In the Age of Infinite Content, Taste Is the Only Moat

The numbers tell a contradictory story: [88% of marketers now use AI in their daily workflow](https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/ai-marketing-statistics/). But [only about a quarter are generating tangible value from it](https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/are-you-generating-value-from-ai-the-widening-gap).

Unprecedented adoption. Underwhelming results. Both happening at once.

I see this up close. Companies rush to implement AI-powered creative workflows, celebrate the efficiency gains, then quietly wonder why everything still feels… generic. The tools got better. The output didn’t.

The missing variable isn’t technology. It’s judgment.

This isn’t just my observation. [Research from Harvard Business School](https://www.hbs.edu/bigs/artificial-intelligence-human-jugment-drives-innovation) found that AI assistance actually *widened* performance gaps rather than closing them — high performers got better while struggling performers declined. The difference? Judgment. As researcher Rembrand Koning put it: “For anybody who’s using AI in their work, you need to think carefully about the person who’s using the tool. Do they have enough judgment for tasks that are required?”

As AI commoditizes the *making* of things, the *choosing* becomes everything. What to make. How to make it land. When to break the rules. These decisions — the ones that separate forgettable from remarkable — require something we’ve always valued but rarely examined: taste.

Now we need to figure out how to scale it.

“Taste” gets thrown around loosely, so let me be specific.

Taste isn’t preference. Preference is “I like blue.” Taste is understanding why a particular blue works in this context, for this audience, at this moment — and why another blue would fall flat.

Philosophers have wrestled with this. Hume pointed out that beauty lives in the mind of the observer — but some observers are better than others. There are “true judges,” he wrote, with “strong sense, united to delicate sentiment.” Taste can be developed.

Here’s why this matters for creative work: when you say “this headline doesn’t land,” you’re not just stating a preference. You’re making a claim — as if it should be obvious. But the copywriter who wrote it feels the same confidence about their version. That tension between personal reaction and universal claim? It’s why creative feedback is so hard. Everyone speaks as if there’s a right answer while knowing it’s subjective.

In practice, taste is discernment. The ability to navigate endless possibilities and make decisions that add up to something coherent. A designer with taste orchestrates hundreds of small choices — typeface, spacing, color, tone — around a central vision. They know what to leave out as much as what to include.

Here’s the part that matters: taste is a skill, not a gift.

It develops through exposure — seeing lots of examples and figuring out why they work. Through articulation — forcing yourself to explain your reactions instead of just having them. Through practice — making choices, getting feedback, doing it again. Through context — understanding how creative work serves goals beyond itself.

After two decades of design work, I can confirm: my taste at year one was embarrassing. It improved because I studied, practiced, failed, and paid attention. The designers I admire most are still refining theirs.

If taste were innate, we’d be stuck. But since it’s learnable, we can teach it. We can build systems around it.

Which raises the question: how do we actually scale it?

Most conversations about AI and creativity get stuck in a false choice. [Industry analysts frame it as efficiency versus quality](https://www.m1-project.com/blog/ai-vs-human-creativity-in-marketing-finding-the-balance), automation versus artistry — as if you have to pick a side.

Here’s a better frame:

AI creates the floor. It ensures minimum quality, brand consistency, and operational efficiency. It handles adherence so humans don’t have to.

Humans create the ceiling. They make the judgment calls that turn compliant work into compelling work — the kind that actually moves people, earns attention in an ocean of content, makes the brand matter.

You need both. And by handing the floor to AI, you free humans to focus on what they’re actually good at: raising the ceiling.

But here’s the catch: freeing up capacity doesn’t automatically develop capability. Just because creatives have more time doesn’t mean they’ll develop better taste. That takes intentional work.

Brand guidelines have existed for decades. But something shifts when they become machine-readable.

I’ve built brand governance agents that enforce visual identity in real-time. They don’t check compliance after the fact — they guide creation as it happens. Color within range? Typography following hierarchy? Tone matching brand voice? The agent knows, and it intervenes before mistakes ship.

This is the difference between brand *guidelines* and brand *guardrails*. Guidelines sit in a PDF nobody reads. Guardrails are embedded in the workflow.

The payoff: consistency at scale. Every asset, every touchpoint, every market — all aligned without an army of reviewers. This is what AI should be doing. It raises the floor reliably and tirelessly.

But rules have a ceiling. They capture past decisions, not future judgment. They tell you what’s on-brand. They don’t tell you what’s remarkable.

This is the human domain — and it’s harder to systematize.

Contextual awareness means understanding the ecosystem your work exists within. What are customers actually feeling? What’s the cultural moment? What references will land and what’s been said too many times already?

