Why the WHSmith rebrand will fail | Nudge Newsletter


Don't Change The Name

Read online


I shared a (semi) viral post about the WHSmith rebrand a few weeks back.

WHSmith, a two-century-old British retailer, was sold.

As part of the sale, the name had to change.

WHSmith would become TGJones.

For non-Brits, this name change is a big deal.

WHSmith has been on British high streets for over two centuries.

And there are 3 behavioural science reasons why I think this rebrand will fail.

1. Habits

In Jan 2009, Tropicana rebranded.

Their new sleek design was supposed to attract new customers.

It did the opposite. Sales dropped by 20%.

In his book Decoded, Phil Barden¹ explains why.

We're creatures of habit; most purchases are based on system one unconscious thought.

Disrupting that habit with a significant rebrand will therefore reduce sales.

2. Mere exposure

Psychologist Robert Zajonc² (1968) found that students rated unfamiliar Turkish words more favorably when they had seen them more often.

Termed the "mere exposure effect", the study proved that repeated exposure to a name, idea, or brand increases likability and perceived truthfulness.

He found the same effect with strange hooded men appearing in his lectures.

I've seen the name WHSmith probably 5,000 times.

That repeat exposure makes me trust the brand and like it (a bit).

It makes me more likely to buy.

Remove the name, and you remove all that value.

3. Input bias

The more effort that goes into something, the more we value it.

WHSmith has been around for 200 years. Even with its dwindling sales, that counts for something.

I studied the input bias on my listeners a few months back.

Simply telling them "I've spent three weeks on this video" boosted enjoyment by 35%³.

Removing the name WHSmith removes the input bias.

TGJones has been around for 0 years, and that lack of history could harm sales.


Sponsored by: The Rundown AI

Start learning AI in 2025

Everyone talks about AI, but no one has the time to learn it. So, we found the simplest way to learn AI in as little time as possible: The Rundown AI.

It's a free AI newsletter that keeps you up-to-date on the latest AI news, and teaches you how to apply it in just 5 minutes a day.

Plus, complete the quiz after signing up and they’ll recommend the best AI tools, guides, and courses – tailored to your needs.

I don't want to claim that TGJones won't be a success.

Or that WHSmith shouldn't have sold.

But behavioural science reveals the pitfalls of rebrands.

And most of the evidence suggests this will fail.

What do you think?Phill

¹Barden, P. (2013). Decoded: The science behind why we buy. John Wiley & Sons.

²Zajonc, R. B. (1968). The attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27.

³Agnew, P. (Host). (2024, November 18). Can I create a viral YouTube video? In Nudge. Apple Podcasts.

As a behavioural science practitioner, I believe in the peak-end rule*

Tune into Nudge | Advertise with Nudge | Unsubscribe

Nudge Newsletter

I spend 18 hours each week turning marketing psychology into readable newsletters.

Read more from Nudge Newsletter

Psychology of Pricing Read online 1) Charm Pricing for High-Quality Products Imagine you’re buying a shatterproof iPhone case Does it matter if it is priced at £49.99 or £49.95? Well, yes. Apple uses charm pricing but usually ends prices with a 5. Gendall, Fox, and Wilton (1998)¹ ran an experiment with fast-moving consumer goods (fly spray, cheese) and durables (electric kettles). They found that prices with endings in 99 cents are more attractive for low-priced, fast-moving consumer goods...

Unit Asking Read online Which of these articles encouraged Brits to donate more? It's the one on the right. Research by Christopher Hsee¹ found that donors gave nearly twice as much when first asked to consider the needs of a single person before being asked to donate to a larger cause. This “unit asking” strategy made contributions feel more reasonable and personal. And it explains this² rather bizarre study: The study looked at the success rate of donation requests on the...

Hyperbolic Discounting Read online One of these ads looks 108% better value. Can you guess which? In 2025, Shotton and Flicker¹ tested ads like this in their book. 282 consumers were shown Sierra Nevada Pale Ale priced at $18.99 for 12 bottles. Half were told this equated to $1.58 per bottle. Among those shown the per-bottle price, 28.6% said it was good or very good value (more than double the 13.7% who only saw the total price). Framing the cost at the per-unit level made the purchase feel...