︎︎︎August 2026
![]()
The Weight
of Ideas.
Or... Cohesion, Not Quantity.
We often talk about ideas as though they're weightless. Lightning bolts from the blue or light-bulbs popping into existence. We encourage them in brainstorms, fill notebooks with them and celebrate the moments they arrive. The assumption is that more ideas are better. I think that it’s not quantity or quality but It’s how you use an idea that matters.
Ideas have weight.
Every new idea has a cost. It asks the audience to understand one more thing, the designer to solve one more problem and the budget to stretch a little further. It introduces another decision that must be reconciled with everything that came before it. A single idea is rarely enough to burden a project, but they accumulate quietly, and before long something that once felt clear and purposeful begins to feel difficult to hold together. The burden of ideas has weighed down the central premise. This problem doesn’t happen because of bad ideas.
Well, let’s be honest with each other. Sometimes it does. Some ideas are simply bad. Some projects are poorly executed. Sometimes designers make careless decisions, chase trends or stop asking difficult questions. That's real, and it matters. But it's also relatively easy to identify. I'm more interested in the projects that are full of intelligent decisions and still somehow fail to convince. Those are much harder to understand.
Accumulation.
Most creative projects aren't undone by obviously poor decisions. They're weighed down by good ones. An interesting interaction. A clever graphic. An additional message. A new feature. A request from a stakeholder that seems perfectly reasonable in isolation. Individually they all deserve their place. Collectively they begin to compete for attention.
I've worked on projects where every individual decision felt like an improvement. Each conversation ended with the reassuring feeling that we'd made the work stronger than it had been the day before. Yet somewhere along the way, almost imperceptibly, the project became harder to describe. The original idea was still there, but it had become buried beneath the accumulation of ideas. The project wasn't expressing one clear idea anymore, it was expressing twenty.
This isn't unique to experiential design. You see it everywhere. Cars become overloaded with features because nobody wants to remove functionality. Brands accumulate so many directives until they stand for everything and, consequently, very little. Films introduce subplots that distract from the story they set out to tell.
The issue isn't ambition.
It's load.
This presents an interesting problem. If every new idea adds weight, does that mean the strongest projects simply have fewer ideas? If that were the case, the simplest projects would be the best. They aren’t.
Some of the richest creative work I've experienced is also some of the most ambitious. It's dense with ideas, references and decisions, yet rarely feels complicated. Instead, everything seems to reinforce everything else. You leave with a clear impression, not a long list of individual features. The problem isn’t the number of ideas. It’s what you do with them.
Coherence.
I’ve started to wonder whether we misdiagnose bad design. We assume projects fail because they contain poor decisions but I think they fail because they contain competing ones. Walk through a beautifully designed exhibition, use a thoughtfully designed product or spend time with a carefully constructed film and you're surrounded by thousands of decisions. Materials, typography, lighting, color, language, proportion, sound and pacing have all been considered, yet very few people experience them as separate things. They experience them as one whole. It's decisions all the way down.
So this isn't because those projects contain fewer decisions. It's because those decisions have stopped competing for attention. We often mistake coherence for consistency, as though it's simply a matter of repeating the same colors or typefaces. But coherence runs much deeper than aesthetics. It's what happens when hundreds of decisions reinforce the same central idea. The audience isn't being asked to understand something new at every turn. They're being shown the same thought, expressed again and again in different ways. Think of the original iPod. Behind its simplicity sat material science, industrial design, UX, battery chemistry, manufacturing, software, electronics and countless other disciplines. None of those decisions announced themselves. You didn't experience them individually. You simply experienced an iPod. A singular device that was united in its pursuit of function.
A pile of bricks and a building contain exactly the same material. One collapses under its own weight while the other comfortably supports it’s own weight for generations. The difference isn't how many bricks there are. It's how they're arranged.
Structure allows weight to be shared rather than concentrated.
Every successful creative project, regardless of discipline, is really an exercise in world-building via structure. Think about it: A brand creates a world. A building creates a world. A restaurant creates a world. An exhibition creates a world.
A believable world isn't built from lots of different ideas. It's built from one idea expressed hundreds of different ways. Or to put it another way, hundreds of ideas built to support one larger concept.
Coherence isn't about repetition.
It's about agreement.
Working in experiential and creative for over 20 years has made this concept difficult to ignore. When an idea is in contrast to the overall concept it sticks out becoming impossible to ignore. A finish changes here. A graphic shifts there. A material is substituted. A message is added. A queue line moves. None of these decisions are likely to define the experience on their own, but each one either reinforces the central idea or pulls against it. People rarely notice when everything belongs. They notice something is out of place. I see that same pattern elsewhere:
Products, buildings, brands, books, films, menus, cities.
