The presumption here is that it was a true replication, and that's pretty damn hard to accomplish in the soft sciences. It matters, just not nearly as much or as conclusively as in something like physics.
If 'priming' only works every wet Tuesday in February, after someone has had a cheeseburger with no sauce and took their Grandma to the bingo, perhaps there's some _actual_ interesting artefact explaining it...or it could just be random noise.
But the presumption here is that the same experiment is even being run a second time, and my point is that many studies who have the stated goal of replication do so in ways that I find hard to justify.
So even when a study claims to "fail to replicate", I don't think we should just take that on face value.