Most marketers believe great advertising is born from raw creative talent — a lightning-bolt idea that strikes a gifted copywriter in the shower, or a visionary art director who just sees things differently than the rest of us. That belief is not only wrong, it's costing you money.

In 1999, three researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem — Jacob Goldenberg, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon — published a study in Marketing Science that quietly upended everything the advertising industry thought it knew about creativity. Their finding was both humbling and liberating: 89% of award-winning ads follow just six repeatable structural patterns. Great advertising isn't magic. It's a template.

The Problem With How Most People Create Ads

The standard approach to ad ideation is what researchers call divergent thinking — free association, brainstorming sessions, focus groups, mood boards, and projective techniques. The underlying assumption is that if you generate enough ideas without judgment or constraint, a great one will eventually surface.

The problem is that this process is expensive, slow, and wildly inconsistent. Creative teams burn hours chasing ideas that go nowhere. Campaigns launch on gut instinct. And when something works, nobody can quite explain why — which means they can't reliably repeat it.

What the research revealed is that this randomness is largely an illusion. Even in a free-form creative environment, ideas that actually work tend to converge on the same small set of underlying structures. Most creative teams are using these patterns intuitively — they've just never named them.

What the Research Found

Goldenberg, Mazursky, and Solomon analyzed 200 award-winning print ads drawn from top competitions including The One Show and USADREVIEW, covering the years 1990–1995. Three senior advertising experts with at least 12 years of experience each independently selected and ranked the highest-quality ads from a pool of 500. Agreement between the judges was 90%.

The researchers then worked backward — inferring the structural logic underlying each ad — and identified six core creativity templates and sixteen versions that explained the vast majority of what made those ads work.

They then ran a comparison study: 200 award-winning ads versus 200 non-winning ads. The results were stark. Templates appeared in 50% of the winning ads, but only 2.5% of the losing ads. Structure wasn't just correlated with quality — it was the single biggest differentiator between ads that won and ads that didn't.

They didn't stop there. In follow-up studies, groups of 20 participants were trained on the templates before completing an ad ideation task. A separate group of 36 individuals, blind to the training, then rated the resulting ads. The template-trained group produced ads rated significantly higher on creativity, brand attitude, and recall. Recall rates told the story clearly: 28.5% for template-trained participants, 20% for free association, and 14.8% for those with no training at all.

This wasn't a small edge. It was a systematic advantage — and it came from a framework anyone can learn.

The Six Creativity Templates

Here is the core of the research: six structural patterns that underlie nearly every great ad ever made. Each one comes with examples drawn directly from the study.

Template 1: Pictorial Analogy

The idea: Take a symbol that represents your message and merge it with a visual element of the product itself. The two things should share a shape, color, or surface quality that creates a surprising but immediately legible connection.

This template has two versions. In the replacement version, a product component is replaced by a symbol. In the extreme analogy version, the symbol is taken to an extreme within the product space.

From the research:

• Penn tennis balls were redesigned to look like a croissant for the French Open, a hockey puck for the Canadian Open, and a tea cup moisture ring for the British Lipton Championships. In each case, the ball — a component of the product space — was replaced by a symbol of the host country.
• For Nike-Air sneakers, the shoe itself replaced a fireman's safety sheet — depicted as a sneaker-shaped rescue net that people land on, communicating cushioning and protection. The sneaker displaces the symbol rather than the other way around.

Why it works: It creates instant visual unity between what you're selling and what it means. The viewer doesn't need to read the headline — they feel the connection.

Template 2: Extreme Situation

The idea: Create a scenario that is deliberately unrealistic or exaggerated in order to spotlight a key product attribute. The absurdity is the point — it makes the attribute impossible to ignore.

This template has three versions: the absurd alternative (a ridiculous substitute for the product), the extreme attribute (the product's feature pushed to impossible limits), and the extreme worth (the product's value taken to an unrealistic extreme).

From the research:

• A security lock ad showed an elderly woman barking like a dog to frighten off burglars. The tongue-in-cheek message: "You could do this instead of buying our lock." The alternative is so obviously absurd that the viewer's conclusion — just buy the lock — is inevitable.
• A Jeep was shown driving underneath the snow, not through it, to demonstrate all-weather capability. The attribute (traction in bad weather) was pushed far past any realistic scenario.

Why it works: Absurdity, used with precision, creates humor and memorability simultaneously. The viewer laughs and encodes the product message. It also disarms skepticism — you're not making a claim, you're letting the audience draw their own conclusion.

Template 3: Consequences

The idea: Show what happens as a direct result of using — or failing to use — your product. Push the consequence far enough that it becomes dramatic, even absurd, but make sure it flows logically from a real product attribute.

The extreme consequences version shows an exaggerated outcome of using the product. The inverted consequences version warns against what happens if you don't.

From the research:

• A car loudspeaker ad showed a bridge beginning to collapse when the speakers were turned on at full volume while the car was parked on it. The vibrations — a real acoustic phenomenon — were taken to a catastrophic extreme to communicate volume and power.
• A vitamin ad showed an otherwise highly energetic person completely unable to get out of bed in the morning — a warning portrait of what life looks like without the product.

Why it works: Consequences give the product attribute stakes. Instead of telling the audience what the product does, you show them what the world looks like with and without it. The dramatic gap between those two worlds is what drives desire.

