Designer Raymond Loewy created the MAYA principle (Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable) as a framework for creating products that’d be both accepted and successful. The idea behind MAYA is that successful products will balance what is already familiar with what is new or disruptive.
Loewy developed MAYA based on two insights. 1) He observed a point where designs became so unfamiliar they didn’t appeal to people. 2) He recognised that people are curiosity for new things. But that they also feared the unknown.
Loewy’s insights are timeless. Thanks to behavioural science’s recent growth, we all realise that people are naturally averse to both risk and loss. But we’re also consistently hearing that “the speed of change has never been so fast.”
So, do these two things mean that we’re in a period where MAYA should be marketer’s go-to approach regarding how they (re)shape brand’s offerings – products, experiences, and communications – to embrace and capitalise on change?
Let’s look at the evidence.
The business perspective
Accenture’s Pulse of Change Index says that between 2019 and 2023, business leaders felt that disruption increased by 183%. With 88% further disruption predicted in 2024. But are businesses coping with this disruption?
Not according to research from Waldencraft, whose research reports that only 44% of leaders believe they’re equipped to deal with disruption. This is because businesses are fighting rapid change on several fronts. Technological. Economical. Environmental. Which means trying to deal with change in more areas than they’re often able to.
No sign of slowing down
Despite this, the rate of change we’re all experiencing shows little sign of slowing. Funding for technology firms in Europe has ceased declining. Open AI has started to invest in brand marketing and opened the gates to agentic commerce.
This shouldn’t shock us. Especially as disruption creates brand value. According to Kantar, 71% of the growth in BrandZ’s top 100 brands came from disruptors. This puts the value of disruption at $6.6 trillion. That’s a lot of reasons to prioritise new vs. familiar.
Change: an innovator’s dilemma?
It’s reasonable to assume periods of fast change and disruption are an innovator’s dream. However, research by Circana says that CPG innovation fell 20% between 2024 and 2025.
This is reinforced in the UK, where the number of patent applications remained stagnant between 2019 and 2024. As did the number of new businesses launched. What’s striking about this, is that periods of disruption – i.e. pandemics – should see the highest levels of innovation. The reverse of what we’ve seen. To quote Morgan Housel:
“The war began with troops on horseback. It ended by splitting an atom in half.”
The UK patent and business launch figures tell a different story. Is it possible that the speed of change too fast for innovators and entrepreneurs to act in? Or to have confidence in launching new ventures?
Old habits die hard
We’re always being told that consumer habits are changing. That the world is in flux. And there’s some truth in it. But we can be guilty of underestimating how fast new habits take to adopt over old ones. Often people refer to statement “it takes 66 days to form a new habit” (based on Phillippa Lally’s research).
However, often we forget the small print to this finding. The speed of changing a behaviour depends on how complex and embedded that behaviour is.
For example, contactless payments are prevalent in the UK. But cash usage has risen for the 3rd year running. Landline telephone ownership is declining at a slow rate of 1.6% a year. Despite 98% of UK adults owning mobiles.
This means that when you’re trying to change an established behaviour, you’re fighting an uphill psychological battle. One way to overcome this is to make changes appear smaller, by retaining consistency with prior behaviour.
Consistency compounds campaign effectiveness
System 1’s Compound Creativity research shows that campaigns with the most consistent execution over a 5 year period create 2.2 times more very large brand effects vs. the least consistent campaigns. This makes a compelling case for consistent creative execution vs. advancing it.
One reason for this is the mere exposure effect. This is where we develop a preference for things, people, or ideas when we become more familiar with them through repeated exposure. Think of Coca Cola’s bottle or McDonald’s logo. Ever consistent and permanently recognisable because of it.
Can nostalgia trump new?
Nostalgia works in marketing by triggering positive emotions that tap into consumer’s memories. Look no further than summer 2025. Topshop returned to the high street. Naked Gun was in the cinema. And the soundtrack for summer was Oasis.
And nostalgia isn’t just a 2025 trend. Look at how Oreos emblazoned 1980’s gaming icon Pac-Man on their cookies last year. Nor is it a quirky creative idea. Nostalgia increases willingness-to-pay by reducing people’s desire for money by triggering people to put greater value on social strings over how much is in their wallet. Is there a stronger case for balancing consistency and advancement?
What does this all mean for marketers?
Realize we’re different
Andrew Tenzer & Ian Murray’s research into how marketers and the general population compare has a simple message. Marketers have different aspirations to the mainstream. This means we’re more likely to want ‘the most advanced’ and eschew ‘the most acceptable’.
Identify what to advance
Before updating a product or campaign, find out what elements of it consumers want you to keep. Failure to do could result in an embarrassing situation like the Gap or Burger King logo reversals of 2010 and 2011.
Define what’s acceptable to keep consistent
Before using the MAYA approach to enact change, define what acceptable/consistent is to your business and consumers. Invariably the answers will be different. But aspiring to keep what matters most to both should be essential.
