DEEPER STUDY / Zendesk / 2016
Relationships Are Complicated
Use an unusual relationship metaphor to humanise software, then test whether the metaphor explains enough.
AI-assisted research and analysis for the SNS Creative Fieldbook
Sources reviewed 7 November 2026
The original campaign creators did not write or endorse this analysis.
Original campaign credits: Zendesk’s in-house Creative Brand team; creative director Bob Galmarini discusses the campaign in a first-person interview. Toke Nygaard led the later brand-identity work; film-production roles are not established here.
Recognition: No award-level claim is made. Sources establish execution, chronology and creator contributions.
Launch / edition: 2016. Award years: No award claim.
The problem. The idea. The experience.
A customer-service platform wanted broader recognition beyond a technical feature list.
How the idea came to life
An astronaut and deep-sea diver appeared in awkward relationship situations.
How it reached people
Online video campaign, followed by related brand-identity development.
Supporting sources: Company primary filing → Company primary filing → Creator primary interview → Design reporting with creator interview →
Read the data in context.
The numbers below describe different kinds of outcomes. Their date, scope and reporting source are part of the result.
March 2016 launch verified; broad performance claims lack sufficient published method for causal conclusions.
Read the campaign story
Zendesk’s shareholder letters date Relationships Are Complicated to March 2016 and describe an astronaut and deep-sea diver in awkward relationship moments. The campaign used online video to extend awareness of a company whose software supported relationships between businesses and customers. Later Relationshapes identity work developed the broader relationship theme but did not precede the original films.
In a 2018 interview, creative director Bob Galmarini describes the in-house team’s work and says the campaign may have been too abstract. That reflection provides an important counterweight to promotional performance language in company reporting. This case does not attribute overall company growth to the films, and it treats the related identity evolution as context rather than another countable campaign.
Editorial interpretation: the characters translate communication difficulty into something visible. Their specialised suits imply different environments and constraints before anyone explains a software workflow. That can create an accessible emotional entry point for viewers who are not seeking a technical demonstration. However, a metaphor this memorable can become self-contained entertainment. The audience may understand that relationships are awkward without understanding what the advertiser actually helps a business do.
Editorial interpretation: the case is valuable because the creator’s later assessment identifies a real strategic trade-off. Distinctive storytelling and explanatory clarity are not interchangeable achievements. A team can preserve humour while adding a more direct bridge to the product’s role. The question is not whether business advertising should be serious or playful, but whether the chosen playfulness makes the next useful thought easier for the intended audience.
Write the bridge from metaphor to workflow
After describing the fictional situation, complete the sentence explaining which real customer-service problem it represents. Make that connection understandable without insider knowledge. If several unrelated products could claim the same scene, add a specific operational consequence. The metaphor should open the explanation, not replace it or require viewers to solve a puzzle before they can understand the category.
Test character recall and product understanding separately
Ask viewers what happened, who advertised and what the company offers, using separate questions. Strong answers to the first question can hide weak answers to the others. Compare a version with a concise product bridge against the more abstract version. This preserves room for creative judgement while revealing whether the audience can move from entertainment to an informed evaluation.
Use retrospective criticism as useful evidence
When creators identify limitations in their own work, retain that context rather than editing it out of the case study. It can explain why later communication changes direction. Avoid treating a revision as proof that the original failed completely, just as promotional praise is not proof of universal success. The useful learning lies in the specific tension the team recognised and how an adaptation could test it earlier.
A small test for another brief
Proposed adaptation: build an original fictional scene about a simple communication mismatch, with two edits differing only in how directly they connect the scene to a software task.
Measure scene recall, correct category identification and the ability to name the supported workflow. Ask what the software would not solve. Prefer the version that improves understanding without making unsupported promises about customer relationships.
Stop if the metaphor reinforces stereotypes, obscures the actual offer or implies that software alone can repair every interpersonal or organisational problem.
- Avoid copying the astronaut-and-diver characters or their distinctive situations.
- Use a fictional customer example and an accurate, non-sensitive product demonstration.
- Provide captions and a plain-language explanation for viewers unfamiliar with the category.
Sources & further reading.
These are educational analyses of external campaigns, not SNS client projects. Source-backed campaign details, editorial interpretation and proposed tests are distinguished. Brand and campaign-entry reports are not independent causal audits.
- Zendesk Q2 2016 shareholder letter →Company primary filing · Supports: March 2016 launch.
- Zendesk Q1 2016 shareholder letter →Company primary filing · Supports: Astronaut/diver creative and digital distribution.
- Lovers Magazine: Bob Galmarini interview →Creator primary interview · Supports: In-house work, sequence before rebrand and reflection on abstraction.
- Transform: Spotlight on Zendesk →Design reporting with creator interview · Supports: Nygaard and later Relationshapes identity context.