Why ad frequency fatigue still plagues digital advertising, despite all the tech

New Delhi: Despite a decade of debate, billions spent on ad tech, and repeated promises from platforms and partners alike, there’s one persistent question that still haunts the digital marketing ecosystem: why are we still being bombarded with the same ad, again and again?

From overexposure on Connected TVs to algorithmic loops on Instagram Reels and Spotify audio, frequency capping remains digital advertising’s most unresolved problem. And the industry’s best minds are getting restless.

I don’t want to see your ad ten times

Archana Aggarwal, Media consultant Archimedius - the Media Navigator, minces no words: “Most brands set frequency caps—typically between 3 to 7 impressions per user—but at least one platform almost always exceeds this limit. You often find frequencies shooting up beyond 10, especially when the cohort size is small or niche.”

And it’s not a one-off glitch. “The issue isn’t with the campaign setup—it’s the execution. Martech or ad tech platforms don’t always enforce frequency capping effectively. They'll say, ‘We delivered within 3 to 5,’ but when you look at audit reports or user feedback, it feels much higher,” Agarwal explained.

The result? Wasted budgets, fatigued audiences, and growing resentment toward even the best-intentioned brands.

Connected TV sponsorship deals, which include buying ads on spots basis rather than impressions, make it worse. “For example, if you opt for a fixed spot buy instead of CPM on digital, frequency caps may not apply. You end up seeing the same ad repeatedly because the buy is based on slots, not impressions,” Agarwal explained.

Regular audits using tools like mFilterIt, IAS, DoubleVerify, or MOAT often reveal that the actual frequency is much higher than promised. “We’ve moved away from seeing over-delivery as a bonus. Today, it’s wasteful,” Aggarwal said. “If my campaign hits its reach, I’d rather redirect the budget to a new audience than hammer the same one.”

No platform is innocent

“Let’s be honest,” said Mayank Shah, Vice President, Parle Products, “no brand wants to annoy its consumers. But the way deals are structured, especially during high-impact events like the IPL, makes it inevitable. Often, the inventory is sold on impressions, not actual unique views. So the same viewer sees the same ad over and over.”

For complex launch campaigns, he suggests 3 to 5 impressions per user; for simpler ones, even one or two may suffice. But the real problem, he insists, is on the execution side where platforms fail to respect these caps.

“It’s not about hourly caps. The frequency applies to the entire campaign. The challenge arises because platforms push impressions, not exposure-based delivery. The same user ends up seeing the same ad repeatedly,” he said.

One of IPL's biggest advertisers, Parle has begun reassessing its media deals. “This year, we faced overexposure in certain feeds for the first time. Going forward, we will ensure frequency conditions are addressed in our agreements,” he revealed.

When asked about the role of tech solutions, Shah bluntly said, “No one’s approached us with a working solution. If any solution exists, platforms aren’t using it effectively.”

The algorithm isn’t helping, it’s repeating

Pawan Sarda, Chief Growth Officer, House of Abhinandan Lodha, believes the algorithm is part of the problem. “The system keeps chasing the most engaged users. That’s how it builds audiences. But what that means is people who’ve already clicked or shown interest are the ones most likely to see the same ad again and again.”

His solution? Diversify the creative. “We break our master communication into variations. Start with a 30-second video, then roll out 10-second cutdowns, UGC, and content that informs rather than sells. It’s all about keeping the core message consistent without boring the consumer to death,” he says.

However, according to Shah of Parle Products, even deploying multiple creatives doesn’t always help. “Having two creatives may reduce frequency exposure to half. But in high-intensity campaigns like IPL, where impressions are high and concurrency is low, that isn’t enough.”

Sarda pointed out that overexposure isn’t just a tech or platform problem, it’s a mindset issue. “There are advertisers who actually want 25 to 30 exposures. The idea is to dominate the consumer’s mindshare, even at the cost of irritation.”

The legacy of 'nuisance advertising' still lingers. “Back in the day, brands like Vodafone would rebrand entire time bands. Consumers had no choice but to remember the brand. But that model no longer holds.”

