The day in the life format sells by context rather than by demonstration. It shows where a product belongs in a life somebody recognises, and it fails when it shows a life nobody has.

The product should be incidental

If the video is structured around the product, it is an advertisement. If the product appears three times in a day that would have happened anyway, the viewer draws the conclusion themselves, which is a far stronger position for the brand.

The life has to be recognisable

An immaculate apartment, a slow morning, a person with no obligations. That is a life the audience does not have, and it makes the product feel like it belongs to somebody else. A rushed morning with a mess in the background is more persuasive and cheaper to film.

It works best for products without a demonstration

Some things cannot be shown working: a service, an insurance policy, an app that runs in the background, a food that is simply eaten. For those, context is the only available proof, which is why this format exists.

The Canadian version has weather in it

A day in a Canadian life in February involves a coat, a scraped windshield and a dark commute. Filming that day without the weather produces something that reads as filmed elsewhere, and the audience notices without being able to say why.

It is the easiest format to film badly

Long, unstructured, without a point, and full of footage nobody needed. Give it a spine: one thing the day is about, three moments that show it, and an ending. Without that it is a diary rather than a piece of communication.

Keep reading

Find creators for your campaign →

Frequently asked questions

How prominent should the product be?

Incidental, not structural.

What makes the life credible?

Mess, rush and obligation.

When is this format right?

When a product cannot be demonstrated.

What ruins it?

No spine and no point.