Distinctive Brand Assets

Hey, I’m Isaac 👋 I founded Pistachio, where we’ve worked with brands like BuzzFeed and Clay to understand their audience, build trust and deliver measurable outcomes through content-led growth.

If you want to chat about your own strategy, book a free call here.

A while ago I posted on Linkedin about a Heinz ad campaign that surprised me.

They spent big on billboards, but didn’t put their name or logo on any of them.

For most other businesses that’s a disaster. An awareness campaign that doesn’t build any brand awareness.

But Heinz have an advantage they’ve spend decades building.

Distinctive assets.

Sure, the ads didn’t feature the name or logo, but they were still unmistakably Heinz ads.

They’ve built a recognisable creative signature so effective that showing their actual logo became almost redundant.

Meanwhile, we all scroll past a hundreds of other ads that scream their brand names at us but leave zero impression.

This isn't just a mark of good creative work. It's strategic asset building that most brands completely overlook.

Ipsos analysed over 2,000 video ads to understand what actually drives branded attention. The findings should make every marketer rethink their creative approach.

Brand assets, the non-logo elements that trigger brand recognition, are 1.15x more effective at driving branded attention than simply showing or mentioning the brand name.

Think about that. Your distinctive creative style, your signature sound, your brand character. They all work harder than plastering your logo everywhere.

But here's where it gets interesting. There’s a massive hierarchy in asset effectiveness:

The data is clear. Distinctive assets aren't nice-to-haves, they're competitive weapons hiding in plain sight.

I hear what you’re saying. “Thinking about ‘sonic branding’ seems nice, but only big brands can afford that”.

Well here's what the research doesn't tell you, but I've seen firsthand. The best distinctive assets aren't necessarily born from big budgets. They're born out of authenticity and consistency.

Just look at Oatley's tone of voice. It didn't cost millions to develop. It came from their Swedish origins. But it became such a distinctive asset that other brands have spent years trying to copy it.

Patagonia's environmental activism started as genuine founder values, not a marketing strategy. Now it's such a distinctive asset that every outdoor brand tries to match their "purpose-driven" approach.

The advantage isn't about having more money to spend on creative. It's about having something genuine to build from.

That’s where smaller brands often have a natural edge. They can move faster, iterate quicker, and build assets around authentic personality rather than committee-approved tactics.

Constraints often create better outcomes than unlimited budgets. When you can't afford celebrity endorsements, you develop your own characters. When you can't buy premium music, you create signature sounds. When you can't outspend competitors on production, you develop a distinctive style.

The research also revealed “owned" assets like characters, sonic cues and distinctive styles massively outperform "borrowed" ones like celebrities and licensed music.

This isn't just about cost efficiency. It's about psychological ownership.

When Cardi B appears in both Pepsi and Reebok ads, which brand benefits more? The answer is neither. The celebrity equity gets diluted across multiple associations. Meanwhile, the Energizer Bunny belongs to exactly one brand, building focused memory networks that compound over time.

The same principle applies to origin stories. Airbnb's "belong anywhere" narrative came from their actual founding story of renting air mattresses. It's not a constructed marketing message, it's authentic brand DNA that became a distinctive asset.

The psychological reason "real" beats "perfect" is that our brains are wired to detect authenticity. When something feels manufactured or borrowed, we process it differently than when it feels organic.

Think about the difference between hearing McDonald’s jingle versus a generic stock music track. One creates specific brand associations. The other is just background noise.

What makes distinctive assets so powerful is that they get stronger over time, not weaker.

Most marketing has diminishing returns. The more you (or others) repeat the same messages and use the same channels in the same ways, the less effective they become. But distinctive assets work in reverse. They become more recognisable and more valuable with consistent use.

This is why established brands like Heinz can run ads with minimal branding and still drive recognition. Decades of consistent asset building created shortcuts to brand recall that new campaigns can leverage.

But here's the trap most brands fall into, they abandon their distinctive assets just when they're becoming most valuable.

I've seen companies rebrand after building years of equity in their creative style. They confuse "fresh" with "effective" and throw away their most valuable creative assets in pursuit of something new. At the core of the backlash to Jaguar’s rebrand last year was the fact that they were throwing over 100 years of brand building in the bin and starting from scratch.

Consistency beats creativity when it comes to asset building. Your audience needs to see your distinctive assets repeatedly before they become memory triggers. If you're constantly changing your creative approach, you're starting from zero every time.

Building distinctive assets isn't about grand creative visions. It's about systematic consistency around the elements that make your brand uniquely recognisable.

Start with what you already have. Your founder's personality, your company's origin story, your natural way of communicating. These aren't creative problems to solve, they're assets to amplify.

Look for the elements that competitors can't easily copy. Anyone can use the same fonts and colours. Not everyone can replicate your authentic voice, your specific point of view, or your unique approach to solving problems.

The key is choosing assets that can be repeated across touchpoints. A distinctive visual style that works in ads, on packaging and in digital content. A sonic signature that works in videos, podcasts and even phone hold music. A character or personality that can evolve with your brand while maintaining recognition.

Avoid the temptation to "refresh" too early. Asset building requires patience. You need to maintain consistency long enough for recognition to develop, which typically takes years, not months.

The biggest barrier to building distinctive assets isn't creative or financial. It's courage.

It takes courage to be consistently weird rather than broadly appealing. To maintain your distinctive style when competitors are doing something different. To build assets around your authentic personality rather than what you think people want to hear.

But here's what the research proves, distinctive doesn't mean divisive. It means memorable, and memorable is what drives business results.

The brands that win aren't the ones with the biggest budgets or the most polished creative. They're the ones with the courage to be consistently themselves, building distinctive assets that become mental shortcuts to their value.

Have the courage to be consistently authentic in a world of generic messaging.

That's your secret weapon. Use it.

If you enjoyed this post or know someone who may find it useful, please share it with them and encourage them to subscribe: brandchemistry.co/p/distinctive-brand-assets

The Modern Media Masterclass walks you through how to use organic content channels to build your brand and business.

Get the clarity and direction you need to turn content into a growth engine that drives brand trust and business results. Flat fee. No contracts. No lock-ins.

I’ve worked with brands like BuzzFeed and Clay to launch, grow and monetise organic content channels that drive real business results. Book a call today and lets see how I could help you.