This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

Upgrade to paid

There is something about September that always feels like a second January. Summer is ending, people are coming back to their desks, projects start moving again, and suddenly there is this urge to make things, change things, finally start the idea that has been sitting in your notes for months.

But before adding more to the output, I think September is also a good moment to look at the input.

Creative work depends heavily on what we surround ourselves with. The people we follow, the books we read, the places we visit, the music playing while we work, the films we watch, the brands we notice. All of it quietly ends up somewhere in our reference library.

The problem is that our references can become very small without us noticing.

Spend enough time working in branding and eventually you start seeing the same campaigns on every moodboard. The same studios circulate on Instagram. Pinterest gives you variations of things you’ve already saved. LinkedIn serves another analysis of the same five brands. Even trend reports can start feeling like everyone is looking over everyone else’s shoulder.

And when everyone is looking in the same places, everyone’s work starts looking strangely familiar.

So, for the last chapter before summer ends, I wanted to do something different.

No framework. No brand audit. No list of trends you supposedly need to know before 2027.

Just ten people whose work makes me want to look a little differently.

Some are designers, some musicians, some artists. A few work so fluidly between disciplines that putting a job title next to their name almost feels beside the point. What connects them is that they have developed a distinct way of seeing the world.

That, to me, is far more interesting than having a recognisable aesthetic.

01. Solange

If there is one person who completely changed the way I think about creative worlds, it is Solange.

Of course there is the music, but following her work means entering something much larger. Through Saint Heron, performances, films, art direction, architecture, furniture, fashion, typography and publishing, she has created a cultural universe that doesn’t really fit neatly inside any one industry.

What I find particularly interesting is that the connection between these things isn’t always visual.

A Saint Heron object doesn’t have to look like an album cover. A performance doesn’t need to replicate the visual language of a previous project. The consistency comes from somewhere deeper: the references, the pace, the cultural perspective, the people she chooses to collaborate with and the care given to how something is presented.

There is a recognisable mind behind it all.

What I take from her: build a world that is bigger than what you sell.

For brands, that’s an important distinction. Your universe doesn’t need to stop at your product category. A skincare brand can have something to say about architecture. A technology company can care about music. A financial brand can have a point of view on contemporary culture. The question is whether those interests genuinely belong to the way you see the world.

Share

02. Phoebe Philo

Phoebe Philo makes me think about the creative power of saying no.

There is so much pressure now for brands and creatives to constantly participate. More content, more collaborations, more channels, more launches, more reactions to whatever is happening this week. Visibility has almost become synonymous with relevance.

Philo’s work offers another possibility.

Her influence has always felt disproportionately large compared with how loudly she communicates. There is restraint in the clothes, the imagery, the casting, the communication and even in what isn’t released.

And that restraint creates clarity.

You know when something belongs in her world because the boundaries of that world are strong enough.

What I take from her: editing is a creative act.

Sometimes the thing making your brand feel generic isn’t that you haven’t added enough personality. You’ve simply allowed too many things in.

03. Claudio Silvestrin

Claudio Silvestrin’s work makes you realise how much atmosphere can be created with very little. He’s also called ‘the godfather of contemporary minimalism’.

Architecture, interiors, stone, wood, concrete, natural light — his spaces are stripped back, but they never feel empty. There is a warmth and almost physical calm to them, created through proportion, material and the way people move through the space rather than through decoration.

I find that interesting because minimalism is often misunderstood as an aesthetic. Remove enough things, use neutral colours, choose a beautiful typeface and suddenly something is called minimal. But simplicity without intention can become just as generic as excess.

Silvestrin’s work shows that restraint only becomes powerful when every remaining detail has a reason to be there. Material matters. Scale matters. Light matters. The relationship between one object and the space around it matters.

What I take from him: simplicity needs substance.

Removing things is only interesting when what remains has enough character to carry the experience.

04. Grace Wales Bonner

Grace Wales Bonner is one of my favourite examples of what happens when references have real depth behind them.

Her work moves through Black identity, Caribbean and European histories, music, literature, spirituality, tailoring and art. But these references never feel like aesthetic ingredients collected for a moodboard. There is research underneath them.

That’s something I think branding desperately needs more of.

We’re very good at collecting images now. We can build a Pinterest board in twenty minutes, ask AI for fifty references and know what’s trending in Copenhagen without ever setting foot there. Access to inspiration has never been easier.

Understanding what we’re referencing is another story.

Wales Bonner’s work is a reminder that cultural depth comes from curiosity. Read the book. Find the archive. Learn where the object came from. Understand why that photograph matters. Follow the reference behind the reference.

What I take from her: don’t just collect references. Understand them.

The deeper your source material, the harder your work becomes to imitate.

Upgrade to paid

05. FKA twigs

Trying to describe FKA twigs as simply a musician immediately feels inadequate.

Music, dance, martial arts, fashion, film, performance, technology, the body — her creative world seems to grow through experimentation. Each project can look and sound dramatically different from the previous one, yet somehow none of it feels disconnected.

I love that because we often confuse consistency with repetition.

Brands become terrified of changing too much because they’ve been told recognition requires everything to look familiar. Same photography. Same colours. Same layouts. Same tone. Eventually consistency becomes a cage.

Twigs shows the opposite: you can change the surface enormously when the perspective underneath it is strong.

What I take from her: consistency doesn’t have to mean sameness.

A strong creative identity should give you somewhere to explore, rather than a formula you have to repeat forever.

06. Tadao Ando

Trying to describe Tadao Ando’s architecture through its materials alone almost misses what makes it so powerful.

Concrete, light, water, shadow, empty space, nature — his buildings are often remarkably restrained, yet they can create an incredibly emotional experience. There is very little competing for your attention, which makes you notice how the light enters a room, how your body moves through a space, or how the building frames the landscape around it.

I love his work because it shows how much can happen when you resist the urge to add more.

In branding and design, we often assume that distinctiveness comes from adding another element. Another colour, another graphic device, another message, another piece of content. But sometimes the strongest identity comes from knowing exactly what deserves attention and giving it enough space to be felt.

Ando shows that simplicity doesn’t have to mean absence of character. When every decision has intention behind it, restraint can become the character.

What I take from him: restraint can create emotion.

Knowing what to leave out can be just as important as knowing what to put in.

07. Samuel Ross

Trying to place Samuel Ross within one discipline doesn’t really work.

Early in his career, Ross worked with Virgil Abloh, becoming one of his creative assistants after Abloh discovered his work online. He later founded A-COLD-WALL*, and his practice has since expanded across industrial design, furniture, sculpture, art and collaborations, while exploring material, class, architecture and British social structures.

I find that evolution fascinating because ideas can easily stay abstract in creative work.

We talk about values, cultural context and big concepts, but the interesting part is what happens when those ideas start influencing material, form, function and the experience of an object. Ross manages to move between conceptual thinking and physical output without one feeling separate from the other.

His work shows that a point of view becomes much more powerful when you can actually experience it.

What I take from him: turn ideas into something people can experience.

A creative philosophy becomes meaningful when it starts shaping the things you actually put into the world.

08. Isamu Noguchi

Trying to place Isamu Noguchi into one creative discipline feels almost impossible.

Sculpture, furniture, lighting, ceramics, gardens, architecture, stage design, public spaces — he moved between all of them with an extraordinary sense of curiosity. A lamp could be sculpture. A playground could become a landscape. A garden could be an artwork. The boundaries between art, design and everyday life seemed much less important to him than the experience he wanted to create.

That is probably what I love most about his work.

Creative industries are very good at putting people into categories. You’re an architect, a designer, an artist, a photographer. Brands do the same thing to themselves, defining their world by the category they happen to sell within.

Noguchi’s work suggests a much more expansive way of thinking. Your creative language can travel into completely different forms as long as there is a strong perspective connecting them.

What I take from him: don’t let the medium define your imagination.

A strong creative world should be able to move between objects, spaces and experiences without losing the perspective behind it.

09. Toyin Ojih Odutola

Toyin Ojih Odutola’s drawings immediately pull you in through their incredible use of texture.

Working primarily through drawing, she builds intricate surfaces through layers of lines and marks, particularly in the way she depicts skin. But what makes her work so interesting goes beyond technique. She creates fictional characters, families, histories and environments, using portraiture almost as a form of storytelling and world-building.

I love the idea that a portrait doesn’t simply have to document someone who exists.

Her work shows how an artist can take something familiar and use it to construct an entirely new narrative. Texture, clothing, setting and gesture all become part of that story, giving you the feeling that there is a much larger world beyond the image you’re looking at.

What I take from her: use detail to build a world.

The smallest creative choices can suggest a much bigger story when they all belong to the same imagination.

10. Vivian Sassen

Viviane Sassen has been one of my favourite photographers for years, and seeing her work in person at FOAM (Photography Museum Amsterdam) opening only made me appreciate her way of looking even more.

Her photography moves between art and fashion, but what draws me in most is the way she transforms bodies, architecture, colour and shadow into something almost abstract. A body can become a shape, a shadow can become the subject, and an ordinary composition can suddenly feel strange because of one unexpected perspective.

I love that her images often make you look twice.

Photography is supposed to show us something, but Sassen often seems more interested in disrupting how we see it. She crops, obscures and plays with scale and perspective, leaving enough ambiguity for you to complete the image yourself.

What I take from her: experiment with unexpected forms.

Sometimes creativity isn’t about finding a new subject. It’s about changing the angle from which everyone has been looking at it.

Build a better reference library

Looking at these ten people together, I realised that very few of them are interesting because they have mastered what we now call a “personal brand.”

In fact, many seem to operate almost in opposition to the way personal branding is usually taught.

They aren’t endlessly explaining their point of view. They aren’t turning every idea into content. They don’t need every project to look identical so we’ll recognise them.

Instead, you understand who they are through the accumulation of their work.

And I think there is something worth borrowing from that.

If your creative world feels a little stale this September, resist the urge to immediately search for the next trend. Change what you’re feeding it first.

Follow someone from a discipline you know nothing about. Go further into the references behind work you already love. Look at furniture when you’re designing a website. Listen to musicians when you’re thinking about brand voice. Study a filmmaker’s use of tension. Look at how an architect moves someone through space.

Your reference library becomes much more interesting when it stops looking exactly like your industry.

So these are ten people I’m putting on the table for September. Some you probably already know; hopefully a few send you somewhere completely new.

And now I want yours:

Who makes you want to make better work?

Leave one person in the comments. I’d love to turn them into a collective September reference library — and selfishly, I want some new people to discover too.

PS: I’m taking a little summer break after this one, but The Art of Branding will be back on September 8 with fresh ideas, practical tools and plenty more to explore.

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is a paid chapter, with a free PDF download for paid subscribers: The Brand Universe Coherence Tool.

When you are working on a brand, one of the hardest questions is not always what to create next. It is what should belong.

A brand is constantly making choices. What visual direction feels right? Which content formats should become part of the system? Which collaborations make sense? Which offers stretch the brand in a useful way? Which ideas are worth repeating? Which references, objects, messages, behaviours, and experiences should become part of the world people associate with you?

These questions are not only creative. They are strategic.

Because a brand universe is not just a moodboard, an aesthetic, or a collection of assets. It is the full system of meanings, signals, and experiences that make the brand feel like itself. It includes the visible layer — identity, imagery, voice, content, art direction — but also the business logic underneath: audience, positioning, pricing, product experience, service, partnerships, and the decisions that shape how the brand behaves in the real world.

The point is not to make everything match perfectly. Coherence is not sameness. A strong brand should be able to evolve, introduce new ideas, test at the edge, and move with the business. But that movement needs structure, otherwise every new direction starts to feel like a separate version of the brand.

That is why I created The Brand Universe Coherence Tool: a practical guide for deciding what belongs to your brand, what stretches it in a useful way, and what may be pulling it away from the world you are trying to build. The central question is simple: does this choice reinforce the world people are learning to associate with us, or does it ask them to learn a different brand?

Inside the 12-pages PDF, you’ll work through:

• The six layers of a brand universe: business, audience, position, message, expression, and experience.

• The questions to answer before you build the world, so creative decisions are grounded before moodboards, typefaces, campaigns, or content formats take over.

• The Core / Edge / Drift / Contradiction test, to help you understand whether a new idea reinforces the brand, stretches it, weakens recognition, or asks people to believe in something different.

• Eight questions before adding anything new, so you can test a campaign, collaboration, product extension, page, or visual direction before committing to it.

• A six-layer coherence scorecard, to review whether a new idea supports the brand across the layers that matter.

• A productive tension check, because interesting brands can hold contrast, but confused brands hold contradiction.

• Red flags to watch for, not as failure signs, but as signals that the brand may need clearer rules or stronger editing.

• A quarterly brand universe edit, so you can decide what to keep, deepen, remove, or test at the edge.

Use this tool while you are shaping the brand, not only when something feels wrong. Use it before a redesign, campaign, collaboration, product extension, content direction, or any decision where you find yourself asking: does this really belong to us?

The goal is not to make your brand smaller or safer. It is to give the brand enough structure to become recognizable, and enough freedom to stay alive.

Because a coherent brand is a pattern people can learn. And the strongest brand universes are not built by adding more and more elements, but by making enough decisions point in the same direction.

Download the 12-page PDF below and use it as a practical decision tool whenever you are building, stretching, or editing the world around your brand.

Read more

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

Upgrade to paid

After a series of practical chapters on growth, content, and launch systems, this chapter moves back into art direction: the visual and emotional layer where a brand becomes felt, not only understood.

Because something interesting is happening.

After years of polished templates, smooth digital identities, over-optimized content, and now AI-generated visuals that can produce almost anything in seconds, the handmade is starting to feel valuable again.

Not handmade as a rustic aesthetic. Not handmade as nostalgia for its own sake. And definitely not handmade as a shortcut for “authentic”. But handmade as a signal of presence and attention. Of someone making a choice with their eyes, hands, taste, and patience.

You can feel it in the return of handwriting, grain, scanned textures, printed matter, imperfect compositions, physical objects, real interiors, drawn marks, and layouts that do not seem built only to please a grid. You see it in restaurant menus that look touched by a person, in fashion campaigns that foreground craft, in beauty brands leaning into ritual and materiality, in newsletters and zines borrowing from print culture, and in small brands using texture because the flat, frictionless, perfectly balanced visual world has started to feel a little too easy.

The handmade brand is not about rejecting technology. Most brands will still use digital tools. Many will use AI somewhere in the process. The point is not to pretend we are going backwards. The point is that when everything can be generated, polished, scaled, and replicated, the signs of human involvement begin to carry more meaning.

A slightly uneven line. A real table. A handwritten note. A grainy photograph. A folded card. A visible brushstroke. A material you can almost imagine touching.

These things now do something strategically useful.

They slow the eye down.

Subscribe now

Officine Universelle Buly is a useful example because the brand turns the act of gifting into a physical ritual. Its packaging includes printed paper that reproduces an old newspaper, marbled gift pouches, embossed initials, ribbons, and handwritten calligraphy on selected products. The product is not only bought; it is wrapped, named, marked, and almost ceremonially prepared. That is handmade art direction working as experience, not decoration.

The polished world became too frictionless

For a long time, digital-first branding moved toward smoothness.

Clean sans-serifs. Soft gradients. Rounded buttons. Minimal icons. Modular layouts. Friendly illustrations. Neat systems. Perfect spacing. Perfect lighting. Perfect skin. Perfect mockups. Perfect language that said all the right things without leaving much behind.

There was a reason for this. Digital brands needed to feel simple, scalable, trustworthy, and easy to use. Clean design became a way to reduce friction, especially for tech, finance, wellness, beauty, education, and almost every category trying to make itself feel accessible online.

But when too many brands use the same language of ease, ease becomes invisible.

A perfectly polished brand can start to feel strangely empty. It may look professional, but it does not always feel particular. It may communicate trust, but not memory. It may be beautifully designed, but hard to place. And now, with AI making polished imagery even easier to produce, the visual surface that once signaled care can also start to signal convenience.

This is the tension behind the return of handmade art direction.

People are not suddenly tired of beauty. They are tired of sameness pretending to be beauty.

The handmade gives the brand a little friction again.

Not friction as difficulty, but friction as texture. Something for the eye to hold onto. Something that suggests a person was there.

Human touch has become a brand signal

Handmade details work because they suggest time.

Someone drew this. Someone arranged this. Someone printed this. Someone wrote this down. Someone chose this object, this corner, this fold, this shadow, this strange little imperfection that a template might have cleaned away.

That suggestion of time matters because attention has become one of the most expensive materials a brand can use. We are used to fast images now. Fast content, fast campaigns, fast identities, fast websites, fast captions, fast launches. The handmade disrupts that speed because it carries evidence of slowness.

A handwritten menu feels different from a digital menu because you can sense the hand behind it. A campaign shot on film, or made to feel close to physical print, creates another kind of intimacy than a perfect render. A product photographed on a real surface, with objects that feel chosen rather than generated, can make the brand world feel more inhabited.

A beautiful example of this shift is Draw Me A Face, a project by Pierre-Emmanuel Testard and Tiziana Raimondo that turns children’s unfiltered imagination into makeup art. What makes it feel so relevant to the handmade brand is the way it resists the polished logic of beauty imagery. Instead of starting from perfection, symmetry, or a finished campaign idea, the project begins with instinct: a child’s drawing, a strange line, an unexpected face, a visual language that has not yet learned how to behave. The result feels alive because you can sense the human hand twice — first in the child’s imagination, then in the translation into makeup. It shows why handmade cues are becoming valuable again: they bring back surprise, irregularity, and the feeling that something was made through attention rather than automation.

Share

This does not mean handmade cues are automatically better. A hand-drawn logo can be weak. A messy layout can be lazy. Grain can become a filter. Imperfection can become a style trick.

But when it is connected to the brand’s meaning, the handmade can become a powerful code.

• For a food brand, it can signal appetite, locality, generosity, and care.

• For a fashion brand, it can signal craft, taste, and a world beyond the product.

• For a beauty brand, it can signal ritual, intimacy, skin, touch, and materiality.

• For a cultural brand, it can signal point of view, independence, and editorial depth.

