear. People feared losing the messy, cheap option that made the market feel open. That is useful because it changes how we judge budget brands. A brand can be annoying and still be important.

What is the hidden value of a budget brand?

The hidden value is access. Spirit gave people a way to travel when money was tight. It also made bigger airlines answer a simple question: if Spirit can sell a seat for less, why can’t you?

This does not mean every cheap service is good. It means price choice matters. A market with only premium brands can look nicer, but it can also leave many people out. That is why the loss of a budget airline can feel personal even to people who once complained about it.

For brands, this is a clear lesson. Do not only measure love. Measure use. A customer can roll their eyes at you and still need you. A customer can complain online and still defend your role in the market. That kind of bond is strange, but it is real.

Why does brand ownership matter now?

Brand ownership matters because trust in big business is not automatic. People see private equity, mergers, and bankruptcies. They worry that useful brands can be cut up, sold, or changed without the public having a say. The Spirit campaign gave people a different dream. It said the passengers, workers, and communities could have a voice.

Peterson’s early idea was simple. People could pledge money. Each person would get one vote, no matter how much they pledged. Bigger investors could help, but they would not control the vote. He compared the idea to the Green Bay Packers and worker-owned firms.

That idea may be hard to turn into a real airline. But it is powerful as a message. People want brands to feel less distant. They want proof that the people who use a service matter more than the people who only trade it.

Can regular people really buy an airline?

In real life, buying an airline is not simple. It is not like buying a shop. A buyer needs aircraft, staff, safety systems, gates, insurance, and many approvals. A new operator may need a Federal Aviation Administration certificate, which can take years and a lot of money.

That makes the campaign risky if people think pledges equal a finished plan. They do not. Yahoo also noted that the pledges were non-binding and self-reported, so they were not the same as cash in a bank.

Still, the idea has value. It shows demand. It shows that people care about low fares. It shows that a brand can have public meaning even after it fails as a business. That signal can matter to investors, regulators, workers, and rival airlines.

There is also a worker lesson here. When a low-cost airline fails, the story is not only about passengers. It is about pilots, cabin crew, airport teams, and small cities that may lose routes. A public campaign can remind leaders that a company is also a web of jobs and local needs. That makes the idea bigger than nostalgia.

What can other brands learn from this?

Brands should learn that public feeling is not always clean. People may laugh at you. They may complain. They may share memes. But when you stand for something useful, they may still fight for you.

Spirit stood for one main thing: cheap travel. That was clear. Many brands fail because people cannot say what they stand for in one sentence. Spirit had many flaws, but its role was easy to understand. That is why the revival idea spread fast.

The second lesson is that community can form around a problem, not only around love. The problem was simple: if Spirit disappears, cheap flying may get harder. That gave people a reason to act.

The third lesson is that control is becoming part of brand trust. It is no longer enough to ask people to buy. Some people now ask who owns the brand, who makes the rules, and who benefits when the brand wins.

Why is this useful for leaders and marketers?

Leaders should stop seeing customers as only buyers. In some markets, customers are also defenders of access. They may care about the role a brand plays in society, not just the product.

Marketers should also understand the power of a simple public mission. “Owned by the people” is not a full business plan, but it is a strong story. It gives people a part to play. It turns a failed airline into a cause.

That does not mean every brand should become community owned. It means every brand should know what people would lose if it vanished. If the answer is “nothing,” the brand is weak. If the answer is “choice,” “access,” or “fair prices,” the brand has deeper value.

What is the most useful takeaway?

The useful takeaway is this: a brand can be loved for the pressure it puts on a market, not only for the service it gives. Spirit may have been mocked, but it also helped keep the idea of cheap flying alive.

That is why brand ownership became a viral talking point. It gave people a way to protect a market role they did not want to lose. The campaign may never buy an airline. But it has already shown something important. People are starting to think like owners when the brands they need are at risk.

For any company, that is a warning and an opportunity. If your brand gives people access, choice, or savings, say it clearly. If people feel your loss before they praise your product, you may be more valuable than your reviews suggest.

