As a market researcher, I’ve had the privilege of testing hundreds of ads before their campaigns go live. One of the recurring challenges I see advertisers face is this: how to strike the delicate balance between being consistent and being distinctive.
Get it right, and your ad not only builds your brand but also cuts through the noise of today’s cluttered media landscape. Get it wrong, and you risk either being forgettable or utterly disconnected from your brand.
It sounds simple enough, right? So why do so many advertisers struggle?
Why consistency and distinctiveness are so hard to balance
Part of the problem is that marketers live their brands. They’re immersed in them 24/7, analysing every detail and thinking about what needs to change to keep things “fresh.” For them, sticking with the same campaign idea for too long feels like stagnation.
On top of that, the average marketer changes roles every 2.5 years. With each new manager comes the desire to make their mark, often leading to an overhaul of the brand’s creative direction. And while this might make sense internally, it’s a far cry from how consumers perceive brands.
For the average viewer, who’s exposed to your ads far less often than you think, those subtle tweaks or “big changes” you obsess over might not even register.
Consistency is crucial, but so is being watchable
The industry talks a lot about consistency. And for good reason: building strong brands requires consistency across visuals, tone, and messaging. But here’s the catch: too much consistency can make your ads blend into the background.
In a world where consumers scroll through endless streams of content and choose what they engage with, your ad needs to grab attention—and keep it. If you’re too consistent, you risk being predictable, boring, or even skippable.
So instead of thinking about consistency versus distinctiveness as a trade-off, advertisers should think of it as a spectrum. The sweet spot lies in building on previous ads to create a cohesive brand identity while introducing enough newness to stand out in the clutter.
The danger of overcompensation: two real-world examples
Let me share two examples from my work that illustrate what happens when you lean too far to either side of the spectrum.
Case 1: Distinctive but disconnected
We tested a campaign for an automotive brand that ticked every box for being distinctive. It grabbed attention, was highly engaging, and stood out in the category. But when we asked viewers about the ad afterwards, hardly anyone could remember the brand behind it. The brand fit was among the lowest we’d ever seen.
When we pointed this out, the advertiser shrugged it off. “Our goal was to create something unique,” they said. And while they certainly achieved that, they missed the ultimate point of advertising: building brands and driving sales.
Case 2: Consistent but skippable
On the other end of the spectrum, we worked with an FMCG company that took consistency to the extreme. Every ad used the same music, voice-over, characters, and even the same flow of storytelling. The result? Viewers recognised the ad instantly. But here’s the problem: they thought they’d seen it before.
When we tested these ads in a realistic context—where people could choose whether to watch—most zapped away almost immediately. They assumed it was just another rerun of the same old thing, even though it wasn’t.
The role of ad testing: why the method matters
One reason this balance is so often overlooked is that traditional ad testing methods are fundamentally flawed. Too often, ads are evaluated by forcing people to watch them and then asking a series of questions.
But let’s be honest: in the real world, no one is forced to watch your ad. They can scroll past, skip, or change the channel.
That’s why, in our tests, we expose people to ads in a natural environment and let them decide whether they want to watch—and for how long. This allows us to measure genuine attention. What we’ve found is that distinctiveness is crucial for capturing attention, while consistency is key for ensuring people remember the brand.
In other words, great ads don’t just lean on one side of the spectrum—they master the balance between the two.
So, what’s the takeaway?
If you want to create ads that work, stop thinking about consistency and distinctiveness as opposing forces. Think of them as complementary.
Consistency builds your brand. It ensures that people recognize and remember you. But distinctiveness makes them want to engage with your ad in the first place.
Finding this balance isn’t easy. It takes strong creatives who understand both your brand and your audience—and who know how to innovate without losing sight of what makes your brand unique.
And when it comes to testing, don’t rely on outdated forced-exposure methods. Instead, test your ads in a way that reflects the reality of how people consume media today.
So, before you launch your next campaign, ask yourself: is your ad consistent enough to build your brand and distinctive enough to make people care? If not, it’s time to rethink the balance.
