A few weeks back I wrote a post What Your Holiday Card Says About Your Brand.

In response to that, a BrandTwist reader sent in this interesting holiday giving example from Mother in the UK. Mother offered to share $10,000 (the cost they would have spent on holidays gifts) with any individuals who would respond to an email giving their name and bank details. Only one brave soul took the challenge, and won big time.

Make sure you watch through to the end for the big pay-off.

I think it’s an interesting example of “putting your money where your mouth is” (or values are). To me it portrays the Mother brand as not afraid to take action and/or risks.

I’m not sure how they are going to top this next year. I am sure they would have a lot of people now sending in their bank details, so that same device won’t work.

But whatever, they do, I know I’m looking forward to seeing it.

That’s my point of view. What’s your twist?
What do you think of this holiday effort from Mother?

Previous articleWhat Would Make Women Happier?
Next articleThe ROI of Social Media
Julie is the Founder and CEO of BrandTwist, a brand consultancy that helps entrepreneurs and corporations build stronger, more profitable brands.


  1. Thanks for sharing this video Julie. Like you said, it’s great that Mother “put their money where their mouth is”. I also think it teaches the lesson that more and more people are trusting brands less and less; and that’s what I think is today’s “holy grail”, having people that truly trust in your brand.

  2. Sorry but I’m not really a fan of this idea. I think it’s a little self-serving and slightly irresponsible – perpetuating the myth of spam fortunes which is a massive problem in the digital world. Particularly the form they’ve used, thousands of people have been stung by this trick alone. This kind of re-enforcement disadvantages the innocents and benefits the spammers and identity thieves. They could have found a much more imaginative way to give the money away responsibly with the same or better payoff.

  3. @Gareth interesting point about the SPAM. I hadn’t considered that. They do identify themselseves as Mother, but the construct of the email does closely follow that of spam letters (e.g. a bit awkward wording). Thanks for commenting.


  4. @Donald thanks for the comment. Curious on your take on Gareth’s comment about perpetuating the dangers of spam.


Comments are closed.