Great article. Very challenging. I don't agree with some of the foundational thrusts of this, (meaningless distinction) but I do think that there is a huge problem with the analytical putting creative in a stait jacket and charging money and time to do so.
Thanks Marcellino! If all this article does is convince designers to put radical distinctiveness and timelessness first, I'm happy with that! Clients will be too. :)
I am slowly becoming an evangelist for evidence based branding, thanks to this Substack. I use the frameworks to spark creativity when nothing has come to mind yet but I’ve found going with my gut and collaboration with the clients work wonders to create some truly magnificent. Great read as always!
Some strong points, but the argument feels a bit too one-dimensional. Strategy isn’t the villain here—bad strategy is. The issue isn’t that brand strategy exists, but that it’s often over-intellectualized to the point where it stops serving the actual brand.
Distinctiveness for the sake of recognition is crucial (Ehrenberg-Bass makes that clear), but consumers don’t just see brands—they experience them. The most iconic brands don’t just show up consistently; they integrate into culture, habits, and identity in a way that makes them unskippable. A bright red can might be distinctive, but Coca-Cola thrives because it’s embedded in rituals—holidays, meals, friendships, nostalgia. Design alone doesn’t achieve that; it’s the strategic application of branding over time.
The real problem? Strategy has become too much of a performance. We see agencies running workshops that create beautiful strategy decks but fail to translate into actual, memorable execution. Strategy should be a launchpad for action, not an intellectual exercise that lives in a Notion doc.
Your critique is valid, but it shouldn’t lead to a rejection of strategy—just a rejection of strategy that doesn’t move the needle. The best brands aren’t just distinctive; they’re culturally sticky, meaningfully relevant, and consistently present. That’s not just design—that’s strategy done right.
My article doesn’t dispute any of that. I make it clear that proper brand strategy is essential for marketing. I make the point that designers distort it, but I also believe even proper brand strategy isn’t as relevant and can be a distraction when designing distinctive brand assets or naming a brand. I do not devalue good strategy here.
"Strategy isn’t the villain here—bad strategy is." Completely agree! Also - too often brand strats stops being used after the Vis-id is done, when really it should shape the full brand experience, from products, to decisions to how a brand lives in culture, even to who you hire!
I also agree, but the real value of brand strategy comes into play after the visual identity is complete. It isn’t as essential during the design process itself.
There’s a reason brands with “meaningless” assets enter the culture after those assets are designed, and it’s not because of what the assets convey or evoke or any strategy involved in their creation (most were created with very little if any strategy like Apple and Dominos). It’s the strategy that follows when applied to every other area of business combined with the consistent use of those assets.
Austin, this is a great POV, but I believe you are confusing the practices of graphic design and brand design. In my opinion, they are different but they inform each other.
Brand design, category design, brand strategy…this work is more upstream and critical to laying the foundation of the brand and company. I like to call it company level work, not just marketing or pretty pictures and witty phrasing. This work has all the “strategy” you shared above. It should inform the graphic look and voice/tone of the brand…but doesn’t have to prescribe it.
Design work…type, logo, photography, illustration etc should take the strategic work, use the category/product/service and inspire a graphic system. The designers your champion do this very well and I agree with you. Also look at Allen Peters. He’s a great designer, with a simple approach.
I love Chris Do for his content, but that example is whack and I agree very sophomoric. I would call that logo a “badge” not a logo.
I also don’t agree with the idea of meaningless distinction. Sometimes, it’s just a happy accident (geico)…but I think what you are getting at is “visual tension”. Apple is a great example…I know there is a concept behind using it, but I forget.
Glad we are talking about design. More people should care about it. It makes the difference and empowers brand.
I make it clear that proper brand strategy is essential. I'm against Chris Do's watered-down version and it.
I'm also against relying on brand strategy (even in its proper form) too heavily when designing core brand assets, not supporting graphical elements that are not designed to be permanent.
Designers conflate core assets with temporary supporting graphical elements. I think that's part of why the industry has gone off the rails.
Many designers love the idea of evoking emotion and following trends, and therefore resist the idea that core assets shouldn't do that. It goes against their more artistic nature. They can be happy that I believe it's not inherently bad to apply strategy more heavily, evoke more emotion, and follow design trends with supporting graphical elements, but it makes far less sense with core assets.
Great article. Very challenging. I don't agree with some of the foundational thrusts of this, (meaningless distinction) but I do think that there is a huge problem with the analytical putting creative in a stait jacket and charging money and time to do so.
