Taste is not the answer. Judgment is.

The comforting myth of taste

The current fascination with taste reflects a broader shift. AI can now produce surprisingly sophisticated outputs across writing, design, image generation, and creative production. As execution becomes increasingly automated, the industry is searching for a new way to define human value. The answer often proposed is taste.

Yet taste has never been the reason great brands succeed. It is often the visible expression of success, but not its cause.

Nike did not become one of the world’s most influential brands because it had better taste than its competitors. Neither did Apple, Hermès, or Dior. These brands became iconic because they developed a clear understanding of who they are, what they stand for, and what they are willing to prioritize over time.

Taste follows strategy. Not the other way around.

AI doesn't create sameness. It reveals it.

Much of today's criticism of AI-generated content centers around the growing wave of what people call “AI slop”: generic, repetitive work that feels hollow and interchangeable.

The assumption is often that the technology is to blame. I disagree.

Poor outputs rarely emerge because AI lacks creative capability. More often, they emerge because brands lack clarity. If ten organizations use the same prompts, follow the same trends, and draw inspiration from the same references, they will inevitably arrive at similar outcomes.

The problem is not the machine. The problem is the absence of a distinct point of view.

AI does not create sameness. It makes it visible.

That is why the backlash against AI-driven campaigns is often misunderstood. When people criticize a campaign for feeling artificial or generic, they are not neccessarily defending taste. They are defending something more profound: the expectation that a brand should behave in a way that is recognizable and consistent with its identity.

The question is not whether the work looks good. The question is whether it feels true to the brand behind it.

What happens when taste becomes trainable?

An interesting paradox is emerging.

At the same time that the industry celebrates taste as a uniquely human capability, countless companies are trying to encode, model, and teach taste to AI systems. We are now seeing entire businesses dedicated to translating aesthetic preferences into computational frameworks.

That alone should make us pause.

Because the moment taste becomes codifiable, it ceases to be this wonderful magical human capability. It becomes a system. And systems can be learned.

The more important question is therefore not whether taste can be taught. Of course it can.

The more interesting question is: what remains once it can?

My answer is simple: Judgment. Prioritization. Responsibility.

Why craft still matters

Luxury brands offer an important lesson here.

Companies such as Hermès continue to emphasize craftsmanship, handcrafted products, and human expertise even as technological possibilities expand. Yet this is not because AI is incapable of producing beautiful images or compelling experiences.

It is because craftsmanship itself is part of the brand story.

For these brands, how something is made carries cultural meaning. It communicates heritage, values, and credibility. The process is inseparable from the promise.

Choosing craftsmanship is therefore not primarily an aesthetic decision. It is a strategic one.

The medium supports the meaning. And that distinction matters more than ever.

From Taste to Judgment

Taste changes constantly.

The history of design, advertising, and culture is a history of shifting preferences. What feels extraordinary today often becomes ordinary tomorrow. What is celebrated as sophisticated in one decade may look generic in the next.

Brand identity operates on a different timeline.

Strong brands evolve, but they do not reinvent themselves every time trends change. Apple continues to pursue simplicity. Nike continues to champion personal achievement. Their expressions may evolve, but their underlying beliefs remain remarkably consistent.

This is why I believe judgment will become more valuable than taste.

As machines generate ever-larger amounts of content, the scarce resource will no longer be production capability.

It will be decision-making.

Someone must still decide:

• Which direction a brand should take.
• Which tensions it is willing to embrace.
• Which opportunities are worth pursuing.
• Which temptations should be ignored.
• When to follow convention and when to deliberately challenge it.

Taste evaluates. Judgement decides. And responsibility ensures someone stands behind the decision.

The future brand is a system of principles

For me, strategy is not a presentation, a framework, or a brand platform.

Strategy is the logic behind decisions. Every strong brand should be able to answer three questions:

1. Why do we exist?
2. For whom are we relevant?
3. Which designs follow from that?

In a world increasingly shaped by AI, these questions become even more important.

Brands are no longer experienced only through campaigns, websites, and products. Increasingly, they show up through chatbots, digital assistants, agents, and automated interactions.

As a result, the defining question is changing.

It is no longer: "How does the brand look?" It is: "How does the brand behave?"

The brands that succeed will not be those with the most polished outputs. They will be the ones capable of creating a stable system of principles that guides behavior across every touchpoint, human or machine.

Not every response needs to be identical. But every response should feel like it comes from the same brand.

The new role of agencies

This shift changes the role of agencies as well.

As content creation becomes faster, cheaper, and increasingly automated, value moves away from production and toward orientation. The challenge is no longer generating endless variations. The challenge is knowing which variation matters.

The most valuable partners will not simply create assets. They will help organizations define identity, establish decision logic, navigate trade-offs, and maintain coherence in an increasingly complex environment.

In other words, they will help brands answer the questions that machines cannot answer for them.

The future belongs neither to taste nor to technology. It belongs to those with the judgment to decide what matters.

The perspectives shared in this article originate from an interview between Daniel Leyser, Global CEO of MetaDesign and Conrad Breyer, editor at W&V and was originally posted on W&V.