por Ber | Mar 28, 2026 | The rebelion
There’s a phrase every creative has heard at least once in their professional life. A phrase that requires no elaboration, comes without context, and acts as kryptonite to any well-structured work process. That phrase is: “make it like Apple.”
When a client says “make it like Apple,” they’re not making a strategic reference to Jony Ive’s design principles or Steve Jobs’s communication philosophy. They’re saying, with far less self-awareness than they believe, something roughly equivalent to: “I want my product to look good without having to explain to you what that means for us specifically.” It’s the most expensive and least informative creative request in existence.
What Clients Actually Mean When They Say “Like Apple”
The problem with the Apple reference is that it functions like a corporate Rorschach test. Each person sees in it what they want to see. Some clients say “Apple” and picture white backgrounds and minimalist type. Others think of emotional campaigns with indie music and people staring at the horizon with expressions of deep personal purpose. Others are simply remembering an ad they saw two years ago and liked without knowing why.
What almost none of them are thinking about when they say “like Apple” is the decades of user research, the years of brand positioning work, the systemic coherence between product, packaging, retail experience, and communication. They’re not thinking about that because Apple doesn’t sell that process — it sells the final result, polished to obsession. And the client wants the result without the process. Which is exactly like wanting an Olympic athlete’s physique without the training.
The Impossible Reference
Working with references is necessary and useful. Without references there’s no common starting point, no shared visual vocabulary, no efficient way to align expectations. The problem isn’t using references: the problem is using references that aren’t operational.
Apple is a non-operational reference for 99% of projects. Not because it’s bad — it’s probably the best-executed brand of the last forty years — but because its context, resources, and market position are impossible to replicate for a company that isn’t Apple. It’s like asking a neighborhood restaurant to cook “like El Bulli.” El Bulli closed, incidentally, and not for lack of quality.
As we noted in The Eternal Stakeholder Syndrome, the problem with vague references is that each person interprets them differently, generating competing versions of the same project in every stakeholder’s head. When presentation day arrives, the collision is inevitable and usually spectacular.
How to Handle the Apple Reference Without Losing the Project
First: don’t get defensive. When a client says “like Apple,” they’re not being an idiot — they’re using the only language available to them to express an aesthetic aspiration they don’t know how to articulate any other way. Your job as a creative is to translate that aspiration into operational terms.
The question that actually works is: “What is it specifically that you like about that reference?” Not “why Apple?” which sounds confrontational. But “what?” The answer will give you the real clue. If the client says “the simplicity,” you go one direction. If they say “the emotion their ads create,” you go another. If they say “the logo,” you have a different kind of problem.
The second tactic is to bring alternative references that capture the same essence but in a context closer to the client’s reality. If the neighborhood grocery store wants “something like Apple,” show them food brands that have managed to communicate quality and warmth with modest resources. Connect the desire with the reality without destroying the dream.
And if the client insists on “make it like Apple” after every reasonable attempt at clarification — document the reference, draw your own informed conclusions, and present your solution explaining how it incorporates the spirit of the reference without attempting to literally copy what cannot be copied. The client who gets this becomes a collaborator. The one who doesn’t… well, we cover that type in our guide to the types of clients every creative has suffered through.
The Happy Ending That Almost Never Happens
The Apple reference, properly managed, can be a strong starting point for a good project. It forces a conversation about brand values, positioning, what the company really wants to convey. That conversation, painful at first, is precisely the conversation that poorly briefed projects never have.
The problem is that few clients have the patience for that conversation. And few creatives have the skill or confidence to lead it. The result is a process where nobody says exactly what they want and everyone interprets what they think the other wants. And in the end, when the result isn’t “like Apple,” everyone wonders what went wrong.
What went wrong was that nobody asked the right question at the right moment. As almost always. And as we explored in how to write a brief that doesn’t make you cry, the right question asked early is worth ten right answers given too late.
