How optimisation is diluting brand identity
Scroll through enough campaigns across sectors and something starts to feel slightly repetitive. Different brands, different budgets, often similar outputs.
Most campaigns look well-produced. The language is modern, the visuals are polished and the formats are familiar. But over time, the narrowing differences between brands are hard to ignore.
A brand starts with a fairly defined sense of what it stands for — a product difference, a customer problem, a business purpose. There is usually a clarity at the beginning that is obvious and grounded in reality. It is tied to why the product or service exists and who it is for. But as brand marketing campaigns scale, that clarity gradually gets subdued by what appears to be working elsewhere — trends.
Trends are easy to justify. They come with proof: reach, engagement and formats that are already successful in the market. In the UK, it is common to see paid social benchmarks quoted around 1–2% click-through rates and 3–5% engagement rates, which quickly become an internal reason for repeating what is already performing. They are supported by case studies, benchmarks or competitor examples that make the direction feel safe.
And so, what is distinctive in a brand gets gradually converged in favour of what is trending.
Campaign ideas feel like variations of what has already been tested. Messaging resembles category language and the distinct edges of brand positioning are rounded off so it fits broader appeal. Visual formats begin to align with platform norms because those are easiest to produce and scale. The brand stops leading with its own unique branding and starts matching the rest.
Marketing leaders often see this as optimisation. But what is being optimised is performance in the short term. Long-term brand payoff cannot be optimised in the same way. In fact, brand distinctiveness is something that should be protected from continuous optimisation.
Performance marketing is actively reshaping brand identity
Every campaign still produces data. Every channel still reports engagement. Nothing looks broken, rather it looks like improvement. Yet when we step back and look across multiple brands or even across multiple campaigns within the same organisation, the distinct voice appears faded.
In some of the competitive sectors in the UK market such as retail, finance and SaaS, it is common to see multiple brands leaning on near-identical hooks.
Fintech brands that once positioned themselves around financial independence and transparency now often use similar messaging around “smarter money” or “intelligent banking”. Retail brands that built identity around community or sustainability now adopt the same discount-led promotional language in paid campaigns. Even B2B SaaS companies, which initially differentiated through specific pain points, gradually shift towards generic efficiency claims or AI adoption.
Paid social is one of the most exposed areas for this; search follows
Once a certain tone, visual style or hook proves effective in paid ads, it is replicated by competitors in the same space. Meta and TikTok’s auction environments reinforce this, with winning creative formats spreading fast. In search, brands optimise for intent terms that have proven conversion, which makes ROI commercial sense. But it also reinforces the use of same language across an entire category. Even organic search begins to mirror paid SEM logic rather than original brand positioning.
The reality is that marketing teams are not deliberately trying to dilute a brand’s identity. In most cases, there is no conscious decision to move away from the USP. Instead, decisions are shaped by what performs, what gets approved internally, what is easiest to scale within existing constraints. I have personally seen campaigns launched by using what has worked before. This reduced uncertainty. We have all, at some point, been part of that cycle.
A campaign that performs well becomes a reference point. A format that drives engagement becomes a default. These signals carry more weight in decision-making than the original positioning. Once that happens, measurement begins to reflect the same issue. It becomes tough to explain why one campaign works slightly better than another beyond surface-level metrics such as click-through rate, engagement rate or cost per click.
In the UK, it is common for multi-channel campaigns to show only 5–10% variation, which looks like optimisation, but is due to marginal differences in execution rather than real improvement.
The more a brand aligns itself with what is already working in the market, the harder it becomes to understand its own contribution to performance. Marketing becomes easier to manage, but distinctiveness becomes difficult to sustain.
The irony is there is no clear moment where a brand decides to become less distinct.
It happens through accumulation — of decisions that made sense at the time, of data that continues to look healthy, of underlying convergence that’s easy to miss. In most cases, the question is not whether brands are executing well. It is whether they are still recognisably themselves in the way they are trying to grow.
Our thinking
Explore our latest insights, guides and perspectives on digital marketing, AI innovation and human-centered strategy to navigate the evolving marketing landscape.
