Is brand differentiation overrated?

This is one that’s either going to land or get me in trouble lol.

Because “what do you meaaaan Sophie??? We thought the whole idea was to stand out, cut through, you know, break the mould etc.!?” Yes, I am aware of the emphasis we as marketers place on differentiation, and I don’t disagree that in many cases, it's important.

But I love to play devil’s advocate. And I also never encourage partisan, black and white thinking. Because really, everything is grey. And sticking to one narrative is boring.

What got me thinking about this was actually Byron Sharp, the marketing world’s quiet heretic, who made a pretty strong case against the orthodoxy.

His research at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute flipped the script on me. His take? Brands don’t grow because they’re different; they grow because they’re familiar.

Sharp’s argument, outlined in How Brands Grow, is that distinctiveness, not differentiation, is what drives long-term success. In plain English, it’s less about having a wildly unique product or message and more about being recognisably you across time and touchpoints.

Big, consistent brands win not because they’re radically original, but because they make it easy for people to buy, recall, and trust them.

Which, when you think about it, absolutely checks out. Most people don’t care deeply about toothpaste, coffee, or phone plans. They simply care about not running out, not making a bad decision, and not thinking too hard.

Sharp’s data shows that customers don’t have strong loyalties; they buy what’s available and familiar. The human brain loves shortcuts, and brand distinctiveness is one of them. That’s why Sharp’s mantra: be easy to buy, be easy to remember, feels both radical and obvious.

We spend so much time obsessing over standing out that we forget how comfortingly average most purchase decisions are.

Culturally, we’ve been conditioned to chase novelty: the viral brand launch, the shocking campaign, the “we’re not like other brands” positioning. But differentiation can become an ego trap. It centres you, not the customer. Distinctiveness, on the other hand, is humbler.

It says, “we’ll be here when you need us, and you’ll know us when you see us.”

Sameness gets a bad rap. We often associate it with mediocrity, the all-too-generic ad, the lookalike logo, the risk-averse creative brief. These evoke a massive eyeroll, even for me. Booo. Boringggg. Nextttttt.

But sameness, when handled with intention, is actually a stabiliser in a chaotic market.

And boy, is the market chaotic.

(Cultural theorist Mark Fisher called this era “capitalist realism”, a world where it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of brands. Crazy sh*t right? Well, you’re living it.)

Within that sameness, though, small aesthetic shifts mean everything. Look at Coca-Cola. They've got the same red, same script, same shape, yet each generation finds its own meaning in that familiarity. Or Apple, which has barely changed its tone or design language in two decades, yet still feels modern because the context around it keeps evolving.

It’s no coincidence that two of the most “generic” brands are also two of the most successful on the planet.

Consistency doesn’t kill creativity; it gives it structure. Distinctive assets like logos, colours, slogans, mascots, typefaces act like cultural scaffolding. They let a brand play, adapt, and stay relevant without losing its form.

And tbh, the irony is that in trying to look different, brands often end up all looking the freaking same.

Scroll through any startup landing page and you’ll find the same friendly sans-serif fonts, the same pale gradients, the same “we’re redefining [x industry]” copy. In our rush to differentiate, we’ve created a new kind of sameness—aesthetic conformity that looks like "innovation."

So maybe the real question isn’t “how do we stand out?” but “how do we stand for something consistently, recognisably, and tastefully?”

How to think about it in practice:

If Sharp’s work tells us that distinctiveness matters more than differentiation, what does that mean for us?

1. Codify your cues. Identify what makes your brand visually and verbally recognisable. Not unique, but yours. Use them everywhere. People should be able to spot you in a feed without seeing your logo.

2. Commit to repetition. You might get bored before your audience even notices. Familiarity breeds comfort, and comfort drives recall.

3. Anchor in emotion. Distinctiveness is both visual AND tonal. How does your brand make people feel? Repetition is powerful when it evokes a consistent emotional beat.

4. Adapt without erasing. Cultural context changes fast. Evolve your execution, not your essence. (Think how McDonald’s experiments with local aesthetics but keeps its golden arches untouchable.)

5. Don’t confuse chaos with originality. A brand that constantly reinvents itself isn’t bold. It's convoluted and it’s forgettable. Trust that coherence can 100% coexist with creativity.

This is all just a big long hot take. But I feel it’s good to think about things differently sometimes, and maybe brand building isn’t about standing apart at all. It’s about showing up, over and over, in ways that feel both familiar and alive. The goal isn’t to shock or disrupt, it’s to resonate.

In a world where attention is super fragmented and trends expire by Tuesday, a consistent identity can be its own quiet rebellion. 

-Sophie Randell, Writer