• For a service brand, it can signal thinking, process, and the human mind behind the work.

The handmade says: this was not only produced. It was considered.

The difference between texture and costume

There is a trap here.

As soon as an aesthetic becomes desirable, brands start copying the surface. Suddenly everything has rough paper, irregular type, grain overlays, casual handwriting, blurry photography, behind-the-scenes objects, and an “imperfect” layout that somehow looks exactly like every other imperfect layout.

This is how the handmade becomes another template.

The question is not: how do we make the brand look more handmade?

The better question is: where does the brand genuinely have human touch?

Is it in the product? The process? The service? The founder’s way of thinking? The material? The ritual? The place? The craft? The community? The way decisions are made? The way something is packed, written, explained, served, repaired, taught, or experienced?

That is where the art direction should begin.

If the brand is built around care, the handmade might show up in notes, rituals, soft materials, real-life use, and slower visual pacing. If the brand is built around expertise, the handmade might show up in annotations, sketches, frameworks, margin notes, process images, and the visible thinking behind the final result. If the brand is built around hospitality, the handmade might show up in menus, table settings, objects, handwritten details, imperfect light, and the rhythm of being welcomed.

The handmade should not be a costume placed over a brand that has nothing human to say.

It should reveal where the brand is already alive.

Objects are becoming important again

One of the reasons handmade art direction feels interesting now is that objects are returning to the center of visual culture.

For years, many brands existed mostly as flat digital surfaces: logos, websites, social posts, templates, mockups, UI, packaging renders. But the more digital our visual environment becomes, the more meaningful physical objects can feel.

A crumpled receipt. A matchbox. A handwritten card. A ceramic cup. A paper bag. A candle. A marked-up notebook. A slightly worn chair. A plate, a pen, a ribbon, a postcard, a fabric swatch, a tray, a flower, a key, a book left open.

These are not just props. They are carriers of mood.

Objects help the audience understand the world of the brand without needing everything explained. They create atmosphere, scale, and intimacy. They make the brand feel like it belongs somewhere, not just that it exists online.

This is why still-life art direction, tablescapes, product rituals, and object-led imagery are becoming so useful for brands. A product photographed alone can communicate what it is. A product placed inside a world can communicate how it wants to be lived with.

The object says: this brand has a life around it.

For founders and creatives, this matters because many brands are too focused on the asset and not focused enough on the world. The logo is not the whole story. The product is not the whole story. The website is not the whole story. The brand becomes memorable through the surrounding signals: the objects, the environments, the gestures, the repeated details that make the world feel specific.

A handmade brand pays attention to these signals.

The physical space is part of the identity

A handmade brand does not only live in graphic design. It often becomes most convincing in space.

A store, studio, restaurant, hotel room, market stall, pop-up, workshop table, bathroom counter, event dinner, or packaging moment can do more for the brand than a month of content if the experience is memorable enough.

Physical spaces hold details that digital channels flatten. Sound, smell, light, weight, temperature, pace, distance, service, touch. These are brand signals too. They shape how people remember the brand, even if they never describe them in those terms.

This is why many brands are investing in spatial cues again. Not always through expensive stores, but through smaller moments of physical presence: a beautifully packed order, a postcard, a printed guide, a pop-up table, a handwritten sign, a real object photographed well, an event where the table setting communicates the brand before anyone gives a speech.

The handmade brand understands that identity is not only what people see on a screen.

It is what they encounter.

For small brands, this can be encouraging. You may not have a flagship store or a production budget. But you can still design moments of presence. The way a guide is delivered. The way a proposal looks. The way a package opens. The way a thank-you note is written. The way your process is shown. The way your materials are photographed. The way your community feels invited into the work.

Small details become powerful when they repeat.

What brands can learn from the handmade shift

The return of handmade art direction is not an invitation to make everything messy. It is an invitation to make things feel more present.

That requires judgment.

A brand should not add roughness just because polish feels overdone. It should understand what kind of human presence belongs to its world. Some brands need softness. Some need tension. Some need ritual. Some need evidence of process. Some need warmth. Some need strangeness. Some need craft. Some need restraint. Some need a little imperfection to stop the whole thing from becoming too clean to remember.

If you are exploring this direction, start with a few questions:

• Where does human touch already exist in the brand?

• What parts of the process are worth showing?

• Which materials belong to the brand world?

• What objects could carry meaning?

• Where would handwriting feel natural rather than forced?

• What kind of texture supports the brand’s mood?

• Which physical moments could become more intentional?

• What should stay polished, because not everything needs to look handmade?

The last question matters. Handmade art direction works best when it has contrast. If everything is rough, nothing feels deliberate. If every asset tries to look personal, the brand can lose authority. If every detail is imperfect, imperfection becomes the system, and the system begins to feel predictable.

The strongest brands know where to show the hand and where to keep control.

The handmade as proof of attention

What makes the handmade valuable is not the aesthetic itself. It is what the aesthetic implies.

Attention.

Someone noticed the detail. Someone cared enough to make the object feel specific. Someone chose the paper, the line, the photograph, the surface, the spacing, the note, the light, the strange little thing that did not need to be there but somehow makes the whole brand feel more alive.

This is why handmade cues can be so emotionally powerful. They make the brand feel less automatic. Less frictionless. Less like it was produced by a system that could produce a hundred variations by morning.

They suggest that someone was present.

Presence is difficult to fake because it is not only visual. It has to show up in the way the brand behaves. A handwritten note means little if the service feels careless. A grainy campaign means little if the product experience is generic. A beautiful printed card means little if the brand has nothing specific to say.

The handmade has to connect to the way the brand actually moves through the world.

That is where it becomes more than style.

It becomes trust.

The future may feel more touched

The future of art direction will not be a simple return to the past. Brands are not going to abandon digital tools, templates, automation, AI, or scale. The interesting work will happen in the tension between the two: digital speed and human slowness, system and gesture, polish and texture, efficiency and attention.

The brands that use this well will not be the ones pretending technology does not exist. They will be the ones that understand what technology cannot easily replace.

• A sense of taste.

• A specific eye.

• A lived reference.

• A material decision.

• An imperfect mark that feels right.

• A room that has atmosphere.

• A product shown in a way that makes you imagine touching it.

• A sentence that sounds like someone actually thought before writing it.

The handmade brand is not valuable because it looks less perfect.

It is valuable because it feels more present.

And in a culture full of images that look finished before they feel meaningful, presence may become one of the strongest art direction codes a brand can have.

Next chapter: How to make your brand easier to buy from

After looking at the emotional and visual side of presence, the next chapter will return to the commercial layer: what happens when someone is interested, but the brand still makes it too hard to act.

We’ll look at how to make your brand easier to buy from through offer clarity, proof, calls to action, landing pages, pricing communication, and the small decisions that help people move from “this is interesting” to “this is for me.”

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is a paid chapter. It goes deeper than the series so far — into the application, not just the thinking.

This chapter moves into the practical side of launching. Not the aesthetics of a launch, not the excitement of announcing something new, but the structure behind a launch that actually gives people enough context, trust, and reason to act.

A launch is often treated like a date in the calendar: the day the product goes live, the offer opens, the website changes, the post is published, the email goes out, or the brand finally tells people what it has been working on. But a launch that supports sales does not begin on launch day, and it does not end when the announcement is out.

By the time you ask people to buy, book, join, subscribe, or sign up, they should already understand the world around the offer. They should know the problem it responds to, why it matters now, what makes your point of view different, and why this is worth paying attention to. The launch itself should not be carrying all the work of explanation, persuasion, education, trust-building, and conversion in one dramatic moment.

That is too much pressure for one post, one email, one campaign, or one perfectly designed announcement.

A stronger launch spreads that work out. It warms the audience before you ask them to act. It gives the offer enough context to make sense. It creates desire without relying only on hype. It answers objections before they become silent exits. It keeps the story moving after the first wave of attention fades.

The goal is not to make the launch louder. The goal is to make the decision easier.h calendar should do. Not simply organize content, but support the full journey from first awareness to real action.

Read more

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is a paid chapter. It goes deeper than the series so far — into the application, not just the thinking.

Upgrade to paid

A recognizable brand is powerful. But recognition on its own is not growth.

This is where many brands get stuck. They invest in positioning, visual identity, content, a better website, maybe even a clearer story. The brand starts to look and feel more coherent. People begin to understand it. The work feels more intentional. The outside finally starts to match the inside.

And then comes the uncomfortable question: now what?

Because a strong brand can create attention, trust, and recognition — but if that recognition has nowhere to go, it stays as perception. It does not become clients. Sales. Subscribers. Bookings. Retention. Referrals. Revenue. Momentum.

Not a complicated marketing machine or a funnel copied from someone else’s template. Not a content calendar filled with random ideas three months in advance. A simple, intentional system that connects what your brand stands for to what your business needs people to do.

This chapter is about that bridge.

How to move from being seen to being chosen. From content to conversion. From visibility to trust. From launch energy to repeatable momentum.

Because being recognizable is only useful if it leads somewhere.

The mistake: treating marketing as output

Most brands start marketing too late and too literally.

They finish the brand, then ask: what should we post?

They launch the product, then ask: how do we promote this?

They publish the website, then ask: how do we get people there?

They create the offer, then ask: why isn’t it converting?

This is how marketing becomes a layer of output added after the important decisions have already been made. A few posts. A campaign. An email. A launch announcement. Some paid media if there is budget. Maybe a content calendar if someone is organized.

But marketing is not the same as promotion.

Promotion announces what exists. Marketing creates the conditions for people to understand why it matters, why now, why for them, and why they should act.

That requires more than output. It requires a sequence of decisions.

Read more

This is a playbook for smart brands: a place to think more clearly about branding, growth, culture, and the decisions that make a business feel more intentional.

This free post is a slower one. Not a strategy chapter, not a launch plan, not another thing to optimize. Just a summer reset for anyone building a brand, business, or body of work — and wanting to return with more clarity, less noise, and better goals.

Upgrade to paid

August has a strange kind of usefulness. It is not always the most productive month, and maybe that is exactly the point. Some people are away, inboxes slow down, launches get pushed to September, and even the internet feels slightly less urgent. For anyone building a brand or business, that pause can feel uncomfortable at first, especially if you are used to measuring progress by how much you are producing. But a slower month can give you something that is hard to access when everything is moving quickly: enough distance to see what is actually going on.

This is not about disappearing for a month and pretending your business will solve itself while you drink iced coffee near water, although honestly, if that is available to you, take the iced coffee. It is also not about turning August into a self-improvement sprint in linen clothing. The point is not to come back with a completely reinvented brand, a new offer, a new content strategy, a redesigned website, and a twelve-step plan for becoming a better version of yourself by September 1st.

A reset is quieter than that.

It is a moment to look at your brand with more honesty and less panic. To notice what has become too heavy, what has started working, what still feels alive, and what no longer deserves the amount of energy it is taking from you. Because brands rarely become messy all at once. They drift slowly. One new offer gets added, then a second audience, then a campaign, then a content format that performed well but does not really fit the direction anymore. Before you know it, the website says one thing, the social content suggests another, your actual business has moved somewhere else, and you are trying to hold it all together through willpower and Canva folders.

Nothing may be visibly broken, but something feels slightly out of focus.

That is what an August reset is for. Not to start over, but to come back into alignment before the next season asks more from you.

Start with what gave you energy

Most business planning starts with numbers, and numbers matter. Revenue, sales, subscribers, inquiries, conversion, retention, traffic, engagement — these are not shallow metrics when they are connected to a real business question. A brand that never connects to the business eventually becomes expensive decoration.

• Which work made you feel sharp again?

• Which clients, customers, projects, conversations, or collaborations reminded you why you care about this work in the first place?

• Which ideas kept returning, even when you tried to move on from them?

• Which parts of the business felt alive instead of forced?

This is not a soft question. Energy is information. The work that gives you energy often points toward the direction your brand is trying to grow in. The conversations you keep enjoying may reveal the audience you actually want to serve. The themes you keep circling may be the ones your brand should become known for.

Not everything that gives you energy will immediately make money, and not every profitable thing will feel exciting. A business needs some pragmatism. But almost nothing meaningful grows from total depletion. If a direction drains you every time you touch it, it is worth asking whether it belongs in the next season or whether you are carrying it because it once made sense.

Look at what actually worked

After energy, look at evidence. Not what you hoped worked, not what looked good from the outside, but what actually moved something.

• What brought in clients, sales, subscribers, referrals, replies, saves, shares, conversations, partnerships, or trust?

• Which post made people say, “I needed this”?

• Which offer got the clearest response?

• Which piece of content helped people understand your work faster?

• Which project made your positioning feel sharper?

• Which moment made your brand easier to remember?

It is useful to separate attention from movement here. A post can perform well and still do very little for the business. A smaller piece can bring in the right person at the right time. A quiet newsletter can build more trust than a viral post. A conversation with one founder can be more valuable than a thousand passive views from people who will never buy, book, share, or return.

The question is not only “what got attention?” It is “what created useful movement?”

Useful movement might mean revenue, but it can also mean clarity, credibility, stronger relationships, better positioning, more qualified inquiries, or a clearer sense of what people already come to you for. Growth is not always loud while it is happening. Sometimes it looks like better questions from better people.

Reset your brand this summer with five practical lenses: structure, positioning, story, voice, and decision-making. See what's working, uncover what isn't, and focus on the changes that matter most. Download now.

A Summer Reset Guide

Notice what has become too heavy

Every brand collects weight.

Some of it is obvious: offers that no longer sell, platforms that take too much energy, clients that are no longer aligned, content formats that feel like maintenance instead of momentum. Some of it is more subtle: a tone of voice you outgrew, a positioning sentence that still sounds polished but no longer feels true, an audience you keep speaking to because you are afraid of choosing a more specific one.

The danger is that many of these things once worked. That is why they are hard to let go of. A format may have helped you grow last year. An offer may have been useful when the business was smaller. A visual direction may have made sense before your taste sharpened or your audience changed. Not everything that is outdated is bad. Sometimes it is simply finished.

August is a good moment to ask what you are still carrying out of habit.

• What feels unnecessarily complicated?

• What do you keep postponing because it drains you before you even begin?

• What part of the brand needs five explanations when it should only need one?

• What are you maintaining because it makes you look busy, not because it is moving the business forward?

A reset is not only about adding new goals. It is also about editing the ones that no longer belong.

Ask what people are starting to know you for

This may be the most important question in the whole reset.

What are people starting to associate with you?

Not what you want to be known for in theory, but what your audience, clients, readers, customers, and network already seem to come to you for.

• What do people ask you about?

• What do they tag you in?

• What do they refer to when they mention your work?

• Which topics make people say, “This made me think of you”?

• Which problems make your name come up in conversation?

There is often a clue there.

Sometimes the market understands your value before your own positioning catches up. Sometimes people already see the thread you have been too close to notice. Other times, the association is too vague, and that is also useful information. If people like your work but cannot explain what to come to you for, the brand may need more specificity. If people understand one part of your expertise but not the part you want to grow into, your content and proof may need to shift.

Being known is not just about visibility. It is about repeated association. The more clearly people understand what problem, perspective, or transformation belongs to you, the easier it becomes for them to remember, refer, hire, buy, or subscribe.

A brand grows faster when people know what to do with it in their mind.

Decide what the business needs next

Once you have looked at energy, evidence, weight, and association, the next step is to choose what the business actually needs from the brand in the coming season.

This is where vague ambition needs to become more precise. “I want to grow” is not enough, because growth can mean very different things. You may need better clients, not more clients. More sales, not more followers. More paid subscribers, not more free visibility. More repeat customers, not more launch spikes. More authority, not more content. More clarity, not more offers.

Try to name the real business goal for the next few months in a way that changes your decisions.

For example:

• I want more qualified client inquiries.

• I want to convert more free readers into paid subscribers.

• I want one offer to become easier to understand and easier to buy.

• I want my content to create trust, not just visibility.

• I want to make my product launch feel less dependent on hype.

• I want to be known for one specific area of expertise.

• I want to simplify the business before adding anything new.

• I want more long-term clients instead of short-term projects.

The right goal should feel slightly clarifying. It should make some things more important and others less urgent. If your goal does not help you decide what to focus on, it is probably still too broad.

Choose what gets your energy after summer

The point of a reset is not to return with a giant plan. Most giant plans fail because they are built for an imaginary version of ourselves who has more time, more discipline, fewer distractions, and a suspiciously calm inbox.

Choose a few things that would actually change the business if you gave them focused attention.

Maybe your offer needs to be clearer. Maybe your LinkedIn needs a sharper point of view. Maybe your newsletter needs a stronger free-to-paid bridge. Maybe your website needs to explain the transformation faster. Maybe your content needs fewer random ideas and more repetition around the thing you want to be known for. Maybe your product experience needs to feel more intentional after someone buys. Or your next launch needs a real post-launch system instead of one intense week and then silence.

You do not need to fix everything before September. You need to know what deserves your attention first.

That is the difference between a reset and a panic plan. A panic plan tries to change the whole brand at once. A reset helps you see the next meaningful move.

Share

A simple August reset exercise

Take thirty minutes, ideally away from your laptop if your laptop has started to feel like a small rectangle of obligation, and answer these questions honestly.

1. What gave me energy this year?

2. What actually moved the business?

3. What felt heavier than it should?

4. What are people starting to know me or the brand for?

5. What do I want the brand to help create next: clients, sales, subscribers, partnerships, trust, retention, authority, or something else?

6. What needs to become simpler before I try to grow it?

7. What will I stop, continue and start doing?

8. What is one message, offer, or idea I want to repeat more consistently after summer?

The last question matters because clarity is rarely created by one perfect announcement. It is created through repetition. If you want people to understand what you do, what you sell, what you believe, or why your work matters, you cannot say it once and then disappear into a completely different topic the next week.

A reset gives you the chance to choose the ideas worth returning to.

If you’re curious how I answered these questions, here we go:

1. What gave me energy this year?
   Growing The Art of Branding and connecting with so many of you. Returning to painting. And finally return to writing my children’s book—something I’d wanted to do for a long time.

