This may sound like a celebrity fight. It is more useful than that. The real lesson is simple. A famous face is not free decoration. It is a business asset. It can move attention, trust, and sales. That is why image rights matter so much.

The claim says Samsung used her face in a mass marketing campaign without her knowledge, pay, control, or input. That one idea should make every brand pause. If a customer sees a star on a box, they may think the star chose that brand. That belief can be worth money.

Why is a photo more than a photo?

A photo can tell a buyer what to feel. If a product box shows a famous artist, the buyer may think the product is cool, premium, or connected to culture. The person on the box may not say a word. Still, the message is clear.

That is why a photo can become an endorsement. An endorsement means a person appears to support, approve, or be linked to a product. The issue is not only whether the image is pretty. The issue is what the image makes buyers believe.

In the lawsuit, Dua Lipa says Samsung profited from the image and created the false idea that she backed the product. The complaint also points to social posts where people seemed to say they bought the TV because her face was on the box.

What does Dua Lipa show about image rights?

Image rights protect the link between a person and their public value. For a singer, actor, athlete, or creator, that value is built over years. It comes from music, style, public choices, and audience trust.

If a brand can use that value for free, the person loses control. They may be linked to a product they did not choose. They may also lose the chance to make a paid deal with another brand. In simple terms, the face has value because the person behind it built that value.

This is why the law often protects a person’s likeness. It is not about vanity. It is about control. If your name, face, voice, or image helps sell a product, you should have a say.

Why should brands care even if they did not mean harm?

Intent is not the only issue. A brand may think it is using a licensed event photo, a stock image, or a design asset. But the person in the photo may still have rights. The photographer may own the copyright. The person may control the commercial use of their likeness. The event may have its own rules too.

That is the tricky part. One image can carry many rights at once. A company may have permission to use the photo in one way, but not in another way. Editorial use is not the same as product packaging. A news site can show a concert photo to report on the concert. A TV brand using that photo to sell boxes is a different use.

What legal claims can come from one image?

The Yahoo report says the lawsuit includes copyright infringement, California right of publicity, Lanham Act claims, and trademark infringement. Those are different legal paths, but they all point to one core risk: the image may have helped sell a product without permission.

Copyright can deal with who owns the photo. Right of publicity can deal with who controls the commercial use of a person’s identity. The Lanham Act can deal with false endorsement or confusion in the marketplace. Trademark law can deal with brand value and source signals.

For a brand team, the lesson is practical. Do not ask only, “Can we use this picture?” Ask, “Can we use this picture on this product, in this market, for this sale purpose, with this person visible?” That is a better question.

Why is this useful for marketers?

Marketers love shortcuts. A famous face is one of the fastest shortcuts. It can make a product feel known before the buyer reads a single feature. But shortcuts carry risk when they borrow trust without consent.

This case shows why clearance must happen before design goes public. Packaging is not a small channel. It sits in stores. It appears online. It gets shared in photos. It can be seen by millions. If the image is wrong, the mistake travels far.

The risk is also bigger when the person has a premium brand. Yahoo reported that the complaint says Dua Lipa uses her face only with select companies. That matters. If a star is careful about partnerships, an unwanted product link can weaken her position.

What should a safe approval process include?

A safe process should start with a rights map. The team should list who took the photo, who is in it, where it was taken, what the contract allows, and how the image will be used. This should happen before the box, ad, or post is approved.

The team should also ask if the image suggests an endorsement. If the answer is yes, the brand needs clear written consent. It should not rely on hope, silence, or vague terms.

The final check should be simple. If the person in the image saw the campaign, would they think it was fair? If the answer is no, stop and get legal review.

What can small businesses learn from this?

This is not only a Samsung problem. Small brands also use photos from events, social media, and creators. The risk may be smaller in money, but the rule is the same. If a person’s face helps sell your product, get permission.

Small brands should also be careful with AI tools, influencer content, and user photos. Easy access does not mean legal use. A public photo is not always free for a commercial campaign.

This matters even more in Dubai, the UAE, and other global markets where brands often use celebrity culture to build trust fast. A strong campaign can turn into a costly dispute if rights are unclear.

It also matters for speed. Modern campaigns move fast. But legal approval must move with them, not after them.

What is the most useful takeaway?

The useful takeaway is this: image rights are not a small legal detail. They are part of brand strategy. They protect the value that people build through fame, work, and public trust.

