Taste-Making Upside Rule
Grant creative freedom when differentiation upside exceeds brand risk.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 94%
When deciding whether to approve distinctive brand content, compare the potential upside of attention, differentiation, and category influence with the realistic downside of disagreement or recoverable mistakes. Brands often claim that they want to become taste makers but constrain creators until only conventional product messaging survives. The rule reverses that default: establish firm ethical, legal, factual, and brand boundaries, then grant trusted creators meaningful freedom within them. Accept that strong points of view will not please everyone and that some experiments will underperform. Evaluate the portfolio by whether the upside from successful taste-making work outweighs contained failures, rather than judging every item by its worst imaginable reaction. This is an ongoing governance model, not permission to ignore risk; irreversible or serious harms remain outside the acceptable boundary.
Origin
Extracted from Marketing Against The Grain
Core principles
- 01Taste making requires genuine creative freedom.
- 02Distinctive viewpoints inevitably create disagreement.
- 03Mistakes are a necessary cost of differentiated editorial work.
- 04Leaders should compare upside potential with downside risk.
- 05Clear boundaries work better than universal creative caution.
- 06Safe product messaging rarely builds a remarkable brand.
How to run it
- 1
Define the Upside
Describe how the proposed freedom could produce differentiated attention, cultural relevance, or stronger category ownership.
Pro tip Estimate strategic value beyond immediate clicks.
Watch out Vague hopes of going viral are not a credible upside case.
- 2
Bound the Downside
Identify plausible reputational, customer, legal, and operational consequences. Separate recoverable disagreement from serious harm.
Pro tip Use realistic scenarios rather than the worst imaginable reaction.
Watch out Do not minimize risks to vulnerable people or irreversible brand commitments.
- 3
Set Non-Negotiables
Define factual, ethical, legal, and brand constraints that creators may not cross.
Pro tip Keep the boundary list short enough to guide real decisions.
Watch out A rulebook covering every creative choice recreates the original restriction.
- 4
Grant Editorial Freedom
Allow trusted creators to choose angles, voices, and treatments inside the boundaries without excessive approval layers.
Pro tip Assign clear decision rights before production begins.
Watch out Nominal freedom with repeated executive rewrites is not autonomy.
- 5
Accept Recoverable Errors
Treat some disagreement and failed experiments as the cost of discovering distinctive work. Correct mistakes without automatically removing all freedom.
Pro tip Run inexpensive experiments before scaling exposure.
Watch out Repeated breaches of explicit boundaries require intervention.
- 6
Review Portfolio Outcomes
Compare the total differentiation upside with the actual downside across a series of decisions. Adjust boundaries based on evidence.
Pro tip Review a portfolio rather than overreacting to one weak item.
Watch out Do not preserve an approach when harms consistently outweigh benefits.
In the wild
A brand's editorial lead proposes a defensible but polarizing argument about its market. Leadership verifies the facts and confirms that it stays within ethical and brand boundaries, then allows publication without softening every disagreement-producing statement.
→ The brand gains a recognizable perspective while containing material risk.
A company says it wants a media brand but rejects every non-product story because someone might disagree. Applying the rule reveals minimal realistic downside and substantial differentiation upside, so leaders establish boundaries and delegate editorial decisions.
→ Creators can produce distinctive category content instead of a repetitive feature feed.
Common mistakes
Optimizing for Zero Disagreement
A requirement that nobody object usually removes the point of view and personality needed for taste making.
Treating Freedom as No Governance
Creative autonomy still requires factual, ethical, legal, and brand boundaries.
Overreacting to One Miss
A recoverable underperforming experiment should be judged within the broader portfolio of creative outcomes.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for leaders governing trusted editorial and creative teams that need to publish differentiated points of view.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for legally sensitive, deceptive, unsafe, or irreversible communications where potential harm cannot be contained.
From the transcript
“You have to value the upside from that tastemaking much more than the risk of the downside.”
“That's that is why most brands fail, is because they get too worried about the risk of the downside versus the potential of the upside.”
“it's also almost impossible to make taste without giving everybody the freedom to do that and make some mistakes.”
From the episode
The Future of Marketing, Disruptive Business Models, Growing in Unfair Ways