2. What actually moved the business?
   Showing up consistently, experimenting with new content formats, and creating practical downloadable resources. Sharing my work on Instagram also led to my first paid art inquiry, which reminded me that simply putting your work out there creates opportunities.

3. What felt heavier than it should?
   My 9-to-6 corporate job. While I’ve learned a lot, the highly operational and executive-focused work often left little room for creativity, making it harder to find the energy for my own projects afterward.

4. What are people starting to know me or the brand for?
   Helping founders build brands that are strategically strong, culturally relevant, and visually distinctive—brands that people genuinely remember.

5. What do I want the brand to help create next?
   I want The Art of Branding to become a leading destination for founders who want to build better brands. My goal is to reach 1,000 paid subscribers by the end of 2026 through consistently valuable content and resources, while building long-term trust, authority, and strong subscriber retention.

6. What needs to become simpler before I try to grow it?
   My workflow. I want to explore Claude agents and other AI systems to automate repetitive work, so I can spend more time thinking, creating, and writing.

7. What will I stop, continue, and start doing?
   Stop: Creating content reactively and at the last minute.
   Continue: Expanding the resource library with practical tools and guides.
   Start: Planning content further ahead so every chapter is published on time, with greater consistency and even more value for paid subscribers.

8. What is one message, offer, or idea I want to repeat more consistently after summer?
   Experimenting with video. I want to bring more branding concepts to life through short, visual content while continuing to build depth through long-form writing.

Return with less noise

There is a certain pressure that arrives around September. The mood shifts. People come back. Calendars fill. Businesses wake up. Suddenly everyone is launching, planning, announcing, selling, hiring, posting, and trying to make the final part of the year count.

That energy can be useful, but only if you know what you are returning to.

Otherwise, September becomes a rush of activity without direction. More posts, more meetings, more offers, more ideas, more tabs open, more half-started plans. It feels like momentum, but it can easily become motion.

The smartest brands do not come back louder. They come back clearer.

They know what they want to grow. They know who they are speaking to. They know which message needs more repetition. They know which offer matters. They know what kind of proof is missing. They know which platforms deserve energy and which ones are just noise. They know what not to carry into the next season.

That is the quiet value of an August reset.

Not a rebrand.

Not a reinvention.

Not a new personality for the business.

Just a pause long enough to notice what is working, what is heavy, what is becoming clear, and what deserves to grow next.

Next paid chapter, we’ll turn this reflection into a practical growth system: how to connect your goal, audience, message, content, distribution, conversion path, and post-launch rhythm so your brand does not just look clear — it actually moves the business forward.

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is a paid chapter. It goes deeper than the series so far — into the application, not just the thinking.

Upgrade to paid

There is a stage in building a brand that feels strangely invisible.

You know what you do. The work is good. The thinking is there. The taste is there. The ambition is real. You may even have a visual identity, a portfolio, a few projects, a point of view, maybe a newsletter or a website sitting quietly in the background.

And still, not enough people know what to come to you for (so there is still too little revenue).

This is where many people start solving the wrong problem. They think they need to refine the logo. Rebuild the website. Rewrite the bio. Create a more elevated portfolio. Launch a new offer. Post more. Rebrand themselves into a version that feels more professional, more premium, more “ready”.

Sometimes those things help. But often the problem is not that the brand isn’t polished enough.

The problem is that the market has not yet learned how to associate you with a specific kind of value.

People do not hire you because you exist. They hire you because they understand what you can help them solve, they trust your judgment, and they remember you at the moment the problem becomes urgent enough to act on.

That is what this chapter is about.

Not growth as noise. Not visibility for the sake of visibility. Not becoming a content machine. But the practical work of becoming known for something specific enough that opportunities can find their way to you.

Growth starts with association

Before someone becomes a client, they first place you in their mind.

That place can be vague or sharp.

• “She does branding” is vague.

• “She helps founders build stronger visual identities” is better.

• “She helps founder-led brands clarify their positioning and turn it into a visual identity that feels more recognizable, premium, and commercially useful” is sharper.

The sharper the association, the easier growth becomes.

This is one of the most important things to understand when you are building a brand around expertise. People do not remember your full range first. They remember your entry point. The thing they can easily attach to your name. The problem that makes them think of you.

Read more

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

Upgrade to paid

Somewhere between the death of clean-girl minimalism and the rise of AI-polished sameness, brands started setting the table again.

Not metaphorically. Literally.

Tables covered in fruit, silverware, flowers, candles, bread, lace, ceramic plates, butter sculptures, antique glass, bruised grapes, folded linen, and strange little objects that look like they belong in a 17th-century painting or a grandmother’s house that has seen too much. The product is still there, but it is no longer floating in the clean void of a beige campaign. It is surrounded. Contextualized. Staged. Given weight.

This is the return of still-life art direction. And like most visual shifts that actually matter, it is not only about style. It is a reaction.

For years, brand imagery has been flattened by the same set of visual instincts: minimal backdrops, soft shadows, perfect skin, clean product arrangements, tasteful neutrals, high-resolution emptiness. Everything looked expensive in the same way. Everything felt calm in the same way. Everything was designed to remove friction, which also meant removing strangeness, texture, history, and memory.

Then AI arrived and made polished imagery easier to produce than ever. Suddenly, perfection became cheap. Clean visuals became less impressive because anyone could generate something smooth, balanced, and vaguely premium. What became rare was not polish. It was authorship.

You can feel the correction happening now. Brands are reaching for texture again. For objects. For mess. For tables that look touched by human hands. For light that feels theatrical rather than optimized. For visual worlds that feel collected, not generated.

The still life is back because brands are trying to feel real again.

Art direction starts where design stops

Brand design gives you the codes. Art direction decides how those codes live.

This is an important distinction. A visual identity can tell you the typography, color palette, grid, logo usage, image style, and layout logic. It can define the ingredients of a brand’s visual language. But art direction is what happens when those ingredients are staged into a world.

It asks different questions.

• What kind of light belongs here?

• What objects would exist in this brand’s universe?

• Is the product isolated or surrounded?

• Does the scene feel accidental, ceremonial, intimate, theatrical, clinical, domestic, sacred, commercial?

• What is the emotional temperature of the image?

• What kind of world does this brand invite people into?

This is why art direction is not decoration. It is not the layer you add once the “real” brand work is finished. It is one of the ways brand strategy becomes felt.

Just started a brand and need some guidance?

Brand Starter Guide

A product photographed on a white background says: evaluate the object. A product placed on wrinkled linen between figs, silver, flowers, and candle wax says something else entirely. It says: enter the atmosphere. Understand the world around the object. Feel the values before reading them.

Art direction turns a brand from information into experience.

The return of the still life

The still-life trend sits inside a broader movement toward tactility, imperfection, and visual worlds that feel more lived-in. Recent branding and design forecasts have pointed toward hand-made textures, expressive photography, imperfect systems, and identities that feel more sensory than fixed.

But still life is more specific than “texture is back.” It brings a particular kind of visual intelligence. A still life is not just a collection of objects. It is a composition of meaning.

Historically, still-life painting was never only decorative. In the Dutch and Flemish tradition, fruit, flowers, shells, glassware, silver, insects, clocks, skulls, books, spices, and porcelain often carried symbolic weight. These objects spoke about wealth, trade, mortality, taste, domestic life, scientific curiosity, desire, and decay. The surface was beautiful, but the beauty was loaded.

That is why the trend feels so useful for brand art direction now. It gives brands a way to make products feel culturally and emotionally richer without explaining everything through copy.

• A lipstick placed next to cherries, pearls, and an old mirror becomes about femininity, appetite, performance, vanity, ritual.

• A fragrance surrounded by wilted flowers, smoke, stone, and fruit becomes about memory, time, seduction, disappearance.

• A fashion accessory staged with bread, silver, and candlelight becomes less like an item for sale and more like an artifact from a world with its own codes.

The product becomes part of a scene. And the scene does the storytelling.

Subscribe now

Why brands are drawn to it now

This shift makes sense because so many brands are exhausted by flatness.

Minimalism used to signal confidence. Now, in many categories, it often signals safety. Beige palettes, sans-serif logos, clean packaging, soft gradients, and elegant emptiness once felt like restraint. After years of repetition, they can feel like avoidance.

Still-life art direction offers a way back into specificity.

It brings back objects that have history. Materials that age. Food that spoils. Flowers that collapse. Silver that tarnishes. Linen that wrinkles. Ceramics with uneven glaze. Wax that melts. Fruit that bruises. These things carry time, and time gives imagery emotional depth.

That matters in a cultural moment where so much visual content feels frictionless. A still-life scene creates resistance. It slows the eye down. It asks the viewer to look, not just scan. It gives the brand a visual density that is difficult to replicate with a template.

It also pushes against the sameness of digital-first brand worlds. So much brand content is now designed for the feed: fast, legible, optimized, instantly readable. Still-life imagery behaves differently. It is slower. More layered. More atmospheric. It doesn’t always reveal itself immediately.

That slowness is part of the appeal.

In a feed built for speed, atmosphere becomes a form of resistance.

Omer Gilony and curated nostalgia

One of the clearest contemporary references is Omer Gilony, the Lisbon-based artist and event designer whose tablescapes have been described as “curated nostalgia” and linked to Dutch still-life painting and baroque art. Her work often uses overflowing florals, vintage silverware, ornamental food, sculptural cheese, faded tones, religious architectural references, and intimate cinematic staging. Fashion houses including Dior, Chanel, and Isabel Marant have reportedly been drawn to this world.

What makes Gilony’s work interesting from a branding perspective is not simply that it is beautiful. It is that every object feels chosen from within the same logic.

The silverware, the flowers, the fruit, the lace, the bread, the candlelight, the architecture — nothing feels like a prop added to “make it pretty.” The objects create a visual language. They carry time. They carry class codes. They carry domesticity, ceremony, romance, abundance, and decay.

That is why luxury brands respond to it. Luxury has always understood that desire is not created by product alone. Desire is created by context. The object needs a world around it to become more than a thing.

A bag on a table is a bag. A bag placed inside a world of fruit, silver, flowers, candle wax, and old-world softness becomes part of a ritual.

This is the strategic power of art direction: it changes the status of the object.

Still life as brand strategy

The mistake would be to treat this trend as a styling direction.

Add fruit. Add silverware. Add flowers. Add lace. Shoot with flash or candlelight. Make it look baroque. Done.

That is how trends become empty.

A stronger way to read this shift is through the lens of brand codes. Still-life art direction works when the objects belong to the brand’s world. Not when they are borrowed because they look good on Pinterest.

The question is not: should we make it look like a Dutch painting?

The question is: what objects carry our meaning?

• For a beauty brand, those objects might be mirrors, towels, water, fruit, skin, glass, ceramic, medicine cabinets, hotel bathrooms, or flowers at different stages of life.

• For a food brand, they might be tablecloths, hands, crumbs, knives, bowls, family objects, market bags, handwritten notes, old packaging, or imperfect produce.

• For a material innovation brand, they might be waste streams, pigment dust, lab glass, fabric, water, stains, tools, gloves, samples, drying racks, and raw materials.

For a finance brand, it might be trickier — but that is exactly where art direction becomes interesting. What are the objects of money? Receipts, keys, notebooks, envelopes, groceries, rent contracts, children’s shoes, kitchen tables, coffee cups, phones with cracked screens, calculators, cards, coins, hands. Suddenly money becomes less abstract. It becomes domestic, emotional, embodied.

The best art direction doesn’t decorate the message. It finds the objects that make the message visible.

Objects are never neutral

This is also where the still-life trend needs more intelligence than trend reports usually give it.

Still life is seductive because it looks abundant. But abundance has history.

The Dutch still-life tradition emerged alongside urbanization, commerce, scientific curiosity, domestic life, and the rise of collecting. The Met connects the growth of still-life painting in Northern Europe to the increasingly urbanized Dutch and Flemish societies of the period. But that material abundance was also tied to trade, empire, extraction, monopolies, and enslaved labour, as NGV notes in its discussion of Dutch still-life painting and the economic systems behind it.

That means brands need to be careful with what they borrow.

Fruit, porcelain, spices, shells, silver, lace, flowers — these are not innocent symbols. They carry histories of taste, class, colonial trade, domestic labor, religious symbolism, gender, and power. This does not mean brands can never use them. It means they should understand what they are staging.

A brand that uses still-life references only as an aesthetic mood may end up reproducing old codes of wealth without asking what those codes mean. A brand that understands the references can do something more interesting: use the form critically, softly, playfully, personally, or in a way that makes sense for its own world.

There is a difference between visual richness and aesthetic cosplay. The difference is meaning.

How to use still-life art direction well

If you want to use this trend, don’t start with the trend. Start with the brand.

Ask what kind of world you are building. Is it domestic or theatrical? Sparse or abundant? Fresh or decaying? Clean or stained? Bright or shadowed? Modern or archival? Intimate or ceremonial? Is the product the hero, or is it part of an ecosystem?

Then define your object language.

Every brand has objects that belong to it. Some are obvious. Some are metaphorical. Some are emotional. The work is to find them before you style anything.

A good object language answers:

• What materials belong to our world?

• What objects carry our values?

• What textures make our positioning felt?

• What kind of imperfection feels right for us?

• What kind of abundance or restraint is ours?

• What historical or cultural references are we allowed to hold with integrity?

• What would feel like borrowed taste?

That last question is crucial.

A still-life setup for Aesop should not look like one for Rhode. A still-life setup for Tony’s Chocolonely should not look like one for Chanel. A still-life setup for ILANGA should not look like one for a restaurant, even if both use food and natural materials.

The objects may overlap. The logic should not.

The product should not disappear

There is one more risk: art direction that becomes more interesting than the brand.

This happens often. The set is beautiful. The references are rich. The lighting is perfect. The objects create atmosphere. Everyone loves the image. But the product could be replaced with almost anything and the image would still work.

That is not brand art direction. That is editorial styling.

For brand art direction to work, the product must belong so clearly in the world that removing it would weaken the scene. It does not always need to be centered. It does not always need to be large. It does not always need to be explained. But it needs to have a reason to be there.

The still life should change the way we understand the product. And the product should change the way we understand the still life.

That relationship is the difference between atmosphere and strategy.

From flatlay to world-building

The old flatlay arranged products. The new still life builds atmosphere.

That shift matters because people no longer respond to products in isolation. They respond to worlds. They want to understand not only what something is, but what kind of life, taste, feeling, ritual, or identity surrounds it.

This is why art direction has become so important in branding. It is the bridge between codes and desire.

Codes make the brand recognizable. Art direction makes the codes emotionally convincing.

A brand can define its palette, type, voice, and image direction perfectly. But if the art direction is weak, the brand will still feel flat. It may be consistent, but not alive. Clear, but not desirable. Correct, but not magnetic.

Strong art direction gives a brand atmosphere. And atmosphere is where desire often begins.

Not in the product claim.
Not in the feature list.
Not in the founder story.
In the feeling of entering a world where the product makes sense.

The exercise

Before your next shoot, campaign, launch, or content series, build a still-life map for your brand.

Not to copy the trend, but to understand your own object language.

Start with five columns:

• Objects

• Materials

• Light

• Texture

• Meaning

Under objects, list what physically belongs to your brand’s world. Products, tools, ingredients, personal items, furniture, food, books, packaging, surfaces, symbols.

Under materials, list what your world is made of. Glass, steel, linen, paper, plastic, stone, wood, water, pigment, skin, cotton, clay, wax.

Under light, define the emotional temperature. Morning light, flash, shadow, candlelight, clinical brightness, gallery light, overcast softness, golden hour, kitchen light.

Under texture, define the surface quality. Smooth, wet, dry, grainy, polished, bruised, stained, folded, cracked, powdery, glossy, matte.

Under meaning, write what each object or material communicates. Care, control, abundance, memory, labor, precision, domesticity, transformation, appetite, restraint, ritual.

Then remove half.

This is important. Still-life art direction is not about putting everything in. It is about choosing the right objects with enough precision that each one carries weight.

A grape can be decoration. A grape can also be appetite, excess, decay, sweetness, history, color, softness, body.

The difference is whether you know why it is there.

The real lesson

The return of still-life art direction is not a call for every brand to become baroque. It is a reminder that images can hold more than products.

They can hold atmosphere. Memory. Symbolism. History. Desire. Contradiction. Sensation. A point of view.

After years of smooth minimalism and increasingly synthetic visual production, brands are rediscovering the power of the staged object. Not as decoration, but as meaning architecture.

Because art direction is not there to make a brand look expensive. It is there to make the brand’s world believable.

The strongest brands understand that every object in the frame is saying something. The fruit, the fabric, the glass, the shadow, the flower past its peak, the hand entering the image, the empty plate, the candle burned halfway down.

Nothing is neutral. Everything is a signal.

And when those signals align, the brand becomes more than recognizable. It becomes inhabitable.

Next chapter: How to grow your brand when nobody knows you yet

A strong brand world is useful only if people can actually find their way into it. Codes, art direction, positioning, and visual identity create recognition — but recognition also needs distribution, relationships, proof, and a clear path toward revenue.

Next chapter, we’ll move into the practical side of brand growth: how to become known for what you do, how to make your expertise visible, how to use platforms like LinkedIn and Substack without turning yourself into a content machine, and how to build the kind of trust that leads to real client opportunities.

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is a paid chapter. It goes deeper than the series so far — into the application, not just the thinking.

Upgrade to paid

There is a particular kind of brand recognition that doesn’t need explanation. You catch a glimpse of a campaign, a color combination, a crop, a line of copy, a product shape, a store interior, a packaging detail, and before you’ve consciously read the name, something in your brain has already placed it. You know where you are.

That moment is the result of brand codes.

Not a logo. Not a campaign. Not a visual identity in the narrow sense. Codes are the signals a brand repeats often enough that they stop being decisions and start being memory. Over time, they do the work the brand no longer has to explain.

This is where a lot of brands misread what distinctiveness actually requires. They assume it means being loud, original, or impossible to confuse with anyone else at first glance. Sometimes it does. More often, distinctiveness is quieter than that. It comes from choosing a small number of signals and defending them with something close to unreasonable discipline.

