We can't make it more fun, but we can make it easier. Let's mention it again. When the slogan was launched, it was strikingly different from what was usual in government communication. It deviated from vague terminology that emphasized how good or efficient the service was; the Tax Authority acknowledged a simple truth: paying taxes is not fun.
This made the slogan seem like a good idea. The first part resonated with Dutch pragmatism and created sympathy. The government did not pretend that taxes were something positive; it acknowledged the discomfort. The second half, 'but we can make it easier', contained the actual promise: the service could not change the content, but it could improve the execution.
Thus, the slogan became not only communication but also an internal direction: simplification of forms, digitization of tax returns, and later the pre-filled tax return all fell within this promise. The Tax Authority wanted to show that it wanted to improve, despite the unpleasant subject matter.
Power of a slogan
The Tax Authority initially hit the mark. The strength lay in three elements.
First - and yes, this was quite some time ago - credibility played a significant role. The slogan did not claim impossible things. It acknowledged limitations and focused on feasibility. In addition, there was cultural alignment. The dry, almost ironic tone perfectly matched the Dutch mentality. No bombast, no emotional marketing, but practical honesty.
Thirdly, the phrase was easy to remember. It resonated, and you immediately knew what it was about. The phrase was consistently used for years in campaigns, radio spots, television ads, and letters. As a result, it became part of the collective memory.
It seemed to be going well with the slogan, but anyone who makes a promise in their tagline must also keep it - especially if you are a government agency.
The promise of the slogan and the reality of the Tax Authority
The slogan faced structural criticism because citizens often did not experience the tax return, regulations, and communication as easier. Because yes; what exactly do you mean by that?
The resistance became so concrete that in politics, there were calls to stop using it as early as 2008. It was not about taste or style, but about credibility: if 'easier' is not the feeling that people have, the slogan works as an irritating marketing layer over a frustrating reality.
In 2017, the tension became almost absurdly tangible: a citizen even tried to have the use of the slogan banned through the courts. Judges ruled (procedurally) that they did not have jurisdiction over that, but the fact that someone tried shows how strong the slogan had become as a symbol of distrust.
The benefits scandal
Around that time, the Tax Authority was increasingly associated with implementation problems and a harsh approach towards specific citizens. The low point was the benefits scandal, which clearly showed that thousands of Dutch people were wrongly labeled as fraudsters. This was, especially because the variant We can't make it more fun, but we can make it fairer had also circulated, reason for many to completely stop believing in the promise of the Tax Authority's slogan.
If your brand promise is about making things easier or better, but people experience the system as opaque, strict, or even unjust, then your slogan is no longer a friendly joke. It becomes a bitter one-liner that exposes the gap between what you say and what you do. The brand experience was very different from intended.
The silent exit
In 2019, the slogan quietly disappeared from campaigns. No new campaign; the slogan simply stopped being used. That in itself is telling: normally, such long-running campaigns are only replaced with a new slogan or promise. Here, something different happened: the Tax Authority seemed primarily to want to distance itself from a phrase that no longer worked as a trust tool.
The lesson from the slogan
This is where the case becomes interesting for companies. The Tax Authority slogan shows one fundamental law that is often underestimated: a brand promise is not just text. It is a contract in the mind of your customer.
Once you promise that something will be 'easier', you are managing an expectation about every contact moment: customer service, forms, processes, error handling, empathy, transparency. If one of those links fails, the slogan seems not "ambitious", but misleading.
The same applies to commercial brands. "Delivered within 24 hours", "always personal", "no hassle", "premium service" — these are all promises that can carry your brand, but can also blow up when the operation behind it does not hold up. And the more famous your pay-off, the faster it will be used against you (in reviews, on social media, in the media).
Vulnerability of a brand promise
We can't make it more fun, but we can make it easier was creatively strong and culturally relevant. But the slogan was also dangerous because it contained a measurable claim that you must fulfill year after year and because it ultimately became a symbol of an organization that lost trust on multiple fronts.
As a story about marketing, this is therefore not an ode to a good pay-off. It is a warning: only say what you can structurally deliver, and ensure that your brand promise holds true at every level of your organization. And make sure you do not hold on too long to a slogan that worked. Sometimes you need to take a new path.
