When did looking premium become a substitute for having an identity?

Why so many brands look increasingly sophisticated, yet increasingly difficult to tell apart.

There is something curious happening in branding.

Walk through a supermarket, scroll through Instagram, browse a cosmetics store or look at the latest hospitality concepts. Different businesses, different products, different audiences. Yet increasingly, they seem to speak the same visual language.

Muted colours. Minimalist packaging. Elegant typography. Carefully arranged photography. A restrained palette intended to communicate sophistication.

Individually, many of these brands look beautiful. Put them next to one another, however, and something starts to disappear: distinction.

The problem isn't minimalism. Nor is it the ambition to look premium. There is nothing inherently wrong with either.

The problem begins when looking premium becomes the strategy itself.

The premium paradox

Almost every business owner wants their brand to be perceived as one of the best in its category. They want to inspire trust, justify their pricing and establish a position above the competition.

That's understandable.

But when everyone pursues the same idea of sophistication, the very aesthetic intended to communicate exclusivity becomes ordinary.

If an entire category adopts the same visual codes of premium branding, what exactly makes any one of those brands premium?

Consider packaging. Minimalist design, neutral colours and understated typography have become familiar expressions of contemporary quality. These conventions can work exceptionally well. But they are not universal indicators of value, and they certainly aren't the only way to communicate it.

Sometimes, a colourful product on a shelf dominated by muted packaging can be far more compelling.

Take ChiaDía, a functional beverage brand founded by two sisters from North Macedonia. Drawing inspiration from the Mexican tradition of chia fresca, the brand combines its product concept with a vibrant, playful visual presentation. Rather than relying entirely on the familiar codes of understated sophistication, its packaging communicates energy and personality.

That doesn't automatically make it a stronger brand than its competitors. But it illustrates how a visual identity can express something specific about the product and the story behind it.

Why should a brand borrow the appearance of an entire category when it has the opportunity to communicate something of its own?

Of course, visual similarity isn't always a problem. Industries develop recognisable design conventions for good reasons. Customers need to understand what they're looking at, and sometimes familiarity helps establish credibility.

The deeper problem appears when brands begin to resemble one another not only visually, but also in their messaging, their tone of voice and the way they engage with people.

At that point, it's no longer simply a design trend.

It's a question of identity.

Looking expensive isn't the same as being valuable

Premium is often treated as something that can be created through a particular combination of colours, typography and imagery.

But a premium appearance and a premium experience are not the same thing.

A brand can look expensive without giving people a meaningful reason to value it. It can borrow the visual language of luxury without offering the craftsmanship, experience, emotional connection or sense of distinction that makes luxury desirable in the first place.

Consider what different brands bring into people's lives.

Coca-Cola has spent decades building associations with shared moments, celebrations and everyday occasions. Its A Recipe for Magic campaign, for example, placed the product within meals and experiences shared with family and friends.

Brunello Cucinelli communicates an entirely different world: Italian craftsmanship, refined materials, understated luxury and a philosophy that connects business with human dignity and cultural heritage.

These brands occupy very different markets, but both demonstrate how brand meaning can extend beyond the product's immediate function or appearance.

A beverage becomes associated with togetherness. A piece of clothing becomes associated with craftsmanship, comfort and a particular way of living.

And that's where a brand's real value begins.

Not with the question of how expensive it should look, but with what it should make someone feel.

Does it make a person feel more confident? More comfortable? More accomplished?

Does it bring back a childhood memory?

Does it make an ordinary moment feel special?

Or does it simply make someone's day easier?

None of these answers is inherently better than another. But each provides a more meaningful starting point for building a brand than choosing a colour palette simply because it currently looks sophisticated.

The fingerprint of a brand

One of the most important questions in brand strategy is deceptively simple:

Why this brand? Why not something else?

Answers such as better quality, competitive pricing or excellent service are rarely enough.

Those things matter, of course. But they're also promises that almost every competitor can make.

The more interesting question is what changes for the person choosing the brand.

Imagine a business owner arriving at a creative agency with references from five established luxury brands.

Beautiful packaging, elegant campaigns and carefully considered typography.

“This is how the brand should look.”

Fair enough.

But that should lead to another question:

How should the brand make the customer feel?

What happens when someone buys the product?

Will they feel more important? Will they remember something from their childhood? Will they experience a sense of comfort, nostalgia or belonging?

And, perhaps most importantly, how does the proposed visual direction connect to that feeling?

Because design should not simply decorate a product. It should help communicate the value behind it.

