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 financial giants of trust and security: Banks! Whether you're watching your favorite YouTube videos or catching up on vlogs, these ads are designed to grab your attention and encourage you to explore their services, from savings accounts to loan offerings. As we dive into these strategic campaigns that seamlessly interrupt your YouTube browsing, let’s see which banks excel at making you pause, take notice, and consider their financial solutions—whether through their app or in-person at a branch!

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: ABN AMRO

Contestant 2: Revolut 

Contestant 3: Barclays

Contestant 4: Lloyds

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: ABN AMRO

‍

ABN AMRO had a total score of 77, which is a great! Let’s see what pulled their score down for achieving a perfect score.

What they excelled: Ad Breakthrough

ABN AMRO excelled in Ad Breakthrough, achieving a stellar score of 89. This metric evaluates how effectively an ad grabs attention amidst YouTube’s distractions, like recommended videos on the right, the comment section below, and the overall environment. Scoring in the 89th percentile, their ad performed better than 89% of YouTube ads in cutting through the noise.

What made it work:

• Crisp focal shots: The ad strategically uses clear, zoomed-in visuals that draw the eye immediately.
• Large, readable fonts: Bold and clear text ensured viewers could quickly absorb key messages.
• Faces and expressions: The use of human faces made the ad relatable and emotionally engaging.

By ticking all the right boxes—attention-grabbing visuals, easy-to-read text, and effective use of faces—ABN AMRO ensured their ad demanded attention. Below, the graph highlights their Ad Breakthrough performance, showcasing how well it competed in YouTube’s challenging ad space.

Where they struggled the most: Brand Attention

This was the key area that pulled ABN AMRO’s score down. With a Brand Attention score of just 20, the ad missed the mark in effectively promoting the brand itself, despite its overall strength.

Why it matters:

From a psychological perspective, people remember things better when they’re presented consistently—especially at the beginning and end of an experience. This is known as the primacy and recency effect, and it applies to ads as well.

What went wrong:

• Lack of early branding: ABN AMRO didn’t display their brand logo or name at the beginning of the ad. An early logo helps viewers immediately associate the content with the brand, building recognition from the start.
• Missed opportunities for consistent branding: Although the logo appeared at the end, it was small and didn’t stand out. This limited its impact, as shown by the incomplete rise in the graph at the conclusion of the ad.
• No persistent branding: Including the logo subtly throughout the ad—like in the corners—could have boosted brand recall significantly.

How they could improve:

1. Introduce the brand upfront: A visible logo or mention of the brand name early in the ad would prime viewers to connect the message with ABN AMRO.
2. Make the logo bold and prominent: At the end, using a larger, more striking logo would have left a lasting impression.
3. Use continuous branding: Placing a logo unobtrusively on either side of the ad throughout its runtime would keep the brand top of mind.

By incorporating these changes, ABN AMRO could have significantly improved its Brand Attention score, strengthening their ad’s overall impact.

What went well: Cognitive Ease

ABN AMRO scored an impressive 82 on Cognitive Ease, another strong point of their ad. It’s important to note that Ad Breakthrough and Cognitive Ease don’t always go hand in hand. While Ad Breakthrough focuses on how well an ad captures attention in its environment, Cognitive Ease looks solely at the ad’s design—evaluating how simple and effortless it is for viewers to understand.

What worked well:

• Clear focal points: The ad maintained a central focus throughout, making it visually intuitive and easy to process.
• Minimal visual clutter: The clean backgrounds ensured that viewers weren’t distracted by unnecessary details.
• Smooth scene transitions: While the graph below shows slight dips during scene changes, these changes weren’t abrupt. Instead, each new scene stayed on screen long enough for viewers to process the content comfortably.

The balance:

Striking a balance between Ad Breakthrough and Cognitive Ease is no small feat, as one score often rises at the expense of the other. ABN AMRO, however, managed to excel in both metrics, showing just how well-thought-out their ad truly was.

‍Final Thoughts

Kudos to ABN AMRO for this thoughtfully crafted ad! With a balance of attention-grabbing elements and visual simplicity, they’ve shown how careful planning and execution can elevate an ad’s performance. A true mastermind effort!

‍

Contestant 2: Revolut 

Revolut achieved an impressive score of 84 in Ad Breakthrough. This metric evaluates how effectively the ad captures attention by competing with surrounding distractions.

What worked: Ad Breakthrough

Revolut achieved an impressive score of 84 in Ad Breakthrough. This metric evaluates how effectively the ad captures attention by competing with surrounding distractions.

Why it scored high:

• Strong start with faces: The ad opens with multiple faces prominently featured, which instantly draws attention. Faces are a natural focal point for viewers, and this is reflected in the heatmap and the upward trend of the graph.

