Welcome to YouTube AdWars: Battle of the Brands! Get ready for an epic showdown where we take a deep dive into the world of YouTube advertising. In each edition, we’ll pick a hot industry, select top brands, and put their ads through the ultimate test on our junbi platform. Who will rise to the top and claim the crown for the best YouTube ad? Buckle up and join us for the thrills, spills, and fierce competition!

‍

Be sure to understand that these scores are percentiles. So if your ad scores an 80, that means 80% of the YouTube ads scored below your ad’s score while only 20% scored above his score. Now that we know how these ads will be ranked, let's unveil this edition’s industry focus—drum roll, please... the high-octane world of automotive brands!

Whether you're watching your favorite YouTube videos or catching up on vlogs, these ads are designed to grab your attention and fuel your interest—whether in sleek sedans, rugged SUVs, or the latest EV innovations. As we dive into these strategic campaigns that interrupt your YouTube browsing, let’s see which automakers excel at making you pause, take notice, and consider their latest models—whether online or at the dealership!

Let The Game Begin…

Before we reveal the top contender, take a moment to reflect on their YouTube ads. Which one do you think stands out the most? Rank them from 1 to 4 in your mind—where 1 is the standout champion. Consider which advertisement grabs your attention and shines the brightest. Then, see if your picks align with our final rankings!

Contestant 1: Hyundai

Contestant 2: Zeekr

Contestant 3: Mazda

Contestant 4: Nissan

Great content from all but who truly nailed the psychology of YouTube advertising? Are you ready with your results? Let’s compare them to what junbi.ai predicted! 

‍

Contestant 1: Hyundai

Hyundai’s ad scored 49—a middle-of-the-road result. Not terrible, but not great either. So, what held it back from a higher score?

Biggest Challenge: Ad Breakthrough

With a score of just 18, Hyundai’s ad struggled to break through the clutter of YouTube, especially in environments like CTV and desktop. Picture this: you're watching YouTube on your living room TV or scrolling on your laptop. There are tons of distractions—your phone, the recommended video sidebar, the comments section.

One major issue? Low contrast. The ad had a predominantly dark color scheme, making it harder to stand out against a visually noisy environment. Bright, high-contrast visuals tend to cut through distractions more effectively, but Hyundai’s choice of darker tones worked against them.

Another key factor? No faces. Research shows that human faces naturally draw attention, yet Hyundai’s ad didn’t feature any, making it even harder to grab viewers' focus.

However, their font choice did help—it popped against the dark background, giving them a slight boost in visibility (as seen in the graph’s small peaks). Notably, the ad performed better towards the end, where the contrast improved, making it easier for viewers to focus.

Hyundai had some strong elements, but in a competitive YouTube environment, standing out is everything.

What they excelled at: Brand Attention

Hyundai nailed their branding, scoring an impressive 91 in this category. This high score makes sense—they prominently featured their brand name throughout the ad. Interestingly, their low-contrast visuals actually helped the brand name stand out more.

But here’s the catch: all these scores are interconnected. While strong branding is great, if an ad doesn’t break through the clutter, fewer people will even notice it. Hyundai’s low contrast hurt their overall visibility, meaning that even with a stellar brand attention score, the impact is limited.

A simple fix? Increase contrast while keeping brand visibility strong. They could have:

• Featured the brand name/logo prominently at both the beginning and end of the ad.
• Maintained their logo in the top right corner throughout, just like they did.
• Made the brand name larger and more in-focus in key moments.

With these tweaks, Hyundai could have pushed their brand attention score even closer to 100, without sacrificing ad breakthrough. Still, 91 is a fantastic score—well done, Hyundai!

What they could improve: Cognitive Ease

Hyundai scored just 39 in cognitive ease—a clear sign that their ad was difficult to process quickly.

Cognitive ease is all about how simple and intuitive an ad is to understand. In Hyundai’s case, several factors made it harder for viewers to stay engaged:

• Confusing visuals at the start – The dark background and on-screen elements lacked a clear focal point, making it difficult for viewers to immediately grasp the message.
• Abrupt scene changes – Rapid shifts between scenes made the ad feel disjointed, further reducing clarity.
• Text-driven peaks – The spikes in the graph, especially early on, show that viewers focused more when text appeared. However, the lack of strong visual storytelling made it harder to sustain attention.

By improving contrast, pacing, and clear focal points, Hyundai could make their ad easier to process, keeping viewers engaged from start to finish.

Contestant 2: Zeekr

Zeekr had a total score of 43. Not that far from what Hyundai scored, but still a bit low! Let’s see where Zeekr went wrong and what they did good.

What kind of worked: Ad Breakthrough

With a score of 53, Zeekr managed to stand out a little, but much of the ad still got lost in environmental clutter.

• Strong contrast in the opening scene – The white car against a dark night background created a striking visual, earning them some high peaks in the graph.
• Use of faces and well-contrasted text – These elements helped grab attention in certain moments.

However, the biggest issue was low contrast overall. After the initial scene, most of the ad was too dark, making it harder to cut through distractions. While they had some attention-grabbing elements, a brighter, higher-contrast approach throughout could have helped the ad break through more effectively.

Where they struggled: Brand Attention

Zeekr’s branding fell short, scoring just 34. The low and infrequent peaks in the graph below highlight how little branding was present in the ad.

• No branding at the start – The ad jumped straight into car footage without displaying the brand name. This leaves room for confusion—viewers might not immediately recognize which brand the ad is for. As a result, some may lose interest or drop off before realizing it's a Zeekr ad.
• Weak branding at the end – Zeekr briefly displayed its brand name in the middle of the screen, but in a small font and for only 0.5 seconds. In a 20-second ad, this isn’t enough to leave a lasting impression—or justify the ad spend.

