The Common Enemy

“Available to everyone except Anish Kapoor.”

A product page for an ultra-black artist paint frames the entire purchase around a single named adversary. The copy recounts that a prominent sculptor secured exclusive rights to an earlier ultra-black pigment and barred other artists from using it, then positions this paint as the open-access answer, available to all artists on earth with one exception: that sculptor. A later cart-confirmation gag makes the buyer formally attest they are not the named individual and will not let the paint reach him.

Why it’s this techniqueThis is the common-enemy move in its most literal possible form, because the enemy is one named human being rather than an abstraction. The brand does not begin by describing its own community of artists; it begins by pointing at a villain the target audience already resents, then defines membership as everyone-but-him. The load-bearing element is the proper noun. By naming a specific person and excluding only him, the copy draws a line that every reader instinctively wants to be on the correct side of, and crossing to the brand's side costs nothing but the price of paint. The cart-confirmation gag is the masterstroke of the technique: it ritualizes the alliance. Clicking buy is no longer a transaction, it is a sworn oath against the enemy, which is exactly the conversion from purchase to membership that this technique exists to produce. What is incidental here is the irreverent comic register; the bonding does not depend on the jokes. The same structure would work in a solemn voice. What is load-bearing is the single shared adversary and the framing of the product as the instrument of opposition to him. The move lands because the grievance is real and pre-existing within the artist community, so the brand is borrowing hostility rather than manufacturing it from scratch.

“I've called out financial experts that scold us for buying lattes or avocado toast.”

A homepage manifesto names a category of adversary directly, the conventional money expert who tells ordinary people to deny themselves small pleasures, then mocks that worldview with a string of prohibitions (no lattes, no vacations, no new clothes) before offering its opposite as the brand's philosophy: using money to say yes. The villain is not a person but a school of advice the reader has been made to feel guilty by.

Why it’s this techniqueThe bonding here runs through a named enemy that is a category rather than an individual, which is the most common real-world shape of this technique. The copy does not open by describing the kind of person who belongs to the brand's community. It opens by indicting the advice-giver class who scolds and restricts, and it lets the reader's accumulated resentment of being lectured do the recruiting. The phrase that carries the move is the act of calling them out, positioning the author as the one person willing to name the enemy the reader has silently disliked. Once that adversary is established, the brand's own position (spend on what you love) is defined purely as the negation of the enemy's position (deny yourself everything), which means the reader cannot adopt the brand's view without simultaneously joining its side against the experts. That is the signature of common enemy rather than a plain values declaration: the values are stated as opposition, not as standalone principle. It would read as values declaration if it simply asserted a spending philosophy. Instead it asserts that philosophy by ridiculing an opponent, so the reader's agreement is also an enlistment. The move lands because the enemy is broadly recognizable and mildly resented, which lets the brand convert a diffuse cultural irritation into specific loyalty.

“Enter the Dairy Deprogramming Zone. Where harsh truths about Big Dairy come with a cup of Oatly Soft Serve.”

A heading on Oatly's activities page frames the brand's content as a zone where the reader is "deprogrammed" from dairy and fed harsh truths about "Big Dairy," with the brand's own soft serve offered as the sweetener. The capitalized "Big Dairy" names an entire incumbent industry as the antagonist.

Why it’s this techniqueThe bonding move is the capitalization of "Big Dairy" into a proper-noun adversary. By naming the dairy industry as a single institutional them, the copy invites the reader to join an us defined by seeing through it. The load-bearing element is "deprogramming," which presupposes the reader has been manipulated by that industry and casts Oatly as the ally who frees them, so agreeing with the line is also enlisting against the enemy. The deadpan softener, harsh truths delivered with a cup of soft serve, lowers the reader's guard while keeping the adversary firmly in frame. Because hostility toward large, faceless food incumbents is widely pre-held, the brand borrows an existing resentment rather than building one. The move also functions as an incumbent category indictment, since the named enemy is the legacy category Oatly competes against. It would dilute if the enemy were left abstract; the proper-noun "Big Dairy" is what makes the opposition feel like a side to take.

“I hated being stuck in a sweaty trading pit for eight hours a day just so I could shovel more money to the wealthy elite. That's why I walked away from the trading floor in Chicago and decided to use my abilities, experience and insider knowledge to help people like you.”

An origin story for an investing newsletter casts the wealthy elite as the adversary. The narrator describes resenting years spent enriching the rich inside a trading pit, then frames leaving Wall Street and sharing insider knowledge as an act of defection to the reader's side. The product, the research, is positioned as the tool that lets ordinary people stop feeding the enemy.

Why it’s this techniqueThis is a clean common-enemy case from the investing vertical, which broadens the page's industry spread and shows the move in an aggressive direct-response register. The enemy is the wealthy elite, and the structure is the defector narrative: the author was once on the enemy's side, saw the harm, and crossed over to the reader's side. That crossing is what makes the bonding work. The author establishes credibility not by claiming expertise in the abstract but by claiming to have abandoned the enemy out of disgust, which signals that they now share the reader's antagonism. The product then becomes the instrument of opposition, the thing that lets the reader stop shoveling money to the rich. The reason this reads as common enemy rather than as a similarity signaling move is that the bond is not built on the author resembling the reader; it is built on the author and reader sharing a target. The reason it is not a pure values declaration is that the value (ordinary people deserve access) is expressed entirely as opposition to a villain who hoards that access. What is load-bearing is the named adversary plus the defection; what is incidental is the specific biographical detail of the trading floor. The move lands when the reader already feels that the financial system is rigged against them, because the brand is once again borrowing a pre-existing resentment rather than constructing one.

