The 80% reliable / 20% weird idea is such a good way to explain why some brands become favorites instead of just “good businesses.”
The reliable part gets you trusted. The weird part gives people something to remember.
But I think there’s a commercial trap in there too: brands can fall in love with being “different” and forget that weirdness only has value if it changes behavior somehow. Does it make people choose you, talk about you, come back, pay more, forgive a mistake?
Fallow works because the strange bits all reinforce the same identity. It doesn’t feel like random quirkiness pasted onto a normal restaurant.
That’s the bit I keep coming back to: distinctive is not automatically valuable.
Where do you think the line is between memorable weirdness and founder self-indulgence?
@Fiona Maciver, PhD what do you think the line is between effective brand weirdness/uniqueness and founders just being self-indulgent in a way that hurts the brand?
I hadn’t seen this article before Colin, as we’re relatively ‘new followers’!
This is very much my area of interest, and something I’m writing about lately -
I believe the 80/20 also applies in brands that just exist to maintain the status quo, versus those that are striving for best in class.
Therefore when we as consumers come across one of the latter, it makes us sit up and notice.
My take is always the same - it takes a balance of left brain/right brain thinking. You can’t, and shouldn’t, over-index on one at the expense of the other. Both deserve their place.
That's a good point. You're reminding me that I heard a podcast recently with Dave Trott, and he talked about how almost all marketing is completely ignored or forgotten by consumers. There's a small percentage of marketing that's loved, and a small percent that's hated, but most of it has no impact at all.
I definitely think it's helpful for brands to do something just slightly different to stand out. I think the hard part is that the unique, "weird" elements are often the things that are based on gut instinct and are hard to defend to the finance team. I think sometimes this has to happen more organically. Otherwise it feels insincere and sterile.
I definitely agree that it can become really gimmicky if brands just try to be weird for the sake of being weird.
I definitely think it works best if it develops organically as a part of the founders’ personalities or the team culture.
I’m not 100% sure there the line is between effective brand weirdness and founder self-indulgence. I think maybe that line is where the company starts losing money…
It’s all about the Most Alternative, Yet Acceptable principle. Might write a post about that as a Part 3.
But also… maybe part of Vans’ problem is that they’re no longer “off the wall.”
I think maybe they’ve gotten a bit too mainstream and lost some of what made the brand cool.
Who knows? The thing is trends come and go. 5 years from now everyone will decide that chunky shoes like On and Hoka look dumb and then people might want slimmer shoe profiles again.
But I’m more interested in brands that can last 100 years than ones that can always keep a high stock price. They may not last that long… Converse had to basically be bailed out. But here’s to hoping they’ll stick around a bit longer!
Sadly, Vans has been a boat anchor around VF stock for about three years now. In the fiscal year ending March 2026, Vans revenue fell 9%, and it dropped another 9% in the April to June quarter, enough to push overall company sales down 5% and knock the stock down 17% in a day. The frustrating part is that the rest of the portfolio is working: North Face and Timberland have been growing steadily, and management says VF would be posting growth without Vans. Some of the shrinkage is deliberate (store closures, pulling back inventory in China), but the bigger issue is that classic skate shoes have fallen out of favor against performance and lifestyle footwear. Since Vans was the growth engine behind VF's debt-heavy acquisition years, its stall hurts twice. At this point the VF story is mostly a bet on whether Vans can stop shrinking.
Well, I appreciate you sharing so much. We’ll see what happens! If anything, I guess Vans stock is now on sale! I think they’ll bounce back, but only time will tell.
In my essay, I was mostly writing about unique ideas, not the financial metrics. But sometimes what’s a good idea for a few decades doesn’t always continue to work, so you have to adapt. It will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out!
I loved this article. I remember reading The Emperor of All Maladies. It was written by Siddhartha Mukherjee, an oncologist and researcher. It’s a biography of cancer itself. What struck me was how cancer research advanced because of unexpected professions, strange personalities, and intellectual “weirdness.”
The 80% reliable / 20% weird idea is such a good way to explain why some brands become favorites instead of just “good businesses.”
The reliable part gets you trusted. The weird part gives people something to remember.
But I think there’s a commercial trap in there too: brands can fall in love with being “different” and forget that weirdness only has value if it changes behavior somehow. Does it make people choose you, talk about you, come back, pay more, forgive a mistake?
Fallow works because the strange bits all reinforce the same identity. It doesn’t feel like random quirkiness pasted onto a normal restaurant.
That’s the bit I keep coming back to: distinctive is not automatically valuable.
Where do you think the line is between memorable weirdness and founder self-indulgence?