Read more

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

Upgrade to paid

There’s a screenshot that goes around every so often. A grid of luxury logos — Burberry, Balmain, Balenciaga, Saint Laurent, Berluti — all rendered in the same flat, capitalized, geometric sans serif, lined up so that the only thing distinguishing one house from the next is the arrangement of the letters. Cover the names and you genuinely cannot tell them apart. Houses with a century of distinct visual history, each with its own typographic lineage and ornamental signature, had over a few years converged on the same wordmark, as if they’d all hired the same designer on the same afternoon and been handed the same brief: make it clean, make it modern, make it disappear.

This is blanding. The word has stuck because it names something everyone in the industry could feel but couldn’t quite articulate: the slow draining of distinctiveness from brand after brand, all in the name of looking current. The serif comes off. The color goes neutral. The logo flattens. The crest, the texture, the slightly strange detail that made the thing specific — all of it gets sanded away until what’s left is professional, legible, and almost entirely forgettable.

It’s worth being precise here, because the conversation tends to collapse into a defense of ornament, which misses the point. Blanding is not minimalism. Minimalism, done with conviction, is one of the most powerful tools a brand has — The Row built an empire on restraint you can recognize across a room without a logo in sight. The difference is that The Row’s restraint carries a point of view. Blanding is minimalism with the position removed: the same clean surface, with nothing underneath it. It’s what you get when a brand adopts the visual shorthand for confidence without doing the work that earns it.

The aesthetics of brands that hadn’t earned them

The original blands were tech companies, and there was a logic to it. Apple, Google, Airbnb, Uber communicate in simple, intuitive codes that came to read as youth, progress, and above all legitimacy. Bold sans-serif type and flat color scaled effortlessly across every surface a digital brand has to live on, from a billboard to a favicon. It worked. And because it worked, it became a template.

The trouble started when everyone else picked up the placemat. A generation of younger companies — selling untested ideas, with no identity of their own — adopted the visual language of the brands that had spent years cultivating one. They wore the aesthetics of a confidence they hadn’t earned, dressing like the four companies that defined the look in the hope that the borrowed familiarity would transfer some borrowed trust.

Subscribe now

But the revealing moment wasn’t the startups. It was when the heritage houses joined in. When a brand with no equity flattens its logo, that’s understandable — there’s nothing to lose. When a 167-year-old house with one of the most recognizable identities in the world strips out its knight and its serif to look like everyone else, something stranger is happening. That’s not a young brand reaching for legitimacy. That’s an established brand voluntarily surrendering the assets that made it impossible to replace.

Why would it do that?

Sameness is not a design problem

This is the part the design-focused version of the conversation misses. Blanding gets discussed as an aesthetic failure — bad taste, lazy trend-chasing. But aesthetics are downstream. A brand doesn’t drift toward sameness because its designers ran out of ideas. It drifts because the decisions underneath the design were never anchored, and an unanchored brand defaults to whatever feels safe and defensible in the room.

Think about what actually happens when a rebrand goes bland. There’s a meeting, full of smart people surrounded by dashboards, usually convened because something feels off — relevance is slipping, the identity feels dated. And the pull in that room, every single time, is toward the middle. The middle is demonstrable. The middle is what the successful competitors are already doing, which makes it the easiest thing to defend and the hardest thing to get fired for. Distinctiveness, by contrast, asks someone to stand behind a choice that can’t be justified with data — because the whole point of a distinctive choice is that no one has proven it yet.

Look at one specific move from outside that room. When Hedi Slimane took over Yves Saint Laurent in 2012, one of his first acts was to drop the “Yves.” The ready-to-wear line became, simply, Saint Laurent. On paper that’s exactly the kind of subtraction that produces blanding — fewer letters, a flatter name. But it wasn’t a retreat to the middle. It was a precise repositioning: a nod to the 1966 Rive Gauche line, a claim on Paris, a sharp signal that a different, edgier, music-soaked house had arrived. From 2012 to 2014 the brand grew more than twenty percent a year, outpacing the luxury market, and across Slimane’s four years the house more than doubled its sales, from around €354 million to roughly €974 million. The name got shorter and the brand got more specific. That’s the tell — the subtraction was load-bearing.

It’s worth being exact about what stuck, because the house didn’t blanket itself in minimalism. Slimane sidelined the famous interlocking Cassandre monogram, and his successor Anthony Vaccarello promptly brought it back to the center of the brand — the old logo restored, not retired. What endured was the narrower decision: the drop of “Yves” from the fashion name, a single deliberate cut that sharpened the brand’s identity rather than dissolving it. That’s the distinction. A reduction can carry a point of view or it can erase one, and the difference isn’t how much you remove — it’s whether you can say why.

Because the move read as decisive, others reached for the gesture without the reasoning. A wave of houses chased the reductive look and most copied the surface, which is precisely how a singular decision becomes a sea of sameness within a few seasons. The lesson was never “shorten the name” or “drop the serif.” It was “decide what you are with enough conviction that the reduction means something.” Almost everyone copied the first sentence and skipped the second.

Growing your brand from scratch?
Download The Brand Starter Guide.

Brand Starter Guide

So sameness isn’t chosen so much as defaulted into — the path of least resistance dressed up as strategy. And it traces to the structural absence this series keeps returning to: when a brand can’t name what it is, what it refuses to be, where its cultural weight actually lives, it has nothing to protect its distinctive assets with. The serif gets cut because no one can articulate why it matters. The crest goes because it reads as “old” and no one can defend what it carries. Without a clear center, there’s no argument for keeping anything that isn’t strictly functional.

Blanding, in other words, is what structural ambiguity looks like when it reaches the visual layer. The flattening is the symptom. The thing that’s missing is a held position.

The machine is making it worse

There’s a new accelerant worth naming clearly, because it will define the next few years of this.

Generative AI now runs through a great deal of how design gets made, and these systems work by absorbing enormous quantities of existing material and producing what is statistically most likely. They are averaging engines. Ask one for a brand identity and it reaches, by design, for the most familiar, most central version of the thing — which is to say, the most generic. Trained on a decade of blanding, the machine produces more blanding, that output re-enters the environment, the next model trains on it, and the average gets averager.

It’s a feedback loop pointed directly at the middle. Without strong creative direction on top of it, AI doesn’t just permit sameness — it manufactures it at scale, faster than any trend cycle could alone. The sharper voices in the industry are framing the choice bluntly: when machines optimize everything toward the average, the brands that survive are the ones willing to be specifically, deliberately strange. Boring brands, as one widely shared talk put it, die quiet deaths. The quiet is the point. Nothing offended anyone. Nothing went wrong. The brand simply became indistinguishable, and was forgotten.

The real risk isn’t that AI makes bad design. It often makes perfectly competent design. The risk is that competence is the trap — clean, legible, professional, interchangeable, which is the exact profile of a brand that has optimized itself into invisibility.

Burberry, and the cost of going back

The most instructive thing in this whole arc is that some brands have started reversing it — and the reversal reveals what the original move cost.

Burberry is the clearest case. In 2018, under Riccardo Tisci, Peter Saville redesigned the house into a flat sans serif and retired the Equestrian Knight motif in use since 1901. It was sharp work with a coherent reading behind it — a Burberry trench is a utility object, and a utilitarian wordmark wasn’t wrong for it. But within a few years every other house had made the same move, and the distinctiveness dissolved into the sea of sameness it had helped create. So in 2023, under Daniel Lee, Burberry reversed: the serif came back, the knight returned, the British specificity was reinstated. People described it, accurately, as going backward in order to move forward.

Here’s the part worth sitting with. Saville himself called the reversal a management mistake — not because the new work was bad, he praised its quality, but because it was not wise for an organization of Burberry’s scale to forgo continuity. That cuts both ways. The 2018 blanding broke continuity by erasing the heritage marks. The 2023 reversal broke it again by undoing the system after only five years. Burberry didn’t just pay the cost of blanding. It paid the cost of blanding and un-blanding — two resets stacked, each spending down the recognition the previous identity had been quietly accumulating.

That double cost is the lesson. Trust accumulates through consistency, and every reset sends a brand back to the start of the compounding curve. Blanding is a reset disguised as modernization. Un-blanding, when it’s a panic correction rather than a conviction, is just another reset wearing the costume of heritage. The brands that win the next decade won’t be the ones that blanded fastest or scrambled back to serifs fastest. They’ll be the ones that never needed either move — because they decided early what they were, and held it long enough that no trend could talk them out of it.

So the reversal isn’t a vindication of ornament over minimalism. A house could get this just as wrong in the other direction, lurching into maximalist heritage cosplay because that now feels like the safe choice. The vindication is of conviction over convergence. Burberry’s knight works now for the same reason it always would have: it’s specific to Burberry. It carries something no competitor can. The mistake was ever treating that specificity as a liability to be cleaned up.

What this asks of you

Most brands reading this aren’t deciding whether to retire a 1901 crest. But the mechanism that produces blanding operates at every scale.

It’s there in the instinct to make your work look more like the brands you admire — brief a designer toward a reference instead of toward your own logic, and you’ve chosen familiarity over distinctiveness. It’s there in the relief of adopting category conventions, the comfort of looking like you belong in your sector. It’s there every time a distinctive asset gets cut because no one can immediately justify it — when the real question isn’t whether it can be justified, but whether it’s yours.

The defense against sameness isn’t more decoration. It’s the same thing it always is in this playbook: a clear enough sense of what you are that you can tell, from any decision, whether it expresses your position or erases it. Distinctiveness that comes from a held center is durable. Distinctiveness applied on top of a vague brand is just another costume, and it comes off the moment the next trend arrives.

The brands that look the same aren’t mostly suffering from a failure of imagination. They’re suffering from a failure of conviction — and a flat logo is just the most visible place it shows up. Sameness is a liability, but it’s the symptom, not the disease. The disease is not having decided clearly enough to have anything worth protecting.

Decide, and the protecting takes care of itself.

Next chapter:

We'll explore the art of cultural storytelling — how brands move beyond looking distinctive to meaning something, by drawing on context, memory, and shared reference in ways that feel lived rather than borrowed.

Meanwhile, join the chat — this is where we break things down in real time, answer questions, and turn ideas into clear direction.

Upgrade to paid

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is a paid chapter. It goes deeper than the series so far — into the application, not just the thinking.

Upgrade to paid

There is a specific kind of board almost everyone has made.

It lives in a Pinterest tab, a Figma file, a shared folder optimistically titled inspo or mood or brand directions v3 FINAL. It is full of beautiful things — a perfume bottle photographed against linen, a typographic poster from a museum show, a still from a film nobody on the team has actually seen, a living room with very good light. Each image is, on its own, defensible. You liked it. You saved it. It felt right.

And then you hand the board to a designer, or you sit with it yourself, and something doesn’t hold. The images don’t talk to each other. There is no logic running underneath them — only the fact that the same person liked all of them, which is not the same thing as a direction. The board describes a taste. It does not describe a world.

This is the gap I want to close in this chapter. Because the brands that feel like worlds — the ones we keep returning to throughout this series, the Aesops and Gentle Monsters and Alos — did not begin with better taste than you. They began with a clearer way of reading their own references. They knew not just what they liked, but what each thing was deciding. And that single shift, from collecting to reading, is the most useful creative-direction skill almost nobody is taught.

So we’ll start there. Then we’ll build outward — into constraints, into a way of testing whether your world actually holds, and finally into something you can fill in and use. But the foundation is the reference. If you get that wrong, everything downstream is decoration applied to confusion.

Read more

This is the first in a series of conversations with founders building brands worth paying attention to — people whose work reveals something about how strong brands actually get made, not in theory but in the hundreds of small decisions behind them.

I wanted to start with . He’s the founder of Cosmos, a platform for collecting and curating visual inspiration that has grown almost entirely by word of mouth, with no advertising and a point of view sharp enough that people talk about it like a place rather than a tool. Before Cosmos he built Unfold and Earth, ran a furniture gallery, and spent years investing in other people’s companies — a throughline of tools and spaces for people who care deeply about how things look and feel.

What makes Andy worth listening to isn’t just what he’s built. It’s how clearly he thinks about the relationship between brand and product, taste and scale, obsession and longevity. What follows is our conversation, lightly edited.

Subscribe now

You’ve built several things — Unfold, Earth, a furniture gallery, now . Looking across all of it, there’s a clear thread: tools and spaces for people who care deeply about how things look and feel. Did you see that thread while it was happening, or only in retrospect? And what does it tell you about how a founder’s real obsessions eventually become the work?

Only in retrospect. It’s never been a grand unified theory per se. I’ve just been following what feels magnetic to me—identity, beauty, design. Everything I’ve started has been built for myself at the beginning, so they all paint an intimate picture of who I am in a way.

I suppose the throughline seems obvious now. I think that’s true for most founders. Your obsessions leak into the work whether you intend them to or not. Build honestly enough and your work starts to feel like different expressions of the same perspective.

Cosmos started as a side project — something you built for yourself before you built it for anyone else. At what point did you realize the personal thing was actually the right foundation for a company? And did starting from that place change what Cosmos became?

I started inviting friends and quickly realized the problem wasn’t uniquely mine. Cosmos started as a living archive for my own visual brain—a place to pull references from across the internet into one home, where I could dream and bring my visions to life across my different projects. Then I started showing Cosmos to designers, architects, other creatives, and the reaction was immediate.

Starting from a personal need made the product opinionated. The product itself became visual-first, and deeply focused on image provenance. We’ve always tried to design Cosmos in a way that makes it feel like a breath of fresh air. It has a certain quietness to it. It also has a distinct visual style, which reflects my own cultural interests.

You write about Tumblr in your “Future of Cosmos” essay — about a feeling that existed online and then slowly disappeared. That’s a specific cultural memory, not a universal one. Was building around that a risk you thought about? How do you build a brand for people who remember something, without making everyone else feel like they arrived too late?

Cosmos has never been about chasing nostalgia for a specific product of the past. There was a time when the internet felt expressive instead of compulsive—more curious, more open-ended. Tumblr was one corner of that, and there were plenty of others. It eroded over the last decade as things got louder and content became infinite.

That’s not a cultural memory you had to be there for. It’s something we all feel. You don’t need to have lived through it to know the internet has gotten loud and flat. That’s just the water everyone’s swimming in right now. The nostalgia influences what we build, the same way every influence over a lifetime does. It’s an input, but not the point.

Cosmos grew primarily through word of mouth, has no advertising, and the language you use — “a place, not a tool,” inspiration as a living practice — goes well beyond product copy. At what point did you realize the brand needed to carry that kind of weight? And do you think most founders underestimate how much the brand is the product, especially when what you’re selling is a relationship with something as slippery as inspiration?

From the beginning. I’ve never seen brand as something you do later. When building for consumers, it is almost as much about building the brand as the product itself. In my own process, I start with the brand and the product is then born from that place. It needs an identity before it knows what it wants to be. The brand can’t sit on top of the product. It is the product. This is becoming increasingly true as code and products get commoditized.

For a platform like Cosmos, the brand almost has to be invisible. It shouldn’t try to be the main event. The work on the platform is—the artists, the brands, the cultural institutions. Our job is to build the world their work exists within without trying to outshine it.

Taste is at the center of what Cosmos does — curating it, expressing it, trusting it. But taste is one of the hardest things to encode in a product without it feeling either elitist or vague. How did you hold that line? There’s a version of Cosmos that could have been gated and precious. There’s another that chases scale and loses the thing that made it matter.

Taste shouldn’t feel like status. It’s a practice. You develop it by paying attention, refining your inputs, learning to really see the world for yourself and have an opinion. The moment taste becomes a social credential, the whole thing rots.

The hard part is not losing that opinion as you scale. A million things work against you, so you have to stay principled, and how you hold the line is in the hundreds of small decisions you make every day. Some of them cost us. We use AI for attribution and clarity, not generation, which means saying no to the easiest growth lever in the category right now. We de-rank low-signal content, which sometimes de-ranks the things that would drive engagement. We let people decide whether they see AI imagery at all. None of that is free. But we don’t see taste as something to gatekeep. Cosmos is a place to build your taste, and in a way, to democratize it. We’re building for the long run, and staying true to what we believe in is how you get there.

Just starting out with your brand? Download the Brand Starter Guide.

Brand Starter Guide

You run a physical gallery alongside a digital platform. Most founders keep those worlds separate. Does having a physical space — where objects have weight, where curation is literal — change how you think about Cosmos? What does one teach you about the other?

Our first office doubled as a gallery. We had a beautiful retail space on the Lower East Side that we filled with vintage furniture from designers like Pierre Jeanneret, Le Corbusier, Charlotte Perriand, and pieces from different artists we were representing. The office became a physical reflection of our curatorial taste, and it seeded the product early. We had interior designers and architects coming in daily, peering over our monitors asking what we were building.

It also taught me that an object always means something different depending on what’s around it—the room, the light, the history it carries. The same is true online. An image isn’t just an image. Its meaning shifts based on its neighbors, its source, the path that led you to it.

Upgrade to paid

After building and selling companies, running a gallery, investing in others — what do you understand about building something that lasts that you didn’t know when you started? Not a lesson, more a shift in how you see it.

I used to think generational companies came from a great idea or a great moment. Now I think to build something that lasts you have to build an entire world around it—it’s the brand, the story, the philosophy, the product, the team, all of it holding together. It has to feel solid and true.

And that only happens when the person making it becomes fully obsessed. It can’t come from a performative place, or a fleeting one, or a materialistic one. It almost has to come from a spiritual place. You have to let your obsession leak into the work, because the best things in the world come from obsessive creation. It’s all an expression of the founder’s sensibility.

That’s why I think less about novelty now and more about internal consistency. A product becomes whatever it rewards. A company becomes whatever it believes. A brand becomes whatever it repeatedly chooses. It all compounds. If you get the underlying values wrong, no amount of momentum can save you. But get them right, and the company can endure without losing itself.

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is the first brand study in the series, and it's free to read in full. It's here so you know what to expect before the next one — which is paid. No summaries, no surface-level takes. Just a close, honest read of a brand that got something structurally right, and what that actually means for the brands you're building.