“Right now there is forced labor on cocoa farms in West Africa. This is a direct result of the unequally divided cocoa chain.”

A mission-page statement names forced and child labor on West African cocoa farms and attributes it to "the unequally divided cocoa chain," then declares that the brand exists to change that. The adversary is an entire system, the exploitative structure of the cocoa industry, rather than a single rival.

Why it’s this techniqueThe enemy here is a system named as a cause, the unequally divided cocoa chain, and the bonding works by handing the reader a wrong to be on the right side of. The load-bearing element is the causal attribution: forced labor is framed not as an unfortunate fact but as the direct result of a structure that someone profits from, which converts a moral reaction into a shared antagonism toward that structure. Once the chain is named as the villain, buying the brand becomes an act of opposition to it, so the purchase is recruited into the reader's own ethics. The flat, declarative register, stating the abuse as plain fact, lends the accusation credibility rather than melodrama. The move also functions as a enemy indictment (the cocoa chain is cast as a culpable agent with a victim), as a values declaration (the brand stating it exists to end the abuse), and as a moral foundation appeal to fairness and the avoidance of harm. It lands because the reader's latent objection to exploitation is pre-existing; the brand attaches itself to that objection and offers a concrete way to act on it.

“Chubbies was founded in 2011 by a group of friends who found the traditional world of men's capital-F-"Fashion" completely unrelatable. We saw pictures of shirtless men with rippling ab muscles, some standing outside of storefronts coating you with cologne, with the message of "if only you buy our clothes you can try to be as cool as we are" - and we were absolutely repelled.”

An origin story for a casual menswear brand names the conventional fashion establishment as the adversary, mocking the imagery of shirtless cologne-soaked models and the implicit message that the customer must buy in to be cool. The brand positions itself as repelled by that world and invites the reader to join a community that rejects it.

Why it’s this techniqueThis example extends the page into the apparel vertical with an anti-corporate origin register, and it demonstrates the technique where the enemy is an entire aesthetic culture rather than a person or an institution. The bonding works by ridiculing the fashion establishment's posture, the shirtless model promising that you can be as cool as us if you buy, and inviting the reader to side against that posture. The load-bearing element is the stated repulsion: the brand declares it was absolutely repelled by the enemy's worldview, which gives the reader permission to admit they were too. That shared revulsion is the bond. The reason this is common enemy rather than anti tribal inclusion is that the move centers on a named, mocked out-group whose values the brand defines itself against, not simply on welcoming people who feel they do not belong anywhere. The reason it is not a pure in group frame is that the in-group exists as the negative image of the enemy: relatable because the establishment is unrelatable, unpretentious because the establishment is pretentious. What is incidental here is the comic exaggeration of the cologne-coating image; the structure would hold in a flatter voice. What is load-bearing is the explicit naming of the establishment as the thing the brand and reader jointly reject. The move lands because the target audience already feels alienated by aspirational fashion marketing, so the brand articulates a resentment the reader was already carrying.

“Well, first, we must recognize communism for what it is. Mr. Khrushchev understands only strength and firmness. To apologize to him just means weakness. Our next president must show clearly that America won't stand for being pushed around anywhere in the world. While Mr. Khrushchev says that our grandchildren will live under communism, we must answer: His grandchildren will live in freedom. When he says the Monroe Doctrine is dead, we say the doctrine of freedom applies everywhere in the world. The only answer to communism is a massive offensive for freedom. Freedom from hunger, from disease, and a victory for the ageless hope of people everywhere: freedom from tyranny.”

A televised 1960 presidential campaign spot rebuts Khrushchev's Cold War claims line by line, uniting the viewer with the candidate against a named foreign rival.

Why it’s this techniqueThe script names a specific rival, 'Mr. Khrushchev', then answers each of his claims with a collective reply: 'we must answer: His grandchildren will live in freedom' against his claim that ours will live under communism. The structural tell is this call and response form, his assertion quoted then a unified American reply, which recruits the viewer into a 'we' standing against one named adversary rather than describing conviction in isolation. It closes by casting 'communism' as the shared target of 'a massive offensive for freedom', turning agreement with the ad into enlistment on America's side of that line.

“IBM wants it all and is aiming its guns on its last obstacle to industry control: Apple.”

From Steve Jobs's October 1983 address to the Apple sales force in Hawaii, three months before the Macintosh launch, previewing the framing the Super Bowl commercial would carry to the public.

Why it’s this techniqueA single sentence assigns the room and the company one shared adversary and one shared position. 'IBM wants it all' names the enemy and its appetite; 'aiming its guns' converts market competition into an armed threat; 'its last obstacle' places the listener at the final line of defense. The tell is the closing colon and name: the sentence ends by identifying who stands between the enemy and total control, which makes belonging to Apple and resisting IBM the same act.