Brand Voice Style Guide: Irreverent Snack Brand

Voice Overview

Core Attributes:

1. Unapologetically Bold: Confident, direct assertions with zero hedging—own every claim without softening language
2. Playful Provocateur: Challenge the status quo with rhetorical questions and “hot takes” that make competitors look boring
3. Fragment-Forward Swagger: Ultra-punchy sentence fragments that hit like flavor bombs—short, sharp, memorable
4. Self-Aware Irreverence: Acknowledge being judged while doubling down on your choices

Voice Temperature: Hot and spicy. Zero corporate polish. All personality.

Voice Personality

If this brand were a person: The friend who walks into a party, declares the snacks are trash, pulls out something amazing from their bag, and says “You’re welcome.” They’re not trying to be liked by everyone—just by people with actual taste.

What we sound like:

• The brutally honest friend who tells you your vending machine is a scam
• Someone who starts sentences with “Hot take:” unironically
• The person who says “Judge us” then immediately proves you wrong
• Your taste buds’ defense attorney

What we DON’T sound like:

• Polite corporate marketing speak
• Apologetic or tentative about anything
• Trying to please everyone
• Traditional food brand trying to be “premium”

Do’s and Don’ts

DO:

Start with provocative statements:

• “Boring snacks? Hard pass.”
• “Your office vending machine is lying to you.”

Use ultra-short fragments for emphasis:

• “Wild flavors. Zero apologies.”
• “We are.”

Invite judgment then dismiss it:

• “Judge us. Actually, don’t—just try our cheddar jalapeño explosion.”

Make bold claims without hedging:

• “We make chips that actually taste like something”
• NOT: “We try to make flavorful chips”

Create us-vs-them dynamics:

• “Those sad crackers? They’re not even trying. We are.”

DON’T:

Soften with qualifiers:

• AVOID: “maybe”, “perhaps”, “sort of”, “kind of”

Be polite about competition:

• AVOID: “Some snacks are less flavorful”
• USE: “Those sad crackers? They’re not even trying.”

Use formal food industry language:

• AVOID: “premium”, “artisanal”, “crafted”, “curated”

Hedge your claims:

• AVOID: “try to”, “aim to”, “hope to”
• USE: “we make”, “we are”, “we put”

Vocabulary Guide

Words We Love

• actually (emphasizer of truth)
• taste (the whole point)
• don’t (casual, conversational)
• we (confident ownership)
• boring (the enemy)
• sad (dismissive descriptor)
• wild (our approach to flavor)
• zero (absolute commitment)
• lying (call out the competition)
• explosion (flavor description)

Phrases We Love

• “Hard pass”
• “Zero apologies”
• “Hot take:”
• “Actually, don’t—” (contradiction move)
• “More for us” (dismissive confidence)
• “get back to us” (challenge accepted)
• “nature’s perfect food”
• “write us thank you notes”

Words We Avoid

• premium, artisanal, crafted, curated, gourmet
• innovative, revolutionary, game-changing
• perhaps, maybe, possibly, potentially
• delicious (show don’t tell)
• quality, excellence, finest
• passionate, dedicated, committed

Sentence Structure Patterns

Pattern 1: Rhetorical Question + Fragment Answer
Template: “[Negative descriptor] [thing]? [Dismissive fragment response].”
Example: “Boring snacks? Hard pass.”

Pattern 2: Direct Accusation + Fragment Confirmation
Template: “[Subject] is [bold claim]. [Fragment reinforcement].”
Example: “Your office vending machine is lying to you. Those sad crackers? They’re not even trying.”

Pattern 3: Bold Statement + Invitation to Judge + Reversal
Template: “[Bold claim]. Judge us. Actually, don’t—[action].”
Example: “We put it on everything. Judge us. Actually, don’t—just try our cheddar jalapeño explosion.”

Pattern 4: Short Fragment Stack
Template: “[Fragment]. [Fragment]. [Fragment].”
Example: “Wild flavors. Zero apologies. Your taste buds will write us thank you notes.”

Pattern 5: Us vs Them Contrast + Dismissive Close
Template: “[They] [negative action]. We [positive action]. [Dismissive fragment]—[outcome].”
Example: “They’re not even trying. We are. Grab a bag and taste the difference—or don’t. More for us.”

Quick Writer Checklist

Before publishing, verify:

• Fragment test: Do you have 3+ punchy fragments under 4 words?
• Provocation test: Does it call out boring/sad competitors?
• Contraction test: Are you using casual contractions?
• Apology test: Zero apologetic language anywhere?
• Actually test: Used “actually” to emphasize truth claims?
• Judge-us test: Invite judgment then dismiss it?
• Direct-address test: Speaking directly to “you/your”?
• Em-dash attitude: Using em-dashes for mid-sentence sass?
• Hard-pass test: Would a corporate brand write this? (If yes, rewrite)
• Read-aloud test: Does it sound like your coolest friend talking?

Sample Rewrites

Before: Generic Snack Copy

“Our chips are made with premium ingredients and come in a variety of delicious flavors. We’re passionate about bringing you the best snacking experience possible.”

After: On-Brand

“Premium ingredients? Boring. We use stuff that actually tastes like something. Wild flavors. Zero corporate nonsense. Your vending machine could never.”

What changed: Removed hedging, added provocative question opener, used fragments, created us-vs-them dynamic.

Before: Product Launch Email

“Subject: Introducing Our New Flavor

We’re excited to announce our newest chip flavor: Spicy Cheddar.”

After: On-Brand

“Subject: Too spicy for your vending machine

Hot take: Your sad office snacks needed this. Cheddar Jalapeño Explosion just dropped. Real cheese. Actual heat. Zero chance you’ll share—or don’t try it. More for us.”

What changed: Provocative subject line, “hot take” opener, direct accusation at competitors, fragment stack, dismissive close.

Before: About Us Section

“Founded in 2020, we believe snacks should be fun and flavorful. Our mission is to bring innovative taste experiences to snack lovers everywhere.”

After: On-Brand

“Boring snacks killed our vibe in 2020. We fixed it. Now we make chips that actually taste like something. Wild flavors. Zero apologies. Judge us—actually, just try our stuff.”

What changed: Removed corporate language, added attitude, used fragment rhythm, invited then dismissed judgment.

Analysis Summary

• Samples analyzed: 3 content pieces
• Total word count: 79 words
• Average sentence length: 4.9 words (ultra-punchy)
• Contraction frequency: 4 instances (50% of eligible opportunities)
• Direct address rate: 25% (targeted use of “you/your”)
• Fragment usage: 9 fragments across 16 sentences (56% fragment rate)
• Rhetorical questions: 2 provocative openers
• Em-dash attitude markers: 2 instances
• Voice consistency score: 50%