I read a blog by Sophy Grimshaw on the Guardian website the other
day. In it she questions a copywriting trend in part started by
innocent smoothies; claiming that the style of copy that innocent
favours has had a detrimental effect on food packaging in general.
To fill you in, innocent opts for a very jovial, cheeky form of copywriting. Here's an example from their website outlining one of their products:
"How can a drink taste this good? Easy - just pop some strawberries and bananas into a bottle and drink it when it's nice and cold.
Bananas for thickness and sweetness, and strawberries for pretending to be posh - a winning combination. And that 'blush pink' goes very nicely with your lipstick. Say no more.
Also, we now make this recipe in our 'meal deal' size. It's a bit smaller, just as tasty, less than 90 calories and fits happily in handbags and back pockets."
The innocent approach to their copy is quite clearly different to the way in which many other food and drink brands would describe their product. It's conversational, it's matey and it's jokey.
It's precisely this tone of voice that Grimshaw has an issue with in her blog. She states,
"British food packaging now has a matey, at worst babyish, tone that simply didn't used to be there"
and,
"... must we label food in such a self-consciously crazy way? Let's please stop before "store in a cool, dry place" becomes "I love it in the cupboard!"
Better crazy than overlooked
Don't get me wrong, I can understand Grimshaw's point of view. There is a sense in which the copywriting favoured by brands like innocent can err on the side of sickening. However, my counter argument to Grimshaw's would be: what's the alternative?
The reality is that we've seen the alternative. Allow me to quote from a strategically placed packet of After Eights:
"DARK CHOCOLATES WITH PEPPERMINT FLAVOURED FONDANT CREAM CENTRE. Ingredients: Sugar, Cocoa mass, Glucose syrup, Cocoa butter, Butterfat, Emulsifier (Sunflower lecithin), Peppermint oil, Natural vanilla flavouring, Citric acid, Stabiliser (Invertase). Made on a line that processes milk chocolate"
The worst thing about typing that copy out is that I knew that not a single person who reads this article will read every word of it. That in a nutshell is why the copywriting tone of voice favoured by brands like innocent can only be a good thing. They have made previously banal, unread and uninteresting copy into something worth reading.
There might be times when it strays into twee, but I would argue that the alternative is far less palatable. Brands who favour this tone have made a giant stride forward as far as copy is concerned. No longer is the small print the preserve of the allergic or hyper-health-conscious, but rather it is titillating, irreverent and interesting. The saying goes that you've got to take the rough with the smooth, and as far as I'm concerned, may this form of copy live on.
To fill you in, innocent opts for a very jovial, cheeky form of copywriting. Here's an example from their website outlining one of their products:
"How can a drink taste this good? Easy - just pop some strawberries and bananas into a bottle and drink it when it's nice and cold.
Bananas for thickness and sweetness, and strawberries for pretending to be posh - a winning combination. And that 'blush pink' goes very nicely with your lipstick. Say no more.
Also, we now make this recipe in our 'meal deal' size. It's a bit smaller, just as tasty, less than 90 calories and fits happily in handbags and back pockets."
The innocent approach to their copy is quite clearly different to the way in which many other food and drink brands would describe their product. It's conversational, it's matey and it's jokey.
It's precisely this tone of voice that Grimshaw has an issue with in her blog. She states,
"British food packaging now has a matey, at worst babyish, tone that simply didn't used to be there"
and,
"... must we label food in such a self-consciously crazy way? Let's please stop before "store in a cool, dry place" becomes "I love it in the cupboard!"
Better crazy than overlooked
Don't get me wrong, I can understand Grimshaw's point of view. There is a sense in which the copywriting favoured by brands like innocent can err on the side of sickening. However, my counter argument to Grimshaw's would be: what's the alternative?
The reality is that we've seen the alternative. Allow me to quote from a strategically placed packet of After Eights:
"DARK CHOCOLATES WITH PEPPERMINT FLAVOURED FONDANT CREAM CENTRE. Ingredients: Sugar, Cocoa mass, Glucose syrup, Cocoa butter, Butterfat, Emulsifier (Sunflower lecithin), Peppermint oil, Natural vanilla flavouring, Citric acid, Stabiliser (Invertase). Made on a line that processes milk chocolate"
The worst thing about typing that copy out is that I knew that not a single person who reads this article will read every word of it. That in a nutshell is why the copywriting tone of voice favoured by brands like innocent can only be a good thing. They have made previously banal, unread and uninteresting copy into something worth reading.
There might be times when it strays into twee, but I would argue that the alternative is far less palatable. Brands who favour this tone have made a giant stride forward as far as copy is concerned. No longer is the small print the preserve of the allergic or hyper-health-conscious, but rather it is titillating, irreverent and interesting. The saying goes that you've got to take the rough with the smooth, and as far as I'm concerned, may this form of copy live on.
No comments:
Post a Comment