Upgrade to paid

There is a version of Stüssy’s story that gets told as a surf brand that crossed over. Shawn Stussy, a surfboard shaper from Laguna Beach, started scrawling his signature on boards in the early 1980s, began printing it on T-shirts, and somehow ended up one of the most formative brands in the history of streetwear. That is the origin. It doesn’t explain the brand — and in branding, the origin almost never does.

What Stüssy built was something structurally different from what most brands in its category were attempting. Not a subcultural brand that gained mainstream acceptance. Not a lifestyle brand that rode a wave of cultural momentum. Something harder to name and much harder to replicate: a brand that existed at the genuine intersection of multiple subcultures simultaneously, before anyone had a framework for thinking about what that meant or how to do it deliberately. And it did so not through strategy, but through a set of commitments — about community, distribution, aesthetic, and refusal — that turned out to be the most durable positioning a brand can have.

The positioning that wasn’t called positioning

When we talk about positioning in this playbook, we mean the decision about what a brand is for, who it genuinely serves, and what it refuses to become. Strong positioning is not a message. It’s a structural commitment that shapes every downstream decision: what gets made, where it’s sold, who it’s associated with, what it says and doesn’t say.

Stüssy never issued a positioning statement. But its positioning was clear from the beginning — expressed through behavior rather than language, which is almost always the sign of a brand that actually has one.

The brand positioned itself not within a single subculture, but at the point where several converged: surf culture from the California coast, skateboarding from the streets, hip-hop from New York, reggae and rude boy aesthetics from the UK and Jamaica, the post-punk energy that was moving through London and Tokyo in parallel. These weren’t markets being targeted. They were communities that Shawn Stussy and the people around him were actually part of or genuinely paying attention to. The positioning was an honest reflection of where the brand already stood — which is the only kind of positioning that holds over time.

This matters because it changes the nature of the credibility. A brand that identifies a cultural community and then directs communications toward it is doing something fundamentally different from a brand that emerges from within that community’s logic. The former produces legibility. The latter produces belonging. And belonging is what people don’t leave.

The Stüssy Tribe as relationship infrastructure

The International Stüssy Tribe — an informal global network of distributors, shop owners, DJs, artists, and cultural figures across Los Angeles, New York, London, and Tokyo — gets described in most histories of the brand as a clever marketing move. It wasn’t. Or rather, calling it that misses what made it structurally significant.

The Tribe existed before the vocabulary of brand community, ambassador programs, or influencer strategy. It wasn’t a communication channel or a seeding initiative. It was a genuine network of people who were already inside the cultural contexts Stüssy was embedded in, connected to each other through shared aesthetic sensibilities and personal relationships, and unified by a common object — the Stüssy T-shirt, worn not as a badge of affiliation but as a quiet signal of genuine cultural fluency.

Upgrade to paid

What Stüssy understood — perhaps without fully articulating it — is that the most durable brand relationships are not built between a brand and a consumer. They are built between people who share a cultural context, with the brand as the common language. The Tribe was a relationship infrastructure built before relationship infrastructure was a concept anyone in branding used. And because it was built on genuine cultural proximity rather than commercial logic, it didn’t look or feel like what came after it. Every brand that has since tried to replicate the Tribe model by identifying influential people and giving them product has missed the point — which is that the Tribe’s credibility came not from who was in it but from why they were there.

Growing a brand from scratch?

Brand Starter Guide

A visual language that was doing real work

Stüssy’s visual identity in the early years is often treated as an accident of aesthetics — a founder’s handwriting that happened to look cool. But if you look more carefully at what the graphic language was actually doing, a more deliberate logic emerges.

A visual language is a storytelling layer. It communicates positioning without language, signals cultural context without explanation, and builds recognition through repetition across time and touchpoints. A strong visual identity is not a logo applied consistently — it is a set of decisions about typography, imagery, reference, texture, and proportion that accumulate into something immediately recognizable even without a name attached.

Stüssy’s visual language was doing exactly that kind of work. The signature — loose, confident, unmistakably handmade — immediately communicated something about authenticity and craft. Not the polished authenticity that brands manufacture as a positioning claim, but the actual authenticity of an object made by a specific person. That signature on a surfboard and that signature on a T-shirt carried the same energy. The graphic references that followed — typefaces borrowed from reggae sound system flyers, tribal imagery, skate graphics, designs that sat comfortably next to both a Jamaican record sleeve and a New York graffiti mural — were not borrowed arbitrarily. They were borrowed fluently, by people who understood the contexts they were drawing from.

This is where the distinction between cultural fluency and cultural appropriation lives — and it’s a more useful question to ask of a brand’s visual language than many brands allow. Stüssy’s early graphics didn’t borrow from cultures it was observing from a distance. They translated aesthetics from cultures the brand was genuinely embedded in, and the translation showed real understanding rather than superficial imitation. The difference is visible in the work. Borrowed aesthetics that aren’t understood tend to be applied decoratively. Aesthetics that are genuinely understood get used with a kind of ease — a naturalness that doesn’t draw attention to the borrowing because the logic is already internalized.

Over time, the Stüssy visual language became its own thing: an aesthetic that was recognizable not because of a rigid system but because of a consistent sensibility. That distinction matters. Many brands confuse a visual identity system — the rules, the templates, the guidelines — with a visual sensibility, which is the underlying taste and perspective that makes a brand’s visual output feel coherent even across variation.

Stüssy, at its best, has operated with both: a defined aesthetic point of view applied with enough flexibility to remain relevant across decades without becoming a parody of itself.

Building a world, not running a campaign

There is a framework in this playbook that distinguishes between marketing brands — brands that think in campaigns, messages, and seasonal objectives — and world-building brands, which construct environments that people choose to enter and return to. The distinction is not about budget or scale. It’s about intention and architecture.

Stüssy is a world-building brand. It always has been, even before that framing existed.

The world Stüssy constructed wasn’t defined by a product category. It was defined by a set of cultural references, a shared aesthetic sensibility, and a community of people who recognized each other through it. That world had its own logic — about what was cool and what wasn’t, about which collaborations made sense and which would be a betrayal, about where the clothes should and shouldn’t be sold. These weren’t marketing decisions. They were decisions about what kind of reality the brand was building and what it meant to be inside it.

World-building requires deciding what your world is made of, philosophically and aesthetically — not just visually. What does it take seriously? What does it refuse to do? What does it celebrate? What does it ignore? For Stüssy, the answers to those questions have remained remarkably stable across forty years of operation, two ownership transitions, and enormous shifts in the broader culture around it. The brand still takes craft and cultural specificity seriously. It still refuses mass-market accessibility in terms of distribution. It still celebrates the intersection of subcultures. And it still ignores the pressure to explain itself.

Subscribe now

That last one is worth examining. Most brands, when they grow, feel the need to become more legible — to broader audiences, to press, to investors. They add narrative layers. They issue statements. They make their identity more explicit so it can travel further and be understood by more people. Stüssy has consistently resisted this. The brand communicates through objects and associations, not through explanation. And that restraint is part of what the world it has built is made of. To be inside the Stüssy world is to already understand it. That understanding is not purchased with explanation. It is earned through cultural proximity.

The contraction that was actually a clarification

The mid-1990s tested the brand — and what happened under pressure revealed something important about what Stüssy actually was.

By the early 1990s, the brand had expanded significantly: more products, more licenses, broader distribution, adjacencies that stretched the identity in directions that were commercially logical but culturally diluting. The Stüssy name appeared in contexts that the original community didn’t recognize as theirs. The brand’s center was still there, but it was becoming harder to see through the accumulation of what had been added around it.

The response was a contraction that most brands in a growth phase don’t have the structural clarity to make. Distribution was reduced. Licensing was pulled back. Product was narrowed. The brand effectively chose coherence over revenue — which is only possible when there is a clear and committed answer to what the brand actually is. Without that clarity, contraction feels like failure. With it, contraction is strategy.

This is one of the most instructive moments in Stüssy’s history, because it illustrates a principle that applies to brands at every scale: expansion without a stable center is dilution, not growth. And the only way to know whether your center is stable is to be able to name what it is clearly enough that you can tell, from any given decision, whether it fits or conflicts with that center. Stüssy in the mid-1990s had a center stable enough to measure against. The brand knew what it was — clearly enough to see what it wasn’t.

The contraction clarified the positioning. And the brand that emerged from it was leaner, more intentional, and ultimately more durable than the overextended version that preceded it. When Supreme rose to global prominence in the late 1990s and 2000s — built on many of the same principles of controlled distribution, cultural specificity, and community-first positioning — Stüssy was still there, not diminished by comparison but clarified by it. Both brands demonstrated that scarcity, practiced structurally rather than as a marketing tactic, doesn’t limit a brand’s reach. It defines the terms on which the brand is relevant.

Positioning across cultures: the Tokyo dimension

Something else worth examining in the Stüssy story that often gets treated as peripheral but is actually structurally significant: the brand’s relationship with Japan, and specifically with Tokyo, from very early in its history.

Japanese streetwear culture in the late 1980s and 1990s was not simply importing American aesthetics. It was doing something more sophisticated — reading American and British subcultures with an interpretive intelligence that often understood those cultures more precisely than the cultures understood themselves. Tokyo’s relationship with American street culture was filtered through a curatorial sensibility: not everything traveled, only what had genuine cultural weight. The fact that Stüssy was embraced early and deeply by the Tokyo market — by stores like Beams and Union that had strong aesthetic points of view — was not incidental. It was a form of cultural validation. To be legible to Tokyo in that era, a brand had to have something genuinely coherent at its center.

Stüssy’s early Japanese market presence also created a dynamic that strengthened the brand’s global positioning in a way that few brands have replicated. The Stüssy Tribe in Tokyo wasn’t just a local outpost of American culture. It was a local interpretation — adding its own aesthetic language, its own relationship with proportion and quality and graphic communication — that fed back into the brand’s overall sensibility. This is cross-cultural exchange functioning as it should in a brand context: not one culture borrowing from another, but two cultural contexts finding genuine mutual fluency through a shared object, and both being changed by the encounter.

Most brands with a global footprint flatten this dynamic. They establish what the brand is in its origin market and then export that definition everywhere else, adjusting communication but not identity. Stüssy’s early internationalism was less controlled and more genuinely reciprocal — which is probably not what any management team would have planned, but which produced something more interesting and more durable than a managed global rollout would have.

What Stüssy teaches about cultural brands

There is a meaningful difference between a culturally relevant brand and a culture-led brand — a distinction worth returning to here because Stüssy is one of the clearest examples of the latter.

A culturally relevant brand understands the cultural context its audience inhabits and communicates fluently within it. It knows the references. It doesn’t feel out of place. Cultural relevance is about legibility — being readable and credible to a specific audience. It is valuable, and it is earnable through attention, proximity, and consistency.

A culture-led brand is something structurally different. Its identity — its products, aesthetics, relationships, and decisions — emerged from within a cultural logic rather than being applied over the top of one. The brand didn’t identify a culture and then design for it. The culture was already the origin. This is not something a brand can retrofit. It either happened or it didn’t. And when it did, it creates a kind of credibility that is genuinely structural — baked into what the brand is, not layered onto how it communicates.

Stüssy is a culture-led brand in this sense. The cultural contexts it emerged from — Californian surf and skate, New York hip-hop, London post-punk and reggae, Tokyo street style — weren’t markets to enter. They were the material the brand was made of. The products, the graphics, the community, the distribution philosophy: all of it was shaped by a cultural logic that preceded any commercial intention. By the time the commercial dimension arrived, the cultural credibility was already structural. And that credibility could not be separated from the brand because it was the brand.

This changes what longevity means. Most brands that survive long periods do so by adapting — shifting positioning, refreshing identity, chasing the cultural contexts that are rising. Stüssy has done something rarer: it has survived by remaining legible to a continuously evolving cultural conversation from a stable center. The cultural references around the brand have shifted — the musical genres, the subcultural touchpoints, the cities that matter. But the underlying sensibility has not. And because that sensibility was genuinely internal from the beginning, it can absorb cultural change without being destabilized by it.

What this means for the brands reading this

The Stüssy case is not a template. You cannot look at what Stüssy did and reverse-engineer a checklist: be genuine, build community, control distribution. The specific decisions only made sense because of the specific cultural context they emerged from, and that context cannot be replicated. What you can extract, and what is useful to sit with, is the structural logic underneath those decisions.

• Position from the inside out. The most durable positioning comes from a brand that knows, specifically and honestly, what cultural context it is genuinely embedded in — and builds outward from there, rather than identifying a target market and designing toward it.

• Make the visual language do real work. A visual identity is a storytelling layer. It should be translating positioning into perception — not decorating a generic brand infrastructure with aesthetic choices that could belong to anyone. The visual language should make the brand’s cultural context immediately recognizable, without explanation, to the people who are already inside it.

• Build relationship infrastructure before you need it. The Stüssy Tribe worked because it was built before it was strategically useful. Relationships built under commercial pressure feel like commercial pressure. Relationships built from genuine shared context feel like something else — and the difference is visible to the people you’re trying to reach.

• Control the center. Expansion is inevitable if the brand is working. The question is whether the center holds during expansion. If you can’t name your center clearly enough to measure specific decisions against it, you don’t have a center — you have an aesthetic that will drift the moment growth accelerates.

• And finally: refuse to over-explain yourself. The brands that feel the most coherent over time are not the brands that have the most polished brand stories or the most articulate founders. They are the brands that have made their commitments structural — visible in what they make, where they sell it, who they associate with, and what they consistently decline to do — so that the communication doesn’t have to carry the full weight of the identity. The identity is already there. The communication simply confirms it.

  ---

  Check the performance of your brand.

The Brand Scan

Stüssy has been confirming the same identity for over forty years. That kind of consistency doesn’t come from a tone guide or a brand manual. It comes from a very clear and very held answer to the question: what kind of thing are we, and what would we have to stop being to compromise that?

Everything else follows from there.

Next up: The Brand Library — a curated collection of strategy resources, references, and reading for brands being built with intention. Coming soon.

Meanwhile join the conversation in the chat - here I’ll answer any of your marketing and branding questions and we can figure out how we can grow brands together.

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is a paid chapter. It goes deeper than the series so far — into the application, not just the thinking.

Subscribe now

Hiring a creative partner should feel like relief. Someone who can take what you’re building and translate it into something visible, something that lands, something that carries the brand into the world without you having to hold every pixel. That’s the promise. And occasionally, it’s what actually happens.

More often, it goes sideways in a way that nobody quite predicted. The work comes back looking competent but wrong — technically executed, emotionally off. Or it comes back looking beautiful but generic, like it could belong to any brand in any category. Or it comes back looking exactly like what you asked for, which is when you realize the problem was never with the designer. The problem was with the ask.

Working well with creative partners is a skill. Not a soft skill — a strategic one. And it breaks down in four distinct moments: before you write the brief, during the brief itself, while the work is in progress, and when feedback needs to happen. Each moment has its own failure mode. Each one is fixable if you know where the trap is.

Before you brief: the work that makes everything easier

The most common mistake in any creative partnership is arriving at the brief too quickly. There’s a particular kind of founder energy that moves fast — you know what you need, you have references, you’ve thought about this enough, let’s go. And that energy is not wrong. But it tends to produce briefs that describe what you want rather than what the work needs to do. Those are different things, and confusing them is where most creative partnerships begin to fail.

Before you write a single line of brief, there are three things worth getting clear on.

The first is the audience, specifically in this moment. Not your full audience — the person this specific piece of work is speaking to, in the specific context where they’ll encounter it. What do they already know about you? What are they skeptical about? What would make them stop and pay attention, and what would make them keep scrolling? This isn’t a persona exercise. It’s an act of genuine imagination: put yourself in the position of someone who doesn’t know your brand and ask what they actually need to receive from this work.

The second is the one job. Every piece of creative work has a job to do — ideally one job, clearly defined. Not five jobs. Not “we want it to feel premium and approachable and bold and also convert.” One thing. The most useful question to ask before briefing is: if this work does exactly what it’s supposed to do, what has changed for the person who encounters it? What do they now believe, feel, or decide that they didn’t before? That answer — specific, honest, grounded in the audience’s actual experience — is the foundation of a brief that a creative partner can actually work from.

Read more

This is a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

Upgrade to paid

Here is something nobody tells you when you’re building a brand: the closer you are to it, the worse your judgment about it becomes.

Not because you don’t care enough. Because you care too much — and in the wrong direction. You are starting from yourself, from your product, from your vision, from the very specific way you have come to understand what you’re building and why it matters. And then you’re sending that understanding outward, hoping it lands.

This is inside-out thinking. And almost every brand does it.

The problem isn’t conviction. Conviction is necessary. The problem is direction. Because your audience — the person you actually need to reach — isn’t starting from your vision. They’re starting from their own life, their own context, their own existing set of priorities that almost certainly do not include you. They’re not waiting to understand your brand. They’re busy. They’re overwhelmed with choice. They’re giving you a fraction of a second before deciding whether to keep going or move on.

Outside-in thinking flips the whole thing. Instead of asking what do we want to communicate, it asks what does this person need to feel, understand, or believe in order to choose us. Instead of starting with the brand and pushing it outward, it starts with the receiving end — the actual human experience of encountering you — and works backwards.

It sounds simple. It is genuinely hard to do, especially when you’ve been living inside your brand for months or years. But it’s the difference between a brand that makes sense to the people who built it and a brand that makes sense to everyone else.

See exactly where your brand stands — run the Brand Scan.

The Brand Scan

What inside-out actually looks like

Inside-out isn’t always obvious. It doesn’t announce itself. It shows up in specific, recognizable patterns that feel completely rational from the inside and land as noise from the outside.

It shows up in the brand that leads with its process. “We use only sustainably sourced materials, hand-selected by our team of expert artisans using traditional methods developed over forty years.” Deeply true, genuinely important to the people who built it — and invisible to the person who just wants to know if this is worth buying and whether it will arrive before Thursday.

It shows up in the website that explains the founding story on the homepage. A two-paragraph narrative about why the founders started this company, what frustrated them, what they set out to change. Meaningful context for someone already invested in the brand. Completely irrelevant to someone who landed there from a Google search and still doesn’t know what the product does.

