When brand gets in the way: Rethinking consistency and clarity in UX

UXBrand

13 Jun

In my experience, two of the most commonly misunderstood design principles are consistency and cleverness. Ironically, both are often applied in the name of branding but they can quietly undermine the user experience when left unchecked.

Teams prioritising on-brand design over clear design. They cling to established systems, stylised patterns, or delightful micro-interactions, even when they confuse, slow down, or alienate users.

The result? Interfaces that look polished but feel awkward. Components that follow guidelines but don’t follow logic. Experiences that impress stakeholders but frustrate users, and here’s the tension: the more rigorously we enforce design consistency, the harder it becomes to spot when that very consistency is creating friction.

Consistency should reduce cognitive load not creative thinking

Let’s be clear: consistency has value. It helps users predict behaviour, builds trust, and reduces mental effort, but when it's treated as a rulebook rather than a toolkit, it can block progress. Here’s where I see it go wrong:

– Patterns are reused without context. A button or flow is kept purely because “it’s in the system”—not because it solves the problem.
– Design ops become too rigid. The goal becomes brand harmony, not user clarity.
– Deviations are discouraged. Innovation is stifled because “that’s not how we do it”.

In these environments, teams start designing for the brand, not the person using the product, and while consistency might win awards, it won’t win loyalty if users are confused.

Here’s the thing: a confused user never converts. They don’t trust, they don’t return, and they certainly don’t recommend.

Great UX doesn’t show off, it shows up. It guides, supports, and stays out of the way.

🧐 Ask yourself: Are you designing for the brand or the user?

It’s a hard truth, but one worth sitting with: brand alignment should never override usability. That doesn’t mean abandoning your voice, your system, or your standards. It means applying them with intent, not by default.

A few reflective questions I’ve found helpful for product and UX teams:

✅ Are we keeping this pattern because it’s working or because it’s familiar?
✅ Does this wording make the user feel smart or does it make them think harder than they need to?
✅ Is this visual element guiding action or just decorating the interface?
✅ Have we tested this design with real users or just signed it off in Figma?

💡 Actionable Tips: Making brand and UX work together

Here’s how to build experiences that look like your brand and work for your users:

🔹 Use brand tone in moments of success, not instruction. Save the flair for when it adds delight, not when users are trying to understand what to do next.

🔹 Regularly audit your design system. Ask: which components are still solving problems and which are legacy habits?

🔹 Prototype outside the system. Occasionally build flows without predefined components to challenge assumptions. Then bring in the system where it makes sense.

🔹 Pair brand designers with UX researchers. This helps ensure that the style never overshadows the substance.

🔹 Favour clarity over cleverness in copy. Witty microcopy is great after the user succeeds, not before.

🔹 Create space for context-driven variation. Design systems should support flexibility, not suppress it.

🎯 Final thought - design consistency is a means, not an end, and cleverness without clarity is just noise.

The most trusted products don’t just look like the brand—they act in the user's best interest. That means knowing when to lean on the system, and when to push beyond it. When to be bold, and when to be obvious. When to slow down, simplify, and say: “This is what you need to do—and here’s how we’ll help you get there.”

👉 Where in your product is brand getting in the way of clarity and what could you simplify today?

Designed for Humans is here to make your UX resonate and work for real humans.

Let's make magic