Case Study: Taste OS

Everyone recognises taste. Walk into an Aesop store and you feel it. Pick up a Muji notebook and you feel it. Open Stripe's website and you feel it. It is instant, instinctive, and almost impossible to articulate. Ask someone why a brand has taste and they will reach for words like "clean" or "considered" or "just works." They know it when they see it. They cannot explain it.

That gap between recognition and articulation is the problem Taste OS was built to solve. Not to replace the instinct, but to give it a shared language. A framework. A score.

The thesis

Taste is measurable. That is a controversial claim, and I mean it seriously. The advertising and design industries have treated taste as subjective, ineffable, something you either have or you do not. This is convenient for people who have it (it protects their mystique) and unhelpful for everyone else (it offers no path to improvement).

But taste is not magic. It is a collection of observable decisions. The materials a brand chooses. What it leaves out. How it references culture. Whether its originality is genuine or derivative. Whether its choices will age well. These are measurable dimensions. They can be scored. And when you score them consistently across dozens of brands, patterns emerge that pure intuition misses.

That is the thesis behind Taste OS: taste is not a feeling. It is a framework.

The framework

Five dimensions. Each scored 0 to 20. Total: 100 points.

Craft (0 to 20). Quality of execution. Attention to detail. Material choices. The difference between something made and something manufactured. High: Aesop at 19, where every touchpoint is considered. Low: Temu at 3, optimised for speed over care.

Restraint (0 to 20). What was left out. Elegance through reduction. Knowing when to stop. The hardest dimension to score, and the most revealing. High: Muji at 20, where absence is philosophy. Low: Temu at 1, where everything is everywhere all at once.

Cultural Awareness (0 to 20). References and context. Reading the room. Understanding the audience without pandering. Participation in culture, not extraction from it. High: Virgil Abloh at 20, where culture is the medium. Low: Tesla at 8, tone-deaf to the room.

Originality (0 to 20). Freshness. A genuine point of view. Not derivative, not referential for its own sake. The courage to make something that did not exist before. High: Liquid Death at 20, a brand that should not exist but does. Low: Temu at 4, copying the copycats.

Timelessness (0 to 20). Will this age well? Does it transcend its moment? The difference between a trend and a contribution. High: Dieter Rams at 20, timeless by definition. Low: Shein at 2, designed to be disposable.

The framework creates six tiers: Canonical (90 to 100), Exceptional (75 to 89), Competent (60 to 74), Mixed (40 to 59), Questionable (20 to 39), and Anti-Taste (0 to 19).

Brands cannot A/B test their way to taste. You cannot optimise for it with performance marketing. It requires conviction, restraint, and the courage to leave things out. That is what makes it valuable.

What is inside

44 brands scored. From Aesop (93, Canonical) and Dieter Rams (95, Canonical) to Temu (17, Anti-Taste) and Shein (22, Questionable). Each brand has a full rationale explaining the scores, a radar chart visualising its taste profile, and tags linking it to related brands.

44 individual brand pages. Every scored brand gets its own page with the full breakdown, radar chart comparison to category averages, and the written rationale. These pages are linkable and shareable. When someone asks "what does Patagonia's taste look like?", you can send them a URL.

Industry indexes. Fashion and tech get dedicated index pages that rank brands within their category, revealing which sector has more taste and where the gaps live. The fashion index tells a different story to the tech index, and the contrast is revealing.

Interactive scorer. Anyone can score a brand using the same framework. Five sliders, instant results. The scorer calculates the total, assigns a tier, and generates a radar chart in real time. It is the framework made interactive, and it forces the user to make specific, defensible judgments about each dimension rather than relying on gut feeling alone.

Brand comparison tool. Select any two brands and see their radar charts overlaid. Where does Nike outperform Adidas? Where does Apple lose ground to Braun? The comparison tool makes the abstract concrete. Taste differences become visible, specific, and arguable.

Brand of the Week. Every Monday, the homepage features a new brand with full analysis. A rotating spotlight that builds the index gradually and gives the site a reason to revisit.

Embeddable badge. A small JavaScript widget that any brand can embed on their own site, showing their Taste OS score. Dark and light themes. The badge turns the framework into a credential, and the embed turns Taste OS into a platform rather than just a publication.

Why this matters

Frameworks create authority. That is the strategic insight behind Taste OS.

There are thousands of opinions about brand quality on the internet. Blog posts, tweet threads, newsletter takes. They are all subjective, all unstructured, all impossible to compare. Taste OS is different because it applies the same five dimensions to every brand, every time. The framework is consistent. The scores are specific. The rationale is written. That consistency is what transforms opinion into methodology.

In advertising, I spent fifteen years watching brands spend millions trying to understand where they stand in culture. Brand trackers. Perception studies. Competitive analyses. None of them measured taste. They measured awareness, preference, purchase intent. All useful. All missing the dimension that separates a brand people buy from a brand people admire.

Taste OS fills that gap. Not with a survey panel of a thousand respondents, but with an opinionated framework that says: here are the five things that matter, here is how we score them, and here is where your brand lands. It is a provocation disguised as a product. It is the kind of thing that starts conversations in brand strategy meetings, not because the scores are definitive, but because the framework forces people to think about taste in specific, measurable terms.

The product thinking

The interesting design decision was treating scored brands as content, not just data. Every brand page is a self-contained piece of analysis. The rationales are not template-generated filler. Each one makes a specific argument about why that brand scored the way it did, with references to competitors and cultural context. Dieter Rams at 95 is not just a number. It is accompanied by the observation that his ten principles of good design, written decades ago, still govern how we judge everything. Liquid Death at 82 is not just "high originality." The rationale notes that it proved a brand can have maximum personality and maximum restraint at the same time.

The RSS feed, the essay collection, the submit form for requesting brand scores: these are the features that turn a one-time visit into a publication. Taste OS is not a tool you use once. It is a reference you return to.

What it taught me

Frameworks create authority. This is the lesson that applies far beyond this project. When you build a structured methodology and apply it consistently, people treat you differently. You are not just "someone with opinions about brands." You are the person who built the scoring framework. The framework becomes the credential.

For a strategist trying to demonstrate that taste matters commercially, building the measurement tool is the ultimate proof of concept. It is not an argument. It is a product. It does not say "taste is important" in a strategy deck. It scores 44 brands and lets you draw your own conclusions.

Every strategist should build something. But specifically, every strategist should build the framework that makes their thinking tangible. The framework is the thought leadership. The product is the portfolio piece. The score is the conversation starter.

Taste OS scores 44 brands today. The framework itself could score thousands. The question is not whether taste is measurable. It is whether you are willing to put a number on it and defend it.

Try Taste OS Score any brand's taste Open Taste OS