The idea we're testing
One Brand DNA — main and every variation in one tree.
Master brand usually lives in the hub. Campaign forks, locales, co-brand, agency sandboxes — those variations scatter into decks, Figma files, and Slack threads. Rules drift. Main stops being canonical.
We think there's value in one Brand DNA that holds the full spectrum — main plus every fork — in a single governed tree. Scoped keys for each variation. Same brand language across generator touchpoints, voice, visual, tokens, and assets. Beside Frontify and Bynder — not instead of them.
Your five answers help us learn whether that resonates — or if we're solving the wrong problem.
Why these questions
-
Express your brand
Which tools, vendors, and mediums do you actually use to show up on-brand — hub, Figma, CMS, generators, partners?
-
Govern the stack
How is brand governed across your tools — and where is it not governed, and why?
-
Brand wrangling
Where do you do the most wrangling? Campaign forks, locales, co-brand, agency sandboxes — the off-hub rodeos.
-
One source of truth
One brand SSOT for main, co-brand, sub-brand, and campaign work — AI and human — does that appeal?
-
AI + human touchpoints
Is brand governed consistently across AI generators and human workflows — using the same tools?
Five brief questions
Five required answers — a sentence or two each. One optional on whether one brand source of truth (main, co-brand, sub-brand, campaign, AI + human) sounds valuable. Then a sneak preview: a narrative story (one scene per screen), not the live product.
Form not wired yet — paste your Google Form ID in form-config.js, or
email us.
Prefer a conversation? research@bdna.one
What this is not
- Not selling a DAM or brand portal
- Not criticising Frontify, Bynder, or Figma
- Not a paid pilot or procurement process