When creativity forgets the brand

Watching an IPL match recently, I was amused by an ad featuring Alia Bhatt and Ranveer Singh that kept popping up after every other over. It featured the two actors grooving to the tune of a song against the backdrop of plush scenery resembling the Bollywood of the 80s and 90s. I started humming the song inadvertently over the following days. When my sister asked about it, I told her it was an ad featuring Singh and Bhatt for Goibibo. Goibibo? She was quick to point out that it was a MakeMyTrip ad. Boom. That sent me into a limbo pondering the nitty-gritty of brand recall and misattribution and how if someone like myself (obviously an expert) couldn’t properly associate an ad with a brand, how might the average IPL-enjoyer be able to do that—not to mention that they are already waiting for the next over of the match to start.  

Ever hummed a jingle from your childhood, the brand name instantly popping into your head? Or perhaps you’ve seen a visually stunning ad, felt its emotional punch, yet, when asked who it was for, drawn a complete blank? This, in essence, is the Gordian Knot of brand recall and association—a complex interplay of creativity, consistency, and category coherence that can make or break a campaign. As Aarti Srinivasan, Head of Creative at Curativity, puts it, hearing someone exclaim, "What an ad! But brand yaad nahi aaraha hai" (I don't remember the brand) is "something to be really worried about for the brand custodians and creators." In an era where consumers are bombarded with thousands of brand messages daily, ensuring your meticulously crafted campaign not only cuts through the noise but also links back to your brand is the Holy Grail for marketers.

It's a challenge as old as advertising itself. As Abhik Santara, Director & CEO of ^ a t o m & Founding Partner at by The Network, wryly notes, "These challenges are not unique or new, in any category and any era." Yet, the stakes feel higher, the clutter denser, and the consumer attention span, arguably, more fleeting. So, what makes one ad stick like Fevicol, while another, equally brilliant, evaporates like morning mist?

The brilliance blind spot: When creativity outshines the creator

In the marketplace of ideas, where standout campaigns are the currency, it's a bitter pill to swallow when a creatively brilliant ad fails to register strong brand recall. Why does this happen? Is it a simple case of the audience being overwhelmed? The experts suggest it's often more intrinsic.

Afshaad Kelawaala, Executive Vice President - Brand Solutions at Schbang, offers a direct take: "The simple one-line answer is: when the use case of the product, or what the product is solving, is not understood by the consumer." He explains, "This means either creativity has been over-indexed, or too many layers have been added, which leaves the consumer a little confused. Keep it simple. Keep it to the point. Creativity should absolutely be at the heart, but we still need to clearly show what the product is solving or how it can be used."

Priti Nair, Founder of Curry Nation, concurs, believing the "single biggest reason is when the creative idea isn’t rooted deeply in the brand’s core truth." She elaborates, "In a country like India, where emotional storytelling is common and the execution craft is strong, many ads dazzle but don’t deliver recall because the story could belong to any brand." Think of the dairy aisle, flooded with "farm-fresh milk" promises. "But Amul’s brand recall remains unbeatable," Nair points out, "because every campaign still links back to its witty, topical, and consistent identity."

Santara echoes this sentiment, emphasising the importance of category relevance. "Consumers are not looking out for brands or brand messages," he states. "The reason for anyone to forget or misattribute a brand with a good creative is if it misses out on the category connect. In a pursuit of aimless associations to trends, purpose and other fancy goals, brands often forget to answer 'What rightful place am I in to comment on this'. That's a very tough question to answer." An ad might be hilarious or heart-wrenching, but if it doesn't intuitively align with what the brand stands for or the category it operates in, it risks becoming orphaned creativity.

Arvind Krishnan, Founder & CEO of Manja, introduces a critical distinction: "There is execution cut through and branded cut through. Execution cut through is when you remember the ad. Branded cut through is when you remember the ad and attribute it to the brand." He explains that while celebrities or outrageous ideas might grab attention, "to get branded cut through though, if a brand is new, one nemesis attribute is to ensure that the product is front and centre... If it's an existing brand, we need to use the distinctive brand assets in a way that makes it unmissable." Ultimately, as Srinivasan stresses, "Memorability of an ad without the recall of the brand name is unfortunately a waste of money."

The "Who was that for again?" syndrome

We've all been there. A hilarious commercial, a poignant narrative, but the brand name? Vanished. Or worse, mistakenly attributed to a competitor. 

Santara candidly shares an example: "'Men will be men' - It is a cult campaign and created by someone I deeply respect. However, brand recall is so poor that even after years of consistency, people in advertising (leave aside consumers) cannot recollect the correct brand name." The learning, he suggests, is that the "brand/or the category doesn't play a role" in that specific execution, making it memorable for its tagline but not its purveyor.

This phenomenon isn't uncommon. Nair admits, "There are quite a few that come to mind." The crucial lesson? "If your brand doesn't own a storytelling style, or if the visual language, characters, or audio cues aren’t brand-specific, the ad risks being hijacked by a competitor's equity." Her agency, Curry Nation, constantly advises clients: "Don’t just tell a story; tell it your way. Your story must have DNA markers that only your brand owns. That’s how Fevicol tells a story. That’s how Paper Boat built nostalgia into a modern beverage."

Krishnan recalls a period in the deodorant category where "every ad started looking like an Axe ad. If it was half decent, it was attributed to Axe." The mimicry of the 'spray deo = get the girl' formula led to rampant misattribution. The antidote? "Relevant differentiation. At a product proposition level or at the least at a brand idea + execution idea level." Without this, you're just feeding the competition's recall.

