We Create Chemistry

Read the campaign story

BASF announced We Create Chemistry in February 2010 for a March launch. The campaign was developed by its corporate communications team with Wieden+Kennedy Amsterdam. It used apparent opposites, including the relationship between comfortable buildings and energy costs, to explain applications of chemistry through a shared global idea.

The launch covered print, television and online communication rather than a corporate statement alone. The later use of the phrase in strategy and identity belongs to the same broad family, not a new advertising origin. The source documents the creative intention and rollout plan. It does not independently establish energy savings, environmental performance or a causal change in sales attributable to the campaign.

Editorial interpretation: a contradiction gives technical explanation a narrative shape. Instead of beginning with a material specification, the work presents two desirable things that seem difficult to achieve together. The product’s contribution then becomes the bridge. This can make complex capabilities approachable, provided the resolution remains specific and does not imply that a real trade-off has disappeared completely because the headline makes it sound elegantly solved.

Editorial interpretation: a common idea can unify a diverse portfolio without forcing every product into the same demonstration. The recurring structure is the relationship between needs, while the evidence changes by application. That distinction is important in technical categories. A brand-level promise should organise examples, not transfer the strongest claim from one product to all others. Each execution needs its own factual basis and clearly stated conditions.

Identify a real tension before inventing the paradox

Interview people about the compromises they actually encounter and select one that the product can meaningfully address. Avoid manufacturing a false dilemma merely because it produces a clever headline. Write the two needs in ordinary language and explain the limited contribution that connects them. If the bridge depends on several external factors, those dependencies should inform the creative rather than appear only in a footnote.

Resolve the story without erasing the trade-off

A persuasive explanation can show improvement while acknowledging what remains constrained. Use a concrete application and specify the conditions under which the benefit is relevant. Do not let a visual contradiction become an absolute claim about cost, safety or environmental impact. Ask reviewers to describe the implied promise, since audiences may infer a complete solution even when the written copy uses more careful language.

Create a repeatable structure with separate evidence files

For each application, keep the audience problem, technical contribution and supporting evidence together. A shared campaign format should make this work easier, not excuse copying claims across products. Review examples individually before combining them under the same brand line. This helps a global team preserve recognisable storytelling while allowing local conditions, regulations and customer needs to change the factual explanation appropriately. Keep a record of rejected examples as well, so later teams do not revive a compelling visual whose underlying comparison was inaccurate.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: develop two diagrams for a fictional office-storage service, showing how one organisational change addresses a genuine space-and-access tension.

Measure whether participants understand both needs and can identify the service’s limited contribution. Check for beliefs that the trade-off has vanished entirely, and compare comprehension with headline recall before deciding whether the creative structure deserves a wider pilot.

Stop if the paradox depends on a false comparison or implies unsubstantiated safety, financial or environmental benefits.

• Use a low-risk administrative example rather than chemicals or construction.
• Show the remaining constraints in the same visual frame.
• Compare the paradox-led explanation with a direct process description.