The post The Internet Wants To Buy Spirit Airlines appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

There is a very specific reason for that. And it is the exact same reason why one of the biggest teen apparel brands in the world just decided to stop making traditional ads.

Hollister, the clothing brand owned by Abercrombie and Fitch, recently launched its biggest summer campaign to date. But instead of shooting a standard commercial with models smiling at a camera and a big logo at the end, they did something completely different. They made a genuine music video.

They teamed up with a 26-year-old singer named Gigi Perez, who recently blew up on TikTok. Together, they recorded the first ever officially licensed cover of Green Day’s classic 1997 song Good Riddance (Time of Your Life). The video shows real high school moments. Football games. Homecoming dances. Teenagers hanging out on skateboards and packing up their cars to leave for college.

If you watch the video closely, you will notice something missing. There is no overt branding. There is no big logo flashing on the screen. There is no call to action telling you to buy a pair of jeans or a new summer dress. The clothes are there, but they are just sitting quietly in the background.

This was not an accident. It was a very deliberate choice to move away from traditional ads. And it is a choice that led to a massive 15% growth in net sales for the brand in 2025.

So, why did they do it? And more importantly, what can we learn from their decision to abandon traditional ads? Let us break it down.

Why do traditional ads feel so easy to ignore today?

We live in a world where we are constantly bombarded by information. Every time we look at our phones, someone is trying to sell us something. Because of this, our brains have developed a filter.

When we know someone is trying to sell us something, our brains automatically put up a wall. We become sceptical. We look for the catch. It is a natural defence mechanism. We see traditional ads, and our minds immediately classify them as noise. We scroll past them without even registering what they are about.

But when we encounter something that feels like genuine entertainment, our defences drop. If we hear a song we like or see a story that moves us, we let it in. The emotional impression goes much deeper.

Hollister understood this perfectly. By creating a music video instead of traditional ads, they bypassed the part of the brain that says this is an ad, ignore it. Instead of trying to sell a product, they tried to create a feeling. They wanted to be associated with nostalgia, warmth, and the bittersweet joy of growing up.

There is actual science behind this approach. Studies show that ads evoking nostalgia make 75% of consumers more likely to buy. When a brand connects with you on an emotional level, you stop seeing them as a company trying to take your money. You start seeing them as a part of your life.

They are not trying to win a quick sale with traditional ads. They are trying to win a memory. Because a memory lasts a lot longer than a discount code. And memories do not feel like traditional ads.

How quickly do people actually tune out traditional ads?

The numbers are staggering. Research shows that Gen Z consumers lose active attention for ads after just 1.3 seconds. That is not a typo. 1.3 seconds. Before you have even had a chance to say your brand name, they have already mentally moved on.

This is the world that traditional ads are competing in today. It is not just that people dislike traditional ads. It is that their brains are now physically wired to filter them out before they even register.

This is why the shift away from traditional ads is not just a creative trend. It is a survival strategy. If your content does not earn attention in the first second, it does not matter how much you spent making it.

Why does nostalgia work better than traditional ads for Gen Z?

We usually think of nostalgia as missing something from our own past. We feel nostalgic for the cartoons we watched as kids or the snacks we ate in middle school. But there is a strange thing happening right now, especially with younger people. They are feeling nostalgic for eras they never actually lived through.

Gen Z grew up with social media. On their feeds, a video from 1997 and a video from 2024 can appear right next to each other. Time is flat. So, when a 26-year-old singer covers a punk song from 29 years ago, it does not feel old to a teenager today. It feels current.

This is a massive shift in how we think about marketing. If you want to reach a younger audience, you do not always have to look for the newest trend. Sometimes, you need to look backward. You need to figure out what feeling they are trying to recreate, even if they never experienced the original version of it.

Research shows that 68% of Gen Z feel positively toward nostalgic branding, and that nostalgic content generates a 2x higher emotional response rate compared to standard content. Hollister saw this happening. They saw their own customers pinning physical photos to their walls and keeping concert wristbands. They realised that young people are craving things that feel real, tactile, and permanent in a very digital world.