For brands, the safest move is to treat every face as a permission issue. If the face can help sell, it can also create liability. That is the part many people miss. A product box is not just packaging. It is a sales pitch. If that pitch uses a person’s identity, the person should have agreed to it.

Dua Lipa’s case is still a legal claim, not a final ruling. But the lesson is already clear. In modern marketing, attention has a price. If a brand uses someone else’s attention without a deal, the bill can arrive later.

The post Dua Lipa says Samsung Used Her Face appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

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.

What exactly are Gen Z streaming habits today?

To get a clear picture of Gen Z streaming habits, it helps to look at how much time they spend on different kinds of media. According to research, Gen Z spends 54 percent more time on social platforms than the average consumer, which is about 50 minutes more per day. You can read more about this data here. This means they are very active on places like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, where they don’t just watch videos but also interact with others, share content, and discover new trends. At the same time, they spend 44 minutes less watching traditional shows or movies on TV or through cable. This shift shows that Gen Z prefers shorter, bite sized content that feels more personal and less formal than the usual TV shows. Their streaming habits also include using multiple devices, switching quickly between different types of content, and favoring on demand services like Netflix, Disney Plus, and Twitch. These platforms allow them to watch what they want, skip ads, and even join live streams or discussions. So, when we talk about Gen Z streaming habits, we are talking about a generation that values freedom, interaction, and quick access to a wide range of content, which is changing how entertainment is made and enjoyed today.

Why do big companies spend so much money on shows?

Big companies like Netflix spend huge amounts of money on shows for a few important reasons. The way Netflix works is simple but powerful. People pay a monthly fee to watch their content, which means Netflix needs to keep those subscribers happy and coming back for more. To do that, they need to offer shows and movies that you cannot find anywhere else. This is why they invest billions of dollars into creating exclusive content that only their subscribers can enjoy.

One big part of this spending is understanding the Gen Z streaming habits. Young viewers today have grown up with streaming as their main way to watch shows and movies. They are used to having tons of options and expect fresh, exciting content all the time. If Netflix doesn’t keep up with what Gen Z wants, those viewers will switch to another service that does. So, Netflix and other companies pour money into creating shows that match these habits, making sure they stay relevant in a crowded market.

Netflix is planning to spend 18 billion dollars in cash on content in 2025. This huge budget shows just how serious they are about winning and keeping subscribers. When you think about it, that money goes into making everything from big budget dramas to small indie projects, all aimed at different groups of viewers. The goal is to have something for everyone, especially for younger viewers who drive a lot of the streaming trends.

The Gen Z streaming habits have changed the game for these companies. Unlike older generations, Gen Z tends to watch shows on their phones or tablets, often preferring shorter episodes or content that feels more interactive and social. Companies like Netflix study these habits closely to decide what kinds of shows to invest in. Spending billions on content is not just about making entertainment it’s about understanding the audience and offering what they want before anyone else does. This is why big companies keep spending so much money on shows, always trying to stay ahead in the fast moving world of streaming.

If you want to read more about Netflix’s content spending plans, you can check out this article from Variety.

How much money does YouTube spend on making videos?

When you think about YouTube and the videos you watch every day, it might feel like the company spends a huge amount of money making those videos itself. But that is not how YouTube works. Unlike traditional TV networks or movie studios, YouTube does not create its own shows or movies. Instead, it acts as a platform where millions of regular people, from all around the world, can upload their videos for others to watch. This is a big part of what makes YouTube so unique and popular, especially with younger viewers.

YouTube’s business model is built around sharing ad money with the creators who make the content. When you watch a video on YouTube, you often see ads before or during the video. The money from those ads goes to YouTube, but a big portion of it is shared with the people who made the videos. This helps creators earn income from their work and encourages them to keep making new content. It is a win win situation. Creators get paid, viewers get free videos, and YouTube makes money by hosting the platform and running the ads.

This system has been especially important for understanding Gen Z streaming habits. Gen Z tends to spend a lot of their time online watching videos on platforms like YouTube rather than traditional TV. They enjoy the variety and freedom to watch whatever they want, whenever they want. Because YouTube supports creators financially, it allows for a wide range of content that appeals to different interests, which fits perfectly with the diverse tastes of Gen Z viewers. If you want to see just how much YouTube values its creators, you can check this report from CNBC. Since 2021, YouTube has paid out over 100 billion dollars to creators, showing just how significant this sharing model has become.