How They Could Improve: Zeekr could have strengthened their branding by:

• Displaying the brand logo throughout the ad—just like Hyundai did—to keep brand visibility high.
• Featuring their name earlier in the ad to ensure viewers connect the visuals with Zeekr.
• Making the brand name more prominent in the final shot, using a larger font and holding it longer for better retention.

What “kind of” worked: Cognitive Ease

Zeekr scored 52 in cognitive ease—not bad, but room for improvement.

• Abrupt scene changes – Frequent, sudden shifts between close-ups and wider shots made the ad feel disjointed.
• Cluttered visuals – Some close-ups were too complex, leading to dips in the graph where viewers struggled to process the content.

How They Could Improve:

• Smoother transitions – A more fluid storytelling approach would make the ad easier to follow.
• Clearer focal points – Keeping attention centered on the car and key features instead of frequent shifts would enhance engagement.

With a few refinements, Zeekr could create an ad that’s easier to process and more effective in driving brand recognition.

Contestant 3: Mazda

Mazda landed a very poor score of just 6. Let’s see why this blunder happened! 

Needs major improvement: Ad Breakthrough

Mazda scored only 22 in this category, meaning the ad failed to stand out against distractions.

• Better contrast, but still not enough – Compared to Hyundai and Zeekr, Mazda’s contrast was slightly better, thanks to its sunny outdoor setting. However, a dull filter over the footage muted the colors, preventing the ad from popping out.
• Lack of clear focus – Many shots were out of focus, making it harder for viewers to lock onto a key visual. The few sharp focal shots suffered from poor lighting, further reducing their impact.
• Weak framing choices – Instead of centering the car, Mazda often placed it toward the side of the screen. This divided attention, allowing distractions to take over.

What Worked? Mazda did use faces, which is a strong attention-grabbing element. However, without better contrast and framing, this wasn’t enough to save the ad from getting lost in the noise.

With brighter visuals, stronger focal points, and better composition, Mazda could significantly improve its ad’s breakthrough power.

Struggled Significantly: Brand Attention

Mazda underperformed here as well, scoring just 27. Branding is one of the most critical aspects of an ad, yet many brands either introduce it too late or fail to make a strong visual impression. Mazda fell into this trap.

• Minimal branding presence – The brand name briefly appeared on the car at the start and again at the 21-second mark, but only for a fraction of a second.
• Missed opportunity – Mazda finally displayed its logo on a contrasting background at the very end, which helped boost the score slightly. However, by that point, many viewers might have already lost interest.

What Mazda should do – Brand early and often! Placing the logo in the top corner throughout the ad or showing the brand name prominently in key moments could have strengthened brand recall.

Where they struggled the most: Cognitive Ease

Mazda scored just 10, indicating that the ad was too difficult to follow.

• Excessive scene changes – The ad switched scenes almost every second, making it overwhelming for viewers to process.
• Visual clutter – Some scenes were too busy, adding to the cognitive load and making it harder to focus.
• Disjointed flow – The rapid cuts and cluttered visuals made the ad visually confusing, which could cause viewers to lose interest or look away.

How to improve: Smoother transitions, fewer abrupt cuts, and clearer focal points would have helped Mazda create a more engaging and easy-to-follow ad.

Contestant 4: Nissan

The final contestant, Nissan, also struggled, landing a low overall score of 25. Let’s break down what went wrong.

Where they struggled: Ad Breakthrough

Score: 38 – Nissan’s ad failed to break through the noise, getting lost in distractions. Several key factors contributed to this:

• Low contrast – A common issue among all contestants. Without strong contrast, the ad blends into the background, making it harder for viewers to focus.
• Lack of clear focal points – The ad didn’t guide the viewer’s attention effectively, making it easy for them to lose interest.
• Minimal use of faces – While Nissan included faces, they appeared only briefly—not long enough to draw and sustain attention.

What Nissan could improve: Increasing contrast, emphasizing clear focal points, and using faces for longer durations would help the ad stand out from the clutter and capture more attention.

What they excelled: Brand Attention

Score: 67 – Nissan did fairly well in branding. They showcased their brand at both the beginning and end of the ad, as reflected in the graph below.

What could have made it even better?
A simple improvement would be displaying their logo or brand name consistently in a corner throughout the ad. This approach has two key advantages:

• Boosts brand familiarity – The more viewers see the brand, the more memorable it becomes.
• Helps distracted viewers – If someone misses the brand mention early on, they can still identify the ad later by spotting the logo.

Overall, Nissan’s branding strategy was solid, but a more persistent presence could have made it even stronger.

Did not perform well: Cognitive Ease

Score: 3 – This was by far the weakest area for Nissan. The ad was difficult to follow, leading to low comprehension and poor recall.

What went wrong?

• Abrupt scene changes made it hard to track the story.
• Cluttered visuals in the beginning created confusion.
• No clear focal point left viewers unsure of what to focus on.

Why does this matter?

In a distracted environment, an ad that’s too complex will lose viewers’ attention fast. If they can’t easily process the content, they’re unlikely to remember the message or the brand.

What Nissan could improve

A simpler, more structured ad with:

• Fewer scene changes
• A clear focal point
• A smoother narrative flow

This would help the brain process the ad effortlessly, keeping viewers engaged and improving recall.

Who Takes the Trophy?

Here are the rankings:

• Hyundai: Overall score 49
• Zeekr: Overall score 43
• Mazda: Overall score 6
• Nissan: Overall score 25

Congrats to Hyundai for winning the Battle of the Brands - Automotive Edition! They led the pack with a good performance. The other ads were creative but missed some easily fixable points that could have been optimized with junbi.ai.

Don’t miss your chance to be the brand that turns heads! See you in the next Battle. Until then, get creative and get junbi-approved!