David Meerman Scott released an ebook not too long ago to illustrate how writing with conflict is more persuasive. Of course, you can’t tell a story without conflict — not one worth reading, anyway — so we can assume without reading the book that he’s got a point. Question is, how scalable is this theory? If writing with conflict is more persuasive, is writing with much more conflict much more effective?

Evidence to Support:

I enjoyed watching the television series Life on the Discovery Channel. Me and my family all curled up on the couch, stayed up way past our bedtimes and watched young ibexes (I think that’s the plural) outrun red foxes. (Or foxen. Whatever.)

But what I loved more were the brief sponsorship ads that Target ran before the show launched into commercial breaks. They were ten seconds long, and they were more memorable than any of the other standard ads that ran during that two-hour stretch. Did you catch them? No? Well here, I’ll recite them in their entirety:

“Life is presented by Target.”

How utterly brilliant is that? Life is presented by Target. LIFE! You are alive — this whole planet survives because of Target. You just witnessed how amazing is the miracle of life, and what makes it all possible? The fine people at the giant nationwide box store with the big red target on the front.

Bold makes an impression. There is conflict inherent in boldness, because despite what you see on television, boldness is not the norm. To be extraordinary (in the original sense of the word) is to be controversial. Life is presented by Target? you ask. That’s absurd!

Exactly. But it solicited a reaction. The Target promos don’t say anything different than any other consumer brand promo. They all want you to believe that the things that make your life worth living are available courtesy of whatever store they’re promoting. Target just said it in five words.

Evidence to Refute:

This is where I need your help. Can you think of an instance where bold failed? If so, leave it in the comments section below.