This approach helps explain why YouTube is so successful and why it plays a big role in shaping Gen Z streaming habits. Instead of spending big money making their own videos, YouTube empowers millions of people to create and share their stories, ideas, and entertainment while also supporting them financially. It is a powerful way to keep content fresh, interesting, and connected to what viewers really want.

Who is actually winning the battle for our screens?

When it comes to the fight for our attention on screens, it might seem like Netflix, with its billions of dollars spent on original shows and movies, would be the clear winner. After all, Netflix has poured huge amounts of money into creating hit series and exclusive content, hoping to keep viewers hooked. But if we take a closer look at the numbers, it’s clear that YouTube is actually coming out on top, especially when we consider Gen Z streaming habits.

In July 2025, YouTube captured 13.4 percent of all TV watch time, while Netflix held only 8.8 percent. This data, reported by Nielsen, really highlights how much more screen time people are spending on YouTube compared to Netflix. You can check out the full details on Nielsen’s website. What’s fascinating about this is that even though Netflix spends billions on content, YouTube’s mix of free videos, live streams, and user generated content is drawing more viewers overall. This suggests that many people, particularly younger viewers, prefer the variety and accessibility that YouTube offers.

Gen Z streaming habits play a big role in this shift. Younger audiences tend to favor platforms where they can find quick, diverse, and interactive content. YouTube fits that bill perfectly because it lets users watch everything from music videos to DIY tutorials, vlogs, and gaming streams all in one place. Netflix, on the other hand, mainly offers longer form shows and movies that require more time and commitment. For Gen Z, the ability to switch between different types of content quickly and engage with creators directly makes YouTube more appealing.

So even though Netflix invests heavily in original programming and global expansion, YouTube’s broad range of content and its free, easy to access format are winning over more viewers, especially among younger generations. The battle for our screens isn’t just about spending big on fancy shows anymore. It’s about meeting the changing Gen Z streaming habits, and right now, YouTube seems to have the upper hand.

What do Gen Z streaming habits tell us about the future?

When we look at Gen Z streaming habits, it becomes clear that young people today are searching for something real. They are not as interested in flashy Hollywood productions with big budgets and polished scripts. Instead, they want to connect with people who feel like friends. This generation values authenticity and relatability over glitz and glamour. They want to watch creators who share their everyday lives, struggles, and joys. These creators are not distant stars on a big screen but people who seem approachable and genuine.

One interesting piece of data shows that 52 percent of Gen Z feel more connected to online creators than to traditional actors or TV hosts. This tells us a lot about what young viewers are looking for. They want to feel like they know the person on screen, like they could reach out and have a conversation. This connection is stronger than the appeal of famous faces or expensive sets. It shows that Gen Z streaming habits are shifting the entertainment world toward a more personal, community driven experience. You can find more about this data at this link.

The future of streaming is likely to revolve around these real connections. Gen Z streaming habits suggest that the old ways of making content might not work as well anymore. Instead of focusing solely on big productions and star power, creators and platforms might need to emphasize building genuine relationships with their audiences. This means more live chats, behind the scenes moments, and honest conversations that make viewers feel included. It also shows that the power of storytelling is evolving. Stories no longer have to be grand or scripted to matter. They just need to be real.

Gen Z streaming habits reveal a simple but powerful truth. Money does not buy attention anymore. It is not about how much you spend on special effects or famous actors. What matters is the connection you create with your audience. Young people want to feel seen and heard by people who seem like friends, not distant celebrities. As the streaming world continues to change, this focus on authenticity and real connections will shape the future of entertainment in ways we are only beginning to understand.

The post Netflix Spent $17 Billion. YouTube Spent $0. Guess Who Won. 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.

I know. That sounds completely backwards. Every instinct in business tells you to give people more choices. More products, more features, more options. The thinking is simple: the more you have, the more people will find something they like. Right?

Well, it turns out that’s wrong. And a recent move by Dick’s Sporting Goods with their Foot Locker brand proves it in a pretty dramatic way.

I was talking to a friend who works in retail strategy, and they brought up this story. Dick’s bought Foot Locker and decided to completely rethink the store experience. One of the first things they did was remove roughly 30% of the shoe styles from the walls. They didn’t replace them with new styles. They just took them away.

And then something surprising happened. Sales went up. Not just a little. The redesigned stores started outperforming even the core Dick’s Sporting Goods locations.

So what is going on here? Why do fewer options increase sales? Let’s dig into it.

What does science say about too many choices?

This isn’t just a lucky accident. There is a huge body of research that backs this up.

