“When I was young, I was taught that behavioural change could be achieved through communication that was relevant, motivating and different. Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost our faith in the power of difference.

There was an era when brand owners were driven by an obsession for product and functionality. They had foresight, a passion for the positive impact a brand might have on consumers’ lives in the future. They were steeled by the competition to believe that difference was critical to commercial success.

In the face of imitation and commoditisation, it became harder to sustain rational product differentiation. Increasingly, we sought difference through communicating "emotional selling propositions”

And, over time, we learned to excuse the absence of difference if we could achieve some kind of emotional resonance with consumers. 

In our pursuit of relevance, we commissioned endless focus groups and worshipped at the altar of consumer insight. Gradually, we have arrived at an industry consensus around what makes effective communication. But it is a narrow definition, one that leans heavily on consumer insight and relevance, and one that minimises or excludes the once-critical role of difference in the selling process.

Relevance has trumped difference. We now inhabit a world in which most brands in most categories approach most problems by asking the same people, the same questions, in the same way. 

Is it any wonder that we keep coming up with the same answers?“

//

“Our risk-aversion has led us to overvaluing category experience and undervaluing communication expertise. But experience predisposes to the conventional; difference occurs at the intersection between expertise and naivety. Let’s listen again to the experts, while opening the process to the inexperienced.”

– Jim Carroll, Chairman BBH London