The failures are rarely of craft.
They are failures of agreement.
︎︎︎June 2026
![]()
The Tyranny
of Moments.
Or... Memory, Not Marketing.
Think about the best concert you’ve ever attended.
Or the most memorable museum you’ve visited.
Or the most impressive building you’ve walked into.
Chances are you don’t remember every detail.
You remember one singular defining moment.
That’s how being human works. We don’t remember each and every detail of an experience. We just remember what resonates. The greater the emotional punch of a singular moment the longer and more impactful the memory.
We remember peaks.
The Modern Assumption.
Somewhere along the way we started believing that if one memorable moment was good then five must be better. So we keep adding. Another room. Another activation. Another photo opportunity. Another feature. Before long the experience starts feeling like a checklist rather than an idea. This is a truism across many creative disciplines. The tendancy is to keep adding until the budget runs out.
That logic seems sound: If one memorable element is good, surely five must be better? We are mistaking abundance for depth.
The Counter Argument.
It is my belief that the opposite is true. The more moments we create, the harder it becomes for any one individual moment to matter. Moments begin competing with each other as each new idea steals attention from the last. Each new feature dilutes the emotional impact of the whole.
Moving Ideas.
Let’s do a thought experiment again.
What do you remember from your favorite museum trip?
I doubt there’s more than three specific moments of true emotional resonance. Each tied to something that hit you inside. A provocative or imposing or thoughtful piece of art.
What is your memory of an amazing piece of architecture?
It’s not every single room. It’s not every trendy paint color or tasteful sculpture. It’s a couple of moments, bathed in sunlight or lit at night that strike you deeply inside. A spectacular atrium or amazing staircase. Geometry.
When you look back on a vacation what stands out the most?
I’m sure you don’t remember much about the upgraded airplane seats or the free drinks at the bar. It’s probably a startling sunset or moment shared with family and friends. A surprise, a feeling, a singular emotion.
The same principle appears everywhere. Olafur Eliasson filled the Tate Modern with a single artificial sun. Rain Room built an entire installation around one impossible premise. Balenciaga flooded a runway rather than decorating one. Justin Bieber stood alone on a vast Coachella stage with little more than a laptop and a spotlight. None of these experiences succeeded because they offered more. They succeeded because they committed to less.
Each of these are radically reductive.
A Case Study.
Years ago, while I was the creative director of a high output experiential agency, we ideated and produced an event for a very popular fashion brand during the holidays. The client was determined that the budget be spread across many ‘pretty good’ experiences. Think of things like: snow blowers, oversized snow globe, gifting room, performance stage, confessional booth. Looking back no idea was allowed to dominate and the event lost focus.
I asked myself, if given free reign, how I would have created something that lived on, that resonated and was thought about over and again? How could we create an emotional bond from the event to the brand through the attendees experience?
An empty warehouse.
A single neon sign.
An artificial snowstorm.
Something attendees would still be talking about weeks later.
A peak experience.
Emotional Concentration.
Emotional concentration is the deliberate act of focusing creative attention toward a single unforgettable idea instead of distributing it across many forgettable ones. Emotional concentration is not about spending more. It’s about deciding exactly what to spend on.
The temptation is always to add another idea or another feature or another experience. In today’s world it always feels like more is more, that there’s an insatiable hunger for content, that maximalism is king.
Every addition feels justified in isolation as an improvement. Collectively, they begin competing for the same attention. The pressure to create more often comes at the expense of creating something emotional. People who feel something become storytellers. Storytellers are infinitely more valuable than content creators.
Great creative work benefits from emotional concentration. Instead of ten outcomes at ten percent, aim for one outcome at one hundred percent. Not because it’s bigger. Because its more emotionally undeniable.
An Observation.
Every creative principle eventually encounters an exception. This one is no different. There are museums whose power lies in accumulation, films that reward endless detail, and events that hit home as an amalgamation rather than in a single unforgettable moment.
The Tyranny of Moments isn’t a rule. It’s a lens. One that asks whether another idea truly strengthens the work, or simply competes with the one that mattered most.
Selective Memory.
The challenge isn’t coming up with another idea. It’s deciding which idea deserves to dominate.
Creativity fails not because the ideas are weak, but because too many good ideas are asked to coexist. The audience experiences them all at once, and memory quietly reduces them to a hum.
The question shouldn’t be, “How many moments did they experience?”It should be, “Which moment will they carry with them?”
We don’t build memories through repetition.
We build them through resonance.