A truck carrying tonnes of KitKat chocolate went missing in a genuine heist. Most brands would treat that as a crisis to bury quietly. KitKat treated it as content.
A real theft is a real problem: lost stock, a police matter, an awkward headline. The safe corporate instinct is a terse statement and silence. KitKat didn't take that instinct.
Does staying silent actually protect a brand during a real crisis, or just cede the story to everyone else?
02 · The DiagnosisOld Port's read: the brand had enough tonal permission and audience goodwill banked that leaning into the story read as confident, not careless.
A snack brand has more room to be playful than a bank or an airline does.
The response landed while the story was still forming, not after it had already been written for them.
Chocolate is low-stakes enough that humour reads as charm, not dismissal.
Years of a likeable brand voice meant the joke landed as in-character.
A crisis only becomes a disaster if the brand goes quiet first.
This works because the brand had the tonal equity to spend. Borrow the joke without the years of goodwill behind it, and it reads as tone-deaf instead of confident.
Key Question: Does your brand have a voice confident enough to make a bad week work for it?