Against Trends

Every design trend represents a problem that has already been solved — by someone else, for a context that is not yours. To follow a trend is to inherit their solution without inheriting their problem. The result is form without content: design that looks contemporary and means nothing.

We do not mean that trends should be ignored. Ignoring trends is itself a form of vanity. What we mean is that a trend is useful only as evidence of cultural appetite — a data point, not a direction. The question is never "what is trending?" but "why is this resonating, and does that resonance apply to the specific problem in front of me?"

The economics of trend-following

Trend-following has an appealing economic logic: reduce risk by doing what is already proven. But it contains a temporal fallacy. By the time a trend is legible as a trend, it has already peaked. The brands that look "on trend" today are the brands that will look dated in eighteen months.

By the time a trend is legible as a trend, it has already peaked. The brands that look "on trend" today will look dated in eighteen months.

The only design that ages well is design rooted in its specific context: the specific brand, the specific audience, the specific moment. Context does not go out of style. Generic does.

What to do instead

The alternative to trend-following is not willful eccentricity. It is rigorous problem-solving. Start with what is true about this brand, this product, this audience. Start with the problem you are actually being asked to solve. Then make design decisions that serve those specifics — and only those specifics.

This process will sometimes produce work that happens to align with what is trending. That is fine. It will more often produce work that looks unusual by current standards. That is also fine. Unusual work that is true to its brief will always outlast conventional work that is merely fashionable.

Trends are research. They are not a brief. Never let them become one.