Why do three Symphony Auto Mode ads sometimes share a storyboard and sometimes change the whole creative angle?

Decide what must remain consistent across versions

A merchant requesting three product advertisements may mean three different things: alternative visuals for one approved script, different openings for the same offer, or completely different selling-point structures.

These are not interchangeable variation goals. Symphony Agent's Auto Mode interprets different input types differently.

With a detailed storyboard, multiple videos can follow the same storyboard while varying their visual execution. Reference videos or templates can support storyboard variations involving different hooks, calls to action, or selling points. A product description alone can lead to different creative strategies.

Before preparing the input, write down what must remain fixed: the storyboard, the selling points, the sequence of product actions, or only the underlying product brief.

Do not interpret a request for three videos as an automatic request for three independent campaign concepts.

Match the input to the intended variation

If the merchant has already approved the narrative structure, a detailed storyboard provides a clearer basis for exploring different visual executions without intentionally reopening the entire creative direction.

If the merchant wants to compare distinct hooks or selling-point arrangements, the task requires broader storyboard exploration rather than merely another rendering of the same sequence.

The documented actions Regenerate with same storyboard and Generate new variations represent different continuation choices. The former keeps the storyboard as the basis; the latter seeks additional variations.

Neither option guarantees identical visuals, product details, or commercially successful outcomes.

The merchant should identify the intended variation unit before requesting another generation, rather than deciding from the number of returned videos alone.

Illustrative exercise: approved story versus open strategy

Illustrative exercise — fictional merchant scenarios, not executed Symphony sessions, generated advertisements, or account tests.

Input A is a kitchen-appliance campaign with an approved sequence: introduce the product, demonstrate one function, show the result, and close with the offer.

The merchant wants three different visual executions without deliberately changing the narrative. A detailed storyboard is the appropriate input to evaluate.

Input B is a new skincare campaign whose primary selling-point structure has not been approved. The merchant wants to compare possible hooks and creative directions before selecting a story.

For B, the team should evaluate a workflow that exposes intermediate creative decisions rather than treating multiple Auto Mode results as already approved concepts.

The difference is whether the story is fixed before generation or remains a subject of review.

Choose the review mode before starting

Auto Mode can complete brief analysis, insights, and storyboard preparation without requiring confirmation at each intermediate stage. Manual Mode provides staged review.

The official workflow does not allow switching between Auto and Manual Mode during an active chat session. A different review approach requires starting a new session.

If the selling points or storyboard still need merchant approval, evaluate Manual Mode before starting. If the story is already settled and later review is acceptable, Auto Mode may fit the intended process.

Do not assume switching modes afterward can retroactively approve decisions made during an earlier session.

The stopping condition is an unresolved mismatch between the required approval process and the active session mode. Resolve that before requesting further variants.

Illustrative exercise — Symphony variation and review-mode decision

These are illustrative exercise rows. Save a copy and record your own observations; the example is not an executed acceptance test.

Download review worksheet (CSV)