Conservation policies and environmental impact assessments commonly target threatened species and habitats. Nevertheless, macroecological research provides reasons why also common species should be considered. We investigate the consequences of focussing solely on legally protected species and habitats in a spatial conservation planning context using a comprehensive, benthic marine data set from the northern Baltic Sea. Using spatial prioritization and surrogacy analysis, we show that the common approach in conservation planning, where legally listed threatened species and habitats are the focus of conservation efforts, could lead to poor outcomes for common species (and therefore biodiversity as a whole), allowing them to decline in the future. If conservation efforts were aimed solely at threatened species, common species would experience a loss of 62% coverage. In contrast, if conservation plans were based only on common species, threatened species would suffer a loss of 1%. Threatened species are rare and their ecological niches distinct, making them poor surrogates for biodiversity. The best results are achieved by unified planning for all species and habitats. The minimal step towards acknowledging common species in conservation planning would be the inclusion of the richness of common species, complemented by information on indicator species or species of high importance for ecosystem functioning. The trade-off between planning for rare and common species should be evaluated, to minimize losses to biodiversity.