Back in 2000, two researchers from Columbia University, Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper, ran a now-famous study at a grocery store. They set up two tasting tables. One had 24 flavors of jam. The other had just 6 flavors.

The table with 24 jams attracted more people to stop and look. But here’s where it gets interesting. When shoppers were presented with 24 options, only 3% made a purchase. When they were presented with just 6 options, 30% made a purchase. That is a ten-times difference in conversion, just by removing options.

This is what researchers call “choice overload.” When we are faced with too many options, our brains get overwhelmed. We can’t decide. And when we can’t decide, we do nothing. We walk away empty-handed.

Harvard Business Review has written about this extensively, noting that when there is too much choice, consumers are less likely to buy anything at all. And if they do buy, they feel less satisfied with what they chose, because they keep wondering if one of the other options might have been better.

Why do fewer options increase sales in retail?

Think about the last time you walked into a store that felt cluttered and overwhelming. Shoes stacked from floor to ceiling. Racks so full you can barely flip through them. Hundreds of products all competing for your attention.

How did that make you feel? Probably a little stressed. Maybe you grabbed something quickly just to get out of there. Or maybe you left without buying anything at all.

Now think about a store that felt clean and focused. A few carefully chosen products, well-lit and well-displayed. A clear story about what the brand stands for. You probably felt calmer. You probably spent more time looking. And you probably bought something.

That’s exactly what Dick’s created with their new “Fast Break” format at Foot Locker. By removing 30% of the styles from the shoe wall, they were able to tell a clearer story about the shoes they did have. They created better displays. They made the shopping experience feel intentional rather than chaotic.

Executive Chairman Ed Stack described the improvement this way: “The improvement is coming from the basics: clearer storytelling, better presentation and a more focused assortment where we removed roughly 30% of the styles on the shoe wall that were unproductive.”

The results were so strong that Dick’s is now rolling out this format to 250 Foot Locker stores across the US and Europe.

Does this only apply to shoe stores?

Not at all. The principle that fewer options increase sales applies across almost every industry.

Think about email marketing. Research has shown that emails featuring 3 products generate 38% higher revenue than emails with more options. Conversion rates increased by 58% and order numbers jumped by 59% when the number of choices was reduced.

Think about restaurant menus. Studies have consistently shown that restaurants with shorter menus see higher customer satisfaction. When you have 200 items to choose from, you spend the whole meal wondering if you ordered the right thing. When you have 20 items, you feel confident in your choice.

Think about software products. Some of the most successful apps in the world, including Instagram, WhatsApp, and early Twitter, became popular because they did one thing really well. They didn’t try to be everything to everyone. They focused.

SKU rationalization, the process of removing underperforming products from a retail lineup, is now a recognized strategy for boosting margins. By identifying and eliminating products that don’t sell well, retailers can focus their resources on the things that do, and create a cleaner, more confident shopping experience.

How can you apply this to your own work?

The lesson here is not to strip your business down to one product and call it a day. It’s about being intentional. It’s about asking yourself: “Is everything I’m offering actually helping my customer make a decision, or is some of it just creating noise?”

Start with an honest audit

Look at your products, your services, your pricing packages, or even your marketing messages. Which ones are actually driving results? Which ones are just taking up space? Be honest. It’s easy to get attached to things we’ve put effort into, even when the data says they aren’t working.

Think about your “shoe wall”

Every business has a version of the shoe wall. It might be a services page on your website with 12 different offerings. It might be a social media strategy that tries to be on every platform at once. It might be a product catalog that keeps growing because no one wants to make the call to cut anything.

Ask yourself: if I removed 30% of the things on this list, would my customers actually miss them? Or would they find it easier to choose?

Focus on what you do best

The stores that perform best in any industry are usually the ones that have a clear point of view. They know who they are for, and they don’t try to be everything to everyone. That clarity is what creates the kind of focused, confident experience that makes customers feel good about buying.

What happens inside a customer’s brain when there are too many choices?

Let’s get a little more specific about why this happens. When you walk into a store or land on a website with too many options, your brain does something interesting. It starts comparing. Every option gets weighed against every other option. The more options there are, the more comparisons your brain has to make. And at some point, the mental effort required to make a decision becomes greater than the pleasure of making the purchase.

Psychologists call this “analysis paralysis.” It’s the state of being so overwhelmed by choices that you end up making no choice at all. And it’s not a sign of laziness or indecision. It’s a completely normal response to an overloaded system.