Template 4: Competition

The idea: Place your product in direct competition with something from an entirely different category — something that wouldn't normally be considered a competitor at all. The product wins the comparison, and in doing so, the key attribute is proven rather than claimed.

This template has three versions: attribute in competition (the product's feature beats something unexpected), worth in competition (the product's value beats a competing priority), and uncommon use (the product solves a problem it was never designed for).

From the research:

• An advertised car raced against a bullet — not another car — to demonstrate speed. Competing against a bullet rather than a rival brand removes any question about degree.
• A couple used their jeans as a tow rope to rescue a broken-down car. No tow truck, no rope — just the jeans. The product's unexpected strength was demonstrated by placing it in a context where it had no business winning.
• A person paused mid-bite of the advertised cereal, weighing whether to stop eating and answer a ringing phone. The cereal competed against the basic human impulse to respond to interruption — and won.

Why it works: Competing outside your category eliminates the defensiveness that comes with traditional comparison ads. You're not attacking a rival brand — you're demonstrating an attribute by placing it in an unexpectedly high-stakes context.

Template 5: Interactive Experiment

The idea: Design the ad so that the viewer must physically do something to receive the message. The act of engagement itself becomes the proof of the product's benefit.

The activation version asks the viewer to perform a physical action. The imaginary experiment version creates the sensation of the experience mentally, without requiring physical interaction.

From the research:

• A print ad for anti-dandruff shampoo featured a large black patch. Viewers were instructed to rub the patch across a dark piece of clothing. White residue appeared on the fabric — a vivid, personal demonstration of why they needed the product.

Why it works: Participation creates ownership. When a viewer discovers something through their own action, it doesn't feel like an ad claim — it feels like personal experience. The persuasion is self-generated, which makes it far more durable than anything a brand can assert.

Template 6: Dimensionality Alteration

The idea: Manipulate a dimension — time, quantity, division, or the introduction of a new parameter — relative to the product or its message. Show the product operating outside its normal dimensional context, and let the contrast do the persuasive work.

The four versions are: time leap (moving forward or backward in time), multiplication (repeating elements for cumulative impact), division (breaking the product or its use into components), and new parameter connection (introducing an unexpected dimension, such as speed expressed through the shrinking of an ocean).

From the research:

• A life insurance ad showed a wife arguing with her already-dead husband at a séance — the entire scene takes place after his death. The time leap made visceral what a policy cancellation actually means, without a single statistic or fear-based claim.

Why it works: Dimensional shifts create perspective that is impossible to achieve through conventional framing. Moving the viewer through time, scale, or space generates an emotional reorientation — they see the product's value from a vantage point they could never reach on their own.

But Won't Following Formulas Make My Ads Generic?

This is the objection every creative professional raises, and it's worth addressing directly.

The research actually found the opposite. Working within a structural constraint forces more atypical, unexpected thinking — not less. As cognitive psychologist David Perkins observed, adherence to a cognitive frame of reference involves sensitivity to the "rules of the game," and by functioning within a frame, a better position is achieved to notice or recognize the unexpected. Finke et al. further found that restricting the ways in which creative cognitions are interpreted forces people to think about conceptual implications in more atypical ways, which promotes creative discovery.

Think of it this way: a sonnet and a haiku are among the most rigidly constrained forms in all of literature. They are also among the most creatively fertile. The structure doesn't kill originality — it focuses it. Knowing which template you're working within frees your creative energy to focus on how to execute it with surprise and precision, rather than burning that energy wandering in all directions at once.

The templates are also not permanent fixtures. The researchers noted that as social norms and cultural trends shift over time, templates evolve too — though far more slowly than individual ad ideas themselves.

What This Means for Your Ads

The most important implication of this research is simple: creativity in advertising is a trainable skill, not an innate talent.

Here is a practical framework for applying the six templates to your own ad creation process:

1. Identify your single most important product attribute. The one thing your product does better than anything else, or the one problem it solves most dramatically.
2. Run that attribute through each of the six templates. Don't try to force every template — just see which ones open up interesting directions. You're looking for the combination where the template and the attribute create genuine surprise.
3. Generate at least two variations per viable template. The first idea is usually the most obvious. Push to a second and third option before choosing.
4. Test against the viewer's experience, not just the headline. The strongest template-based ads tend to communicate before the copy does the heavy lifting. If your visual requires the headline to explain it, keep pushing.

As a quick reference: the Consequences and Extreme Situation templates map most naturally onto the problem-agitate-solve structure that performs consistently well in direct response and social ads — together they account for the majority of template-use among the award-winning ads in the study. Pictorial Analogy tends to excel in brand-building and product launch contexts. Interactive Experiment is underused in digital formats but extraordinarily powerful for any ad where the product benefit can be demonstrated rather than described.

The Real Takeaway

For decades, the advertising industry has treated great creative as something that either happens or doesn't — a product of talent, timing, and luck. This research dismantles that assumption methodically and with hard data.

Fifty percent of award-winning ads follow identifiable, teachable patterns. Recall rates for template-trained ad creators run nearly double those working without the framework. The gap between winning and losing ads isn't genius — it's structure.

You don't have to wait for inspiration. You have six templates. Pick one, identify your attribute, and start generating. The research suggests you'll outperform a brainstorming session every single time.

Take 4 minutes to benchmark your store's performance and learn how to increase sales.