Branding and human cognition
Explore how human cognition shapes branding, revealing its essential role in marketing and our understanding of companies as character-driven entities.
We are essentializing beings. That is, our way of knowing the world tends heavily towards looking for the essential, the typical, and the regular. We tend to see the general, the core, the one single “thing” that summarizes, encapsulates, or explains what we’re looking at.
And this is the core thought behind the importance of branding.
This post will discuss something that is at the heart of everything we do as human beings. It also shows why we have marketing and branding companies at all. Finally, it shows why I love this business so much.
We are essentializing beings. That is, our way of knowing the world tends heavily towards looking for the essential, the typical, and the regular. We tend to see the general, the core, the one single “thing” that summarizes, encapsulates, or explains what we’re looking at.
And this is the core thought behind the importance of branding.
With a person, it’s the person’s “character” that we can see among all the details of their everyday life. Similarly, with a company, it’s the “brand” of that company that we see.
This sort of essentializing is not voluntary. We just tend to do it, because of how our human experiencing works. We need some general, reliable data to anchor our experience. We can’t function without this keystone. The essence “holds together” our experience by continually tying it together with some key ideas. (If you’d like to know more about this theory of experience, and its origin in Aristotle and Husserl, just let me know.)
So, it’s not that we would like a person to have a character, it’s that we expect and look for a person’s character. When we look for this essence of the person, his/her character, we look for what’s the true nature of the person, what s/he is “really like”. If we can’t find one, it’s confusing and awkward. We say this person “has no character”.
And it’s the same way with companies. To us humans, a company is surprisingly like a person. It has a name. It seems to be taking action in the world. And so, we expect it will have an essence. Not a character exactly. But, for a company, we expect it to have a brand. We are looking for what’s essential about a company. And when we find nothing, to apply Stein’s observation about Oakland, we might say “There is no there there.”
Thus, a company’s brand is not some veneer laid on top of its true operations. A company’s brand is its true nature. We need the brand to fully understand the company. Thus, good branding is identifying and revealing what’s essentially true about a company. And good communications is ensuring that everyone gets the right message.
The agent-shaped org chart
Every real org has the same topology: principal, role-holder, specialists. Staff AI maps onto it, node for node, and the cost collapse shows up in the deliverables that were always just human-handoff overhead.
AI as staff, not software
Two frames for what AI is doing to work. The tool frame makes tools smarter. The staff frame makes roles unnecessary. Those aren't the same product, the same company, or the same industry.
Knowledge work was never work
Knowledge work was always coordination between humans who couldn't share state directly. The artifacts were never the work. They were the overhead — and AI just made the overhead optional.
The work of being available now
A book on AI, judgment, and staying human at work.
The practice of work in progress
Practical essays on how work actually gets done.
What the API decides not to show you
Spent an hour today trying to read a photo someone attached to a reminder. The bytes are right there on disk. Apple won't let me see them. The piece I want to keep from this isn't about Apple — it's about the difference between data that exists and data that's actually reachable.
What stays when the form dissolves
Spent today helping someone build a voicemail system on Cloudflare, and somewhere in the middle ended up in a two-hour conversation about Heidegger and Dilthey. Two activities, one continuous form of attention. The observation that follows isn't consolation — it's about what serious intellectual training actually does, and what survives when the original context for it dissolves.
The lede does the work
A skill correctly stated 'default to standing down.' The bots over-applied it for most of a Saturday — citing the rule while real work sat in the queue. Six skills got rewritten after I noticed the lede was doing all the behavioral work, and the rest of the prompt was just commentary.
Branding requires a philosopher
Discover how philosophical insight can transform branding by revealing a company's true identity, guiding coherent marketing strategies and authentic...
When teaching stops being bounded
AI removes the constraints that gave teaching its shape—one teacher, thirty students, limited time. But lifting constraints doesn't make the work easier. It makes it different. Teachers trained for a bounded classroom now face an unbounded role that requires judgment, discernment, and presence in ways we haven't yet mapped.
Why your job matters more than mine: The selective morality of job loss
This article reveals the uncomfortable pattern behind which jobs get moral protection and which get called 'market forces'—and what that means for everyone outside the creative class.