A meta-analysis of nearly 100 studies on choice overload found that excessive options reduced satisfaction, increased regret, and decreased the likelihood of making a purchase. This pattern holds across industries, cultures, and types of products. It is one of the most robust findings in consumer psychology.

And here is the part that makes this so relevant for businesses today. We live in an era of almost infinite choice. The internet has made it possible to offer hundreds or thousands of options at virtually no additional cost. So the temptation to add more is constant. More products, more services, more packages, more features. More, more, more.

But the research is clear. More is often the enemy of better.

Why does this matter for your marketing and messaging?

The fewer options principle doesn’t just apply to products. It applies to everything you communicate.

Think about your website. How many things are you asking visitors to do? If your homepage has seven different calls-to-action like sign up, learn more, watch a video, read a blog post, follow us on social media, download a guide, and contact us, you are creating the same problem as a wall of 200 shoes. You are overwhelming people with choices. And when people are overwhelmed, they leave.

The most effective websites, the ones that actually convert visitors into customers, tend to have one clear, dominant call-to-action. One thing they want you to do. One path forward. Everything else is secondary.

The same principle applies to your pitch decks, your proposals, your press releases, and your social media posts. Every time you add another point, another benefit, another option, you are diluting the impact of everything else. The more you say, the less people hear.

Dick’s didn’t just remove shoes from the wall. They removed noise from the story. And the story became much more powerful as a result.

The counterintuitive truth about fewer options

Here is the thing that most people miss: removing options isn’t about having less. It’s about having better. When you cut the things that don’t work, you create space for the things that do. You give your best products room to breathe. You give your customers room to think.

And there is a confidence signal in this too. When a brand offers fewer options, it is implicitly saying: “We know what’s good. We’ve done the work of choosing for you. You can trust us.” That kind of confidence is attractive. It’s the difference between a restaurant with a 200-item menu that feels like a diner and a restaurant with 12 carefully chosen dishes that feels like a destination.

The brands that people love most are almost always the ones that have made hard choices about what they will and won’t offer. Apple doesn’t make 50 different laptops. They make a handful, each one clearly differentiated. In-N-Out Burger has one of the shortest menus in fast food. Muji, the Japanese retailer, built an entire brand identity around simplicity and restraint.

These are not accidents. They are strategies. And they are strategies that work because they respect the cognitive limits of the people they are trying to serve.

Dick’s Sporting Goods didn’t make Foot Locker better by adding more. They made it better by taking things away. And the result was sales that outperformed their own flagship brand.

The next time you are tempted to add another option, another product, or another feature, pause for a second. Ask yourself: would fewer options increase sales here? The answer might surprise you.

The post Fewer Options Increase Sales and Here Is the Proof 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.

L’imad was launched last year. In January, Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed became its chairman. He’s the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi. That tells you how important this entity is. When the Crown Prince chairs something, it’s a top priority for the emirate. Jassem Al Zaabi was appointed managing director and CEO this month. He also chairs the Abu Dhabi Department of Finance and serves as vice chairman of the UAE Central Bank. That’s serious financial expertise at the top.

The timing is interesting. Mohamed Alsuwaidi was the founding managing director and CEO of ADQ. He just left to become executive chairman of Lunate, which is an Abu Dhabi investment manager. Leadership transitions often signal bigger changes coming. This consolidation is that bigger change.

L’imad’s portfolio now includes 25 investment companies and platforms with more than 250 group subsidiaries. These aren’t small companies. We’re talking about Taqa (energy), Etihad Airways (aviation), PureHealth (healthcare), Etihad Rail (infrastructure), Abu Dhabi Ports (logistics), Wio Bank (financial services), and McLaren (automotive). That’s a massive and diverse portfolio.

The stated goal is to create a “sovereign investment powerhouse with a diversified asset base.” But what does that actually mean? It means Abu Dhabi is consolidating control and streamlining decision-making. Instead of having multiple entities with overlapping mandates, everything goes through L’imad. That should make the system more efficient and more strategic.

The Supreme Council for Financial and Economic Affairs oversees all of Abu Dhabi’s major sovereign investment funds. That includes the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Mubadala Investment Company, L’imad, and Adnoc. These are the big players that manage hundreds of billions of dollars. When the SCFEA makes a move like this, it’s reshaping the entire economic governance structure of the emirate.

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 Abu Dhabi to consolidate assets of ADQ under L’imad appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The post The Strategic Value of PR in the GCC’s Competitive Market appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The post The Modern Role of Public Relations in the GCC appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

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