INSIGHTS

The Blandemic

Written by Ben Mitchell, Head of Strategy at Red Brick Road

Distinctiveness is all around us, but it’s not brands who are nailing it

What caught your eye recently?

Was it the Russian couple scaling the Empire State Building, unfurling a large banner and then getting engaged? Maybe it was Japanese tennis player Naomi Osaka arriving in a dazzling white kimono on her first day at Wimbledon? Or even the amazing Norway football fans doing the Viking Row in Dallas, Miami and beyond..?

Well, that’s what Distinctiveness looks like. Unique, original, full of personality, spellbinding.

And that’s what brands are up against in their fight for attention. Because the alternative is already here: a rising tide of interchangeable, algorithm-approved advertising. 

A Blandemic. And most brands are ‘patient zero’ without knowing it.

Distinctiveness is the antidote… but is it enough on its own?

Distinctiveness as a communications concept famously entered the vernacular thanks to Byron Sharp in How Brands Grow, where he – appropriately – introduced the rather distinctive phrases ‘distinctive brand assets’ and ‘mental availability’.

But many other marketing commentators over the years have extolled the virtues of what I’d more simply define as ‘standing out’. 

For example, Seth Godin’s ‘Purple Cow’ is, we now know, the inspiration for Mr Beast’s entire business empire.

But before that, other brand strategy theories prevailed…

Rosser Reeves’ USP… Hugely unfashionable nowadays. How dare we find a functional or emotional benefit that the brand uniquely owned?

What about Ries and Trout’s Positioning… urging brands to own a unique “space” in the consumer’s mind… a bit nebulous?

Who’s right? Which part of the brain is making the decisions? System 1? System 2? 

One thing’s certain, if you’re not noticed, you can stand for whatever you like but no one will know. But I think the optimal solution for brands sits somewhere in between. 

System 1.5. A zone where distinctiveness and differentiation coexist harmoniously.

The tsunami of creative proliferation is upon us.

Anyway, why am I talking about distinctiveness now? Well, the ever-changing game has moved on yet again.

We’ve had the era of media proliferation. Now we’re in the era of creative proliferation. An AI-fuelled tsunami of advertising that’s designed for algorithms that favour the generic over the disruptive. Algorithms that – rather than evaluating creative quality – maximise ad-viewing time by elevating easily digestible, familiar content over the unusual and original. Anything creatively challenging, in the platform’s view, is audience-polarising: and therefore, more niche.

Bland content isn’t just common, it’s contagious: AI trains on existing ads, produces averages of averages, and each generation gets blander.

So whilst the need for distinctiveness is a relatively old game in town, it has never been more relevant.

It’s time for the creative industry to show its mettle

Agencies producing safe, familiar work are actively feeding the Blandemic. The industry isn’t just the cure, it’s currently a super-spreader.

So, what does distinctiveness really mean? Did Byron Sharp over-simplify with his heralding of distinctive brand assets as the key to distinctiveness? 

My view is that, whilst proven to be vital, they are somewhat superficial. Sure, a brand needs to be noticed and identified quickly. But are DBAs the only way to create mental availability?

Case in point: 

In the battle of the World Cup 2026 ads, Adidas used Timothy Chalamet and Jude Bellingham. Distinctive, yes. Assets certainly. But could it have been Nike? Probably. 

Nike used every distinctive brand ‘asset’ on their sponsorship roster in their ad…A who’s who of football (and beyond) heroes. But could it have been an Adidas ad to the untrained eye? I reckon. If Nike and Adidas are indistinguishable, what hope for a challenger bank or a broadband provider?

Conversely, what about This Girl Can? Think Different? Just Do It? Love it or hate It? Yes, these are distinctive slogans. But they’re imbued with meaning. The ideas cut through as much as the execution.

In short, we’re in danger of dumbing down the most effective route to creating distinctiveness. 

Distinctiveness is not a one-dimensional concept

This whole saga reminds me of many brands’ responses to Adam Morgan’s Challenger Brand thinking. Too many brands have shortcut to ‘personality’ as the key attribute of a Challenger brand.

For those familiar with his work, I don’t need to remind you that whilst personality is an important element, true Challenger brands have a spirit and ethos at their heart to take on the category leader. Challenger brands are complex and nuanced. Not just by sounding different and being a bit zany, but in everything they do and what they stand for.

A dictionary definition highlights three components to distinctiveness.

1. Recognisability. It stands out and is easy to notice.
2. Character. It embodies a specific, often signature identity.
3. Difference. It deviates from the ordinary or standard.

‘Recognisability’ can be achieved with packaging, logos, colours, characters, sonic cues… ‘Character’ comes from a considered, distinctive (and differentiated) personality. 

But ‘Difference’ can compound distinctiveness in more meaningful ways:

• A brand built on a revelatory insight or that challenges assumptions.
• A brand that rejects category values, norms and behaviours to create a ‘category of one’.
• Advertising that surprises, pulls the rug or shocks the audience…

These are the additional pillars of distinctiveness that play more to System 2 thinking but are equally powerful at connecting with an audience.

True distinctiveness is the lovechild of Reeves, Ries, Trout and Sharp: it lies at the intersection of great brand theory of the last 50 years. 

Every theory, of course, needs a toolkit to take it from the textbook to the real world. How do we look at creating distinctiveness?

As Strategists, we spend a huge amount of time worrying about what the brand stands for, its story, its worldview, its personality.

So, let’s not just distil strategy down to the identification of the need for a sonic trigger.