The alchemy of brand association

If avoiding misattribution is the defence, actively building a strong brand association is the offence. What are the secret ingredients? There's no single magic bullet, but a potent cocktail of strategic elements. For Srinivasan, the goal is clear: "a creative cut that only the brand can own, no one else can." She champions what her agency calls "an ownable cut". It's nicer if it comes from the company's values, logo, a distinctive offering, brand name, customer experience—something very core and intrinsic to the brand, rather than executional gimmicks. This pushes us to closely knit the creative output and the brand together, almost making them inseparable."   

This resonates with Kelawaala’s view that "it’s 100% storytelling. But storytelling with a human insight." He passionately adds, "In today's digital-first world, a lot of marketers forget that they're speaking to human beings on the other side of the screen, not to screens themselves. That's something I'd urge people to keep in mind: keep a human-first approach while formulating topics."

"Consistency," declares Abhik Santara, "A practice which is lost. Marketeers and advertising agencies have become restless and keep trying to do newer things - to justify their salaries. That is hara-kiri." He stresses that even when evolving, a brand "still cannot keep changing its core brand elements." 

Nair champions this, stating, "the most underleveraged yet powerful tool is consistency of brand tone and visual identity." At Curry Nation, they have a mantra: “Great brands are boringly consistent.” She adds, "Whether it’s the sonic cue, a colour palette, or even a cultural lens, if you're consistent, you stay memorable. Think about Tata Tea’s 'Jaago Re' or Surf Excel’s 'Daag Acche Hain.' Even before the logo appears, you know the brand because the emotion, context, and characters stay within a recognisable brand world."

Krishnan wishes for a formula but emphasises starting with "a single-minded, relevant proposition. And execute that in a way that brings you fame." He advises, "Don't get funky with the branding. Make sure you give it enough time, and you give it pride of place. And over time, play with the distinctive assets the brand has, don't treat them like it's a chore." These assets – logos, jingles, specific characters, colour palettes – are the brand's unique signature.

Santara also believes that enduring brands have "successfully created strong memory structures and consistently stuck to it." He cautions against over-reliance on fleeting trends for brand building: "Modern distribution methods - like influencers, UGCs have their place, but should be used for reach and performance. It's a myopic and juvenile approach that brands can be built with rented part-time influencers saying multiple things at the same time."

Creative distinction, channel strategy, and briefs

Certain categories, like smartphones, luxury goods, or fintech, are notorious for high-concept, aesthetically similar campaigns. How can brands in these crowded spaces avoid becoming indistinguishable blurs?

Nair’s advice is to build "their own creative signature - not just an ad signature." She observes, "Luxury? Everyone shows slow-motion silk curtains and moody lighting. Fintech? A montage of young professionals sipping coffee with superimposed infographics." The key? "Don’t just chase the category code. Break it - but own your version of it." 

Santara offers a more radical solution: "Stop hiring people from the same industry and hiring agencies on the basis of past experience in the category. If you want to disrupt the outcome, disrupt the process first." He uses a delightful analogy: "If I am good at making puran poli through my innovative ways, the chances are that I can bring the same passion in making medu vada too. But to expect that I can also make puran poli in five unique ways is somewhat foolish." 

Krishnan’s take is succinct: "Be more imaginative. Be bolder. Give more time to the folks making it."

The choice of media channel also plays a role, though perhaps in a more nuanced way than simply platform strength. "Of course, it does," says Santara. "The platforms are consumed for different reasons. A viewer in a discovery platform like TV, Instagram or Snapchat will consume content very differently v/s in search platforms like YouTube or Google." 

Nair agrees that context is king: "TV still wins when it comes to massive visibility and emotional recall. But Instagram wins when you're consistent and present in cultural moments. YouTube works if your storytelling is sequential and binge-worthy." The real pitfall? "When brands just repurpose the same ad across platforms without context," she warns. "We believe in channel-native branding... Branding is not a single execution. It's a system of signals." 

Krishnan puts it plainly: "Attribution becomes a problem where there's too much clutter. And clutter is everywhere."

Finally, the debate around "brand-first" creative briefs. Has this improved consistency or stifled originality? Kelawaala sees it as "a case-in-point topic and not a blanket statement for all." He observes, "When new, insurgent brands come in, they're free-willing and free-spirited, being open to new-age creativity or ideas that may be out of the box. With legacy brands, we see that a little less. Yes, they are opening up, but they’re still governed by rigid brand guidelines that have been set over the years. So it's understandable when they ask us to operate within a creative box."

Santara sees potential benefit: "if there is [an increase] - it will only bring some semblance in the process of brand building. Originality doesn't mean being schizophrenic." 

Nair views it as a potential "springboard, not the cage," if interpreted correctly. "If the brief is 'stay on brand, don’t take risks,' then yes - originality suffers. But if it says 'here’s our brand truth—now express it fearlessly,' then magic happens." 

For Krishnan, it's fundamental: "All work should be brand first. Most of the best advertising over the past 100 years has been brand first." And Srinivasan concurs: "a piece of advertising work can be qualified as good work only if it's in the service of the brand."

In the relentless quest for consumer attention, the art and science of brand recall and association remain paramount. It’s not just about being seen or even remembered; it’s about being remembered for the right reasons, with the right name attached. It demands a commitment to the brand's core, a pursuit of consistency, a willingness to be distinctive, and an understanding that true originality thrives within, not despite, a strong brand framework. Otherwise, even the most dazzling creative firework risks being just another pretty light in the sky, its origin unknown.

News