Thanks Marcellino! If all this article does is convince designers to put radical distinctiveness and timelessness first, I'm happy with that! Clients will be too. :)
I have a newsletter on creative and innovative campaigns that you probably will like :) https://hellokomando.substack.com
I’ll check it out, thanks!
Powerful writing. Cuts refreshingly to the bone.
Wow! You don't happen to be famous do you? Should get you to endorse any future books haha. Thanks for reading!
I am slowly becoming an evangelist for evidence based branding, thanks to this Substack. I use the frameworks to spark creativity when nothing has come to mind yet but I’ve found going with my gut and collaboration with the clients work wonders to create some truly magnificent. Great read as always!
I'm glad to hear it! I have also found it freeing and I deliver better work as a result.
Some strong points, but the argument feels a bit too one-dimensional. Strategy isn’t the villain here—bad strategy is. The issue isn’t that brand strategy exists, but that it’s often over-intellectualized to the point where it stops serving the actual brand.
Distinctiveness for the sake of recognition is crucial (Ehrenberg-Bass makes that clear), but consumers don’t just see brands—they experience them. The most iconic brands don’t just show up consistently; they integrate into culture, habits, and identity in a way that makes them unskippable. A bright red can might be distinctive, but Coca-Cola thrives because it’s embedded in rituals—holidays, meals, friendships, nostalgia. Design alone doesn’t achieve that; it’s the strategic application of branding over time.
The real problem? Strategy has become too much of a performance. We see agencies running workshops that create beautiful strategy decks but fail to translate into actual, memorable execution. Strategy should be a launchpad for action, not an intellectual exercise that lives in a Notion doc.
Your critique is valid, but it shouldn’t lead to a rejection of strategy—just a rejection of strategy that doesn’t move the needle. The best brands aren’t just distinctive; they’re culturally sticky, meaningfully relevant, and consistently present. That’s not just design—that’s strategy done right.
My article doesn’t dispute any of that. I make it clear that proper brand strategy is essential for marketing. I make the point that designers distort it, but I also believe even proper brand strategy isn’t as relevant and can be a distraction when designing distinctive brand assets or naming a brand. I do not devalue good strategy here.
"Strategy isn’t the villain here—bad strategy is." Completely agree! Also - too often brand strats stops being used after the Vis-id is done, when really it should shape the full brand experience, from products, to decisions to how a brand lives in culture, even to who you hire!
I also agree, but the real value of brand strategy comes into play after the visual identity is complete. It isn’t as essential during the design process itself.
There’s a reason brands with “meaningless” assets enter the culture after those assets are designed, and it’s not because of what the assets convey or evoke or any strategy involved in their creation (most were created with very little if any strategy like Apple and Dominos). It’s the strategy that follows when applied to every other area of business combined with the consistent use of those assets.
Austin, this is a great POV, but I believe you are confusing the practices of graphic design and brand design. In my opinion, they are different but they inform each other.
Brand design, category design, brand strategy…this work is more upstream and critical to laying the foundation of the brand and company. I like to call it company level work, not just marketing or pretty pictures and witty phrasing. This work has all the “strategy” you shared above. It should inform the graphic look and voice/tone of the brand…but doesn’t have to prescribe it.
Design work…type, logo, photography, illustration etc should take the strategic work, use the category/product/service and inspire a graphic system. The designers your champion do this very well and I agree with you. Also look at Allen Peters. He’s a great designer, with a simple approach.
I love Chris Do for his content, but that example is whack and I agree very sophomoric. I would call that logo a “badge” not a logo.
I also don’t agree with the idea of meaningless distinction. Sometimes, it’s just a happy accident (geico)…but I think what you are getting at is “visual tension”. Apple is a great example…I know there is a concept behind using it, but I forget.
Glad we are talking about design. More people should care about it. It makes the difference and empowers brand.
I’m not confusing those things.
I make it clear that proper brand strategy is essential. I'm against Chris Do's watered-down version and it.
I'm also against relying on brand strategy (even in its proper form) too heavily when designing core brand assets, not supporting graphical elements that are not designed to be permanent.
Designers conflate core assets with temporary supporting graphical elements. I think that's part of why the industry has gone off the rails.
Many designers love the idea of evoking emotion and following trends, and therefore resist the idea that core assets shouldn't do that. It goes against their more artistic nature. They can be happy that I believe it's not inherently bad to apply strategy more heavily, evoke more emotion, and follow design trends with supporting graphical elements, but it makes far less sense with core assets.
a delicious burger made from sacred cows. i love this.
That’s a fun description! Thanks!