Your next client wants “something like Apple” on a corner-store budget? Stop by our shop. We don’t sell magic, but we do have something to help you hold it together.
por Ber | Mar 28, 2026 | The rebelion
The brief is the most important document in the creative process and the most consistently abused. In theory, it explains everything: the problem to solve, the audience to reach, the tone to use, the result expected. In practice, it’s usually a vague wishlist written in five minutes by someone who doesn’t really know what they want but knows they need it by Monday.
If you’re a creative or marketer with more than two years of experience, you’ve already received some of these specimens. The two-line brief that says “we want something modern and fresh for our target audience.” The forty-page brief that includes the company history since 1987 but doesn’t explain what concrete problem the campaign needs to solve. And the classic: the verbal brief that transforms into a different verbal brief in the next meeting, with all the consistency of a game of broken telephone.
Why Most Briefs Are Useless
A useless brief isn’t useless through bad faith — though sometimes it is — but through lack of prior thinking. The client or marketing manager hasn’t finished figuring out what they want before asking for it. And instead of admitting that, they write a document that simulates having thought when they haven’t. The result is a map pointing in all directions simultaneously.
The underlying problem is that writing a good brief requires work. It requires analysis, decisions, and above all, the courage to define what you’re not going to do. A brief that tries to cover everything, that talks about “all audiences” and “all channels” and “all messages,” isn’t a brief: it’s a shopping list without a budget.
Then there’s the mutating brief phenomenon. That living document that evolves between the first meeting and the creative proposal presentation because “there have been some strategic changes” or because “the CEO saw something at Cannes that inspired us.” Every brief change mid-process is equivalent to discarding at least a third of work already done. As we explored in The Eternal Stakeholder Syndrome, last-minute changes have a real cost that’s almost never measured properly.
The Elements That Cannot Be Missing
A functional brief doesn’t need to be long. It needs to be precise. These are the elements that determine whether a brief is useful or purely decorative:
The real problem, not the symptom. “We want more sales” is not a communication problem; it’s a business objective. The brief needs to identify what specific barrier prevents those sales from happening. Is it a visibility problem? Trust? Perceived price? Without that clarity, any creative solution is a shot in the dark.
The specific audience. “People aged 25 to 55 interested in wellness” is not a target audience — it’s a quarter of the population. The more specific the profile — their real fears, their actual habits, what genuinely motivates them — the better the creative solution will be.
The single message. Yes, one. If the brief says “we want to communicate X, Y and Z,” pick one. The most important one. The rest can exist in layers, in secondary messaging, in support copy. But the primary message must be singular and clear. A campaign trying to say everything says nothing.
The real constraints. Budget, deadlines, available channels, contractual commitments with vendors. The more constraints you know from the start, the better you can design a solution that works within them. Mid-production brief surprises are the most expensive kind.
Using the Brief as an Alignment Tool
The most valuable moment of the brief isn’t when it’s written. It’s when it’s validated. Sitting with the client or responsible party before the creative team starts working and reviewing the document together is the most profitable exercise in the process. Not to perfect the text, but to verify that everyone understands the same thing when they read the same words.
Because “modern” can mean very different things to different people. “Approachable” for a bank and “approachable” for a startup are almost opposing concepts. A properly worked brief converts those ambiguities into agreements before they become creative problems.
And when the brief is well-written and validated, something wonderful happens: the creative process moves faster, there are fewer revisions, presentations are shorter, and the client is more satisfied. Not necessarily because the creativity is better — but because everyone knows where they’re going.
If you’re still unclear on why a great brief is a reachable utopia but only with real effort, check out why the perfect brief doesn’t exist and what to do about it. And if you need to present to a committee of stakeholders with competing criteria, take notes from how to survive a strategic alignment meeting.
The Brief as Cultural Artifact
Beyond the practical, the brief is a mirror of organizational culture. Companies with a mature creative culture invest time in the brief before asking the team to invest time in the work. Companies still operating in creative adolescence treat the brief as a formality — a document you fill out to check a box, not because you believe it will help anyone.
The agencies that consistently produce strong creative work aren’t necessarily the ones with the most talented teams. They’re the ones that have learned to write — and demand — briefs that actually brief. The creative brief as an act of strategic clarity is, perhaps, the most undervalued skill in the entire marketing industry. Which is ironic, considering we’re supposed to be in the business of communication.
