More Is Less

More tools. Less difference.

This is a strange contradiction of the AI era. The technology is disruptive but the output often isn’t.

The problem isn’t that AI can’t create interesting and distinctive things.

The problem is that everyone is using broadly the same tools, trained on the same world and prompted towards the same idea of what ‘good’ looks like. This is why I don’t think AI is creating brand sameness. I think it is exposing how little conviction many brands had to begin with.

If a brand already knows who it is, AI gives it more ways to express that identity. If it doesn’t, AI gives it more ways to look like everyone else.

More information. Less point of view.

Brands have never known more. We have consumer research, social listening, competitor analysis, trend reports, dashboards and live performance data. We can see what people are searching for, talking about, clicking on and buying.

That should make brands more interesting. But information isn’t the same as a point of view.

If five competitors read the same trend report, follow the same cultural signals and ask similar AI models what they should do next, it should not surprise us when they arrive somewhere similar.

Research can tell you what is happening. It cannot tell you who you are. That requires judgement.

Distinctive brands interpret the world through their own lens. They don’t simply follow trends or whatever the market says is popular this week. The difference is subtle but important. One asks: ‘What should a brand do?’ The other asks: ‘What should OUR brand do?’

More perspectives. Less conviction.

A creative idea enters the organisation… The designer has a view. The marketing team has a view. The leadership team has a view. Legal has a view. Sales has a view. Someone has seen a competitor doing something different. Someone else is worried customers will not understand it.

Slowly, the edges disappear. This is understandable. Big organisations have more to lose. Senior decision-makers are responsible for growth, reputation, jobs and shareholder expectations. Playing it safe can feel rational.

But safe decisions have a strange habit of producing similar brands. The more people an idea needs to please, the harder it becomes for that idea to have a strong personality.

Distinctiveness nearly always requires someone, somewhere, to say: ‘This is us. Not everyone will like it but that’s the point.’

More capability. More conviction.

None of this is an argument against AI. It’s actually the opposite.

We should be using disruptive technology to disrupt. AI can help brands explore more creative territories, test more possibilities and make things that previously would have been too expensive or too difficult. It can give small teams extraordinary capability.

But capability is not identity. The brands that benefit most from AI will probably be the ones with the clearest idea of who they are before they open the prompt box. Their visual identity will mean something. Their tone of voice will be recognisable. Their values will involve choices. Their point of view will occasionally make somebody disagree.

Because distinctiveness is not about being different for the sake of it, it’s about being recognisably yourself.

We have never had more creative capability, more information or more ways to make things. Yet abundance is producing convergence. The technology has become disruptive. The organisations using it often haven’t.

AI has made everything easier for brands. Apart from being themselves.

If you’re thinking about what this period of change means for your brand, get in touch with IDX to discover how we’re working with some of the world’s most recognisable brands to navigate it.