It seems as though the natural advice for brands looking to stand out, is to “disrupt”.  

With Liquid Death, Duolingo, Barbie (Through Mattel), and some other “Trailblazers” being hailed as the modern elites of “disruption”, with their style of outlandish, hilarious, on point communication being seemingly the playbook for “making noise”, that type of communication is becoming the prescription to every brand’s ails by the “experts”.

But is that the way?

Is “disruption” a one-size-fits-all solution that works across brand types?

Let’s look at it from the expert’s perspective, when the brand comes in with a problem: How can a brand that is stagnant, build relevancy and be seen, therefore resulting in eventual sales or consideration and conversion?

In this time of ultra-clutter, inspired by what’s out there, the answer is most likely: create something flashy and unorthodox.

The wanted result: Noise.

But just like a disruption in service in public transport on a manic Monday, disruption when it comes to marketing and communications, is usually quickly resolved and things fall back into the mundane, becoming a distant memory that is only remembered by marketing professionals. The general public tends to move on rather quickly.   

Across time, how many brands have “disrupted”, only to go back into their usual ways after the air has cleared?

From completely re-inventing their brand name, to logo re-shifts, and even sending a car to space (Yes Elon Musk is guilty of all 3), tactics have varied, until the next brand comes in and creates its own noise.

Disruption isn’t without merit. The benefits have shown promising results throughout the years, with brands being completely reinvented thanks to that. Some great ones include Volvo, Red Bull and Netflix, who have made disruption part of who they are and what they stand for.  

But others, unfortunately, have fallen from many heights they had consistently climbed. In an effort to make noise, how many have tasted the bitter bite of being deafened by backfired noise?

Which speaks true to the rather better approach: consistency.

Seeking discomfort rather than disruption, while remaining consistent in that effort, would help grow a brand rather than provide a short burst of relevancy and chatter for a finite period of time.

Looking at the best brands that worked on the magic formula, with KitKat and Snickers being marvellous examples, having included a perfect mixture of pushing boundaries consistently through time, we realize that small efforts away from the comfort of “guidelines” done in a linear way provide a lasting effect than a quick loud fix can.

While brands such as the aforementioned have taken a break and gone nuts (pun intended), pushing the boundaries with stunts and executions that could be considered as “disruptive”, it’s their ability to remain on the same path for such a long period of time that makes them iconic and memorable, and an instant poster child for “loundness”.  

It is thus time to seek discomfort, rather than seek disruption, and realize that in the end, it is a game of patience, or repetition, and a long term investment.