Is your next brief going to be another exercise in corporate fiction? Head to our shop and find what you need to survive — and maybe even thrive — in the day-to-day creative chaos.
por Ber | Mar 28, 2026 | The rebelion
There’s a creature that inhabits every organization as if someone had manufactured them in bulk. Not the client. Not the creative director. The stakeholder. The omnipresent being who doesn’t make, doesn’t decide, and doesn’t disappear. If you’ve spent more than six months on any marketing or design project, you know them well. They go by many names: “key person,” “interested party,” “decision maker” — that last one being the most ironic, since their primary skill is, precisely, not making decisions.
The Stakeholder and Their Life Cycle
The eternal stakeholder is born the moment a project takes shape. They appear at the first kickoff meeting with a folder nobody will ever see again. They smile. They nod. They ask a question about “brand tone” that was already resolved in the brief — assuming a brief existed at all. And then… they vanish.
They return three weeks later with comments that contradict everything previously agreed upon. “I was imagining we’d go more corporate blue.” Nobody asked. Nobody requested this. But here they are, bearer of the unsolicited opinion, ready to delay the project another two weeks with the same energy as someone asking for changes to a pizza that’s already in the oven. And without an ounce of remorse.
This cycle — disappearing and reappearing with devastating opinions — is the core of the eternal stakeholder syndrome. And the worst part isn’t the opinion itself. It’s that it always arrives late, always arrives wrong, and always arrives when there’s no time left to course-correct. The urgency of their input is inversely proportional to the project’s progress: the closer the deadline, the more likely they are to show up with fundamental feedback.
The Approval Meeting: A Theater of the Absurd
If you’ve survived more than three approval meetings in your professional life, you know they aren’t really meetings. They’re performances. There’s an unwritten script that everyone knows but nobody acknowledges.
Stakeholder number one will arrive five minutes late and ask you to start from the beginning. Number two will check their phone throughout the entire presentation until the slide that relates to their department. Number three will offer a comment that clearly comes from having seen the work for exactly forty seconds the night before, somewhere between Netflix and their toothbrush.
And you — there — with your 42-slide deck revised seventeen times, trying to keep your composure while your creativity slowly dies in front of your eyes. What nobody tells you in any marketing degree is that the approval meeting doesn’t exist to approve anything. It exists so each stakeholder feels they’ve contributed to the process. It’s group therapy dressed up as methodology.
The antidote is simple but requires a courage most people lack: arrive with the decision already made and present only the options you’re prepared to defend. People choose between what’s presented to them. Show them three shades of blue, they’ll pick one of those three. Show them the entire color wheel, you’ll have a three-hour meeting and still leave without an approved palette.
The Multiplication of Stakeholders
Here comes the real horror. Stakeholders reproduce. You start with three and by mid-project you have nine. Nobody knows how the new ones arrived. They simply appear in the email thread, CC’d, launching comments from nowhere like meteorites that destroy weeks of work in six lines of plain text.
“I’ve added Martha from Legal because she’ll need to review the communication eventually.” Martha from Legal doesn’t know what kerning is or why it matters. Martha from Legal designs her presentations in Word and calls it “clean design.” But Martha from Legal now has veto power over your campaign.
This phenomenon has a name in organizational literature: it’s called scope creep, but applied to people. And it’s devastating because every new stakeholder brings their set of opinions, their corporate anxieties, and their version of “what the consumer wants” — based on their own personal preferences, which apparently represent the entire market without exception.
As we covered in our breakdown of KPIs that mean absolutely nothing, the problem isn’t the metric itself — it’s who interprets it and why. Same with stakeholders: the problem isn’t that they have opinions. It’s that they express them without criteria, without accountability, and without consequences when they’re wrong.
How to Survive (Or At Least Not Die Trying)
Surviving the eternal stakeholder requires strategy, not hope. Here are the tactics that actually work, even though you won’t find them in any client management workshop:
Document everything from minute one. Every agreement, every approval, every “yes, go ahead” must exist in writing. The eternal stakeholder has a prodigious selective memory: they recall perfectly what they don’t like and forget completely what they approved last week. A follow-up email summarizing meeting agreements is your legal and emotional shield.
