If there's one thing that's conventional about advertising, it's Disruption. You can't move for briefs asking you to 'disrupt the market', a certain agency had even made Disruption its core positioning.
Like most ways of working, it has its place, just like nearly every other approach, especially when you're in a market weighed down with complacency and tradition.
That said, in the wrong hands, it tends to turn into shock tactics or extreme points of view and novelty.
Granted, this might create stand-out advertising, but it's less likely to create long term brand and business value, because while people can't help but notice novelty, anything too far removed from what they're used to gets rejected.
Brands exist to help us think less and remove the risk of buying rubbish product, never forget this.
So what do you do if you have to work on a disruption brief?
Simple really.
Find the link between what people care about and what the brand cares about.
Make sure it totally undermines the competition in a way that they can't react too quickly.
But ground the delivery in something they are already familiar with or can relate to.
Take some of the most famous 'Disruptive' work from Apple.
Few people will disagree that they like the idea of being creative and, at the time, most hated the clunkiness of computing, while Apple was focused on making computers that were not only a joy to use, they freed up the skills of creative people
Then, there is a reason the 1984 ad was called 1984. It tapped into a very familiar story many could relate to.
Just as 'Think Different' used very familiar figures - and in the west at least, flaws in psychology makes most of us believe we're not average when of course we are.
Now think about shaving.
It's become very conventional for men's shaving brands to go on about male identity, which is kind of fair, because shaving is tied up with masculinity.
Gillette is supposed to be the best a man can get, so, in their endearingly clunky way, they're trying to tap into new codes for masculinity.
I suspect this will have an effect, but it does feel like a big brand late to the party, or bowing to the new conventions in the market.
The truth of the matter is, most men HATE shaving, they certainly don't want to spend more on it than they have to, which is why cheaper subscription brands like Dollar Shave Club or Harry's have done so well.
But you know what? I'm tight fisted, so I naturally subscribe to cheapo brand myself, but one day found myself out of blades and bought Gillette to tide me over.
I'd forgotten how good they were, shaved closer, no irritation, no dragging, just better.
It made me wonder, thinking about disruption and familiarity, maybe the best thing Gillette could do right now is be confident and disrupt the market by simply talking about the fact the their razors shave better - reliability, performance.
Just find a way to execute it that steers as far away from slo mo models and sciencey close ups as they can.
The convention is tapping into how men feel about being a man, but really, shaving is a necessary evil than men would rather not think about - Gillette delivers the best blades so you can crack on with all the other shit you have to think about.
And in case you think reliability and commitment to performance is a bit dull, one of the best ads ever basically riffed on how to make reliability desirable rather than dull.....
This last one is very dated, but I still like how, in classic BMP style, they push the simple benefit to the most extreme outcome. Also, funnily enough, tapping into 'independent women' tropes in a wonderfully subtle way next to heavy handed shaving brands and manliness.
Anyway, there will be a million reasons why my thoughts on shaving are all bollocks, but still, conventions, disruptions...
In a nutshell, don't be lukewarm, stand our and get noticed - but don't forget to make people want to buy and for Gods sake.
Familiar novelty.
Anyway.
Comments