Traditional ads usually focus on what is new and shiny. But Hollister realised that their audience wanted something that felt timeless. By tapping into this deep desire for nostalgia, they created a connection that traditional ads could never achieve. They made their audience feel seen and understood.

What is the reminiscence bump and why should every brand know about it?

Psychologists have a name for the reason why teenage memories feel so powerful. They call it the reminiscence bump. Research shows that the memories we form between the ages of roughly 10 and 30 are the ones we remember most clearly for the rest of our lives. This is the period when we are forming our identity, experiencing things for the first time, and building the emotional foundation of who we are.

Music is one of the most powerful triggers for these memories. A study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that music heard during this critical window of adolescence creates some of the most emotionally charged and long-lasting memories a person will ever have.

Hollister is not just selling clothes. They are trying to become part of that memory window. They want to be the brand that a 35-year-old looks back on and thinks, that was the brand I wore when everything felt possible. That is a level of loyalty that traditional ads simply cannot manufacture.

Why is exclusivity so powerful compared to traditional ads?

Most brands approach partnerships by asking a simple question. They ask, who is popular right now? They find whoever has the most followers and pay them to star in their traditional ads.

Hollister asked a different question. They asked, what can we do that has never been done before?

Green Day is a massive band. Their song Good Riddance is an absolute classic. And until now, they had never allowed another artist to officially cover it for a brand partnership. Hollister managed to get that exclusive right.

That changes everything. It takes the campaign from being just another set of traditional ads and turns it into a cultural event. It becomes something newsworthy.

When something is genuinely scarce or the first of its kind, people pay attention. We value things more when they are hard to get or unique. By securing an exclusive piece of music history, Hollister made sure their campaign stood out in a sea of endless content.

Think about how many traditional ads you see every single day. Hundreds. Maybe thousands. They all blend together into one big blur. But you only see the first-ever official cover of a classic song once. Exclusivity creates a level of interest and excitement that traditional ads simply cannot buy. It makes people feel like they are part of a special moment.

What happens when creators step out of traditional ads and into the story?

There is another interesting layer to this campaign. Hollister has a group of creators they work with, called the Hollister Style Hub. Normally, brands use creators just to post pictures of products and share discount links. It is a very transactional relationship. It is just another form of traditional ads.

But Hollister did something different. They actually cast these creators as talent in the music video itself.

This is a subtle but important shift. There is a big difference between a creator promoting a brand in traditional ads and a creator actually being part of the brand’s story. When creators are integrated into the story, it feels much more authentic. It does not look like traditional ads. It looks like a group of friends making something together.

And authenticity is exactly what audiences are looking for today. They are tired of being sold to. They are tired of traditional ads that feel fake and forced. They want to see real people doing real things.

By bringing their creators into the actual content, Hollister showed that they value these people as more than just human billboards. They value them as collaborators. Studies show that branded content is twice as memorable as display advertising. This proves that the brand is willing to invest in real relationships instead of just paying for traditional ads.

Are you still making traditional ads or are you making memories?

The lesson here is simple but profound. People remember how you made them feel far longer than they remember what you sold them.

Music plays a huge role in this. Research shows that music bypasses the analytical parts of our brain and connects directly to our emotional and memory networks. This is why a song can take you back to a specific moment in your life in an instant. It is not just a sound. It is a time machine.

Hollister knows this. They know that if they can weave their brand into the emotional memories of a teenager, they do not need to keep pushing traditional ads at them. They just need to be there. They want to be the label on the dress that someone keeps in the back of their closet for a decade.

That is a fundamentally different goal than trying to get a click on a website. And it requires a fundamentally different approach than making traditional ads.

When you focus on creating memories instead of traditional ads, you change the entire dynamic between your brand and your audience. You stop being a nuisance that interrupts their day. You become a welcome part of their life.

This is why moving away from traditional ads was such a smart move for Hollister. They stopped fighting for attention and started earning it. They stopped trying to convince people to buy clothes and started giving them a reason to love the brand.

