Personal taste in decisions kills businesses.
01.12.2025
I can’t even remember the last time this happened.
It’s the kind of situation that’s so traumatic we end up throwing it into the black hole of memory just so we don’t have to go through it again.
I’m only talking about it because I recently lived through it again.
A project that was moving along well.
The right solution.
A clear strategy.
Everything solved on the technical side… until the decision turned into a matter of taste.
“I prefer it this way.”
“I think it looks nicer like that.”
“It’s all beautiful, the concept is perfect, but it just didn’t land for me…”
And in that moment, it became clear that it was no longer about the solution.
It was about attachment.
And this needs to be talked about. As many times as necessary.
Because very often, this kind of conflict is born from a lack of clear positioning with the client.
Other times, it comes from a lack of understanding of the real problem that needs to be solved.
But in many cases, it simply comes from emotional attachment to an idea, an aesthetic, or a sense of control that creates a false feeling of safety.
Usually, this is the point in the conversation where everything falls apart.
Personal taste in decisions is comfortable — and dangerous.
Everyone has their own tastes and preferences, and that’s not a problem in itself.
We carry references, desires, traumas, inspirations, and insecurities. That’s part of being human.
The problem isn’t having taste.
The problem is when personal taste replaces strategy inside a company.
When “I think” becomes more important than “this works.”
When “I like it” weighs more than “this solves the problem.”
When “do it this way because I prefer it,” without explanation, becomes more important than “do it this way because the client needs it.”
At that point, communication stops being a growth tool and becomes an extension of the ego.
And ego doesn’t sell.
It exists only to satisfy itself.
If it stays at the top of decision-making, forget it.
Personal taste almost never shows up in the briefing.
It shows up in the approval.
In practice, things rarely start wrong.
The briefing usually comes with good intentions and clarity.
The team invests time thinking.
The partner creates aligned with the real problem.
But it’s at final approval that everything suddenly needs to be different.
“Change the music.”
“This scene feels weird.”
“I don’t like this color.”
“This pace isn’t my style.”
Function leaves the room. Preference walks in.
The solution is forgotten, and the focus shifts to what “represents me.”
Of course, every client needs to be represented in a project — but that line was crossed miles ago.
And the brand’s communication stops speaking to thousands just to please one person.
Almost no one realizes the size of this mistake when it happens.
Especially because “I’m paying” and “my desire is an order.”
When the video works inside and dies outside
This is the most common symptom of decisions driven by personal taste.
Or of companies that are used to talking about themselves, as I mentioned in last week’s newsletter.
The video is applauded in the boardroom.
The internal team celebrates.
The owner sees themselves in it.
Everyone says it looks beautiful.
But when it goes out into the real world — the feed, the ad, the audience — nothing happens.
Low attention.
Low retention.
No real connection. No expectation created.
Then the excuses begin:
“The algorithm changed.”
“The market cooled down.”
“People lost interest.”
“You didn’t do it right.”
That’s why we are extremely clear about the role of the product in our projects and about following processes.
In many cases, we position ourselves firmly on this.
We do our job as professionals — research, method, clarity.
And when there is strong resistance, we don’t move forward with the client.
Because when content doesn’t speak to who it should speak to, and you don’t know why — if you let the ego answer that question, you’d know.
It wasn’t made for the customer.
It was made to please internally.
Brand identity cannot depend on the taste of whoever is approving that month
Another negative effect of taste-driven decisions is visual and narrative confusion.
Every campaign has a different style.
It feels like it comes from a different planet.
Always starting from zero.
Because there is no system.
Only preference.
One day it’s clean.
The next day it’s bold.
Then institutional.
Too advertising-driven.
Now “more modern,” without knowing what that actually means.
The audience doesn’t recognize the brand.
It doesn’t build memory or trust.
Because recognition is born from repetition with logic.
And that doesn’t come from taste — it comes from positioning.
The invisible cost of deciding by attachment
Few people add up this bill, but it exists.
When taste overrides strategy, the usual suspects appear:
Reworks.
