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

Operational Transparency Read online Voltarol is the world's number one pain relief gel. Unlike almost every other gel on the market, Voltarol actually works. Clinical tests have been done to prove that the gel penetrates the skin to supply pain relief. And yet, there are dozens of other very successful paom relief creams that don't supply real pain relief. Take Blue-Emu, an over-the-counter cream with $42 million in annual sales. So, why is Blue-Emu successful in a world where Voltarol...

The Ringelmann Effect Read online In 1882, French engineer Maximilien Ringelmann studied effort.¹ He measured how much weight each man could pull. Individually, the men could pull 85 kg. But in groups of seven, they averaged just 65 kg, a 24% drop. This became known as the Ringelmann Effect. Put simply, it proved that as group size increases, individual effort decreases. Most of us will have seen this in the workplace, typically in bloated meetings where nothing gets done. But it's not...

The Effort Illusion Read online In 2003, two researchers¹ proved the illusion of effort. It means we value things more if we believe it took a lot of time to create. Chinander and Schweitzer had groups watch identical presentations. Groups were told one of two things: "This presentation took 8 hours and 34 minutes to prepare." "This presentation took 37 minutes to prepare." Those told the presentation took longer to prep rated it significantly higher. Can I prove this works? On Nudge, I like...