When I think about what elevates creative work from competent to compelling, it’s almost always this: the creator understood something about context that others missed.

Think about what customers are actually trying to accomplish. They don’t just have functional needs — they have emotional ones. They’re not buying a product; they’re hiring it to make progress in their lives. Understanding that emotional dimension — the feeling they’re seeking, the struggle they’re escaping — shapes creative choices at every level.

Or think about cultural timing. Brands that tap into the moment authentically create outsized resonance. But [according to Edelman’s Trust Barometer](https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer/special-report-brands), 73% of consumers say their trust in a brand increases when it authentically reflects today’s culture — and they can tell when you’re faking it. Most attempts at cultural relevance backfire because they’re calculated rather than genuine.

This kind of awareness resists automation. Context shifts constantly. What worked last quarter feels stale now. You can’t encode “understand the cultural moment” into an agent prompt.

But you can build organizations that value it — and develop it.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: most organizations aren’t set up to develop taste. They’re set up to develop compliance.

Review processes catch errors. Brand guidelines enforce consistency. Approval workflows ensure nothing embarrassing ships. All of these raise the floor. None of them raise the ceiling.

If you want to scale taste, you need to treat it like any other organizational capability — something you invest in, teach, and reward.

For individuals:

- Articulate your reactions. Don’t just say “this feels off.” Force yourself to explain why. Developing language for your reactions develops your discernment.

- Move beyond like and dislike. Ask: does this serve its goals? Does it work for its audience? Would different choices land better?

- Dissect work you admire. Don’t just consume it — pull it apart. What makes it work? What did they leave out?

- Practice deliberately. Make choices, get feedback, iterate. The designer who’s made a thousand decisions has better taste than one who’s made a hundred.

For teams:

- Create space for judgment calls, not just error-checking

- Discuss *why* something works, not just whether it’s on-brand

- Celebrate contextual awareness, not just compliance

- Make taste development part of growth conversations

Try this in your next creative review: Spend 5 minutes on “what’s wrong” and 15 minutes on “what would make this remarkable.” Most reviews invert this ratio — they’re dominated by error-catching and compliance-checking. Flip it. You’ll be surprised how the conversation changes.

- Codify principles, not just rules. Rules tell you what. Principles tell you why. “Always include the logo” is a rule. “Our brand should feel confident but approachable” is a principle. Principles transfer across situations; rules just constrain.

- Create feedback loops. What’s performing? What’s resonating? Feed this back into the creative process — not just as data, but as learning.

- Invest in customer understanding. Not just analytics — genuine insight into what customers feel, want, and struggle with. This is the raw material of contextual awareness.

If you only reward speed and compliance, you’ll build an organization of fast rule-followers. If you want taste, you need to value it explicitly — in hiring, in performance reviews, in who gets promoted.

In the AI-augmented creative workflow, human roles don’t disappear — they elevate. Here’s what that looks like in practice:

Taste-makers set direction. They’re not producing every asset, but they’re defining what good looks like. When I brief our agents, I’m not giving them a checklist — I’m articulating a vision. What should this feel like? What would make it remarkable rather than just acceptable? The agent can execute, but someone has to know what we’re aiming for.

Curators select from AI outputs. When an agent generates twenty options, someone has to choose. That choosing is where taste lives. It’s not passive — it requires understanding why option seven works and option twelve doesn’t, even when both pass the brand guidelines. The best curators can articulate their choices, which makes them better over time.

Teachers develop taste in others. This might be the most important role. The ceiling rises when more people can make good judgment calls, not just a few senior creatives. A creative director who hoards taste creates a bottleneck. One who teaches it builds an organization that scales.

Sense-makers interpret context. What’s happening in culture? What do customers actually feel right now? What’s the moment demanding? These questions require human judgment — and they require humans who’ve developed the capacity to answer them well. The sense-maker notices that last quarter’s winning approach now feels dated, and knows why.

None of these roles existed in their current form five years ago. All of them require taste. And all of them can be developed.

We’re at an inflection point. AI has handed us the ability to produce infinite content. But infinite content without taste is just noise.

The brands that matter in the next decade won’t be the ones with the most sophisticated AI. They’ll be the ones that use AI for brand adherence while building organizations that cultivate judgment.

The creative professionals who thrive won’t be the ones clinging to production work. They’ll be the ones who develop taste so sharp they become irreplaceable — and who help others develop it too.

The floor is rising automatically. The question is who will do the harder work of raising the ceiling.

Taste is the moat. Start building it.

*22 years of design, now building AI agents. If you’re figuring out how to scale judgment alongside scale itself, I’d like to hear what’s working

.