OtherFolk® journal

Brand testing: when, why, and why not

Sometimes you need to test, sometimes you don't. Decide if the stakes are high, and be clear on exactly what and why you're testing.

TBC minute read

Market sentiment is a great way to test critical and polarising decisions. However, for the most part the process of branding should always be informed by strategy. It should challenge stakeholders and encourage some discomfort, leaning out of the 'safe' zone. But unless you are intentionally pursuing something highly unconventional that actively contradicts market expectations, extreme risk is unlikely. In most cases, the question is simple: does the chosen direction clearly and effectively communicate the characteristics your buyers already expect and value? If you've done your research already, and your strategy is solid, then this should be an easier answer – you shouldn't need to re-ask your buyers. However if there's still concern that the choices feel too risky, and that customer reaction is uncertain, the following points can help frame the discussion:

1. Customers are not your strategists

Strategy sets the direction: who you are, why you exist, what you stand for. Customers can tell you if you’ve missed the mark, but they cannot define your strategy. The risk here is they may also push you toward what feels familiar, and homogeny is the last thing a brand needs. What you want from customer feedback is strong qualitative push-back, not safe consensus.

2. Test complete concepts, not ideas

Colours, fonts and trends should be guided by market understanding. Your job - and your agency’s - is to see where competitors cluster and then carve out space to stand apart. Customers cannot do that work for you. Research should test complete, strategic directions, not fragments of branding or a pile of colour options. Testing a brand is also not the same as testing a product. A website or an app has a clear job: either the path works or it doesn’t. That is why early and regular testing makes sense in digital. Brand is different. You cannot measure it with the same clarity. Testing half-baked ideas only gives you emotional reactions to unfinished aesthetics - and risks killing a strong direction before it has matured. Have conviction. Develop the brand to a point where it can be tested properly, and only then bring in customers if there is genuine high-stakes risk.

3. Keep it narrow

Use testing to sharpen your approach, never to hand over decision-making. Ten near-identical concepts being run past customers is not testing, it is abdication. Put forward one or two directions shaped by strategy, and only test if there is a real risk of strong push-back.

Customers can tell you if you’ve missed the mark, but they cannot define your strategy. They may also push you toward what feels familiar, and homogeny is the last thing a brand needs.

4. Avoid the crowd

You don’t need a hundred voices. Five well-chosen customers will surface most of what you need. Beyond that, feedback becomes repetitive and muddy. And if you are presenting a dozen options, you haven’t made the hard calls. Research is not a shortcut to clarity. Customers should only ever be asked to react to one or two clear, fully-formed directions - not to choose between half-baked ideas or endless variations.

5. Favour qualitative over quantitative

Tickbox surveys that tell you which option people favour rarely help. What matters is why. Branding is emotional. Even when people think they’re being rational, their feelings are leading the decision. Insight comes from patterns in qualitative feedback: “this feels trustworthy,” “this feels confusing,” “this is the worst thing I’ve ever seen". That is the material you can work with. “I like this one best” is not.

6. Test to de-risk, or don’t test at all

And just to hammer this one home: customer research has value when there is genuine risk. A sense-check can tell you how a bold move lands, but only if you are clear on what you are testing. Removing your most distinctive asset? Taking a 180 degree turn? Worried that one colour choice could jar in the market? These are moments to test.

What you should avoid is testing as a default step, or putting twenty colour options in front of people and asking them to pick. That is not research. It is an outsourced vote, and it tells you nothing about sentiment toward your brand direction. Testing should focus on one or two complete ideas - and only if there is a real chance of strong push-back.

The balance that matters

B2B Branding should always be led by the why, what and who of your business. Market research is always needed - it gives you the foundation by showing you where you sit against competitors, how stakeholders see you, and how customers already talk about you in the wild. Customer testing is different. It is optional, and should only be used when strategy is set and when there is real risk involved.

If your brand strategy is clear and you are not making a risky move, customer testing adds very little. What matters is conviction and clarity, supported by a strong strategy and grounded in market research. Customer testing should never replace that work - it is there only to sharpen and de-risk. The strongest brands know when to test, when to listen, and when to trust the strategy that led them there.

Want to explore your next brand move? Book a call with OtherFolk® and let’s talk.‍
Let's talk
more from our journal
Digital Experience

Webflow Analyze vs GA4: Which one do you actually need?

If you are running or planning a Webflow site, do you stick with Google Analytics, or sign up for Webflow Analyze?

TBC Minute read

If you are running or planning a Webflow site, you'll likely want to consider how to measure performance. Google Analytics 4 and Webflow Analyze approach that differently once consent, traffic levels, and reporting requirements are factored in, which affects how much you can actually measure and act on.