That value is the fingerprint of a brand.

It is the combination of meaning, experience and associations that gives people a reason to choose one business over another.

This doesn't mean every brand must offer an entirely unique benefit. Many competing products satisfy similar needs, and customers may value them for similar reasons. The challenge is to understand which benefits matter, deliver them convincingly and build associations that connect those benefits to a particular brand.

Visual identity plays an important role in that process. But it becomes much more powerful when it expresses something meaningful rather than simply following an aesthetic convention.

Different doesn't always mean louder

There is a temptation to interpret distinctiveness as a call for louder colours, stranger packaging or increasingly unconventional campaigns.

That would be missing the point.

A brand doesn't necessarily need to look radically different to offer a different experience. Equally, having a valuable offering doesn't automatically make a brand recognisable.

These are related, but separate challenges.

Brand value concerns what customers gain from choosing a product or service. Differentiation concerns the differences they perceive between competing offerings. Distinctiveness concerns the associations and recognisable elements that help people identify a particular brand.

Research by Jenni Romaniuk, Byron Sharp and Andrew Ehrenberg, published in the Australasian Marketing Journal, challenges the assumption that brands must be perceived as substantially different to compete effectively. It provides evidence that consumers often perceive relatively little differentiation between competing brands, despite continuing to purchase them.

This makes the distinction between being different and being recognisable particularly important.

Burberry offers a familiar example.

Its signature check, originally introduced as a lining for raincoats in the 1920s, developed into one of the fashion house's most recognisable visual assets. The pattern can communicate Burberry's identity even when a prominent logo is absent.

That recognition didn't emerge simply because someone designed an attractive pattern. It developed through consistent use and repeated association with the brand.

Being valuable and being recognisable are not necessarily the same thing.

A business may offer an exceptional experience without having established a distinctive identity in the minds of its customers. Equally, a brand can be instantly recognisable without being everyone's preferred choice.

Strong branding requires an understanding of both: the value that gives people a reason to choose and the associations that help them remember what they're choosing.

Visual identity and brand meaning aren't competing ideas. They reinforce each other.

A distinctive product can create recognition. A consistent visual language can strengthen it. A meaningful experience can give people a reason to return.

And sometimes, a brand's greatest value is not something immediately visible.

It's something experienced.

The comfort of playing safe

Anyone who has worked in creative strategy or direction will recognise another part of this conversation.

A client wants to stand out. They want something memorable, different and unmistakably theirs.

Then the first genuinely unfamiliar idea appears.

Suddenly, the safer option starts looking more attractive.

It's a familiar tension between the ambition to be distinctive and the fear of being different.

And to be fair, caution isn't always misplaced.

Different industries have different expectations. A financial institution, a medical service and a fashion label don't operate under identical conditions. Creative decisions need to consider the audience, context and the trust a brand is expected to establish.

Being bold for the sake of being bold is no more strategic than being minimalist for the sake of looking premium.

But in many commercial categories, the instinct to imitate what already works can become a limitation.

When every decision is made to avoid standing apart, it becomes difficult to establish associations that people will recognise as belonging to a particular brand.

The responsibility of creative strategy isn't simply to convince clients to take bigger risks. It's to establish why a particular creative direction makes sense, what it communicates and what the brand stands to gain from it.

Sometimes that means choosing a restrained approach.

Sometimes it means having the confidence to challenge the category.

The important thing is that the choice comes from a clear understanding of the brand, its audience and its intended position, rather than from fear or fashion.

What remains when the logo disappears?

There is a simple exercise worth trying.

Take away the logo.

Remove the brand name from the packaging, the campaign or the social media post.

What remains?

Is there a recognisable product? A distinctive way of communicating? A particular feeling or experience that people associate with the brand?

Or is there simply another beautiful design that could belong to almost anyone?

Not every brand will be instantly recognisable without its logo, particularly in its early stages. Recognition takes time, consistency and repeated exposure.

And the absence of immediate recognition doesn't necessarily mean a brand lacks value.

But the question is still worth asking because it forces the conversation beyond appearance.

A strong brand identity isn't just a collection of visual decisions. It is a system of meaning, experiences and recognisable associations that helps people understand what a brand represents and remember it when it matters.

And perhaps that's what gets lost in the endless pursuit of looking premium.

So much attention goes into deciding how brands should appear that the more important question is sometimes overlooked: what should they mean?

Aesthetics can attract attention. But identity gives people something to remember.

And before deciding how a brand should look, perhaps the first question should be:

How should it make someone feel?