What could be improved:

The graph shows dips during moments when the shots lacked focus or were visually unclear. These moments made it harder for viewers to stay engaged and created opportunities for distractions to creep in.

Despite these minor lapses, Revolut’s ad performed well in grabbing attention and holding it for the most part. With a few adjustments to maintain clarity and focus throughout, they could elevate their Ad Breakthrough score even further.

Good performance: Brand Attention

Revolut scored a 72 on Brand Attention—a solid result, but given how crucial this metric is for brand recognition and recall, aiming for top-tier performance should be the goal.

What they did well:

• Consistent branding: The brand name appeared periodically throughout the ad, as shown by the peaks in the graph.
• Strong ending: The ad wrapped up by showing the Revolut name twice at the end, creating two prominent spikes in brand visibility.

Missed opportunities:

• No branding at the start: Including the brand name or logo early in the ad would have immediately set the tone and prepared viewers to associate the ad with Revolut.
• No persistent logo: Keeping the logo visible in the corner throughout the ad would have reinforced brand recognition without being intrusive.

While their approach to branding was effective in parts, starting stronger and maintaining subtle but continuous branding could have significantly boosted their score. Revolut has a great foundation to build on—fine-tuning these details could push their Brand Attention to excellent levels.

Where they struggled: Cognitive Ease

Revolut scored a low 21 on Cognitive Ease, and it’s not hard to see why. The ad felt visually overwhelming and lacked the simplicity needed to make it easy for viewers to process.

Why the score was low:

• Cluttered visuals: The ad opened with too many elements competing for attention—multiple people in view and no clear focal point. This made it hard for viewers to know where to look.
• Frequent and abrupt scene changes: The constant shifts between scenes disrupted the flow, making the ad harder to follow.
• Text overload: A paragraph of white text at the bottom added to the visual clutter, blending into the busy background and further complicating the viewer experience.

How they could improve:

• More focal shots: Simplifying the visuals by emphasizing key elements would have made the ad easier to process.
• Smoother transitions: Reducing the number of scene changes and making transitions more gradual could help maintain viewer engagement without overwhelming them.
• Cleaner design: Avoiding excessive text and opting for simpler, uncluttered backgrounds would significantly enhance visual clarity.

‍Final Thoughts

The ad’s overstimulation overshadowed its potential. By focusing on cleaner visuals and creating a more seamless viewing experience, Revolut could improve their Cognitive Ease score and better connect with their audience.

Contestant 3: Barclays

Barclays landed a mediocre score of 50. While not the worst, there’s room for improvement. Let’s break it down and see what went wrong.

What they could improve: Ad Breakthrough

Their Ad Breakthrough score of 55 highlights missed opportunities. The simple, short ad struggled to stand out.

Key issues:

• Weak opening: The ad started with a blank, light blue background that failed to grab attention. The mellow color and lack of visual elements, apart from a small logo in the top-right corner, gave viewers little reason to focus.
• No faces: Faces are highly effective in capturing attention, but Barclays didn’t include any, which diminished the ad’s ability to compete with distractors.
• Limited dynamic elements: The few spikes in the graph occurred when large, bold text appeared. While this is a positive, it wasn’t enough to sustain attention throughout the ad.

How they could improve:

• Stronger opening visuals: Starting with a vibrant or dynamic element—like a bold graphic, engaging animation, or an expressive face—could have drawn immediate attention.
• Leverage human connection: Incorporating faces would have added a personal touch and helped viewers connect with the message.
• Consistent focal points: While the bold text worked, adding other eye-catching elements like movement or contrast could have elevated the ad's attention-grabbing potential.

Barclays’ ad had potential but missed the mark with a subdued and unengaging start. Small changes—like creating a more compelling opening and integrating human elements—could significantly boost their Ad Breakthrough score and make their content more impactful.

Better performance: Brand Attention

Barclays performed relatively well in this area, scoring 62. Let’s dive into what worked—and where they missed an opportunity.

What they did right:

• Logo placement: Their logo was consistently displayed in the top-right corner throughout the ad, ensuring viewers always had a visual connection to the brand.
• Repetition of brand name: The brand name appeared multiple times, reinforcing recognition and recall.
• Strong finish: They ended the ad with their logo and brand name on a contrasting background, making their branding pop and leaving a lasting impression.

Where they missed the mark:

Despite the positives, they missed an opportunity at the beginning. Starting the ad with their brand name in large, bold font would have given viewers an immediate association with the ad, improving recall significantly.

Barclays’ branding efforts were solid, but with a stronger introduction and more deliberate use of bold visuals early on, they could easily boost this score. Small tweaks could take them from “good” to “great.”