Webflow Analyze

Webflow Analyze is built for immediacy; it sits inside your site, requires minimal setup, and gives you a clear view of what is happening without needing to configure events or build reports. Because it's essentially layered on top of each page in the designer, you can not only see where users are coming from and which pages they land on, but how they move through the site, where they stop scrolling, what they click on, and where they go next. For most marketing teams, that covers a large part of what they actually need day to day, especially when the goal is to sense-check performance and optimise pages for engagement, rather than run deep analysis. If campaigns are driving the right traffic, you'll still want to know if users are reaching key pages, and if they're continuing through the site as expected. Webflow Analyze removes the friction and technical roadblocks of digging through dashboards and translating the data into something usable. However, if you're looking for granular event tracking, advanced segmentation, or the ability to build out more complex attribution models, Webflow Analyze isn't your tool here. It tells you what is happening clearly, but it is not designed to answer more detailed or technical questions.

Google Analytics 4

Google Analytics 4 is built for completeness. It tracks users across sessions, captures events at a detailed level, and allows you to build a much more comprehensive view of behaviour over time. If you need to understand specific interactions, track conversions precisely, or analyse journeys across multiple touchpoints, GA4 gives you that flexibility and depth. However, the trade-off is usability; out of the box, it is not particularly clear, and most of the value comes from how well it is set up. To get meaningful insight, you often need to define events, structure your reporting, and spend time interpreting what you are looking at. Without that, it can feel like you have a lot of information but no clear answers. The technical learning curve with GA4 isn't insignificant, so although it's powerful, it asks more of the team to make it truly useful.

In practice, it comes down to the questions you're trying to answer, and whether you have enough measurable data to answer them.

Webflow Analyze vs GA4 in practice

In practice, it comes down to the questions you're trying to answer and whether you have enough measurable data to answer them. For example, if you want to understand how a campaign is performing, where users are landing, and what they do next, Webflow Analyze is great and will likely get you there faster. It's also easier to read and to trust at a glance, and fits naturally into how marketing teams sense-check performance and optimise pages directly in the designer. However, that only holds if there is enough data to work with. Analyze can only report on users who have actively consented, and if traffic is low, and only a portion of that traffic is measurable, the numbers can become too small to draw reliable conclusions from. For UK and EU sites relying on consent, that dataset can shrink very quickly.

With consent mode, Google Analytics 4 behaves differently, and it can still report and model data beyond fully opted-in users, which means it can often recognise a higher number of visitors on exactly the same site. It's not as immediate, but this does mean it remains usable at lower traffic levels where Analyze can appear almost empty.

Taken together, the two tools serve different roles. Webflow Analyze is useful for understanding how individual pages are performing, how users engage with content, and where to optimise layouts, messaging, and flow. Google Analytics 4 provides the deeper layer, helping you understand behaviour over time, measure conversions, and connect activity across campaigns and channels. If you need to track specific interactions, build detailed conversion funnels, or connect behaviour across multiple channels and sessions, GA4 along with Google Tag Manager becomes necessary regardless.

Brand Management

Brand refresh vs rebrand (aka when you just need to get your house in order)

Not every brand problem needs a rebrand. In many cases, the strategy still holds, but the way it shows up has drifted. That's where a brand refresh comes in.

TBC Minute read

A lot of B2B teams default to “we need a rebrand” when things start to feel off. In reality however, the underlying thinking is often still sound. The audience is the same, the positioning makes sense, and the business is moving in the right direction. However, what has changed is the way the brand is being applied.

How brands drift over time

Over time, brands drift. Not in a dramatic way, but through small, everyday decisions that slowly move things off course. A slightly different layout here, a new colour there, a deck that does its own thing, a landing page that feels disconnected. None of it feels like a problem in isolation, but it adds up.

You end up with a brand that looks familiar, but no longer feels consistent. Good work still happens, but it is uneven. Some pieces land well, others feel off, and there is no clear thread holding it all together. And when that happens, the brand stops behaving like a system and starts behaving like a collection of individual outputs.

That lack of cohesion creates drag. Teams spend more time making judgement calls, reviewing work, and fixing inconsistencies than they should. It becomes harder to maintain quality, not because the team lacks capability, but because the framework they are working within is no longer clear.

That is usually the point where a refresh is needed.

A refresh is not about redefining the business. It's simply about bringing the brand back in line with what is already true.

What a refresh actually does

A refresh is not about redefining the business. It's simply about bringing the brand back in line with what is already true, and making it usable again in a practical sense. It takes what exists, and tightens it, turning a loose set of ingredients into something more structured and reliable.

That means redefining how the brand actually behaves in real work; how layouts are approached, how typography and colour is applied, and how everything is used intentionally across different formats. As with any well-coded brand, this gives the team a clearer way of working, not just a set of assets.

In redefining and tightening brand rules, work becomes more consistent because there is less ambiguity. This also means production can also speed up simply, particuarly when volume increases, because fewer decisions need to be made. Output starts to build on itself, rather than varying each time something new is created.

None of this requires a new strategy. That is the key difference. If the core thinking still holds, a rebrand is unnecessary. The business does not need to redefine itself, it just needs to express itself properly.

Ready to talk?

Book a no-strings-attached chat with us to share your project, hear our initial thoughts, and decide if we’re a team you’d enjoy working with.

Our team has worked with