“Be the Candy”

And happy Valentine’s Day.

Yesterday on I-94 headed north to Port Huron, I saw a billboard sponsored by one of the leading brands in, um, intimate apparel.

As readers of this blog know, I’m a keen follower of unique, pointed tag lines. And critical of the incredible paucity of same — notwithstanding the incredible amount of apparently small-minded time and wheelbarrows of money spent on developing ‘em by corporations and non-profits alike, big and small.

Now at this point one might expect some sort of disclaimer before picking up on the headline for the meat of what’s to be said here. Not that I approve of such thinking. Or a general nod that neither men nor women should look at each other as objects, because, we’ve been told, sexuality is the last thing anyone wants to see in a healthy relationship.

Instead, I’m gonna give all that fictional foreplay a pass. Because I disagree with it. And because it’s flat-out wrong.

“Be the Candy” is one of those rare tag lines that excels and is worthy of devoted scrutiny by those in the lead with marketing thought. Simultaneously, it powerfully delivers on three key fronts.First, it connects through a universal common denominator, then hooks with an implied question to which there is no easy throw-away answer. We’re talking Valentine’s Day. Part and parcel is the gift of candy. But the copywriter in this case is advocating something, what? similar? the same, but varied? How?

Don’t just give it (which, of course, anyone could do): Be it. And, by the way, without putting too fine a point on it, aren’t we mostly talking about men giving candy to women? The visual in this billboard rather suggests an option by which females might take the initiative.

Point #2: It’s aggressively differentiated in a way that both confronts and negates the very competition the advertiser is facing. Recalling my post about Taco Bell and its brilliant “Think Outside the Bun” slogan from September of 2009, we were encouraged not just to think differently, but actively given direction on how we might do so. Similarly, the “problem” with giving a box of chocolates for Valentine’s Day is that everyone does that, and anyone can.

But only you can give you.

That is special.

Finally, it’s category-specific. More than simply changing-up the game against confectionary purveyors, we’re not looking at a slogan easily confused with a great many other pitches, nor likely to be purloined by them. As someone who was working for a supplier to the dairy industry and actually in the room when the “Got Milk?” concept was very first pitched, I regularly marvel at how many people indulge in unbridled pontifications to espouse just how well they understand the strategy and impact of that initiative.

So much so that today almost every seller of any product or service at one time or another since has asked if we’ve Got—? whatever. For a while, the diary industry, having been first and strong out of the gate, enjoyed a halo effect in that recipients of various Got—? messages invariably thought God Milk?, too. But now, if you happen into your child’s school lunchroom, you’ll see that the dairy industry is moving on from the campaign, I suspect, because it’s no longer distinguishing.

I don’t know that I’d call “Be the Candy” a courageous campaign, because I figure there’s a certain ante companies already pay before they go into the line of selling clothes unabashedly intended to arouse and enhance sexual desire.

Neither should we apologize for it.

Tags: be the candy, brand, branding, differentiation, got milk, marketing, slogan, tag line, tagline, think outside the bun