Reduce decision points. Fewer opportunities to opine means fewer opinions. Don’t ask if they like the headline: present it as part of a larger system that makes holistic sense. The eye that sees the whole has less time to fixate on the details it dislikes.
Identify who actually decides. In every organization there’s someone who really decides. It’s not always who you’d expect. Often they’re sitting quietly in the corner, watching everyone argue about font choices. Find them, connect with them, make sure they understand your work before everyone else starts weighing in.
And if you want to go deeper on the corporate meeting as a survival sport, read our guide on surviving a strategic alignment meeting without losing your soul. Required reading before your next Outlook calendar invite.
The Ending That Never Comes
The eternal stakeholder syndrome has no cure. It has management. And management starts by accepting that the problem isn’t you, or your proposal, or the brief that was never properly written. The problem is structural, cultural, and in many cases, economic. Organizations that fail to assign real decision-making responsibility pay for it in time, budget, and burned-out talent that doesn’t come back.
Next time an eternal stakeholder appears in your life with last-minute comments about the button color on a landing page that’s already in production — breathe. Document. And remember: you are not the problem. Even when it feels so much like you are that you start to believe it.
Too many stakeholders in your life and not enough coffee to handle them? Visit our shop and find the emotional ammunition you need to keep going in the creative trenches without losing your dignity — or your sense of humor.
por Ber | Mar 28, 2026 | Uncategorized
There exists a meeting format that has perfected the art of consuming time, energy, and faith in humanity without producing any verifiable result. It’s called the “strategic alignment meeting” and you probably have one this week. Maybe two. Maybe a recurring series that repeats every two weeks and has been going on for so long that nobody quite remembers what you’re supposed to be aligning, or against which strategic north exactly.
This is the survival guide. Not so the meeting gets better — that territory is already lost — but so you come out with your soul intact.
Phase 1: The First Ten Minutes (The Liturgy of the Late Arrivals)
Every strategic alignment meeting begins with an unofficial grace period of between seven and fifteen minutes during which participants trickle in while those already present talk about the weather, last night’s game, or something they saw on LinkedIn that “really resonates with what we’re trying to do.” The person who called the meeting stares at the screen with an expression suggesting the video conference link might not be working properly. It is working properly.
Survival strategy: arrive exactly on time, no earlier, no later. Too early and you’re stuck doing extended small talk. Too late and you have to apologize to people who arrived five minutes late and decided not to apologize, which puts you in an unwarranted moral disadvantage.
Phase 2: “Let’s Just Quickly Recap the Context”
Someone — typically the person with the longest deck — is going to do a context recap. This recap will last between twelve and twenty-two minutes and will cover information everyone present already knows, plus one data point that nobody will remember having seen before but that nobody will question either, because doing so would mean admitting you haven’t read it or implying the presenter made it up, and neither social outcome is appealing.
During this phase, the deck will have at least one slide with a two-by-two matrix and one slide with circular arrows that supposedly represent a process, even though the process isn’t entirely clear to the person who drew the arrows.
Survival strategy: take real notes on the two or three things that are genuinely new or relevant. Ignore the rest gracefully. If you’re asked directly about the context, repeat the last sentence you heard with slight word-order variations. Works ninety percent of the time.
Phase 3: The Part Where There’s Supposedly a Debate
After context, the meeting enters its supposedly most valuable phase: the debate. In a well-run strategic alignment meeting, this debate would be honest, productive, and end with clear decisions. In the majority of strategic alignment meetings that actually exist, the debate has a different structure.
Someone says something reasonably sensible. Someone else amplifies it slightly with a metaphor — “it’s like when you’re building a house, you need the foundation before you do the windows” — that everyone nods at as if it were profound. Someone with more seniority in the room asks a question that is actually a disguised assertion. The person who called the meeting says “great point” regardless of whether it is one. A creative tries to make an observation that goes against the flow of emerging consensus and is met with uncomfortable silence, followed by someone saying “yes, we’d need to think about how that fits with what we were saying.”
