The Bakery Rebrand That Kept Failing the Brief
A small sourdough bakery in a regional town commissions a new identity. The client's stated brief says only: 'Make us look modern and premium so we can raise prices.' The designer, working alone, skips written research and goes straight to sketching. She produces 40 thumbnail logos in two days, picks her favourite - a thin, high-contrast serif wordmark in black on cream - and presents it. The client rejects it, saying it 'looks like a funeral parlour' and that their regular customers are families buying $6 loaves, not luxury shoppers. The designer returns to the studio and produces 12 more variations of the same visual direction, then a third round of 8. Six weeks and 60 concepts later, the identity is still unresolved and the client is questioning the fee.
1. Identify where the design process broke down, referring to specific stages and to the evidence in the scenario.
Read the worked answer
The breakdown is not in idea generation - 60 concepts is far more than needed - but in the research and definition stages that should precede it.
- Brief definition: 'Modern and premium' is a client's aspiration, not a design problem statement. A designer should have converted it into defined objectives: who the audience is, what 'premium' means to them, what price point and occasion the identity must support, and what must not change (existing customer recognition). None of this was written down.
- Research: No audience or competitor research was done, so the designer substituted her own taste for evidence. The rejection message ('funeral parlour', '$6 loaves', 'families') is exactly the data that research would have surfaced before sketching.
- Evaluation and refinement: The second and third rounds repeat the same visual direction rather than testing alternatives. Iteration without a changed hypothesis is not refinement; it is repetition. The designer never returned to the client to confirm the reinterpreted problem.
A defensible process would have paused after the first rejection, re-briefed with the client, and tested two or three genuinely different directions against the families-and-value positioning.
2. The client now asks for a fixed fee for 'one more round'. Recommend how the designer should restructure the remaining work, and justify each step in terms of the design process.
Read the worked answer
Restructure around convergence, not more output.
- Re-brief in writing (definition). One short session with the client to convert 'modern and premium' into testable criteria: e.g. 'reads as high quality at $6, not $16', 'still recognisable to existing regulars', 'works at 20 mm on a paper bag'. These become the evaluation checklist for every concept. This is the missing stage, and it is cheap relative to another 12 concepts.
- Audience evidence (research). A quick intercept at the shop or a short survey of regulars using two or three wordmark mock-ups on a real bag. This replaces the designer's taste with the audience's response, which is what the exam rewards when it asks about purpose and audience.
- Two distinct directions only (idea generation). Each direction must be justified against the criteria, not against personal preference. Fewer, better-argued concepts reduce the client's decision load.
- Present with rationale (communication). Show each concept mocked up on the actual artefacts - bag, signage, price tag - because a logo judged in isolation is judged on taste.
- One structured refinement round, then sign-off (evaluation). Agree in advance that feedback must reference the criteria. This prevents the taste-driven loop that produced 60 concepts.
Justification: the fee should buy decisions, not sketches. Each step maps to a stage the first attempt skipped, and each reduces the chance of a fourth unresolved round.