Traditional ads will always have a place in the world. But they are no longer the only way, or even the best way, to build a brand that people genuinely care about. The companies that win in the future will be the ones that figure out how to step outside the boundaries of traditional ads. They will be the ones that create art, tell stories, and build genuine emotional connections.

Just like Hollister did. They proved that sometimes, the best way to sell more is to stop making traditional ads altogether. They proved that when you focus on the feeling, the sales will follow.

Traditional ads tell you what to buy. Great stories tell you how to feel. And in a world full of traditional ads, the brands that make you feel something are the ones you never forget.

Joshua Mathias is among the top PR Agencies in Dubai and works with businesses across the GCC region, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and the wider Middle East, helping them build brands, manage reputations, and connect with audiences.

Learn more at joshuamathias.com

The post Hollister Stopped Making Traditional Ads and Sold More appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

This isn’t just creative provocation. It’s one of the most psychologically sophisticated campaigns to hit the Super Bowl in years. And most people are missing what makes it brilliant.

What Actually Happens in the Pepsi Ad?

The 30-second spot, directed by filmmaker Taika Waititi, opens with a polar bear taking a blind taste test. He picks Pepsi Zero Sugar over Coke Zero. But instead of celebrating, the bear freaks out. Cut to a therapy session where the polar bear sits across from a psychiatrist, played by Waititi himself. The soundtrack? Queen’s “I Want To Break Free.”

This is part of Pepsi’s revived Pepsi Challenge campaign, which originally launched in 1975. The brand brought it back in 2025 with a nationwide taste-test tour. Their claim: 66% of Americans prefer Pepsi in blind taste tests. Now they’re taking that message to the Super Bowl, spending over $7 million for 30 seconds during a game that reaches more than 120 million viewers.

But the campaign doesn’t stop there. Pepsi is running a year-long effort that spans social media, creator content, podcasts, experiential activations, and complimentary Pepsi Challenge kits delivered through Gopuff. As Pepsi’s VP told Marketing Dive, this is “a big idea that we’re going to see throughout Super Bowl and throughout the rest of the year.”

Why Would Pepsi Use Their Competitor’s Mascot?

Here’s what makes this move so bold. Coca-Cola has used polar bears as a brand icon since 1993. That’s over 30 years of brand equity. Billions of dollars spent building the association. And Pepsi just borrowed it.

This is the advertising equivalent of Nike using Michael Jordan to promote Adidas. It’s provocative, risky, and exactly the kind of move that market leaders can’t make but challengers can.

The strategy works because the cost or risk of the signal is what gives it power. By using Coke’s mascot, Pepsi is sending multiple signals: confidence in their product, willingness to take creative risks, and challenger status that makes them more interesting.

Coca-Cola is now in a no-win situation. If they respond, they amplify Pepsi’s message. If they stay silent, the narrative stands. Either way, Pepsi wins.

What’s Really Happening in the Psychiatrist Scene?

Most people will watch the therapy scene and think it’s just funny. But it’s doing something smarter. It’s acknowledging that brand loyalty is an emotional commitment, not a rational choice.

Humans have a nearly obsessive desire to be consistent with what we’ve already done. Once we make a choice, we encounter pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. This is why people stay loyal to brands even when better options exist. Switching feels like betrayal.

For cola drinkers, choosing Coke isn’t just a beverage preference. It’s a repeated commitment that becomes part of identity. Every time you order a Coke, you’re reinforcing that commitment. Over years, it becomes automatic. You’re not choosing Coke anymore. You’re just being consistent with who you’ve always been.

Most brands pretend this barrier doesn’t exist. They act like switching is easy. “Just try us!” they say.

Pepsi is doing the opposite. They’re showing the polar bear having a crisis. They’re validating the emotional weight of switching. The bear isn’t wrong for feeling conflicted. And then Pepsi offers liberation. The soundtrack “I Want To Break Free” says: yes, this feels like breaking free. And that’s okay.

This is psychological judo. Instead of minimizing brand loyalty, Pepsi is amplifying it, then positioning their product as worth the emotional cost.

Why Does the 66% Statistic Matter?

