Why brand projects die in the approval round

Sinh Vũ has witnessed many brand projects go through all the steps systematically: a clear brief, a solid strategy, and well-founded design. Then comes the presentation to the leadership team, and everything comes to a halt. Not because the design is wrong. But because six people in the room are using six different measures to evaluate the same outcome.

The approval round does not fail due to poor design

One member says “it doesn’t look premium enough.” Another says “the logo needs to be stronger.” A third says “our competitors do it differently.” They are not in conflict with the design. They are in conflict with each other. They haven’t agreed on what “premium” is, what “stronger” means, or whether competitors are relevant to the brand’s direction.

The designer receives a list of revision requests from various directions. Version two is created to please one person, inadvertently losing what another person approved in version one. The third round repeats this structure. No one is wrong in each individual step, but the project keeps going in circles due to one missing element: a common set of criteria agreed upon beforehand.

Criteria must be established before design

The problem cannot be solved by adding more options. Adding more samples only makes the meeting room noisier, because now everyone can pick the sample that suits their own taste and call it an “opinion.” Nor can it be solved by asking the director to make the final call. A decision imposed from the top leaves hesitation in later implementation at the levels below.

The only way to make it work is to ask the right questions at the right time: before any images are drawn. When there is nothing to like or dislike, people are forced to discuss using objective language rather than subjective feelings.

A brand is not what you say about it. A brand is what others say about it.

A brand is not what you say it is. It’s what they say it is.

Marty Neumeier, The Brand Gap

Neumeier reminds us that a brand exists in the perception of outsiders, not in the feelings of those inside. Likewise, the criteria for approving a design must come from the question “what will the target customer feel,” not “how do I feel about it.”

Workshop structure gathers criteria

Sinh Vũ often suggests a separate working session, before the design phase, with all those who have final approval authority. This session does not discuss colors or fonts. It addresses fundamental questions whose answers will serve as the benchmarks for all subsequent design decisions.

The first part of the workshop focuses on clarifying the business context: what problem does this brand need to solve in the next twelve to twenty-four months? This is a question about market positioning, not aesthetics. You want the target customers to change their perceptions in what direction after engaging with the new brand.

The second part sets out pairs of opposites to force the team to choose a position. For example: where does this brand want to stand between “solid tradition” and “modern innovation”? Between “approachable and friendly” and “professional with distance”? There are no right or wrong answers, but there must be an agreed one. When the team cannot reach agreement at this step, it signals a strategic contradiction that needs to be resolved before spending a single dong on design.

The third part builds a list of five to seven evaluation criteria. Each criterion is written as a specific sentence, and the whole team signs to agree. An example criterion: “Looking at the logo, customers in the finance industry sense stability and control.” This criterion can be tested and does not depend on personal taste.

The criteria document is an internal contract

The outcome of the workshop is a short criteria document, one to two pages long, not a PowerPoint summary. The document clearly states the business objectives of the project, the brand position to be achieved, and the profile of the target customer. It also lists the evaluation criteria in order of priority, along with the signatures of each participant.

These minutes serve as an internal contract. When the design is presented, the conversation is no longer “I like it or I don’t” but “does this option meet criteria two and five?” If it doesn’t, the designer knows exactly what to adjust. If it does, someone who personally dislikes it will find it hard to veto, because they signed off on the criteria themselves beforehand.

When is the workshop insufficient

The criteria workshop addresses the issue of multiple approvers, but there is a prerequisite: those in the room must truly represent the final decision-making authority. If the workshop is held at a mid-level and the results must be presented to someone else who did not participate, the measure will not bind the actual decision-maker. The emotional loop will repeat.

The second scenario where the workshop fails to resolve issues is when disagreements among leadership members are not about brand criteria but about the strategic direction of the company. If two founders have different visions for the target market in the next five years, brand design cannot bridge that conflict. The workshop will reveal this, and that is a valuable outcome, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable.

Design to amplify the existing reality of the organization, not to hide it.

Wally Olins, On Brand

When you invest in a brand project serious enough to invite the entire leadership team to the approval round, remember this. The cost of a workshop to establish criteria beforehand is the smallest investment in the entire project. It is also the quickest return on investment. It does not extend the overall timeline but shortens the number of loops afterward.