It shows up in the mood board full of references that make perfect sense internally — the films, the designers, the cultural references that capture exactly the feeling the brand is going for — handed to a designer or agency with the expectation that they’ll somehow translate them into something that resonates with an audience who shares none of those references.

It shows up in the brief that says “we want to feel premium but approachable, bold but refined, minimal but warm.” Every one of those briefs is an inside-out brief. It describes how the brand wants to see itself. It tells the creative partner almost nothing about who they’re actually designing for, what that person currently thinks or feels, what would make them lean in or walk away.

None of this is stupid. All of it is understandable. It’s just the wrong starting point.

The outside-in shift

There's a concept in behavioral design called Jobs to Be Done — the idea that people don't buy products, they hire them to do a job in their life. Not a functional job necessarily, but an emotional one. They're not buying a skincare routine, they're hiring a feeling of being someone who takes care of themselves. They're not buying a project management tool, they're hiring the relief of feeling in control. The brand that understands the job — really understands it, at the emotional level not just the functional one — is the brand that knows what it needs to say before it says anything. That's outside-in thinking at its sharpest: start from the job the person is trying to get done, and work backwards to everything you build and communicate.

Not a persona. Not a target demographic defined by age range and income bracket. A real person, in a real moment, encountering your brand for the first time with zero context and no particular reason to care. What do they see? What do they feel? What question is already active in their mind before you’ve said a single word — and does anything you’re doing answer it?

The stranger doesn’t know your story. They don’t know your values. They don’t know that the naming was a three-month process or that the color palette is a reference to your grandmother’s kitchen.

They experience your brand as a collection of signals, arriving fast and in no particular order, and they form an impression — useful or not, clear or confusing, trustworthy or suspicious — before you’ve had a chance to explain anything.

That impression is your brand, from the outside. Not the strategy document. Not the brand guidelines. Not the intention. The impression.

Outside-in thinking asks: what impression are we actually creating? And it has to be honest about the gap between that and the impression we intend to create.

Because that gap — almost always larger than it looks from the inside — is where most brand work goes wrong.

Why this matters most when you’re briefing someone

The outside-in problem becomes most expensive at a specific moment: when you hand your brand to someone else.

A designer. A photographer. A creative agency. A copywriter. A content studio. Anyone external who has to translate what you’ve built into something visible, and who is working with only the information you give them.

This is the brief. And most briefs are so thoroughly inside-out that they make good creative work almost impossible.

Not because the people writing them aren’t smart. Because they’re writing from the only perspective available to them — the inside — without realizing that the person reading the brief needs something completely different. They need to understand the audience, not the founder. They need to know what the work has to do, not just what it should look like. They need a clear picture of the world this brand is entering, not just the world the founder has been living in.

When a designer doesn’t know who they’re designing for, they design for everyone. When a photographer doesn’t know what feeling the brand needs to create, they shoot something beautiful and vague. When an agency doesn’t understand what the brand actually needs to communicate, they produce something that looks professional and says nothing.

The work comes back and it’s fine. Technically competent. Visually coherent. Completely forgettable. And the founder looks at it and thinks the agency didn’t understand them, and the agency looks at it and thinks they executed the brief. Both of them are right. The brief was the problem.

What an outside-in brief actually looks like

An outside-in brief starts from a completely different place. Not from the brand, but from the person the brand is trying to reach — and specifically from what that person needs to feel, believe, or understand in order for the work to succeed.

It answers a different set of questions.

• Not who are we — but who is this for, specifically, and what is true about their life right now that makes this brand relevant to them.

• Not what do we want to say — but what does this person need to hear, and what format, register, or emotional tone will make them actually receive it.

• Not what does our brand stand for — but what do we need this specific piece of work to do, in the world, for a real person, in a specific moment.

• Not here are references we like — but here is what the experience of encountering this brand should feel like, and here is what would make someone who doesn’t know us trust us enough to stay.

The difference between these two sets of questions is enormous. The first set produces work that expresses the brand. The second produces work that connects it to a person. And connection — not expression — is what a brand actually needs to build.

A good outside-in brief is usually shorter than you think. It’s specific about the audience and the moment. It’s clear about what the work has to accomplish, not just what it should look like. It gives the creative partner a real problem to solve rather than an aesthetic to approximate. And it trusts them enough to solve it — which is the whole point of hiring someone good.

The practical version

If you’re about to brief a designer, agency, photographer, or any creative partner, try running these questions before you write a single word of the brief itself.

• Who, exactly, is this for? Not your full audience — the specific person this piece of work is speaking to, in the specific moment they’ll encounter it. What do they already know about you? What do they feel about the category? What are they skeptical about? What would make them stay?

• What does this work have to make them feel or believe? One thing. Not five things. The brief that asks a piece of creative work to be inspiring, educational, premium, accessible, and urgent at the same time is asking it to fail. One feeling, one belief, one shift. What is it?

• What would make this work fail? This is the question almost no brief answers — and it’s often the most useful one. What would make this land as generic? What would make it feel off-brand? What would make the target person dismiss it immediately? Knowing what failure looks like is as useful as knowing what success looks like.

• What does success look like — from their perspective, not yours? Not internally — not “this feels like us.” From the outside. How does the person who receives this work respond? What do they do, think, feel, decide? If the work does its job perfectly, what has changed?

Write those answers before you write the brief. Then let the brief follow from them. You’ll notice that the brief almost writes itself — because the decisions are already clear. You’re not describing a vibe. You’re describing a problem and a person. That’s something a good creative partner can actually work with.

One more thing

Outside-in thinking doesn’t mean you abandon your vision. It means you hold it alongside something equally important: an honest account of how that vision lands when it meets someone who isn’t you.

The brands that get this right aren’t the ones with the most refined internal clarity — though that matters. They’re the ones that treat the gap between intention and reception as useful information rather than a failure to be managed. They look outward constantly, not to chase what the audience wants, but to understand whether what they’re building is actually arriving.

Inside-out builds a brand you’re proud of.

Outside-in builds a brand other people actually feel.

The best ones do both.

Next chapter: How to write a brief that creative people actually want to work with — the inside-out vs outside-in brief, side by side, with a template you can use.

Meanwhile, join the chat — this is where we break things down in real time, answer questions, and turn ideas into clear direction.

This chapter is a personal one. The community asked me to share exactly how I grew The Art of Branding from 0 to 30,000 subscribers in just 3 months — the actual decisions, the things that worked, and the things that didn't. So here it is, as honest and specific as I can make it.

Upgrade to paid

What I can tell you upfront is that none of it was accidental. I treated this publication like a brand from the beginning — with a strategy, a structure, and a clear point of view about what I was building and who it was for. The growth followed from that clarity. Not overnight, and not without experimentation. But it followed.

Your name is your first brand decision

The first decision that mattered more than I initially realized was the name.

I launched the channel with my own name - Alina Sosnina (alinasosnina.substack.com). It made sense at the time. Personal brand, personal writing, personal voice. But within the first few weeks I changed it to The Art of Branding, and that decision changed everything.

Here’s why it matters. On Substack, your channel name is a signal — to readers, to the algorithm, and to Substack itself. A vague or personal name and even an abstract brand name tells no one what they’re going to get. The Art of Branding tells you exactly what it is. If you’re a founder, a brand strategist, a freelancer, or someone working in a marketing role, you immediately know whether this is for you or not. That clarity is what drives subscriptions from people who have never heard of you before.

The channels growing fastest have names that are immediately legible, like Art Direction by Zoë Yasemin (Art & Illustration category), Because of Marketing (Business category) by Rachel Haggins, How to AI (Education category) by Ruben Hassid. The name does the work before the content even loads. It claims a territory, attracts the right reader, and repels the wrong one — which is exactly what good positioning does.

Compare that to channels named after their creators or with abstract, poetic names. The content might be equally strong. The discoverability is not.

My advice: use your own name for your personal profile (@alinasosnina), but name your publication after the topic (theartofbranding.substack.com). Substack still has relatively few creators compared to Instagram or LinkedIn, which means good names are still available. Take one that is specific, clear, and owns a territory.

Pick your category deliberately

The second decision that shaped early growth was category selection. I chose Education as my primary category, with Business as secondary.

This wasn't random. I looked at which categories were growing but not yet oversaturated — where there was genuine audience demand but not so many established creators that a new publication would get buried. Education fit that criteria. It also simply made sense — The Art of Branding was built as a chapter-by-chapter playbook, not a news feed or opinion column. It was designed to teach, not just inform. Branding content specifically was underleveraged in that category, which meant that when Substack's algorithm looked for content to recommend to readers interested in that space, The Art of Branding had room to claim territory. Today, The Art of Branding ranks #49 in the Education category. In Business, where competition is significantly more saturated, that kind of visibility would have been much harder to earn.

Category is not just an administrative decision. It determines who discovers you organically, which creators you appear alongside, and whether Substack’s own recommendation engine sees you as relevant to its readers. Choose too broad a category and you’re invisible. Choose too niche and there’s no audience to find you. Find the category where your specific topic has genuine demand and genuine space — and where you have a realistic chance of standing out.

Build a series, not a blog

This is probably the single most important structural decision I made, and it’s the one most people overlook.

The Art of Branding is not a collection of posts. It’s a series of chapters. Every week, a new chapter. A logical progression from foundations to expression to strategy to execution — written so that it reads like an actual playbook for smart brands. Readers know what they’re getting, they know it’s building toward something, and they come back because they want to know what’s next.

I planned the chapter sequence before I wrote a single word. Starting from Brand Foundations and First Principles, then moving logically through Structure, Story, Taste, Visual Identity, and so on. Each chapter has a clear and catchy title and starts from where the last one ended. There’s a deliberate arc — not a stream of thoughts, but a journey with a direction. That’s what makes people binge the back catalogue when they discover you late. That’s what makes them come back every week. They’re not just reading content. They’re following a series.

Subscribe now

This matters for growth in two specific ways. First, it gives readers a reason to revisit. A single post, however good, is consumed and forgotten. A chapter in a series creates anticipation. People who discover you at Chapter 9 go back and read Chapters 1 through 8. The content compounds in a way that individual posts never do.

Second, it signals to Substack that your publication has structure and intent — that it’s a destination, not a feed. Series get recommended. Random posts get lost.

Visual language matters more than you think

The Art of Branding didn’t just sound considered — it looked considered. Cover images were arty, editorial, and intentionally aesthetic. Not just to fit the name, but to be reshare-worthy. If someone screenshots your cover and reposts it, the image needs to hold up on its own.

Most Substack creators write well and design nothing. But in a feed where first impressions happen in seconds, the image attached to your post is doing as much work as the headline. A generic stock photo signals generic content. A strong visual signals taste — and taste travels.

The visuals also created consistency across the series. Each chapter felt like it belonged to the same world, which made The Art of Branding feel like an actual brand rather than just a newsletter. Treat the visual identity with the same intention you bring to the writing. They’re not separate decisions.

Theory is free. Application is paid.

From the beginning I kept a clear distinction between what was free and what was paid. Free chapters cover the thinking — strategy, principles, cultural analysis, ideas. Paid chapters go into the application — tools, frameworks, templates, and step-by-step systems you can use immediately.

That distinction gave readers a clear reason to upgrade. Not just “subscribe to get more” but “subscribe to go from understanding to doing.” The free content proves that the thinking is worth following. The paid content delivers the tools to act on it.

Before I introduced the Substack paywall, I tested application content on Gumroad — standalone guides and frameworks that readers could purchase individually. It worked well and told me something important: people were willing to pay for the practical layer. That validated the model before I committed to it on Substack.

The separation also gave me editorial clarity. Every time I wrote a new chapter, the question was simple: is this theory or application? That single question decided where it lived. Simple systems make better decisions.

Starting a brand from scratch?

Brand Starter Guide

Frequency and timing

I started with one post per week. Then I experimented with two. Here’s what I learned.

Consistency matters more than frequency. One strong chapter per week that people save, share, and return to will grow your publication faster than two average ones. In the early stages especially, every post is an audition — for new readers discovering you for the first time, for the algorithm deciding whether to recommend you, for existing readers deciding whether to stay.

Some posts need time to land. A chapter published on Thursday might get most of its traffic the following Tuesday, when someone shares it in a Slack channel or a reader finally opens their inbox. Post again too quickly and you interrupt that slow burn. Give your best work room to breathe.

I also experimented with days of the week — Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday all performed well for me.

One thing that made a consistent difference regardless of day: posting in the timezone of your largest audience. My readers are predominantly in the US, with strong numbers in Nigeria, India and the UK. Posting at a time that works for US East Coast readers — even though I’m in the Netherlands — consistently outperformed posting at times that were convenient for me. Check your demographics. Post for them, not for yourself.

Notes are not optional

If you’re not posting Notes, you’re leaving significant growth on the table.

If you’re new to Substack, it can feel a bit overwhelming switching between your feed and your publication. But there’s a clear distinction between the two — and a separate strategy for each. Your publication is your website (theartofbranding.substack.com): long-form, structured, evergreen. Notes (@alinasosnina) is your social feed: short, frequent, and designed for discovery. They serve different purposes and they reach people at different moments.

Notes functions as a discovery engine in a way that your main publication doesn’t. People who have never subscribed to your newsletter can find you through Notes, read something that resonates, and click through to subscribe. It was one of my most consistent sources of new readers throughout the growth period.

I posted two Notes per day. Not promotional — not “new chapter out, go read it.” Content Notes. The formats that worked best were three things: visual notes featuring curated brand examples that were aesthetically interesting, strategic quotes pulled directly from my chapters, and book references relevant to branding and brand strategy.

The visual notes especially drove discovery. A well-curated image of a brand you find interesting, with a sharp observation attached, tells people more about your perspective in five seconds than a paragraph of explanation would. It signals taste. And on Substack, taste travels.

Commenting genuinely on other creators’ posts also matters. Not to get seen, but to actually engage with people whose work you respect. Substack is still small enough that real conversations happen, and those conversations bring audiences into contact with each other in ways that feel organic rather than transactional.

Chat is your community room

Notes brings people in. Chat is where you keep them.

I used the Chat feature as a dedicated space for the community to ask branding and marketing related questions, share what they were working on, and make connections with others in the same space. It’s less formal than a post and more direct than a comment — it feels like a room rather than a broadcast, which changes how people show up in it.

What made Chat genuinely useful beyond community building was that it became a direct line to what my readers were actually struggling with. When someone asks a question in Chat, they’re telling you exactly what they need. That feedback shaped the direction of several chapters — including this one, which exists because the community asked for it directly.

How Substack started recommending me

At some point, Substack started recommending The Art of Branding in its onboarding flow (you can see it through analytics) — to new users signing up to the platform. This accelerated growth significantly, with hundreds of new subscribers arriving daily at peak.

I can’t give you a formula for this because I don’t think there is one. What I can tell you is what I believe created the conditions for it: a crystal clear name, a well-chosen category, a series structure that demonstrated longevity and intent, consistent posting, and content quality that led to strong engagement. Substack recommends publications that its algorithm believes new users will stick with. Everything that makes a reader stay — clarity, consistency, depth, structure — is also what makes Substack confident enough to put you in front of new users.

Don’t chase this directly. Build the conditions for it. The recommendation is a consequence, not a target.

When to put up a paywall

I didn’t introduce a paid tier until The Art of Branding had reached 25K subscribers. That was a deliberate decision, and I’d make it again.

The free period is not a waiting room. It’s where trust is built. Every free chapter is an argument for why the paid content is worth it. By the time I introduced the paywall, readers had already spent months with the series — they knew the quality, they trusted the thinking, they understood what they were getting. The conversion from free to paid is much easier when that foundation exists.

Rushing the paywall is one of the most common mistakes early Substack creators make. If people don’t yet know what you stand for, they have no reason to pay for more of it. Build the audience first. Prove the value consistently. Then ask for the commitment.

When you do introduce paid, make the distinction clear. Don’t just lock random posts behind a wall. Give people a reason to upgrade that is specific and tangible — in my case, theory stays free, application is paid. That clarity is what makes the ask feel fair rather than arbitrary.

Top 3 performing chapters — and why they worked

Not all chapters perform equally, and the numbers tell you something useful if you read them right.

How to build a personal brand that actually works — 313 likes, 47 restacks

This was the highest performing chapter by a significant margin, and the reason is straightforward: it was the most universally applicable. Every single person reading The Art of Branding has a personal brand, whether they’ve thought about it that way or not. Founders, freelancers, strategists, marketers — the topic touched everyone in the audience simultaneously. It was also contrarian at the opening (”it’s not a content problem, it’s a positioning problem”) which is the single most reliable driver of shares on Substack. People restack things that make them feel like they’ve learned something they can immediately tell someone else.

One of the most restacked lines from that chapter: "Personal branding is not access to your life, it's access to your thinking." That single idea traveled further than the chapter itself.

The restack number is particularly telling. 47 restacks means 47 people thought “my audience needs to read this” — which is a different and stronger signal than a like. Likes are passive. Restacks are active distribution. When a chapter gets restacked heavily it means the idea traveled beyond your existing audience, which is exactly how you grow.

The Psychology of Brand Perception — 105 likes, 19 restacks

This performed well because it sat at the intersection of two things people are deeply curious about: why people make the decisions they make, and how brands can influence that. Psychology as a frame makes branding feel more scientific and credible — it elevates the conversation beyond aesthetics and into human behavior. That shift in register attracted a slightly different reader than usual, which is reflected in the engagement.

Why most brands fail at content — 63 likes, 7 restacks

Strong likes relative to restacks tells you something specific: this chapter resonated deeply with people who were already in your audience but didn’t travel as far beyond it. The topic is specific enough that it hit hard for the right reader — anyone who has sat in front of a blank content calendar feeling stuck recognized themselves immediately. But it was also specific enough that it didn’t pull in new readers the way the personal branding chapter did. Depth over breadth. That’s not a weakness — it’s what makes a series feel considered rather than chasing reach every week.

The pattern across all three: the chapters that perform best combine a universal pain point with a contrarian reframe. Personal branding reframed as positioning. Content failure reframed as structure. Perception reframed as psychology. That’s the formula worth repeating.

