Reiss on TikTok - Social Master Stroke or McLaren Miss?

Surely we’re all familiar with the recent social post by Reiss, where a group of guys ferociously danced themselves into a frenzy in Leadenhall Market? I saw marketers applauding it as a huge success, demonstrating how Reiss reacted to the hugely popular ‘man in finance’ trend in a way that brought their brand into the conversation effectively on social. But, as I watched, I couldn’t help but wonder if it signalled an issue I see time and time again, where a brand's social channels fail to be a positive extension of their brand and generating ‘views’ and ‘likes’ are seen as a distraction from whether social is contributing to the wider business goals. 

For those who are unfamiliar, Reiss are a “modern global fashion brand for both men and women”, they price themselves into the premium category making them certainly more of a considered purchase for any consumer looking to spend a little more on clothing but not enter the high-end market. I have been a customer of the brand for a few years now, and generally speak positively about the product and service. They style themselves in a fairly conservative way, with some pieces that push outside of that, but never to a point that your typically conservative man would wince.

But what was it that made me think that there was an inherent issue with their Man in Finance content, I hear you ask? It’s just a social post, and an incredibly fun one at that. To be clear, I for one do not like to overcomplicate the point of social at the point of content creation, but I think brands have their place in the content ecosystem and when they contribute they should be savvy to the benefits, and pitfalls that come with an effective social strategy. I’m a firm believer in purpose and intention. I also like to dig into content when I have a gut feeling it could signal an issue, and I see others praising it for its ‘success’. 

There’s a reason I’ve come to think like that, some might say as a pessimist, is because behind every marketer there’s a CFO/Finance Director who’ll ask the simple question year on year of “what did that spend do to drive our bottom line”, and unless brands can demonstrate meaningful ROI budgets get slashed – social is typically first up under the microscope. I’ve seen it happen countless times, brand side and agency side. And this is what brands need to understand, social is never about simply running a channel, or at least it shouldn’t be in my opinion. It’s about bringing together all of the important opportunities that social provides for brands to build their community, mobilise them, and monetise them, supported by influencers and an effective paid strategy. Any brand who isn’t doing that is either wasting valuable time or being dishonest about their intentions. 

You can see effective use of social moreso amongst startup companies and brands, those who are incredibly time sensitive and make social work incredibly hard for them. They’re keen to interact with their consumers and promote their product, but they’re really there to drive growth of their business. Brands like Glossier, Gymshark, Dollar Shave Club have demonstrated how focusing on a multi-leveled approach to social can drive huge business success. Reiss however, as an already established brand, are playing in a territory I like to call “The Social Sink” - the place brands find themselves where they create a lot of noise on social, but do it without clear purpose or intention.

So, what was it that made me think there could be a wider strategic issue at play here, well it was actually their McLaren partnership. 

Around about the same time as dropping this infamous piece of content, Reiss announced a collaboration with McLaren F1 Team, a range of premium clothing that feels like the brands biggest play into the collaboration space (certainly since I’ve been aware of them). McLaren, with their well-established brand position and audience to match, has started to partner with more brands as it aims to diversify its audience, likely as a result of an ageing audience base (Lando Norris has been a godsend for them). These opportunities to reach new, exciting audiences is a win-win for both brands. So why then, has Reiss found themselves in a position where they’re already discounting products from the range quite significantly. Too expensive? Failing to appeal to the right customer? The wrong partnership? Unappealing aesthetic? 

At the time of the launch I messaged a friend of mine telling him that he should take a look at the clothing, I’d seen it whilst in the shop and thought he might be interested in some of it. This form of nano-influencing is what brands thrive upon, it’s a very simple process of consumer sees something, consumers shares something, and therefore influences another consumers decision to maybe consider or purchase - it doesn’t just happen on social. The psychology behind the sharing of the content/collaboration already demonstrates a level of approval from the friend or family member (in this case me). By sharing this collection with my friend I was saying “I think some of this looks good, and I think you should look at it”. 

To be honest, when I first saw the range I thought it would sell-out quickly, a mens and womens range that felt like the perfect crossover for this audience who likely have higher spend propensity and an interest in style/fashion. There were some very bold pieces that would appeal to the few, and then there were the basics that would likely appeal to the masses - the existing fans of F1 & McLaren, a predominantly male consumer, slightly older in age, albeit they too are speaking to a younger consumer with a heavy male skew, a group that Reiss is failing to speak to with their day to day social content on TikTok. Nor should they necessarily. Their day to day community members across their TikTok channel is over 70% female, and around 50% 18-24. They’re effectively targeting a younger audience, who would therefore maybe consider buying this product for their other half or a family member, or potentially themselves - the number of ‘shares’ could act as a key measure of success here. Furthermore, there’s either a win-win here in terms of diversifying audience-split in the process of selling this product range, or there’s a huge issue that should’ve been presented at the point of discussion around the partnership which is that the social presence of the brand would fail to organically speak to the audience that would be most likely to react to this collab, unless they saw a massive spike in shares as mentioned earlier. (Reiss themselves clearly see the range as speaking more to men, based on its positioning on its website). Nothing a bit of paid targeting couldn’t solve, of course, but in terms of growing a community that can further advocate for the brand, it feels like Reiss & McLaren would have their work cut out. 