@Fiona Maciver, PhD what do you think the line is between effective brand weirdness/uniqueness and founders just being self-indulgent in a way that hurts the brand?
I hadn’t seen this article before Colin, as we’re relatively ‘new followers’!
This is very much my area of interest, and something I’m writing about lately -
I believe the 80/20 also applies in brands that just exist to maintain the status quo, versus those that are striving for best in class.
Therefore when we as consumers come across one of the latter, it makes us sit up and notice.
My take is always the same - it takes a balance of left brain/right brain thinking. You can’t, and shouldn’t, over-index on one at the expense of the other. Both deserve their place.
That's a good point. You're reminding me that I heard a podcast recently with Dave Trott, and he talked about how almost all marketing is completely ignored or forgotten by consumers. There's a small percentage of marketing that's loved, and a small percent that's hated, but most of it has no impact at all.
I definitely think it's helpful for brands to do something just slightly different to stand out. I think the hard part is that the unique, "weird" elements are often the things that are based on gut instinct and are hard to defend to the finance team. I think sometimes this has to happen more organically. Otherwise it feels insincere and sterile.
Most things are sadly throwaway these days.
That's why the special ones shine 🌟
Haha well… I wrote a follow-up post about that too!
This is part 2:
https://substack.com/@colinjblack/note/p-196827647?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=6ffae
I definitely agree that it can become really gimmicky if brands just try to be weird for the sake of being weird.
I definitely think it works best if it develops organically as a part of the founders’ personalities or the team culture.
I’m not 100% sure there the line is between effective brand weirdness and founder self-indulgence. I think maybe that line is where the company starts losing money…
It’s all about the Most Alternative, Yet Acceptable principle. Might write a post about that as a Part 3.
catching up with all the responses….
Vans might not be the best example for "off the wall" being a great brand strategy ... it certainly hasn't helped the stock :-( https://www.google.com/finance/quote/VFC:NYSE?window=5Y
Vans is from my hometown. Gotta represent haha.
But also… maybe part of Vans’ problem is that they’re no longer “off the wall.”
I think maybe they’ve gotten a bit too mainstream and lost some of what made the brand cool.
Who knows? The thing is trends come and go. 5 years from now everyone will decide that chunky shoes like On and Hoka look dumb and then people might want slimmer shoe profiles again.
But I’m more interested in brands that can last 100 years than ones that can always keep a high stock price. They may not last that long… Converse had to basically be bailed out. But here’s to hoping they’ll stick around a bit longer!
Well, Vanity Fair's from my hometown, so I have to "represent" as well! Plus they've lasted 127 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF_Corporation .
Sadly, Vans has been a boat anchor around VF stock for about three years now. In the fiscal year ending March 2026, Vans revenue fell 9%, and it dropped another 9% in the April to June quarter, enough to push overall company sales down 5% and knock the stock down 17% in a day. The frustrating part is that the rest of the portfolio is working: North Face and Timberland have been growing steadily, and management says VF would be posting growth without Vans. Some of the shrinkage is deliberate (store closures, pulling back inventory in China), but the bigger issue is that classic skate shoes have fallen out of favor against performance and lifestyle footwear. Since Vans was the growth engine behind VF's debt-heavy acquisition years, its stall hurts twice. At this point the VF story is mostly a bet on whether Vans can stop shrinking.
Well, I appreciate you sharing so much. We’ll see what happens! If anything, I guess Vans stock is now on sale! I think they’ll bounce back, but only time will tell.
In my essay, I was mostly writing about unique ideas, not the financial metrics. But sometimes what’s a good idea for a few decades doesn’t always continue to work, so you have to adapt. It will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out!
The 80% reliable / 20% weird rule is a simple but powerful reminder that memorability comes from personality, not just consistency.
Very true. Most businesses don’t have much personality!
We cannot succeed without genuine creativity and freedom. Thank you!
So glad you liked it!
Yes! Embrace your weirdness 💕 love this article and the examples you've used.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad you liked the article.
Loved the article. Let’s chat. I’ve been in the branding space for years, but I’m def on the be more of your weird/quirky self train.
That sounds great! Just shoot me a message and we can set something up. Glad you liked it!
I loved this article. I remember reading The Emperor of All Maladies. It was written by Siddhartha Mukherjee, an oncologist and researcher. It’s a biography of cancer itself. What struck me was how cancer research advanced because of unexpected professions, strange personalities, and intellectual “weirdness.”
That’s so interesting! I’ll have to look it up. Love the example! And I’m glad you like the article
Glad to hear it! Gotta let your unique strengths shine!