The Face Occupancy Problem
More Human Imagery Is Not Automatically More Engaging
Adding a human face to a visual enhances social presence and leaves less room for the viewer's imagination. In the first few seconds of a skippable advertisement, this compromise is something that most creative briefs do not take into account.
When a creative brief is received, there is usually a comment in the feedback from someone who has attended enough meetings to know which kinds of proposals are likely to be approved: can we include more people in this? More faces? More relatability? More warmth?
It's reasonable to have that instinct, since human faces are among the most striking stimuli in any visual setting and automatically trigger social cognition, leading to a reaction that precedes conscious assessment. In a world where our attention is limited, starting with a face seems like the safest opening. A study analyzing 3,498 skippable video ads complicates that assumption. It does so not by showing that faces are ineffective, but by identifying a specific condition under which more face-containing frames in the opening seconds were associated with fewer qualified views. This metric counts viewers who watched at least thirty seconds or clicked through. The association was clearest for utilitarian products.
That finding does not settle the question. The study is correlational, not causal, and the authors are explicit about that limitation. But it points to something worth examining: the creative question of whether to lead with a face has usually been treated as a question of warmth, when it may actually be a spatial one.
A study published in Marketing Letters in September 2026 examined the first five seconds of skippable digital video advertisements, the window before the skip option appears, across 3,498 ads, 685 unique channels, and 23 product categories. The researchers measured the association between the share of frames containing faces in that opening window and qualified view counts.
Across the full dataset, greater facial presence in the opening seconds was associated with lower qualified view counts. The association was moderated by product type: for utilitarian products, purchased primarily for functional value rather than hedonic enjoyment, the negative association was clearest. For hedonic products, the pattern was weaker or absent.
A companion finding from research on social media video, examining consumer engagement with face presence across 2,754 videos posted by top brands on TikTok, found broadly positive effects of face presence on engagement, but with boundary conditions related to face duration on screen and to hedonic versus utilitarian brand positioning.
Taken together, these findings are not a case against using faces in advertising. They are a case against the assumption that greater face presence is always better, and specifically against the reflex to equate faces with engagement across all categories and contexts.
The question is not 'should we show people?' The better creative question is: who needs to occupy the viewer's imagination in the opening seconds, the person in the ad or the viewer themselves?
The Occupancy Mechanism
It is easier to understand the research findings when the mechanism responsible for them is taken into account.
In a video image, a face performs several functions at once: it creates a sense of social presence, giving the impression that someone else is there, which in turn leads to social processing and may elicit warmth, identification, and attention. At the same time, however, the face consumes the interpretive space—the visual and cognitive area that could otherwise have been used by the viewer to project themselves into the situation.
If a viewer spots a face in the first few seconds of an advertisement, they are, in effect, witnessing another person's experience. But if the viewer sees a problem, a product being used, an outcome, or an abstract visual element, they might be the protagonist in the situation they are watching. This variation in the viewer's position could account for the pattern in the data: for utilitarian products, where the viewer's main question is whether the product will solve a problem they themselves have, it is less persuasive to show someone else using the product than to present a scene that encourages the viewer to imagine themselves as the one who has the problem and will benefit from the solution.
This aligns with research on visual perspective in video content. A study in Tourism Management analyzing 6,810 influencer travel videos found that the observer perspective—where the influencer appears on camera from a third-person point of view—leads to greater audience engagement. By contrast, the protagonist perspective—where the influencer films from behind the camera in the first person—increases the intention to visit. These results differ; depending on whether the viewer is watching someone or imagining themselves in the situation, engagement and conversion intention can move in opposite directions.
The Two Things a Face Can be Doing
There is a distinction that the face-or-no-face question obscures. Not every face-containing frame performs the same creative work, and conflating them produces creative briefs that are less precise than they need to be.
A face can show an outcome by illustrating what it is like for a person similar to the viewer to use the product or service. Using a face in this way encourages the viewer to identify with the situation. The person watching sees a version of themselves. When this approach is successful, it makes the product's benefits clear through a human representative.
A face can also serve as a spokesperson, signaling that a person, an authority, or a relatable communicator is the primary vehicle for the message. This use of a face invites evaluation. The viewer watches someone else make a case. When the viewer already likes or trusts the spokesperson, this can be effective. When the viewer is skeptical of, indifferent to, or simply unfamiliar with the spokesperson, the face does negative work in the opening seconds, filtering the response before the message can reach the viewer.
For utilitarian products, the demonstration and spokesperson frames are not equivalent. A viewer trying to determine whether a tool, software product, medication, or financial service will solve their specific problem is not primarily asking whether the person in the ad seems likable. They are asking whether the solution is credible, whether it fits their situation, and whether the claim is believable. A face in the opening frame delays answering those questions.
Where This Changes the Creative Question
The practical implication of the face occupancy mechanism is not a rule about the presence of faces. It clarifies the creative question that should precede any decision about what occupies the frame.
The question most creative briefs ask is: does this open with something engaging? Faces have served as a default answer to that question because they reliably capture attention. The more useful question is: in the opening seconds of this specific communication, for this specific product category, with this specific viewer who is about to decide whether to skip, who should occupy the viewer's imagination? The person in the ad, or the viewer themselves?
For hedonic products, where the primary appeal is emotional and experiential, a face that conveys enjoyment of the product can be effective. The viewer wants to imagine being in that experience, and a human demonstrating it is an invitation. For utilitarian products, where the primary appeal is functional and problem-solving, a face in the opening seconds may answer a question the viewer is not asking while delaying the answer to the one they are.
The opening seconds of a skippable ad are among the most contested real estate in media. Every frame either earns the next frame or loses it. The creative decision about what occupies that space should be as deliberate as any other campaign decision, and it should not default to faces simply because they have historically been treated as a safe choice.
A face in the opening seconds tells the viewer: watch this person. An opening without a face can tell the viewer: this is your situation. For utilitarian products, the second instruction may be more effective.
The Caveat
The Marketing Letters study is only correlational. Although the researchers analyzed a large dataset and identified a pattern, the study design does not prove that including a face in an ad led to lower view completion. There are reasonable alternative explanations. For instance, ads with fewer frames featuring faces at the beginning were more likely to open with a product demonstration, a factor that could, on its own, lead to higher completion rates. Also, brands with higher creative budgets might systematically make different choices regarding the use of faces and might also have products that perform better in terms of qualified views. While the direction of the observed pattern is indicative, it is not definitive.
The significance of the finding lies not in the general case but in the fact that it challenges the idea that more faces are better, an idea revealed by a large dataset of real advertising behavior, together with a moderator corresponding to a plausible mechanism. This is sufficient to alter the creative question, even if it does not change the creative certainty.
The issue with the face occupancy problem is not that faces are ineffective; rather, it is that the creative assumption that faces mean engagement has been adopted without considering the effect that the presence of a face has on the space left available for the viewer's imagination and what the viewer actually needs that space to hold.
For five seconds before the skip option, each frame presents a choice about which experience the viewer is supposed to see, and that choice should be made as deliberately as any other creative decision, not simply carried over from a convention that has never been examined.
Some ideas are worth discussing in the context of your organization.
