One of my many theories, I have one on pretty much everything by the way, is that we in comms who write comedy as a means to sell consumers stuff need to look at the wider, broader spectrum offered by comedians and not jut look at ads for guidance. Obvious one that I know, so why the hell doesn't the average creative bother then? I blogged about it here.
I also believe that there are 3 stages in the life of a brand's brilliant voice. 1) The creation of something original, thus creating stand out 2) The copying by many, thus making it trite and ubiquitous 3) A strong reaction against it, which is normally the opposite to it, and is implimented by an equally talented company, but not necessarily in the same sector.
So, if we take the the once brilliant and much copied (badly) Innocent drinks, where life is good in whimsical, middle England's very own Nappy valley. When it came out it was inspired, it connected in a way that most brands didn't (and don't) and success followed. (phase1)
Then came the many imitators. (phase2)
So what of phase 3? Well I'm coming to that. If my theory is right then we could soon see a brand soon that deliberately provokes it's audience/consumers with it's anger and bad-temperedness. It's already happened in the wider spectrum of comedy where to offend is the material de jour, (So with two theories combining I had to post, right?)
I even wrote a blog to experiment along these lines - until I forgot my password which was then sent to an email address that I no longer have access to and so haven't been able to contiue with, which really, really pissed me off, I can tell you. Anyway I digress.
Should a brand talk to it's consumers like a Jack Dee or a Ricky Gervais? I believe 100% yes,but only if it's as brilliantly written and presented as guys like this. So that means a probable no then.
Only time will tell.
Comments