Is brand individuality being eroded by cheap automated design?

Over the past year or so, I’ve watched an interesting shift happen across marketing and communications teams.

More organisations are producing their own content in-house. From promotional graphics to pitch decks, digital ads to social campaigns, the tools have become more accessible and the design literacy of internal teams has grown. It’s a shift fuelled by good intentions, increased efficiency, speed to market, reduced reliance on external agencies. At face value, it makes sense.

But underneath this shift is something more subtle. Something slower. And something potentially more damaging to the long-term health of a brand.

It’s the gradual erosion of distinction.

The illusion of efficiency

There’s a common assumption that doing things in-house is always cheaper, always faster, and always more aligned. But design, branding, and communications don’t operate on a purely mechanical level. They’re not just outputs. They’re expressions. And the moment they become disconnected from a strategic, considered centre, something starts to give.

The clearest sign of this? Template fatigue.

I’ve seen the same layouts, the same colours, the same icon sets used across dozens of organisations. Swapping out a logo. Tweaking the text. Replacing the photo. But beneath it all, the same skeleton remains. The same structure. The same language. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

It’s the design equivalent of déjà vu.

When brand becomes wallpaper

A strong brand isn’t just a logo or a colour palette. It’s a lived experience across every touchpoint, seen, heard, and felt in equal measure. It’s how you present yourself when no one’s watching. It’s how your audience recognises you without needing to read the name.

But when consistency is replaced by convenience, the signal weakens.

It happens gradually. A social tile here. A last-minute flyer there. A deck shared internally that gets picked up externally. One quick job at a time, the edges start to blur. Before long, the brand isn’t saying anything at all. It’s become generic. Wallpaper. Interchangeable with a hundred others.

And yet, most businesses don’t notice it happening. Not because they don’t care, but because the erosion doesn’t make a noise.

Who’s asking the questions?

In many ways, this is a question of stewardship. Of creative leadership. Not in the sense of hierarchy or control, but in the deeper sense of asking the right questions and making space for the right conversations.

What does this design say about who we are?

Does it align with our values, our tone, our audience?

How does it sit within the wider narrative of our brand?

These are not questions that templates ask. Nor are they the kinds of questions that get asked when speed is the main currency.

But they are the questions that protect meaning. They are the questions that stop work from becoming noise. And they are the questions that ensure a brand remains alive, distinctive, and trusted.

The invisible role of creative direction

Creative direction is not a title or a job description. It’s a discipline. One that often operates quietly. Behind the scenes. It doesn’t always show up in the design itself, but it’s present in the integrity of the process. It’s present in the why beneath the what.

Creative direction isn’t about being the loudest in the room. It’s about protecting the clarity of the message. It’s about making fewer decisions, but better ones. It’s about creating space for coherence in an environment that prizes output.

The best creative direction often goes unnoticed because what it protects is the work, not the ego.

The cost of not noticing

When every organisation starts looking and sounding the same, brand becomes a game of who shouts loudest. It becomes a race to the bottom, where price, scale, or gimmick wins.

But strong brands don’t compete like that. They build something quieter. More enduring. More human.

So the real question isn’t whether in-house teams should produce content, of course they should. The tools are there. The skills can be developed. The autonomy is valuable.

The real question is whether those teams are connected to a deeper creative purpose. Whether someone is holding the thread. Whether the story still makes sense.

Because without that, even the most well-intentioned content becomes just another drop in the ocean. And for a brand that once stood out, that’s the cost that’s hardest to measure, and hardest to recover from.

‍