What didn’t work

Open rates drop as you scale — expect it. My earliest chapters had open rates of 54-67%. By the time the publication reached tens of thousands of subscribers, that dropped to 17-22%. This isn’t failure — it’s mathematics. A small, self-selected audience opens almost everything. A large, algorithmically driven audience is colder. Stop optimizing for open rates as a vanity metric. At scale, views and engagement matter more.

Too similar, too soon. Publishing Packaging chapter directly after Visual Identity chapter was a sequencing mistake. Both chapters dealt with brand expression through physical and visual systems — the audience had just processed one version of that argument and wasn’t ready for another. Packaging got a fraction of the views and engagement, not because the writing was weaker, but because the timing was wrong. Let one idea land before you introduce the next one in the same territory.

Too long, too early. Early chapters were longer than they needed to be. Length signals depth, but only if the reader is already invested. New readers need to be won in the first paragraph — sometimes the first sentence. If they don’t feel the pull immediately, the rest doesn’t matter. Earn the length. Don’t assume it.

Two posts a week was too much, too fast. When posting frequency increased in April, open rates dropped and engagement thinned across the board. Readers couldn't absorb one chapter before the next arrived. Some strong chapters got less attention than they deserved simply because of the noise around them. One well-timed chapter per week consistently outperformed two average-timed ones. Frequency creates output. Spacing creates impact.

On AI and your own voice

I switched from ChatGPT to Claude partway through the series, and it made a difference in editing quality. But the more important point is this: don’t write with AI. Edit with it.

The chapters that resonated most — the ones that got shared, that generated real responses, that people said felt written specifically for them — were the ones most grounded in my own experience, my own examples, my own point of view. The specific brands I’ve worked with and observed over years. That specificity is what builds trust. And trust is what converts readers into subscribers.

If you use Claude — and I do — upload your essays as a project so it understands your voice, your references, and your series arc. Use it as a thinking partner and an editor. Keep the thinking yours.

The chapter overview

For those who want to follow the full arc, here’s every chapter in The Art of Branding so far:

• Chapter 1: Branding as a system — foundations and first principles

• Chapter 2: Smart brands build structure before story

• Chapter 3: Your brand story is not your origin story

• Chapter 4: Why tasteful brands perform better

• Chapter 5: Visual identity as a storytelling layer

• Chapter 6: Packaging is where brands become real

• Chapter 7: Why storytelling is overrated in branding

• Chapter 8: Decision architecture — the hidden layer of every strong brand Chapter 9: Consistency is a growth strategy

• Chapter 10: 20 smart ways to elevate your brand

• Chapter 11: Positioning decides what grows and what never will

• Chapter 12: Why most brands fail at content

• Chapter 13: World-building brands vs. marketing brands

• Chapter 14: How to build a personal brand that actually works

• Chapter 15: What it actually means to be a cultural brand

• Chapter 16: The psychology of brand perception

• Chapter 17: How to build a content messaging framework (first paid post)

What to do next

• Pick a name that tells people exactly what they’re getting. Change it now if you need to — the earlier the better.

• Choose your category deliberately. Look at what’s growing, look at what’s crowded, find the space where your specific perspective has room.

• Plan your series before you write your first post. Decide the arc, name the essays/articles/chapters, and let readers know they’re on a journey. The structure is what makes people come back.

• Post Notes every day. Visual, opinionated, curated. Make them worth seeing even for people who haven’t subscribed yet.

• Use Chat as a community room, not just a comment section. Ask questions, answer honestly, and let your readers tell you what they need next. The best chapter ideas come from there.

• Keep theory free and application paid. Give people enough to trust you before you ask them to pay. The trust you build in the free period is what makes the paid conversion possible.

• Read your statistics regularly. Open rates, views, likes, and restacks tell you what's landing and what isn't. Don't just post and move on — look at the data, find the patterns, and let them inform what you write next.

• And write from your own experience. The specific, the personal, the hard-won — that’s what people pay for. Not information. Perspective.

Even if it’s only been 3 months, growing a Substack took countless hours of work. You need to spend real hours experimenting, researching, writing, testing, and adjusting — and then doing it again. The tools available now make the strategic side easier than it’s ever been, so use them. But the thinking, the voice, and the consistency — that part is still yours to do.

If this chapter was useful, I’d love to know. Drop your questions in the chat — I’m happy to go deeper on anything here. And of course I’m curious - what made you subscribe to this account?

This a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

This is a paid chapter. It goes deeper than the series so far — into the application, not just the thinking.

Subscribe now

There is a particular kind of freedom that comes from having already decided.

Not the freedom of infinite options, but the opposite — the freedom of knowing exactly what you’re doing and why, so that the creative work can actually begin. Most founders and early-stage brands don’t have that. They have ideas, energy, and a genuine belief in what they’re building. What they don’t have is a system that translates all of that into content without requiring a strategy session every single week.

That’s what a content messaging framework does. It’s not a content calendar. It’s not a mood board or a platform strategy or a list of trending formats. It’s a reference document — built once, refined over time — that tells you and everyone who works with you exactly what your brand stands for, what you talk about, why you talk about it, and how each piece of content connects back to something real. When you have it, you stop reinventing the wheel every Monday morning. You open the framework, find the pillar, read the purpose, and make something. The decision architecture is already there.

This matters even more as you grow. When it’s just you, your brand knowledge lives in your head — you know instinctively what fits and what doesn’t. But the moment you bring in a second person, an intern, a freelance designer, or a marketing team, that instinct doesn’t transfer automatically. Without a shared reference, every new contributor makes interpretive decisions based on incomplete information. The brand starts to sound slightly different depending on who’s posting. The framework solves that. It gives everyone the same starting point, the same filters, the same understanding of what the brand is actually trying to do — so that creative execution can scale without the consistency breaking down.

What follows is how to build one, layer by layer.

Positioning → Values → Pillars → Purpose → Themes → Formats

Each layer answers a different question. Together, they turn brand strategy into a repeatable content system.

Layer one: positioning

Everything starts here. Not with what you want to post, but with what you are actually building and who it is for.

Your positioning statement is not a tagline. It’s a working document — a precise articulation of what your brand does, who it serves, and what makes it distinct from everything else in the space. It should be specific enough to make some people say “this is exactly for me” and others say “this isn’t for me.” If everyone agrees it sounds great, it’s probably too vague to do any real work.

A useful positioning statement answers three things: what you offer, who specifically benefits from it, and what belief or approach makes your version of it different. It doesn’t need to be beautiful. It needs to be true and usable.

Throughout this framework, I’ll use ILANGA as the live example — a brand I built from the ground up, and one that forced me to apply every layer of this system in real conditions, not hypothetical ones. ILANGA is a material innovation company (B2B) working at the intersection of natural pigment, circular design, and the textile industry. Building it taught me more about content messaging than any client brief ever did, because the stakes were personal and the decisions were mine to get wrong.

Read more

This a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

Upgrade to paid

There is a moment — brief, almost imperceptible — that happens before any rational evaluation begins. You see a product on a shelf, a website, an Instagram grid, and something settles. You either feel it, or you don’t. Not a conclusion. A signal. An impression that arrives before you’ve read a single word or consciously registered a single choice.

This moment is not accidental. And it is not aesthetic.

It is the result of something far more structural: the way the human brain processes brand signals, builds patterns over time, and makes decisions it later dresses up in rational language.

Most branding conversations skip this entirely. They talk about recognition as though it were a function of visibility — as if showing up consistently is enough. But consistency is only half the equation. The other half is how perception forms in the first place, and why some brands earn trust almost instantly while others have to work for it indefinitely.

Building a brand from scratch?
Get the Brand Starter Guide today.

Get the Brand Starter Guide

Before the brain decides, it feels

Cognitive science has a term for this: processing fluency. It describes the ease with which the brain processes a stimulus — and, crucially, the feeling of ease itself becomes information. When something feels familiar, the brain interprets that familiarity as a signal of reliability. Not because familiarity guarantees quality, but because the brain is always running on pattern recognition, and patterns that repeat without contradiction get stored as safe.

This is why strong brands feel trustworthy before they’ve technically earned it. They have trained your brain’s pattern-recognition system, often across dozens of micro-encounters, to the point where encountering them again produces a sensation of knowing. That sensation is trust in its earliest form — not rationally derived, but somatically felt.

Rhode is a useful example. Hailey Bieber’s skincare brand launched in 2022 and reached a reported $212 million in revenue by the end of its second full year. What’s interesting is not the number itself, but the mechanism behind it. Rhode’s visual system — the muted palette, the tactile product texture, the particular quality of restraint in its photography — creates what might be called aesthetic coherence. Every touchpoint produces the same sensation. And that consistency, repeated across enough moments, generates something the brain interprets as trustworthy before any ingredient list has been read.

This is not to say Rhode succeeded on aesthetics alone. But aesthetics were not decorative. They were how the brand communicated a signal — premium but approachable, considered but not cold — faster than any campaign copy could.

The brain shortcuts to pattern

The technical term is heuristic processing. In conditions of complexity or information overload — which is, simply, the condition of modern consumer life — the brain stops evaluating and starts matching. It looks for signals that map to known patterns, and when it finds them, it extends the associations attached to those patterns.

This is why brand visual systems matter at a level that goes beyond aesthetic preference. When a brand maintains consistent spacing, consistent typographic hierarchy, consistent image direction — the brain registers not just the individual elements but the logic behind them. And a brand that appears to operate by an internal logic reads as intentional. Intentionality reads as competence. Competence reads as trustworthiness.

The Row has cultivated this with almost surgical precision. The restraint is so consistent, so absolute, that encountering a The Row product — or even an image of one — produces an immediate sense of credibility. You know what you’re in before you’ve evaluated anything. The price point feels right before you’ve seen it. The quality feels assumed. None of this is accidental. The Row has trained perception at scale, which is arguably its most important commercial achievement.

Familiarity without recognition is the quiet engine

There is a cognitive phenomenon called the mere exposure effect, first described by Robert Zajonc in 1968: people develop preferences for things simply because they have been exposed to them repeatedly, often without conscious awareness of that exposure. You don’t need to remember seeing something for it to influence how you feel about it.

For brands, this has an important implication. Much of what brand equity actually is — that intangible quality that makes some brands feel worth more, feel safer, feel like the obvious choice — is accumulated familiarity working below the threshold of conscious recall.

This is also why brand consistency is so structurally important, and why dilution is so costly. Every time a brand drifts — shifts its visual logic, changes its tone unexpectedly, presents something that doesn’t match the accumulated pattern — it doesn’t just create inconsistency. It creates a small rupture in the signal. The brain, which was building a pattern, registers a contradiction. And contradictions are friction. Friction is distrust.

Tony’s Chocolonely understands this intuitively, from the opposite direction. Where most brands in its category compete on taste or provenance, Tony’s has maintained such a consistent signal — the chaotic wrapper design, the unequally divided chocolate bar, the obsessive transparency around supply chain — that encountering the brand produces an immediate orientation before you’ve read anything.

The uneven bar is not a design accident. It represents the inequality still present in the chocolate industry — the fact that the people who grow the cocoa rarely share in the value it generates. Every time someone breaks a piece, the bar makes the argument physically. It is one of the cleaner examples of a brand encoding its entire reason for existing into a product decision, so completely that the product becomes the message.

The brain has been trained to associate that particular combination of loudness and moral clarity with a specific kind of brand. Not just a chocolate company. A position. No explanation required — because the explanation is already built into the object itself.

Trust is not built — it is accumulated

This distinction matters more than it sounds.

Building suggests an intentional, sequential process. Accumulation is something else: it happens gradually, through repetition, across contexts, often without the brand making any dramatic statement at all. Trust accumulates in the small moments — the moment the packaging feels right, the moment the interface responds the way you expected, the moment the email sounds exactly like the website. Each of these moments is individually tiny. Together, they compound.

This is the mechanism behind what makes luxury brands operate the way they do. The trust that attaches to a house like Chanel or an object like a Leica camera was not built through any single gesture. It was accumulated across decades of micro-encounters, all of which confirmed the same underlying signal: this is what we are, this is how we behave, this has not changed.

The psychological effect of that accumulated confirmation is enormous. By the time a new customer encounters the brand, they are inheriting a trust that was built long before them — and that inherited trust requires very little additional justification.

Brands at earlier stages of development tend to underestimate this. They want trust to be explicit, communicable, provable. But trust at the level of perception is not won through argument. It is won through accumulation — which is another way of saying it is won through time and consistency.

What disrupts trust formation

If consistency builds the pattern, disruption breaks it. But not all disruption is equal, and this is worth examining carefully.

There is a difference between the kind of evolution that a brand like Apple has practiced for decades — refining the same underlying logic, applying it to new forms — and the kind of disruption that reads as contradiction. Apple has changed almost every surface-level element of its brand since the 1990s. The products look different. The campaigns look different. The retail spaces have evolved substantially. But the underlying principle — reduce complexity, remove friction, prioritize clarity — has remained so stable that the brain’s pattern file for Apple is not confused by change. The changes are absorbed into the pattern because they all follow the same logic.

Contrast this with brands that shift more fundamentally — changing positioning, altering tone, adopting a different visual register in response to trend or performance pressure. Each of these shifts requires the brain to do new work. It has to re-evaluate. And re-evaluation resets a portion of the accumulated trust.

This is why rebrands are structurally expensive, regardless of how good the new work is. The problem is not quality. The problem is interruption. Every year of accumulated pattern is, to some degree, a sunk cost when the pattern changes.

How the brain decides what a brand is worth

Pricing psychology and brand perception are more deeply connected than most brand conversations acknowledge.

The brain uses a range of heuristics to evaluate whether a price is appropriate — and these heuristics are not primarily rational. Visual quality, spatial generosity, material weight, and response time all function as proxies for value. A brand that uses expensive-feeling whitespace, a careful typographic hierarchy, unhurried copy, and photography that looks like it cost something — all of these elements inform the brain’s price expectation before any number has been seen.

Typology has made this structural. The brand’s commitment to ingredient transparency and stripped-back packaging sends a signal that is technically about honesty, but which also encodes a particular kind of sophistication. The brain interprets restraint as confidence. Confidence as quality. Quality as worth paying for. The result is a mid-range product that carries a perception architecture that punches considerably above its category.

This is the commercial consequence of perception management done well. It is not manipulation — it is alignment. When what a brand signals and what a brand delivers converge, perception and reality reinforce each other, and trust deepens.

Emotion as architecture, not ornament

One of the most persistent misunderstandings in branding is that emotional resonance is a layer added on top of strategy — something that happens in the campaign, in the copy, in the founder story. But emotion is not ornament. It is architecture.

Antonio Damasio’s research on emotion and decision-making demonstrated that people with damage to the emotional centers of the brain lose the ability to make decisions effectively — even decisions that appear to be purely rational. Emotion is not the opposite of reason. It is part of the infrastructure through which reason operates.

For brands, this means that the emotional signals a brand produces — through visual systems, through spatial environments, through the quality of its interactions — are not feel-good additions. They are decision infrastructure. They shape what people choose, often before any conscious evaluation begins.

This is why brands like The Row or COS do not need to produce emotional content in the conventional sense. They don’t need campaigns that make people cry or copy that tugs at something personal. The emotion is produced by the experience of the brand itself — by the spatial quality of the retail environment, by the physical weight of the garment, by the accumulated consistency of the visual system. These are emotional signals delivered without sentimentality.

The practical implication

Understanding how perception forms changes what brand consistency means. It is not a discipline imposed for aesthetic reasons, or because someone on the team cares about brand guidelines. It is a functional requirement for how trust accumulates in the brain.

Every inconsistency is not just a visual problem. It is a signal problem. It interrupts pattern formation. It introduces friction into the brain’s evaluation process. It requires the audience to do work they would not have had to do if the signal had held.

And every consistent encounter — however small, however unremarkable from the inside — is the opposite. It adds a data point to the pattern. It deepens the groove. It makes the brand marginally more familiar, marginally more fluent to process, marginally more trustworthy, in a way that is invisible in any single moment but enormous in aggregate.

This is not an argument for rigidity. It is an argument for structural intentionality. The brands that understand how perception forms don’t just create consistency for its own sake. They build systems that generate consistent signals across every dimension — visual, verbal, spatial, experiential — because they understand that every one of those dimensions is contributing to the same pattern the brain is building.

That pattern is the brand.

Most content frameworks skip from positioning directly to output — from what you stand for to what you post. But what sits in between is the layer that determines whether content accumulates into perception or just accumulates into a feed. Next, I’ll lay out the decision framework for content that actually builds recognition, piece by piece, over time.

This a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

Subscribe now

There is a version of brand strategy that has become so common it has stopped meaning anything. It shows up in pitch decks and brand guidelines and founder interviews, and it sounds something like this: we are building a community around shared values. The word community, deployed this way, is doing enormous work while saying almost nothing. It implies belonging without defining who belongs. It suggests culture without engaging with any specific one. It performs warmth while remaining structurally vague.

This is the language of brands that want cultural relevance without doing the cultural work. And it is worth being honest about what that gap actually costs — not just ethically, but strategically.

What a cultural brand actually is

Before getting into inclusion, it’s worth defining the term that gets used almost as loosely. A cultural brand is not simply a brand that references culture — that would include almost everything. It is a brand that is genuinely embedded in a specific cultural context: a set of values, aesthetics, histories, and ways of seeing the world that belong to a real group of people, and that the brand has engaged with seriously enough to be considered part of that world rather than looking in from the outside.

Cultural brands don’t observe culture from a distance and translate it into campaigns. They emerge from within a cultural logic and build outward from there.

Their products, aesthetics, language, and relationships are shaped by that origin — not applied over the top of a generic brand infrastructure.

This distinction matters because it changes what inclusion means structurally. A brand that is genuinely cultural is not inclusive as a communication strategy. It is inclusive as a consequence of how it was built — who was in the room, whose problem it was solving, whose aesthetic it was fluent in from the beginning. Inclusion, in this sense, is not an initiative. It is an origin.

The brands that get this wrong — and there are many — are the ones that built a generic infrastructure first and then tried to diversify the faces on top of it. The product was designed for a default audience. The aesthetic was calibrated to a default sensibility. The language assumed a default cultural reference point. And then, at some later stage, the brand decided to become more inclusive. So it changed the casting. It partnered with creators from underrepresented communities. It released a campaign in a new cultural register. The imagery shifted. The underlying structure didn’t.

