Product strategist helping brands like Urban Outfitters, Miu Miu, Loewe & Acne Studios shape what’s next. I read culture, spot shifts, and turn them into future products, stories & experiences. Ask me anything on trends, branding, or product vision 👀

Victoria Diaz

Thanks for the question — it’s actually a very underrated moment in contemporary branding.

What we’re seeing right now is a massive shift often described as debranding — or even the debranding era.

Corporate brands are increasingly adopting DIY and artisanal aesthetics because consumers are tired of mass-produced perfection. People crave authenticity, sustainability, and human connection. DIY cues signal a human touch: slowness, intention, imperfection — even when the scale behind the brand is enormous. For big brands, it’s about feeling small enough to be relatable again.

On the other side, small indie brands are moving toward a more corporate, polished look because growth demands clarity, reliability, and recognition. Clean systems, strong logos, and consistent language help reassure customers that the brand can deliver beyond a single drop or a single maker. In crowded markets, polish becomes a shortcut to credibility, loyalty, and scalability. Many indie brands adopt minimalist or “debranded” visuals because they signal seriousness and perceived reliability.

So both sides are moving toward the middle.

But this shift carries risks — especially for indie brands.

When indie brands over-corporatise, they risk losing their most valuable asset: freedom. The freedom to experiment, to change through trial and error, to speak in a unique voice, to be imperfect. In trying to become a curated persona they’re not, they can lose the magic, personality, and authenticity that made them desirable in the first place.

There’s also a long-term financial risk. Historically, corporations and investment groups invest in indie brands precisely because they offer something different. When indie brands start looking exactly like the corporates that already exist, they often become less interesting from an investment perspective — not more.

Meanwhile, corporates borrowing DIY aesthetics are responding to a very real shift in consumer values. Imperfect, handmade signals suggest ethical practices, cultural storytelling, and emotional longevity. That’s why we see luxury houses like Marni, Hermès, and others reviving artisan techniques, craft narratives, and tactile design — pushing back against sterile minimalism. Rough edges, visible processes, and “waste” aesthetics perform well digitally and resonate strongly with younger audiences who value honesty and creativity.

And this doesn’t stop at fashion or interiors. We’re seeing the same move toward “human-made” cues in packaging, product design, and especially in the food industry.

So yes — both sides are moving toward the middle.The challenge now is knowing how far to move without losing what made you powerful in the first place.

Thanks for the question — it’s actually a very underrated moment in contemporary branding.

What we’re seeing right now is a massive shift often described as 

Corporate brands are increasingly adopting DIY and artisanal aesthetics because consumers are tired of mass-produced perfection. People crave authenticity, sustainability, and human connection. DIY cues signal a 

: slowness, intention, imperfection — even when the scale behind the brand is enormous. For big brands, it’s about feeling small enough to be relatable again.

On the other side, small indie brands are moving toward a more corporate, polished look because growth demands clarity, reliability, and recognition. Clean systems, strong logos, and consistent language help reassure customers that the brand can deliver beyond a single drop or a single maker. In crowded markets, polish becomes a shortcut to credibility, loyalty, and scalability. Many indie brands adopt minimalist or “debranded” visuals because they signal seriousness and perceived reliability.

So both sides are moving toward the middle.

But this shift carries risks — especially for indie brands.

When indie brands over-corporatise, they risk losing their most valuable asset: 

. The freedom to experiment, to change through trial and error, to speak in a unique voice, to be imperfect. In trying to become a curated persona they’re not, they can lose the magic, personality, and authenticity that made them desirable in the first place.

There’s also a long-term financial risk. Historically, corporations and investment groups invest in indie brands precisely because they offer something 

. When indie brands start looking exactly like the corporates that already exist, they often become less interesting from an investment perspective — not more.

Meanwhile, corporates borrowing DIY aesthetics are responding to a very real shift in consumer values. Imperfect, handmade signals suggest ethical practices, cultural storytelling, and emotional longevity. That’s why we see luxury houses like Marni, Hermès, and others reviving artisan techniques, craft narratives, and tactile design — pushing back against sterile minimalism. Rough edges, visible processes, and “waste” aesthetics perform well digitally and resonate strongly with younger audiences who value honesty and creativity.

And this doesn’t stop at fashion or interiors. We’re seeing the same move toward “human-made” cues in packaging, product design, and especially in the food industry.

So yes — both sides are moving toward the middle.

how far to move without losing what made you powerful in the first place

Victoria Diaz

why corporate brands want to feel DIY and small indie brands suddenly want to look corporate?