Style Without Subject
On confident brands and brands that look confident.
I have always been attracted to confidence. Confident people who say what they mean. Confident companies that know they’re the best in a category. Confident directors, athletes, musicians, etc. Not misplaced confidence, but confidence paired with competence and held up by roots of time, understanding, and execution.
Moving through the professional world will make you realize that many brands are faking their confidence, or at least that their roots don’t go very deep. Choices sit atop the facade of trying to be cool and relevant—trying to appear like a leader even as they know they’re slowly losing ground in their category.
How does a brand—or a person—develop true confidence? How can they tell their story with a strength that makes it believable, rather than constructing a facade that will wash away?
I recently read On Philosophical Style by Brand Blanshard, a short book about philosophical writing and its many pitfalls. In his exploration of philosophical writing, Blanshard draws several connections to art that I think apply here.
He argues that depth of subject and style must work together for someone to be a good philosopher or artist. An obsession with style at the expense of substance is costly, but the opposite is also true: depth of subject without the style needed to communicate it is also a loss.
“I would go further and say that a preoccupation with style may sterilize a philosopher or even an artist. When an artist becomes so ‘abstract,’ so lost in pure form, that he has nothing left to express, he finds himself in a vacuum, and the step is not a long one from inanity to insanity. A philosopher who is precious, mannered, and self-conscious is a bore, either in person or on paper.
[…] ‘Subject without style,’ said Professor Collingwood, ‘is barbarism; style without subject is dilettantism. Art is the two together.’”
For a person or brand to be confident in a subject, they must have depth in both style and subject. Confidence has to be purchased through effort—through an almost philosophical understanding of a subject that can then be translated with style for others to understand.
I feel this is where most brands make mistakes. They pursue style first without developing depth in their subject, revealing a lack of confidence in their own category. Or they go so deep into the subject that no one understands who the brand is or what it aims to do.
Some of the best brands today are those that pair subject and style in a way that makes sense immediately. Apple and A24 have both done an amazing job of this throughout their histories. Real confidence is rooted in a deep understanding of your subject.
But the business of understanding is tough work.
When building something, your job is to understand something on a deep, personal, philosophical level and yet make what you are thinking incredibly simple for people who may partake. Both depth and importance must be communicated in a way that makes sense immediately.
Recent ads for big gambling sites like Kalshi and Polymarket seem to have all the style. They hire major artists, actors, and cinematographers to create great work that ultimately falls short because it lacks a soul. The style becomes a facade of vanity rather than something that gives a meaningful idea greater force.
For a brand to be genuinely confident and stand the test of time, style—whether expressed through marketing, photography, events, or World Cup ads—must serve and strengthen what is already there. It must begin with a great product, a clear point of view, and a deep understanding of its subject. Style can then give those things clarity, direction, and the ability to reach people.
To quote another bit of philosophical writing advice:
“Style is the feather in the arrow, not the feather in the hat.”
Thanks for reading!