The surprising lesson of this story: Highly creative ads are more predictable than uncreative ones. It’s like Tolstoy’s quote: “All happy families resemble each other, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” All creative ads resemble one another, but each loser is uncreative in its own way.

Could” led to more innovative solutions because it encouraged divergent thinking. Thinking outside the box and without boundaries. Considering multiple approaches, encouraging new connections, and reducing the likelihood of settling for obvious answers. Rather than just seeing things for how they are, thinking in terms of “could” encourages us to see them for how they could be. To overlook the obvious and explore different ways of doing things.

Using similar language seems to pay off at the office, but using different language makes songs more successful. So when is similarity good and when is difference better?

But at its core, the difference is really about what similarity and difference evoke or connote, and which is better in the particular context being considered.

Linguistic similarity has a number of benefits. Using similar language often requires listening to what someone else said, so, not surprisingly, it is associated with everything from better dates to more successful negotiations.

Difference is often so deeply threatening we cannot bear to listen to it. Much less embrace it. We cannot bear to imagine that we might be wrong and they might be right and, heaven forbid, at least as good in every way as we are. Or better.

The culprit here is an unavoidable sequence of childhood. When people are brought up to fear difference, especially difference of thought, they are easier to control. And society adores control.