Should brands use foul langauge?

So here's the logic:

• We know that brands deliver effective, relevant communication when they are approachable and relatable.
• People relate to each other on an emotional level.
• Foul language is a symptom of a heightened level of emotional intensity. The use of foul language is a feature of how people emotionally connect with each other.
• Brands should use foul language if they are intent on delivering effective, relevant communication to people.

In the world of business communication, the deliberate use of foul language is an almost universal no-go zone.

And yes, in many instances this is probably the right approach to take. [Not too sure it's going to go down too well for a law firm to be dropping f-bombs as if they're a bunch of drunk submariners enjoying a few cold ones at an island tiki-bar.]

But should it not at least be a potential distinctive brand asset that's up for debate?

In many ways foul language is a much-needed 'authenticity amplifier'.

Have a look at Katie Porter who's campaigning to be the next governor of California, using foul language in her campaign video:

Hearing a government official using real language in this way is refreshing and makes her appear relatable.

It works because people who get shit done, don't always stick to using just the Queen's English.

This issue is relevant because in so many areas of life, we are searching for builders, creators...people who can solve real problems; not another corrupt bureaucrat in a nice suit with a private school accent.

Brands that project an image of being better than the people they serve, purposefully build a moat of irrelevance around themselves.

The reason - I suspect - foul language is frowned upon in business communications is because the assumption is that its use is lazy, or an easy way to draw scandalous attention.

But it can also demonstrate authenticity very effectively, and for that reason, it should at least be a consideration for copywriters.