Here’s where the numbers get interesting. Pepsi claims that 66% of Americans prefer Pepsi in blind taste tests. Yet Coke Zero has 4.6% of the market compared to Pepsi Zero Sugar’s 1.4%. Both statements are true. And the gap between them is worth billions.

Most people have never actually compared Pepsi and Coke without seeing the logos. They just pick what they always pick.

This is the difference between psycho-logic and logic. Logically, if you prefer Pepsi’s taste when you can’t see the brand, you should buy Pepsi. But psychologically, we prefer the brand we’re familiar with, the brand our friends drink, the brand that signals the identity we want to project.

The blind taste test strips away brand recognition, social proof, and identity signaling. It forces a purely sensory evaluation. And when you do that, most people pick Pepsi. But in real life, they buy Coke.

Pepsi’s entire campaign is an attack on this gap. They’re saying: you don’t even know what you actually prefer because you’ve never tested it without the bias of the brand. Most consumers assume Coke tastes better because Coke is bigger. Market leadership becomes its own form of social proof.

By running blind taste tests and publicizing the results, Pepsi is challenging that assumption with data.

How Does Being Smaller Make Pepsi Stronger?

Here’s the part that doesn’t make sense until you think about it. Pepsi Zero Sugar is losing in market share but winning in growth. And that might be the better position.

The numbers: Pepsi Zero Sugar has 1.4% market share compared to Coke Zero’s 4.6%. Coke is 3.3 times bigger. But Pepsi Zero Sugar grew 18.1% in volume last year, compared to Coke Zero’s 4.8%. Pepsi is growing 3.8 times faster.

Pepsi’s VP stated that Pepsi Zero Sugar is “one of our main growth drivers” and they’re “doubling down on it.” While Coke Zero must defend a large market position, Pepsi Zero Sugar can focus all resources on aggressive growth.

When you have less, you’re forced to focus intensely. That focus creates breakthrough thinking. Coke Zero’s larger share creates the incumbent’s dilemma. They have more to lose by being provocative, which creates paralysis. They can’t use a polar bear to promote Pepsi without looking defensive.

Pepsi can do all of that. They can use Coke’s mascot. They can make provocative claims. If it works, they grow. If it doesn’t, they’re still the underdog. The risk tolerance is asymmetric. This is why challenger brands often produce more interesting work. It’s about the strategic freedom that comes from having less to lose.

What Makes This Campaign Different from Everything Else?

The Pepsi campaign reveals something that applies far beyond cola. In mature markets where consumers operate on habit, the barrier to switching isn’t rational preference. It’s psychological friction.

Most brands focus on making their product better. Pepsi is focusing on giving people permission to reconsider their automatic choice. The psychiatrist scene isn’t a joke. It’s the strategic core.

When you’re not the market leader, you can try to act like the incumbent, playing it safe. Or you can do things the leader can’t do. Using a competitor’s mascot isn’t just creative. It’s strategic appropriation. Why spend decades building a mascot when you can borrow one that already exists in consumers’ minds?

Most brands treat the Super Bowl as a destination. Pepsi is treating it as a launch pad. The 30-second ad creates attention, but the real value comes from extending that attention across time and channels. The social giveaway, the Gopuff kits, the year-long content strategy—all of it turns a rented moment into owned engagement.

Pepsi isn’t just selling soda. They’re selling permission to break free from habit. And they’re doing it by acknowledging that breaking free is hard, then showing it’s worth it.

Joshua Mathias is a PR and communications strategist based in Dubai, UAE. He has been associated with some of the Top PR Agencies in Dubai and works with businesses across the GCC region, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and the wider Middle East, helping them build brands, manage reputations, and connect with audiences. He is frequently cited among top PR professionals in the region.

Learn more at joshuamathias.com.

The post Why Did Pepsi Put Coke’s Polar Bear in a Therapy Session? appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The post How does PR Provide Strategic Value to a Business appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The post What is the societal benefit of Public Relations? appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The post Why is PR a strategic necessity for modern brands? appeared first on Joshua Mathias.