Why do we still end ads with packshots?

Whenever an advertisement ends with luminous packshots, I find myself returning to the same question: why does this convention still persist? In a marketplace where consumers can discover, compare and purchase products within seconds, the final product reveal often feels less like a strategic necessity and more like an inherited ritual.

For an industry that constantly speaks about innovation, our continued reliance on one of advertising’s oldest habits is difficult to ignore.

However, the more important question is not why clients continue to request packshots, but why agencies continue to accommodate them with so little resistance.

If our role is to build modern brands, then part of that responsibility is to challenge conventions that no longer contribute meaningful value.

Why it once made sense

To be fair, the packshot once served a legitimate purpose. In the pre-digital era, advertisements had to communicate more in less time.

Consumers needed to know what the product looked like, which brand stood behind it and what to look for on a shop shelf.

The packshot offered a concise final moment of recognition and clarity at a time when media channels were limited and the path to purchase was far less immediate. In that context, its role was entirely justified.

Why it makes less sense today

Today, brands operate within an always-on ecosystem in which product information, reviews, pricing and purchase options are available instantly.

Social platforms, retail media, influencer content and shoppable formats already perform much of the work that packshots were originally designed to do.

Consumers do not need a static product image to understand what comes next; they need a compelling reason to care, engage or buy.

Why does the convention endure?

Part of the answer to that question is habit. For many marketers, the packshot still represents clarity, reassurance and a tidy conclusion.

Yet, agencies are not merely passive participants in this pattern; too often, creative work is built around the packshot from the outset because it is easier to approve, easier to defend and easier to move forward.

That may make the process smoother, but it rarely makes the work stronger.

The creative cost

The real cost is to the creative work. Just when an advertisement should culminate with emotional force, surprise or momentum, it often concludes with a static product shot presented as resolution.

The effect diminishes the strength of the storytelling and reduces the final moment to a functional label rather than a memorable impression.

For agencies that aspire to build distinctive brands, the packshot is not a minor compromise; it is where creative ambition begins to recede.

What should replace it

A world with fewer packshots does not require a diminished role for the product.

It requires ideas in which the product is integrated more intelligently through shoppable experiences, dynamic formats, clearer calls to action and endings that invite interaction rather than simply display packaging.

The opportunity is not to reduce branding, but to make branding work harder and feel more aligned with how people actually discover and purchase products today.

Time to reconsider the default

The packshot had its moment, and it served the industry well, but its continued dominance says less about the needs of modern advertising than about the difficulty of abandoning familiar conventions.

If we genuinely believe in better storytelling, more effective digital experiences and stronger brand-building, then we should be willing to challenge the habits that no longer advance the work.

Some traditions deserve respect; not all of them deserve the final frame.

By Nadim Ghrayeb, Chief Executive Officer, LEO Gulf