Redoing.
Reshoots.
Last-minute changes.
Materials that are never published.
This generates financial cost, emotional exhaustion, broken trust between teams and partners — and a silent effect almost no one notices:
The company delays its own growth because it’s always stuck revising what was already done.
Meanwhile, the market moves.
Competitors test.
Customers change.
Experience does not replace listening
One of the most common phrases in these situations is:
“I’ve been in the market for twenty years.”
And yes, that has value.
But experience does not replace listening.
Experience does not replace testing.
Experience does not replace observing real human behavior.
The problem with personal taste is not lack of knowledge.
It’s excess certainty.
It’s when conviction becomes a barrier.
Marketing lives in the present — in movement, in behavior.
Personal taste usually lives in memory.
Confusing brand identity with personal identity is a classic mistake
Another delicate point is when the decision-maker says:
“This doesn’t represent me.”
And almost never asks if it represents the customer.
A brand is not an extension of the personality of the person approving it.
(Unfortunately — or thankfully.)
A brand is a living relationship with the world.
It needs to make sense to those who buy, identify, and emotionally connect.
When communication becomes a self-portrait of the owner, it shrinks.
When it becomes a bridge between the company and real life, it grows.
Where strategic documentary audiovisual comes in as real protection
Strategic documentary audiovisual exists precisely as an antidote to this type of mistake.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — like a little robot repeating itself:
It doesn’t start with aesthetics. It starts with listening.
It doesn’t start with the camera. It starts with context.
It doesn’t start with taste. It starts with intention.
Before rhythm, impact.
Before soundtrack, message.
Before a beautiful shot, truth.
Throw all of this into an AI and see if I’m crazy.
When opinion leaves the center and method takes the wheel
When there is method, taste loses strength.
It doesn’t disappear, but it stops being the direction.
Decisions are guided by much more important questions than “did I like it?”
Does this solve the client’s problem?
Does this reinforce positioning?
Does this create understanding?
Does this build something that lasts?
Aesthetics stop being vanity and become a tool — as they should always be.
Narratives centered on the client, not the ego
The biggest shift that strategic documentary audiovisual creates is this:
The brand stops talking about itself and starts talking about the impact it generates.
It’s no longer:
“Look how we are… (insert your amazing adjective here).”
It becomes:
“Look how people’s lives change when we do this.”
This kind of narrative doesn’t depend on trends or quick fashions.
Because it’s reality — and reality never goes out of style.
Durable identity is born from systems, not preferences
When a brand builds its audiovisual identity based on method, it gains something rare:
continuity with freedom.
It can change, evolve, and grow without losing who it is.
Because it no longer depends on the mood of whoever approves — but on a clear decision axis.
That creates recognition.
Trust.
Memory.
And above all, perceived value.
When taste leaves the center, the environment changes
Decisions become lighter.
Processes speed up.
Conflicts decrease.
Teams regain the courage to propose.
Partners work with more confidence.
Communication stops being an unstable emotional field and becomes a clear space for construction.
Personal taste is comfortable — but it was never a direction for growth
In the end, personal taste protects the ego, but risks the business.
Strategy protects the brand.
Narrative protects positioning.
Method protects the future.
Companies that grow choose clarity, not vanity.
Brands that last choose coherence, not attachment.
Strong businesses build stories — not preferences.
Where I stand in this story
We exist precisely to remove the weight of emotional decision-making and put clarity at the center of the process.
We don’t dispute taste.
We build criteria.
We don’t fight opinions.
We anchor decisions in intention, method, and customer.
We don’t sell video.
We build exclusive narrative assets.
A kind of heritage.
What I want to leave you with
Analyze — and be minimally honest with yourself:
Are your brand’s decisions being guided by strategy…
or by the taste of whoever approves?
And even more importantly:
Do you want to create beautiful content…
or a brand that truly survives time?
Regardless of where you are or your criteria, I remain firm in the idea of giving you clarity and helping your business through strategic documentary audiovisual.
A hot coffee and a present mind.
Renan
