How optimisation is diluting the identity of distinct brands.
Scroll through enough campaigns across sectors and they start to feel slightly repetitive. Different brands, different teams, different budgets, but similar outputs. Most campaigns look well-produced. The language is modern and the visuals are polished, but the formats are familiar. And over time, the differences between brands narrow down to such an extent that they are barely visible. As marketers, we see these patterns more clearly.
In the beginning, a brand has a clarity that is grounded and obvious.
A brand starts with a fairly defined sense of what it stands for — a product difference, a customer problem, a purpose-led business. It is tied to why the product or service exists and who it is for. But as marketing campaigns scale, that clarity gets eroded by what appears to be working elsewhere — the trends. Trends are easy to justify. They come with proof: reach, engagement and formats that are already successful.
In the UK, it is common to see paid social benchmarks quoted around 1–2% click-through rates and 3–5% engagement rates. These become justification for repeating what is already working. They are supported by case studies, benchmarks or competitor examples that make the direction feel safe. And so, what is distinctive in a brand gradually converges in favour of what is in vogue.
Campaign ideas start to 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 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 here is short-term performance. Long-term brand payoff cannot be optimised in the same way.
Brand distinctiveness is something that should be protected from continuous optimisation.
Performance marketing is reshaping brand identities
Even with all the sameness, every campaign produces data, every channel reports engagement. Nothing looks broken, rather it looks like improvement. Yet when we step back and look across multiple brands or even across various campaigns within the same organisation, the distinct voice appears to have 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 discourse in paid campaigns. Even B2B SaaS companies, which initially differentiated through specific customer pain points, now lean 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 help winning creatives spread quickly.
In paid search, brands optimise for intent terms that have proven conversion, which makes commercial sense. But it also reinforces the same language across an entire category. Even organic search mirrors paid SEM logic rather than original 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 and what is easiest to scale within existing constraints. We have seen campaigns launched by using what has worked before. That 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 brand positioning. Once that happens, it becomes difficult to explain why one campaign works slightly better than another, beyond surface-level metrics such as impressions or views.
Marketing becomes easier to manage, but distinctiveness becomes difficult to sustain.
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 gauge its own contribution to performance.
The irony is that no single decision causes a brand to become less distinct.
It happens through accumulation — of decisions that made sense at the time, of data that continues to look healthy and 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 recognisable as 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.