Survival strategy: choose your moment to intervene carefully. One well-placed contribution is worth five mediocre ones. Ask things nobody is asking but that are genuinely important: “who makes the final call on this?” or “what’s the actual deadline we’re working to?” Concrete questions redirect the meeting toward useful territory and position you as the person who understands how the real world works.
Phase 4: The Last Five Minutes and the Collapse of Time
Every strategic alignment meeting that runs long — which is all of them — reaches a critical moment in the last five minutes where the person who called the meeting glances at the clock and says something like “are we all aligned?” or “I think we’ve made great progress, next steps?”
This is the most dangerous moment of the meeting. Because in the next ninety seconds, responsibilities will be assigned in a vague and implicit way that will appear agreed-upon even though nobody explicitly accepted them. Someone will leave the room convinced that another person is doing something that other person doesn’t know they’re supposed to do.
Survival strategy: when next steps arrive, listen with extreme attention and immediately document who said they’d do what and by when. If something is left ambiguous, ask right then: “who’s leading this?” Not afterward. Not in a follow-up email. There, with everyone present. Ambiguity in alignment meetings gets paid for dearly in the weeks that follow.
How to Keep Your Soul Intact: The Personal Protocol
Beyond phase-by-phase tactics, there’s a general protocol that applies to any strategic alignment meeting regardless of its format, length, or number of people with “Director” in their title in the room.
Before the meeting: Read the agenda if one exists. If there isn’t one, that already tells you something about how this is going to go. If you can, ask the organizer one concrete question before it starts: “what’s the most important decision we need to make today?” If they don’t have a clear answer, the meeting probably shouldn’t exist.
During the meeting: Take notes on paper. Yes, paper. Your laptop screen signals disconnection even when you’re taking real notes. Paper notes keep you active, help you process what you’re hearing, and save you when you get asked something you didn’t expect.
After the meeting: Send a summary email within two hours with what you understand was agreed and who’s responsible for what. Don’t wait for the organizer to do it. If you do it, you control the narrative. And controlling the narrative is sometimes the most strategic thing you can do.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Alignment Meetings
Most strategic alignment meetings aren’t strategic alignment meetings. They’re internal visibility rituals where people demonstrate that they’re involved, that they understand the context, and that they deserve to be in the room. That doesn’t make them useless, but it changes what you should expect from them.
If you treat them as rituals rather than real working sessions, you can participate more efficiently, protect your genuine attention for work that actually matters, and come out of each meeting with enough energy to do something useful before the next one.
Your soul doesn’t disappear in a single meeting. It disappears gradually, one “are we all aligned?” at a time. With the right protocol, you can limit the losses.
If this resonates more than you’d like, you’ve been in too many work meetings that deserved to be emails. We’ve got something for you at the NoBriefs shop: merch for creatives surviving the corporate world without completely losing their sense of humor or perspective.
por Ber | Mar 28, 2026 | Uncategorized
There’s a special category of corporate lies that aren’t recognized as such because they come wrapped in numbers. KPIs belong to that category. In theory, a KPI is a key performance indicator: a metric selected with purpose to measure whether you’re moving toward an objective that makes business sense. In practice, the KPIs in most marketing departments are a collection of figures that sound good in presentations and mean absolutely nothing about whether the work you’re doing actually matters.
This is that guide. The honest one. The one nobody gives you during onboarding.
Impressions: The KPI Everyone Has and Nobody Knows What to Do With
Impressions are the number of times your ad or content appeared on a screen. Not the number of times someone saw it. Not the number of times someone cognitively processed it. The number of times it appeared somewhere on some screen, possibly while the person was looking at something else, thinking about dinner, or about to close the app.
Impressions are useful for one thing: making the person who holds the budget feel like something happened. “We reached 4.7 million impressions” sounds like an achievement. But if each of those 4.7 million impressions lasted 0.3 seconds in the peripheral vision of someone reading something else, what you have is 4.7 million moments in which your brand didn’t exist for anyone.
Use them as context. Never as a result.