So, why am I so bothered by the “Man in Finance” social post? 

I suppose the question I asked myself is, does the Man in Finance post deter a male consumer who would be most likely to purchase from the McLaren range, from purchasing from Reiss. Or, does the Man in Finance post reflect how a male customer of the Reiss brand wants to be portrayed. 

So, with that being said, I have no idea who it’s appealing to that truly supports any meaningful goal for the brand. The social post which likely cost very little to produce, alongside a McLaren partnership that likely cost a considerable amount of money to deliver. The post, which sees a group of guys dance in a rather ‘camp’ way, around a Reiss shopping bag doesn’t seem to do anything strategic other than generate views/likes - which you could argue is a metric of success on social, but they’re vanity metrics in my mind, as are most metrics you’ll find on social. The whole story behind the concept was based on a girl finding her ‘man in finance’ and as the most engaged comment in the comments section suggests, they may not be really tying into that story effectively. Whilst fun, it’s not really hitting any specific nail on the head. The opportunity the brand had to showcase that their customer is in fact the Man in Finance is lost the moment the audience perceive the men in the video to not be for the female that created the trend. Men watching this video are therefore not able to relate to the moment that this trend set them up for. 

The creative juxtaposition between the social moment, the brand, and the output, feels somewhat confusing. To compare the man that this content reflects (and appeals to), alongside the one Reiss speaks to in its day to day brand efforts, alongside the McLaren F1 fan, feels confusing and messy for a wider social community strategy. 

I’m not in any way against brands promoting diversity in their content, I think it’s hugely important, but did the questions I would always as are:

• Did they need to do it?

• Does it align with their wider brand presence? 

• Does it speak to their core customer in a way that gets them to act meaningfully?

In answer to these questions, the answer is no, and therefore it’s a miss from my perspective at this stage. But let’s dig further into the data.

The video itself generated Reiss’ most engaged TikTok social post to date for the number of followers the channel has, with 170,000 likes, 2,000 comments and 20,000 shares. Those are not to be sniffed at for a follower base of only 12k. It’s a 1,580% engagement rate to follower base… (not that followers are in any way a meaningful stat)

Interestingly, their second most engaged post is that of their McLaren partnership announcement. A post that generated a 455% engagement rate to the follower base (54,000 likes). What’s worth noting is whilst a lot of the comments positively receive the announcement, they speak mainly to the use of Lando Norris as being something they want to “come with the jacket”, some people have no shame. On the contrary, the price of the range is also noted to be an issue, with it being expensive - something I didn’t find as surprising as a Reiss customer knowing that they price themselves into the premium category. 

Now, if you look at that data from the lens of views to engagement, it tells a very different story, only 300,000 people saw the McLaren announcement, meaning that they achieved an engagement rate of 18%, compared to the 2.7m people who saw ‘man in finance’ giving them a 7.1% engagement rate (still bloody great for social). I would assert that people who saw the McLaren video felt it resonated more greatly with them, as it typically aligns more with the brand than the ‘man in finance’ video.

Where does all of this leave us

Clearly, the social efforts of Reiss are incredibly effective at building a community; they’re reaching new audiences, driving engagement with that new audience and whilst the ‘man in finance’ was all kinds of confusing for this social media marketer, I respect their ability to react to a trend in a way that spoke to many people on social media. 

However, what the Reiss brand seems to be failing to capitalise on is speaking to the consumer who is willing to spend the money on their clothing, especially when these collaborations are announced. Their current strategy feels too broad for what is a less-mainstream customer. Their social moment for McLaren saw them give away a signed Lando Norris shirt when you commented on the post, which didn’t even generate as many comments as the Man in Finance video - hardly surprising when their low male split on the channel and the content only focusing on the man himself. Whilst the Reiss team does an effective job of promoting their clothing in a variety of interesting ways, it doesn’t seem to be reaching the male customer who has the purchase power for their brand, organically. 

Where are the opportunities

Obviously, Reiss can target their consumers through the use of paid which would address some of the concerns around the audience split. However, when thinking about the issue organically, I think Reiss would do well to hone in on a male/female audience and tailor their content to one group specifically. They’re already broadening their audience split in a large way, looking at niche communities within the gender split, and doing that when speaking to men feels futile with such a low audience split. By focusing purely on females, the channel will be able to hone in on their messaging and creative much more effectively, and create a place where men who desire the attention of said women can go for inspiration. It doesn’t mean not posting content that features men or indeed speaks to them, it means thinking about how that content speaks primarily to women who would buy/share/advocate to men, and building a strategy around that. 

When the McLaren partnership came around, content should’ve focused more on the men that wear Reiss, acting as an aspiration for the men who are then shared content (Calvin Klein, Jeremy Allen White anyone?), and the Men in Finance content could’ve enhanced the message by speaking to “when your customer IS the Man in Finance”, further bringing into focus that the men who shop at Reiss are desirable and have a strong sense of style, if you’ve seen any of the content about the men in Italy you’ll understand the power that this content can have with attracting the attention/engagement of all audiences on social, whilst also acting as that exact inspiration for men who desire the attention of those around us - which I’m going to go out on a limb and say people shopping at Reiss fall into the category of.