Audiences — particularly the audiences these efforts are meant to reach — are extremely good at sensing that gap. Not because they are looking for reasons to distrust brands, but because the gap is real and it shows up everywhere: in which problems the product actually solves, in whose aesthetic it fluently speaks, in whether the cultural references feel borrowed or lived.

Scan your brand with these five lenses covering structure, positioning, story, voice, and decision-making, so you can see clearly what’s working, what isn’t, and where to focus.

→ Get the Brand Scan

Culture-led vs. culturally relevant: why the distinction matters

These two phrases get used interchangeably. They shouldn’t.

A culturally relevant brand understands the cultural context its audience inhabits and communicates fluently within it. It knows the references, the aesthetics, the tensions. It doesn’t feel out of place. Cultural relevance is about legibility — being readable and credible to a specific audience. It is something a brand can develop over time through attention, proximity, and consistency. It is valuable. It is also, on its own, insufficient.

A culture-led brand goes further. It doesn’t just speak a cultural language — it originates from within one. The product, the aesthetic, the founding logic, the team, the relationships — all of it emerged from inside a cultural context rather than being calibrated toward one after the fact. Culture-led brands don’t study a culture to reach it. They are already inside it. The brand is an expression of that context, not a translation of it.

The practical difference shows up most clearly under pressure. A culturally relevant brand can lose its relevance — through a misstep, a change in aesthetic direction, a campaign that misreads the room. It has to maintain relevance actively, because relevance is a perception that exists in the audience’s mind and has to be continuously earned. A culture-led brand has something more durable: a structural origin that doesn’t disappear when the campaign ends. It can make mistakes and recover because the underlying credibility is structural, not communicative.

Most brands are aiming for cultural relevance. The stronger ambition — and the harder one — is to be culture-led from the start.

Fenty and the product argument

Fenty Beauty remains the clearest illustration of what structural inclusion actually looks like — not because it is the most recent example, but because it made the argument so cleanly that it’s impossible to misread.

When Rihanna launched with 40 foundation shades in 2017, the decision was not a diversity initiative layered onto an existing product strategy. The product was the strategy. The gap Fenty identified was not a communications gap or a representation gap in advertising. It was a product gap: an entire spectrum of skin tones that the beauty industry had systematically excluded from its core offering, not out of malice but out of a default assumption about who the primary customer was.

Subscribe now

Fenty didn’t add inclusion to a beauty brand. It built a beauty brand from an inclusive premise — meaning the product architecture, the shade range, the formulation decisions, and the retail strategy were all shaped by a starting question that most beauty brands had never seriously asked: what if we designed for everyone from the beginning?

The result was not just cultural goodwill. It was market capture and industry disruption. Competitors who had operated for decades without a full shade range suddenly discovered, within months of Fenty’s launch, that they needed one. The structural decision — build the product for the full range of customers, not the assumed default — produced both the cultural resonance and the commercial outcome. The inclusion wasn’t a value added to the brand. It was the value proposition.

This is the cleanest version of the argument: genuine inclusion begins at the product level, not the campaign level. If the product was designed with a narrow default customer in mind, everything downstream — the casting, the partnerships, the language — is running to catch up with a structural reality that was already fixed at the brief stage.

Why “culturally relevant” became meaningless

Cultural relevance is now one of the most overused phrases in brand strategy, which means it has become almost useless as a concept. Every brand claims it. Few can define what it means for them specifically.

In its most honest form, cultural relevance means that a brand is fluent in a cultural context that its audience inhabits — that it understands the references, the aesthetics, the values, and the tensions of that world well enough to participate in it credibly rather than just gesture toward it. It is earned through proximity, consistency, and genuine engagement, not through a campaign or a collaboration or a carefully chosen brand ambassador.

The distinction worth making is between brands that are culturally relevant and brands that are culturally opportunistic. Culturally relevant brands have a genuine relationship with a cultural context that predates any specific campaign. Culturally opportunistic brands identify a cultural moment and move toward it — borrowing its language, its aesthetics, its credibility — without having built the underlying relationship that would make that borrowing feel legitimate.

Building a brand from scratch?
Get the Brand Starter Guide today.

Get the Brand Starter Guide

The problem is not that culturally opportunistic brands are dishonest. Often they are entirely sincere. The problem is structural: they are trying to achieve through communication what can only be achieved through presence. And the audience, which has been present, knows the difference.

Supreme is a useful counterexample. Its cultural relevance to skateboarding and New York street culture was not manufactured — it was built through years of genuine embeddedness before the brand became globally recognized. The positioning, the distribution decisions, the collaborations, the language — all of it emerged from within a cultural logic rather than being applied over the top of one. By the time Supreme became a global phenomenon, the cultural credibility was already structural. It couldn’t be separated from the brand because it was the brand.

The overuse of “community”

The word community deserves particular attention because it has become the default language for brands attempting to signal cultural relevance without committing to anything specific.

In its original meaning, a community is a group of people with genuine shared experience, history, or context — people who have a relationship with each other, not just a shared relationship with a brand. Most brands that use the word are describing something structurally different: an audience with shared interests, or a customer base with overlapping demographics, or a group of people who follow the same account. These are real things. They are not communities in any meaningful sense.

The problem with using the word indiscriminately is that it raises expectations the brand cannot meet. Community implies reciprocity, genuine investment, and a relationship that flows in both directions. When a brand claims to be building community and then operates as a one-directional content machine — publishing, broadcasting, performing values — the gap between the claim and the reality becomes its own form of inauthenticity.

More specifically, brands that invoke “community” as a shorthand for diverse or underrepresented audiences are doing something that deserves to be named clearly: they are using the language of belonging to signal inclusion without creating the structural conditions for it.

The word sounds warm. It implies that people are seen and valued. But if the product wasn’t designed with those people in mind, if the team doesn’t reflect them, if the relationships were built after the brand was already established — the word is doing cosmetic work on a structural absence.

The more useful question is not “how do we build community?” but “with whom do we have a genuine relationship, built over time, that predates any specific campaign?” The answer to that question tells you something real about where your cultural credibility actually lies — and where you’re borrowing it.

What inclusion by design actually requires

Inclusion by design is not a communications brief. It is an organizational and strategic reality that becomes visible through communication — not the other way around.

It starts at the product stage. The most foundational question is whether the product or service was designed with a genuinely broad range of people in mind from the beginning — whose problem it is solving, whose body or context or experience shaped the brief. Fenty is the obvious example because it made this argument at scale. But the same principle applies to software products that default to Western interface conventions, to hospitality brands that assume a particular cultural definition of luxury, to financial products designed around assumptions about how money moves through households that don’t hold universally.

It continues at the team level. The brands with the most durable cultural credibility are almost always the ones where the internal team reflects the cultural context the brand operates in — not as a diversity metric, but as a functional reality that shapes decisions at every stage. Who is in the room when a product decision gets made determines what assumptions get questioned and what gets treated as obvious. That is not a values argument. It is a design argument.

It shows up in relationships built before they’re needed. Brands that are genuinely embedded in cultural contexts have relationships with those communities that predate any specific campaign or moment of cultural pressure. Those relationships were built through consistent, non-instrumental presence — showing up because it was structurally aligned with what the brand was building, not because a cultural moment created an incentive to appear relevant. When those relationships exist, they are visible. When they don’t, their absence is equally visible.

And it requires that values function as constraints, not as assets. A value that only appears in communication — in a manifesto, a campaign, a set of words on a website — is not structural. It is a positioning claim. Structural values cost something to maintain. They mean turning down partnerships that conflict with them, making product decisions that protect them even when commercially inconvenient, holding a position when growth pressure pushes against it. That friction is not a problem. It is the evidence that the value is real.

The credibility gap

There is a version of this conversation that treats inclusion as a risk management problem — how to avoid backlash, how to appear culturally fluent, how to signal the right things without overcommitting. That framing produces exactly the behavior it is trying to avoid.

Brands that approach cultural relevance instrumentally — as a means to reach a market rather than as a genuine orientation toward a cultural context — tend to produce work that the target audience reads immediately as instrumental. Not because audiences are cynical, but because they are perceptive. They have been inside the cultural context the brand is gesturing toward. They know what genuine fluency looks and sounds like. And they know when it’s missing.

The brands that build lasting cultural credibility are the ones that started from inside a cultural logic rather than approaching one from the outside. They didn’t add inclusion to their brand strategy. They built from an inclusive premise and let everything else follow from that. The communication became credible because the structure was already credible. The campaign worked because the product worked. The relationship felt real because it was real.

That is a higher bar than most brand strategies are built to clear. But it is also the only one that produces something durable — a brand that doesn’t need to prove its cultural relevance every few years because the relevance is already structural, already visible in the product and the team and the relationships, already there before anyone needed to say anything about it.

Next chapter: The psychology of brand perception

In the next chapter, I'll go deeper into something most branding conversations skip entirely: the psychology behind how brand perception actually forms — why people trust certain brands before they can explain why, and what that means for how you build.

This a playbook for smart brands. Each chapter is shaped by years of experience in branding, sharing how to build brands that are human, intentional, and culturally relevant.

If you’re stuck overthinking branding — or waiting for more budget, more people, or more polish — this is for you. Clarity over complexity. And yes, you can save time, money, and resources along the way.

Subscribe now

Personal branding has a reputation problem.

Somewhere between LinkedIn thought leadership and the relentless self-promotion of early-stage founder culture, the concept got flattened into something that feels simultaneously exhausting and inescapable. Post consistently. Share your journey. Be authentic. Build in public. The advice is everywhere, and most of it treats personal branding as a content problem — a question of frequency, format, and platform strategy.

It isn’t.

Personal branding is a positioning problem. And like all positioning problems, it starts not with what you say, but with what you decide.

Upgrade to paid

What a personal brand actually is

A personal brand is not your aesthetic. It’s not your posting cadence or your tone of voice or the fact that you always wear the same color. Those are expressions of something — but they’re not the thing itself.

A personal brand is the specific territory you occupy in other people’s minds. It’s the answer to the question: when this person’s name comes up, what do people immediately associate it with? What do they expect? What do they trust you to have a view on — and what would surprise them coming from you?

That territory is built through decisions, not content. The content makes it visible. The decisions make it real.

This matters because most people approach personal branding backwards. They start with the output — what to post, how often, which platform — without first defining the position. The result is a feed that’s active but incoherent. Lots of content, no accumulation. Visibility without recognition.

Recognition is what you’re actually building. And recognition requires that people encounter the same version of you, repeatedly, across enough contexts that a pattern forms. That pattern is your brand.

Just started a brand and need a good system in place? Start here:

Get the Brand Starter Guide

The strategic question most people skip

Before you think about content, answer this: what is the one thing you want to be known for?

Not five things. Not a range. One thing, expressed with enough specificity that it immediately excludes some people and draws others in.

This is where most founders and creators hesitate. Narrowing feels like shrinking. If you position yourself around one idea, one lens, one territory — what about everything else you know, everything else you care about, everything else you could offer?

The answer is that everything else still exists. You don’t lose it. But positioning is not about the full range of what you are. It’s about what you want the market to reach for you for. And the market can only reach for you if it knows exactly where you stand.

Look at how this works in practice.

Virgil Abloh was a trained architect who could speak credibly about music, fashion, furniture, visual art, and cultural theory. He didn’t present himself as a polymath. He positioned himself at the intersection of streetwear and high culture — the person who understood both worlds and could move between them. That specific position is what made him irreplaceable, first to Kanye West, then to LVMH. The breadth was real. The positioning was narrow. Both things were true simultaneously.

Paola Antonelli, senior curator at MoMA, is one of the most influential voices in contemporary design — but not because she covers all of design. She has spent decades championing design as a cultural and social force, not just an aesthetic one. That specific lens has made her the person institutions call when they want design to mean something beyond the object. She didn’t become that by posting broadly about design. She became that by returning to the same argument, in different contexts, until it was understood as hers.

The territory you choose should be specific enough to be ownable, and broad enough to be generative. Too narrow, and you run out of things to say. Too broad, and nothing sticks. The test is whether someone could, in one sentence, explain what you stand for — to someone who has never heard of you.

Your lens, not your life

One of the most common mistakes in personal branding is confusing transparency with relevance. The assumption is that sharing more of yourself — your process, your doubts, your daily life — builds connection. Sometimes it does. But connection and positioning are not the same thing.

What builds a personal brand strategically is not access to your life. It’s access to your thinking. Specifically, the way you think about the territory you’ve claimed.

Your lens is the consistent perspective you bring to your subject. It’s what makes your take on a familiar topic feel different from everyone else’s. It’s not your personality — it’s your intellectual position. And it should be stable enough that people who follow you for six months have a clear sense of what you believe, not just what you’ve been up to.

Issa Rae could have positioned herself as a TV creator. Instead her lens became something more specific: that Black stories shouldn't just be told — they should be owned, distributed, and built into infrastructure by the people who create them. That position runs through everything she's built, from Insecure to Hoorae to Raedio to Ensemble, a creator network connecting brands with diverse storytellers. The shows change, the formats change, the industries change. The lens doesn't. And because the lens is clear, every new venture feels like an extension of the same argument rather than a distraction from it.

Rick Rubin could have positioned himself as a music producer. Instead his lens became something far more specific: reduction as the primary creative act — the belief that the most powerful version of anything is what remains after everything unnecessary has been removed. That lens has held across hip-hop, metal, country, pop, and spoken word, from the Beastie Boys' debut to Johnny Cash's American Recordings to Adele's 21 to The Creative Act, his book on creativity that found an audience well beyond music. The genres changed completely. The method never did. And because the position was clear, each new collaboration read as an extension of the same argument rather than a departure from it — which is precisely why his name carries authority in rooms that have nothing to do with each other.

Your lens should do the same. It should make certain things obviously yours, and make other things feel off-brand — not because you can’t do them, but because they don’t fit the logic you’ve established. That logic is the structure beneath the content.

Consistency as a compounding mechanism

Once the territory is defined and the lens is clear, the work becomes consistency. And consistency in personal branding doesn’t mean repetition — it means returning to the same position from different angles, in different contexts, with increasing depth.

This is how positions become ownable over time.

In the early stages, you’re introducing an idea. Most people in your audience are encountering it for the first time, and the job is clarity — making the position legible as quickly as possible. Later, the job shifts. The audience already knows what you stand for. Now the goal is to deepen it — to show the position applying in unexpected contexts, to test it against friction, to bring in new evidence and new examples that expand what the territory can hold.

Brands that feel stale at this stage are usually ones that haven’t made this shift. They’re still introducing themselves to an audience that already knows them. The content doesn’t evolve because the thinking hasn’t evolved — and the audience eventually stops paying attention, not because they’ve lost interest in the person, but because they’ve stopped learning anything new.

The antidote is not to change direction. It’s to go deeper. Strong personal brands are not built by people who pivot — they’re built by people who return, repeatedly, to the same questions, with increasingly sophisticated answers.

Subscribe now

When you’re a founder: the relationship between personal brand and company brand

If you’re building a company alongside a personal brand, the relationship between the two requires deliberate management. They can reinforce each other enormously — but only if they’re structurally aligned. When they’re not, they create confusion about what each one stands for.

The most functional version of this relationship is one where the personal brand and the company brand share a lens but occupy different territories. The founder’s personal brand is broader — it encompasses their perspective on an industry, a culture, a set of ideas. The company brand is narrower — it applies that perspective to a specific product, service, or customer. The founder’s visibility creates credibility for the company. The company’s results give the founder’s ideas material grounding.

Solange is a useful example of this done right. Her personal brand — built through music, performance, and a very specific public sensibility around Black cultural authorship and preservation — created the credibility and community that made Saint Heron possible. But Saint Heron was always a separate thing. It had its own editorial logic, its own expanding structure as a platform, studio, and creative agency, its own mission of preserving and uplifting Black and Brown artists that could operate independently of Solange's visibility. She has described it explicitly as not wanting it to be seen as "the Solange project." The lens was shared — worldmaking, cultural preservation, intentionality. The structures were separate. And that separation is what allows Saint Heron to grow into an institution rather than remaining a personal project.

This separation matters operationally. If your company brand is entirely dependent on your personal presence — if the business would stop feeling coherent the moment you stepped back from posting — that’s a structural vulnerability, not a brand strategy. The personal brand should open doors for the company. It should not be the only thing keeping those doors open.

The practical test: could someone encounter your company’s product, website, or content without knowing who founded it — and still have a clear sense of what it stands for? If yes, you’ve built something structural. If no, the brand lives entirely inside your personal output, and that’s worth addressing.

What to actually do

• Define your territory before you build your content. One specific intersection — industry plus perspective, or audience plus belief — that you can own and deepen over time. Make it narrow enough to be recognizable, broad enough to be generative.

• Identify your lens — the consistent way you approach that territory. Not your personality, not your aesthetic. Your intellectual position. The argument you keep making in different forms.

• Choose your primary platform based on where your audience already goes to think, not just to scroll. A personal brand built on depth belongs somewhere depth is possible — long-form writing, podcast, video essay, newsletter. Platforms that reward surface-level engagement will gradually flatten your positioning if you let them set the agenda.

• Publish at a pace you can sustain for three years, not three months. Consistency over time is the mechanism. Burnout resets everything.

• Let the company brand have its own logic. Feed it with your perspective, but don’t make it dependent on your presence. The goal is two things that reinforce each other — not one thing carrying the weight of both.

And finally: be patient with the lag. Personal brands compound slowly and visibly only after a long invisible period. The people who build the most recognizable ones are rarely the ones who optimized hardest in year one. They’re the ones who were still saying the same thing, more precisely, in year four.

Next chapter: When brands try to be cultural.

There’s a difference between a brand that participates in culture and one that opportunizes it. One builds meaning over time. The other extracts it. Next chapter, we’ll look at how to tell the difference — and which side of that line your brand is actually on.

Meanwhile, join the chat — this is where we break things down in real time, answer questions, and turn ideas into clear direction.