Meta AI
5:55 am. Three years ago. Five missed calls. Ada, my colleague. My chest tightened. I didn’t need to check to know what this was about. Another urgent request. Another fire to put out. My phone screen glowed in the dark, demanding attention. My chest rose, falling with increased vexation. I was really exhausted. Tired of working constantly, of thinking about work, of being on a 24/7 crisis hotline. Was I even a person anymore with needs that don’t involve work? I thought.
“At this point, I might as well give them my blood,” I muttered, angrily, tossing my phone onto the bed. I ignored it. Not today. If the world wanted to burn, so be it. But we both know I was lying. By the time I walked into the office, the storm would already be waiting for me.
8:50 am. I stepped inside the office I shared with the head of growth and marketing. Two steps in, and I got barraged with a lot of messages: “Our client’s campaign cannot go live.” “Do we even have a strategy?” “Who approved this?” “Did Deji see it?” “What is this?”
What was this?
A lazy, lifeless, uninspired ad. A stock-image-infested, soulless, templated campaign. At some point, I became the problem. I hadn’t even looked at it. Not because I didn’t care, but because I was moving too fast to stop and think. Too many deadlines. Too many campaigns. Too many fires to put out. Along the way, I stopped thinking—I just did.
And when I finally saw the ad? It was bad. The over-polished, empty “professional” look that screams Please fund us. The kind of marketing that builds nothing—no loyalty, no connection, no brand. The kind of disjointed editing that made you feel how rushed it was. Images that try to look human but forget what humans actually do.
But the problem is deeper than just bad photos. As simple as it seems, they’re the perfect visual embodiment of a deeper and wider problem. It is about the nuance in marketing (and business). The issue is when brands rely on them as a substitute for identity, when professional becomes synonymous with generic, and when familiarity turns into forgettability.
Maybe African startups suffer from the same problem. Not essentially a Stock image problem but a branding problem. Most African startups could swap logos with their competitors, and nobody would notice anything different. They use the same buzzwords: Revolutionising seamless innovation for Africa. Empowering businesses through seamless transactions. Bridging the gap between businesses and consumers. “The Uber of X” or “The Amazon of Y.”
The same soulless, VC-friendly LinkedIn posts. Great storytelling? Nonexistent.
At first glance, it seems minor, a simple aesthetic choice. But it’s more than that. It’s about the absence of anything real. The kind of work that doesn’t offend but also doesn’t connect.
It’s brand taxidermy: startups so fixated on looking credible that they drain out all personality, leaving something polished but forgettable. A company so focused on looking legit that it ends up as a LinkedIn-friendly mannequin. Present, professional, but passive.
It seems like a global problem, but it feels worse in Africa because we have so many untapped, rich, authentic narratives, and yet, we still default to copy-pasting branding templates. I get it. Striking the right balance between authentic narratives and appealing to international audiences isn’t easy. But here’s the cost of getting it wrong: A failure to connect deeply with your audience, a brand that blends into the noise and a position in the market that weakens before it even gets a chance to strengthen.
The human brain craves relatability (Do I see myself in this?), connection (Does this brand feel human?) and newness (Am I excited by this?) But if you look, sound, and feel like everyone else, why should anyone care about you?
Why is This Happening?
VC Pitch Deck Syndrome
Most startup brands are for investors, not customers. They strip out every ounce of personality in the name of credibility and thought leadership.
FOMO Branding and the Pursuit of Validation
It seems new startups think that: If the biggest fintech startup is blue and corporate, why risk being different? If everyone in your industry says they are “bridging the gap”, “empowering businesses”, and “taking you to the next level”, why write something different?
Disruption requires a strong, distinctive identity that challenges the status quo. Some brands aren’t comfortable with that. Also, the relentless pursuit of validation has turned the industry into a branding loop.
It’s Easier, Cheaper and Faster
Good branding takes work. It’s easier to slap on the same tired buzzwords and call it a day. It’s less expensive to use stock templates than to invest in real, original storytelling. It’s safer to sound like everyone else than to take a bold, defining stance.
But easy, cheap, and safe won’t build brands that last.
How to Stand Out
You can ask the following questions: If I removed my logo, would people still recognise my brand? If I muted my colors, would my message still have life? If I stopped saying “innovative” and “seamless,” would I have anything left to say?
If the answer is no, you don’t have a brand. You have a template, and templates don’t win in branding.
You can say what no one else is bold enough to say, create something that is yours, stand for something so deeply that it offends someone and leave zero doubt in a customer’s mind about who you are. But please, don’t be a ghost. If you look, sound, and speak like everyone else, why should anyone care about you?
