Of course, the zeitgeist does not stop at branding and rebranding. And this means that for some time now, brands have wanted to be approachable, likeable and at eye level. In discussions about the specific design, the question almost always arises as to whether you shouldn't communicate on a first-name basis. Because in the end, everything looks different again - just like in a good Greek drama.
Act One: Euphoria (short)
(Re)branding workshop, at some point the sentence comes, something like: "...but then we would have to go with you." Bummer, the show begins. Nods, smiles, affirmative votes. You can literally see how the participants' imaginations run wild - finally free of this formal, unnatural "you"! Okay, cool, let's enjoy this naive moment before we spoil it again.
Act two: Struggling for the solution
The first clouds are gathering: "So also towards the suppliers, for example? Or the chairman of the board? Or the shareholders?"...*chirpchirp*... "Good point - of course we can't all but simply the customers". "So also the customer's CEO? And also when the customer calls the call center in a huff? And the invoice also says you?"
And there we have the mess, the drama is set. Whether fresh or cheeky - how the "you" is received is determined by the matrix of horror: there are different target groups, different channels and different situations - and all possible combinations of these. Now you can go and actually play through this matrix, at least to some extent. Because a generic "you" on a poster is really different from a personal "you" on the phone or on the invoice. The former comes across as casual and often very natural, while the latter tends to be overbearing. In other words, if you really, really wanted to, you could probably find an okay solution. But the mounted principle police are guaranteed to stand in the way with the tiresome killer argument "but that's inconsistent". Not like that, anyone could come along, we've never done it that way before!
Act three: The decision
We have reached the climax: what will take over? Confidence that these problems can be solved when they arise? The fear of not being consistent enough?
But suddenly he stands there in shining armor: the supposedly saving deus ex machina and says nonchalantly "we can simply dispense with direct speech (and thus avoid the problem, as Ulysses should have done with the Island of the Sirens)?". Everyone nods, dazzled by the brilliant idea, and is already happy that the discussion has finally been put to rest.
The only thing is: when you approach someone, it's a bit like making eye contact. If you avoid it, you come across as anything but approachable and likeable. This statement usually marks the end of the conversation: The last hint of euphoria leaves the room like the air leaves the released balloon. Weak, tired and hungry, the decision is made to postpone the topic (it will never be discussed again).
This classic drama will be repeated many more times. And all those who more or less consistently address their target group as "you" deserve a pat on the back: You've found a way out somewhere and you're either sticking to the "you" or you've found compromises - perhaps even using common sense. Gods be the judge of whether this is good or not in your case. But it's at least pretty heroic.
Analyzed since 2025 Sarah Pally In her column "Blossoms and Pearls", she uses industry-related terms and comments on them with a personal touch, from a linguistic perspective - as well as with a precise view of developments in the industry. Pally is a partner in the Partner & Partner agency in Winterthur. She has been working in the fields of content marketing, text/concept and storytelling in the communications and marketing sector for 15 years.