Engagement Rate: The Most Manipulable Metric in the Ecosystem
Engagement rate — the interaction rate relative to reach or impressions — is the favorite metric of community managers and the easiest to inflate with content that has nothing to do with business objectives. A cat meme has spectacular engagement rate. A well-executed product campaign can have a mediocre engagement rate and sell three times as much.
The problem with engagement rate as a primary KPI is that it optimizes for cheap attention, not useful attention. If your objective is for people to remember your brand and associate it with something specific, engagement from generic entertainment content doesn’t move you one centimeter toward that goal. It moves you toward having more likes from people who will never buy anything from you.
Engagement rate only matters if you know what type of engagement you’re measuring and if that type of interaction has a demonstrated correlation with something your business actually cares about. In most cases, it doesn’t.
Brand Awareness: The KPI Where Campaigns Go to Die When They Have No Real Objective
“The objective of this campaign is to increase brand awareness.” This sentence has justified more wasted budgets than any other in the history of modern marketing. Not because awareness is irrelevant — it isn’t — but because “increasing awareness” without a baseline metric, a target metric, a defined segment, and a concrete timeline isn’t an objective. It’s an excuse with better presentation.
How do you measure awareness? Depends who you ask. For some, it’s spontaneous brand recognition in surveys. For others, it’s direct brand name searches. For others, it’s weighted reach within the target. None of those metrics are bad in themselves, but when the KPI is simply “awareness” without specifying what awareness, among whom, measured how, compared to what current baseline — what you have is an objective designed to resist honest evaluation.
If someone tells you the campaign objective is awareness, ask immediately: awareness of what, among whom, measured how, and compared to what current number? If they don’t have an answer, the campaign objective isn’t awareness. The objective is to have no objective.
CTR: The Click Rate That Doesn’t Tell You If You Matter
Click-Through Rate measures what percentage of people who saw your ad clicked on it. It’s a reasonably useful indicator of whether the ad is relevant or compelling enough to generate immediate action. But it becomes an absurd KPI when used as the final success measure, disconnected from what happens after the click.
A 3% CTR on an ad that leads to a landing page with 0.5% conversion rate is a worse result than a 1% CTR on an ad that leads to a landing page with 4% conversion rate. But if the report KPI is CTR, the first ad looks like the winner. That’s the kind of distortion you get from optimizing for the wrong metric.
The KPIs That Actually Matter (And Why Nobody Wants to Talk About Them)
The indicators that genuinely matter are the ones that connect marketing work to measurable business outcomes. They’re not glamorous. They don’t produce the best slides. But they’re the only ones that tell you whether what you’re doing is working or not.
Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC): How much does it cost you to get a new customer? If this number rises without the customer lifetime value (LTV) rising proportionally, you have a problem. If it falls, you’re doing something right.
Retention and repurchase rate: What percentage of your customers come back to buy again? This metric says more about the real health of a brand than any awareness or engagement indicator.
Actual revenue attribution: What percentage of the period’s revenue can be at least partially attributed to specific marketing actions? Yes, attribution is complicated and no model is perfect. That’s not an excuse for not trying.
NPS with context: Not the NPS as an abstract number that rises and falls without explanation, but with follow-up on the reasons behind low scores and an actual plan to address them.
Why Bad KPIs Are So Popular
Vanity metrics are popular for the same reason vague briefs are popular: they distribute responsibility without anyone having to own too much. If the KPI is “increase awareness” and impressions rose 15% at the end of the quarter, everyone can celebrate without anyone having to answer whether any of it contributed to the business.
Real KPIs — the ones connected to actual results — are uncomfortable because they can tell you that you failed. And failing on a metric that matters is harder to explain than not reaching an objective nobody defined properly in the first place.
If you’ve sat through meetings where dashboards full of metrics that connect to nothing get presented as wins, if you’ve endured reports where impressions are the headline and conversion is a footnote, if you’ve known for years that something in the system is broken but nobody says it out loud — this one’s for you.
Head over to the NoBriefs shop. Merch for creatives who still remember what they’re actually supposed to be working toward.