Sarda urges marketers to remember, “Nobody wants to see advertising. So it has to be interesting. Real. If it doesn’t resonate, it becomes white noise, or worse, brand resentment.”

You can't cap what you can’t track

Prabhakar Tiwari, Partner, FRN Advisory, believes the solution lies in operational rigor and data orchestration. “We aim for 3–5 exposures per user per week, but that’s just a baseline. What matters is timing, placement, and relevance,” he said.

His strategy involves platform-specific caps managed centrally via DSPs, unified ad servers, and exclusion lists for recent converters. For high-frequency platforms like Instagram Reels and OTT, the signs of fatigue are monitored closely: CTR drop-offs, engagement dips, negative comments, and rising CPAs.

To counteract these, his team:

• Refreshes creatives every 7–10 days
• Suppresses audiences who have been overexposed
• Diversifies channels to avoid saturation
• Adjusts frequency caps based on live data

He emphasised the need for an integrated backend: CDPs for unified profiles, clean rooms for privacy-compliant data matching, and identity resolution tools to deduplicate across platforms.

“It’s a constant balance between visibility and user experience,” he added. “We rely on contextual placements, sequenced storytelling, and brand lift feedback loops. And we’ve broken the wall between media and creative. Now, both sides collaborate weekly and track KPIs together via shared dashboards.”

Marketers are not doing enough either

Perhaps the most searing critique comes from Venke Sharma, Marketing Strategist and Author. He said, “There’s a lot of lip service, but not enough experimentation. Most marketers still think putting a cap at 8 or 10 impressions is a solution. It isn’t.”

Sharma said frequency capping has existed for over two decades, yet the industry still treats it like a checkbox. “It’s not just about setting a cap of 8 or 10. That’s where most stop. But what about adjusting for user journeys, measuring fatigue in real-time, and refreshing narratives accordingly?”

He challenged the industry to go beyond static solutions. “We need multiple strategies running in parallel: probabilistic attribution, predictive modelling, influencer content integration, and adaptive creatives.”

Sharma also pointed to the measurement gap created by walled gardens like Meta and Google. “They don’t share full exposure data. So advertisers must build their own marketing mix models, run experiments, and stay agile.”

He is hopeful about emerging technologies like RampID by LiveRamp—a privacy-compliant identity graph that helps map user journeys without breaching data laws. “These tools are already in use globally. Whether they’ll align with India’s data protection act remains to be seen.”

His five-pillar strategy to fix ad fatigue:

1. Treat frequency capping as a strategic lever
2. Use sequential storytelling to move users through funnels
3. Adopt AI for dynamic creative refreshes
4. Implement MMM for true impact evaluation
5. Integrate UGC and influencers for variety

He added, “Marketers must lead the charge. The ecosystem won’t change unless advertisers demand better. Platforms are trying to serve both advertiser and consumer interests—but the pressure must come from our side.”

The real barrier: Marketer mindset

All five voices agree that the challenge lies in execution, ownership, and intent.

"You can’t just keep throwing money at one creative and expect it to work," said Aggarwal. “Every creative comes with a cost, yes, but it’s about smart asset management—not mass repetition.”

Tiwari agreed: “Start with the consumer’s journey. Monitor it rigorously. Optimise dynamically. The goal is not just exposure, it’s experience.”

Sarda added a dose of truth: “Let’s stop pretending consumers care about our ads. They don’t. So make them matter. Make them authentic.”

And Sharma, never one to mince words, leaves us with this: “Marketers have to push the ecosystem forward. Tech isn’t a savior—it’s a tool. If we don’t use it wisely, frequency will keep killing creativity.”

"There was a time when over-delivery was seen as a bonus," said Aggarwal. "Today, it's waste. If we’ve hit the reach goal, I’d rather move the budget elsewhere than repeat impressions."

Until digital advertising realigns around impact, not just impressions, the crisis will continue. Consumers will keep muting. Brands will keep irritating. Budgets will keep burning. In an age of limitless content, the winners won’t be the loudest. They’ll be the most relevant. Because in digital advertising, frequency isn’t the future, attention is.

Until then, ad fatigue isn’t just a consumer headache, it’s a strategic failure.