Internal brief conflicts: why the studio needs alignment before starting

The brief arrives at the studio, complete and well-presented. However, on the second page, the "brand direction" section contains two paragraphs written in completely different directions. Upon inquiry, it turns out one person wrote the first part, and another wrote the second part, and they hadn't met to discuss it before sending. This is not an uncommon story. For companies with a founding council or a large leadership team, this is almost a rule.

The requirements description is not the place to resolve disagreements

The requirements description is the deliverable, not a negotiation document. When strategic disagreements remain unresolved internally, they do not disappear when packaged into a document and sent to the studio. They simply become less visible, and therefore more dangerous.

A studio receiving a conflicting brief will fall into one of two situations. Either it interprets it in a certain direction and proceeds, or it asks for clarification. When asking for clarification, that question often sparks an ongoing internal debate. Neither approach is correct. Brand design does not function to reconcile the business perspectives of the founders.

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

Marty Neumeier, The Brand Gap

This statement is often quoted regarding customers. But it also applies internally. If the founders talk about the brand in different ways, customers will receive different signals. And none of those signals are what you want to convey.

Why conflicts arise before meeting the studio

In the early stages of a business, founders rarely sit down to agree on a precise definition of the brand. They are busy operating, and the brand is often understood implicitly, each in their own way. When the business grows to the point where a professional identity system is needed, those implicit understandings clash for the first time, right in the process of writing the brief.

There are some of the most common types of conflicts we encounter:

• One person wants the brand to target the premium segment, while the other wants to maintain a friendly, mainstream image.
• Disagreements about the priority customer segment lead to disagreements about tone and imagery.
• One founder sees the brand as a short-term sales tool, while the other views it as a long-term asset that requires serious investment.
• Conflict between the current brand legacy and future expansion ambitions.

None of these are design questions. They are all business strategy questions. And the studio is not the one to answer them for you.

The gap between "having" and "being executable" largely stems from the stage before the system is built. That is when decision-makers have not yet reached a consensus on what that brand actually is.

Alignment session: the structure of a meeting that never happened

Before starting any design phase, for projects with two or more decision-makers, we require a structured alignment session. This is not a typical kickoff meeting. The purpose is not for the studio to present the process, but to reveal hidden disagreements and bring them into a manageable space.

This session has some non-negotiable principles:

• All individuals with veto power or the authority to change the project direction must be present. Missing one person renders the session's results non-binding.
• The facilitator of the session is not the designer. This separation of roles helps avoid conflicts of interest when asking questions.
• Questions are posed in order from strategic to specific. Before discussing colors or visual styles, agreement must be reached on competitive positioning and the priority customer segment.

We often use Kapferer's six-sided brand identity prism as a framework for questions during the alignment session. The purpose is not to explain the theory. The six questions corresponding to those six sides force each person to answer in an unavoidable way. When the answers of the two founders differ on the "culture" or "reflection" sides, the disagreement becomes identifiable and can be discussed.

The outcome of the session is binding documentation, not meeting minutes.

After the alignment session, what matters is not a lengthy document. What matters is that a few statements are written down, agreed upon by all present, and signed or confirmed in writing. This serves as the anchor for the entire project.

These statements often answer questions such as: Who are we speaking to first? What do we want that person to think about us after the first contact? What are we willing to give up to maintain that focus?

Not every disagreement needs to be resolved immediately in the session. However, the points of disagreement must be clearly named, and someone must be authorized to make the final decision. The studio needs to know who has the authority to say "this is the final direction" when members' opinions are not aligned.

When should the studio refuse to start

There are situations where the studio needs to be straightforward: it cannot start yet. Speaking up early helps protect both sides.

Specifically, if after the alignment session, the leadership team still cannot agree on the basic competitive positioning or the priority customer segment, then the design that starts at that point will need to be redone. The reason is not that the designer is not skilled, but because the criteria to evaluate "good" or "not good" do not yet exist. Each member will evaluate based on their own criteria. No one will see any version as correct.

We once encountered a project that went through six rounds of revisions. The final question asked was the one that should have been posed at the very first meeting: "Who are we really selling to?" Those six rounds were not the fault of the design. They were the cost of an alignment session that had not taken place.

What the studio can do and what it cannot

Sinh Vũ Studio can facilitate an alignment session, ask the right questions, and create a structure to make disagreements manageable. The studio also documents the results in a binding text. This is part of the service, not an ancillary service.

There are three things we cannot do. One is to decide on the business direction on behalf of the leadership. Two is to arbitrate disputes over ownership or vision among the founders. Three is to design a system that can satisfy two opposing brand directions simultaneously. No one can do that.

A strong brand stems from a clear perspective. A clear perspective comes from leaders within the organization who have truly agreed, not just on paper. An alignment session is a prerequisite for meaningful design. It is not merely a bureaucratic procedure.