Did not perform well: Cognitive Ease

This is where Barclays faced the most challenges, scoring a low 32 on this metric. Let’s break down why the ad fell short.

Why it didn’t work:

• Too much text: The ad was overwhelmed with text, cramming too many words into a short 14-second window.
• Competing elements: A paragraph of text at the bottom constantly pulled attention away from the larger fonts, creating a tug-of-war for focus. This left viewers confused about where to look.
• Quick scene changes: Rapid transitions between scenes made it harder for viewers to process the text fully before it disappeared, adding to the complexity.

What they did right:

• Clean visuals: They avoided overcrowding the background, which helped maintain a clear visual style. This is reflected in the few "ups" we see on the graph—those moments when the ad achieved a balance between clarity and focus.

‍Final Thoughts

Barclays’ reliance on heavy text, coupled with rushed pacing, made the ad difficult to follow and mentally taxing for viewers. To improve cognitive ease, they could:

1. Simplify the text: Focus on one key message instead of overloading with information.
2. Slow down scene changes: Give viewers enough time to absorb the content.
3. Use visuals strategically: Incorporate more imagery or focal elements to reduce reliance on text.

By addressing these points, they could transform an exhausting experience into an engaging one.

‍

Contestant 4: Lloyds

Lloyds delivered an intriguing and engaging ad, but despite its potential, it scored a disappointing 24. Let’s dive into what worked and where it stumbled.

What went well: Ad Breakthrough

Lloyds managed to score a 60, which is a solid performance! Here's what contributed to this score:

• Use of faces: The presence of characters helped grab attention and kept the ad engaging.
• Focused shots: They maintained clear focus on the characters and the bank app, which worked well to draw viewers' eyes to key elements.

However, there were moments where the ad faltered:

• Low contrast backgrounds: During certain scenes, the background didn’t contrast enough with the main characters, making it harder for viewers to concentrate on the focal points.
• Missed opportunities for sharper visuals: The lack of clearer, more defined focal points in some scenes caused dips in the attention graph.

While the ad did a decent job of pulling attention away from distractions, it could have elevated its performance by:

1. Improving visual contrast: Using sharper color contrasts would make the characters and key elements stand out more effectively.
2. Enhancing focal clarity: Ensuring all scenes have a clear, prominent point of focus would reduce distractions.

Lloyds created an ad with potential, but small tweaks in execution could turn their good into great!

Needs significant improvement: Brand Attention

Lloyds scored only 15 in Brand Attention, highlighting a major missed opportunity to effectively promote their brand. Here’s what went wrong:

• No brand presence at the start: The ad completely skipped displaying their brand name or logo at the beginning, which is crucial for brand recognition.
• Subtle brand placement: Throughout the ad, the brand name appeared only occasionally when the character made a payment. However, these moments were brief and the text was small, meaning viewers didn’t have enough time to register the brand.
• Distracting end scene: When the brand name finally appeared at the end, it was surrounded by additional text, which diverted attention away from the brand.

What they could do better:

To boost brand recognition, Lloyds could:

1. Feature their brand early: Display the brand name or logo right at the start to set the stage for recognition.
2. Increase visibility throughout: Keep the brand name more prominent throughout the ad, perhaps with larger, clearer text and repeated exposure.
3. Simplify the end scene: Avoid distractions at the end—ensure the brand name is the focal point.

In short, small tweaks like these would help Lloyds turn this ad into a more effective representation of their brand. Without these improvements, the ad risks losing its branding impact altogether.

Did not perform well: Cognitive Ease

With a score of 24, Lloyds clearly has room for improvement in terms of Cognitive Ease. The main issue here was the overabundance of scene changes.

• Too much to process: The ad jumped between multiple locations, each with different elements to absorb, creating unnecessary visual clutter. While the theme of showcasing repeated payments was central to the message, the execution could have been smoother.
• Inconsistent visuals: Some scenes were crowded, while others had clear focal points. This inconsistency made the ad harder to follow and detracted from its clarity.

What they could do better:

By reducing the number of scene changes and ensuring a more consistent visual approach, the ad could have been much easier for viewers to process. Keeping the core message intact while simplifying the flow would have drastically improved the score here.

In essence, fewer, clearer scenes with a cohesive visual style would have enhanced cognitive ease, making the ad easier to understand and more effective overall.

Who Takes the Trophy?

Here are the rankings:

• ABN AMRO: Overall score 77
• Revolut: Overall score 68
• Barclays: Overall score 50
• Lloyds: Overall score 24

Congrats to ABN AMRO for winning the Battle of the Brands - Banks Edition! They led the pack with an exceptional performance. The other ads were creative but missed out on 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!