Turn insights into solutions

The gel in the shower, the cream on the hands, the fragrance that stays on skin for hours: they are repeated sensory experiences that accumulate into something closer to a ritual. Most brands focus on the packaging: an elegant bottle and a pleasant texture as finishing touches for a functional product. A few brands understood earlier that the sensory experience — first encountered in the store, confirmed every morning in the bathroom — was not decoration, but the key to strengthen relationships.

Rituals built a €1.7 billion business from a single Amsterdam store in 2000 by making this argument at an accessible price point: everyday routines could be transformed into moments of genuine pleasure. The brand remains independent and founder-led.

Aesop operates on the same philosophical premise at a higher price point and with a more deliberately theatrical retail experience — each store designed by a local architect, each visit structured around a central sink where a member of staff will wash your hands with the product.

Le Labo takes the ritual further: every fragrance is hand-blended at the moment of purchase, the label carries your name and the date, and thirteen scents exist only in the cities that inspired them. The product is made for you, once, in front of you.

Both Aesop and Le Labo are now owned by conglomerates — L'Oréal acquired Aesop for $2.5 billion in 2023, Estée Lauder acquired Le Labo for approximately $60 million in 2014, a price that looks extraordinary in retrospect. In both cases the acquiring group made the same pledge: creative autonomy, no interference with the model.

The success of these brands did not go unnoticed. Typology, founded in Paris in 2019, absorbed the aesthetic language and philosophical positioning of Aesop — the apothecary style amber bottles, the ingredient transparency, the restrained typography, the less-is-more formulation logic — and built a brand at a more accessible price point. It is not exactly a copy, but a considered strategic interpretation of the same cultural idea: consumers want to know what is in their products, want fewer ingredients, want the object on their bathroom shelf to signal intelligence and care.

Below them, there are dupes. Lidl sells an amber-bottled hand wash at about €3 that is explicitly compared to Aesop's Resurrection formula in scent and packaging. The aesthetic and the bottle shape can be copied, even the scent profile can be approximated. What cannot be copied is the daily experience of using something that is genuinely exceptional. The formulation performs differently as the scent behaves on skin over hours in a way that a fraction of the cost cannot replicate. The transparency of the ingredient list treats the buyer as someone who understands what they are putting on their body. And beneath all of it, the story the buyer tells themselves — that they chose this, understood why, and will notice the difference every morning.

Disney found out its billion-dollar partnership was dead less than an hour before the public did. The entertainment company had signed a three-year deal with OpenAI, licensed hundreds of characters for use in Sora, and was planning a Disney+ integration — all of which collapsed when OpenAI announced it would shut the product down entirely. No enterprise tier was preserved, no controlled access for partners. The consumer app closes on April 26; the API goes dark in September. Sora is being fully discontinued.

The usual narrative frames this as a technology-readiness problem — generative video that was too expensive, too unstable, too legally exposed to scale. All true, but secondary. What killed Sora was an internal resource war. While a whole team inside OpenAI was focused on making Sora work, Anthropic's Claude Code was winning over the software engineers and enterprises that drive revenue. OpenAI's application chief Fidji Simo held an all-hands meeting telling staff the company was done with "side quests" and would optimise everything for productivity. Video generation was classified as one such distraction. The model didn't fail on its own merits — it was triaged out.

The product decisions accelerated the collapse. OpenAI didn't position Sora as a professional tool or an API for studios. Sora 2 integrated social media features, and multiple outlets noted it was overtly similar to TikTok. They tried to build a consumer social platform on top of one of the most compute-intensive models in existence — a category error that combined the worst economics of both formats. The model used copyrighted material by default unless rights holders actively opted out, which made any large-scale content partnership structurally precarious.

What makes the story more than an OpenAI anecdote is what happened next — or rather, what didn't. The market didn't freeze. Kling AI, Runway, and Vidu all saw user gains within the first week of the shutdown announcement. Runway raised $315 million at a $5.3 billion valuation weeks earlier. Kling shipped three major updates between January and March 2026 alone, now generates clips up to two or three minutes at a fraction of Sora's cost, and is growing fast in markets where volume matters more than prestige. Google is integrating Veo directly into Workspace and YouTube Studio — treating video generation as a feature inside existing products, not a standalone destination. The market has segmented into clear tiers: Runway for professional quality, Kling for cost efficiency, Veo for ecosystem integration, and open-source alternatives like Seedance for local deployment.

The pattern is telling. The competitors that survived aren't trying to be the next consumer sensation. They're building API layers and production integrations — Runway sells to ad agencies and film studios through a developer platform, Kling plugs into content pipelines where volume matters more than prestige, Veo sits inside Google Workspace and YouTube Studio. None of them launched a social app. They all sell generative video as a feature inside tools people already use, not as a standalone product competing for attention. Sora proved generative video could look like cinema. What it never figured out was that the market wanted a production tool, not a spectacle.

The original clip was already a flex — a single continuous loop shot in the streets of Boulogne-Billancourt, choreographed to the frame. Gondry had to rehearse it extensively to pull off in one take. Twenty-four years later, he was called back to do it again. Gondry directs. Kylie re-records. The original artefact is intact, and the new film is positioned as its continuation, not its pastiche.

The casting does something more precise than star power. Margot Robbie has become the industry's most reliable vehicle for this kind of campaign — Barbie, Chanel, a series of roles that position her as simultaneously ironic and sincere, contemporary and classically beautiful. Robbie's specific value is that she can occupy both registers at once, which is exactly what the Kylie-to-Margot handover requires: one is the original, one is the continuation, and the transition feels inevitable.

Kylie's participation is what makes the whole construction hold. Without her, the recreation risks feeling like replacement — Chanel borrowing a memory it doesn't own. With her blessing, it becomes licensed continuation. The singer authenticates the songwriter's return. That's a model luxury is quietly developing: you can reuse cultural material if the original creator endorses the reuse, because participation converts homage into collaboration.

The deeper strategic admission is in what the campaign reveals about the Chanel 25 itself. The bag doesn't have a legend yet. Rather than build one from scratch — which takes decades and cannot be rushed — Chanel borrowed a memory from pop culture. Heritage alone no longer launches a new object to a new generation. Pop nostalgia travels faster and further than brand mythology. The classic flap got Brad Pitt, Penélope Cruz, and a 1960s French film, because a bag with sixty years of history needs that gravity.

Not every bag needs a legend. Some just need a good chorus.

Convenience used to be the cheap option. Fast food over home cooking. Instant coffee over ground. The trade was legible: you paid less, got something faster, accepted lower quality. That logic has inverted. Meal kits, same-day delivery, AI-driven replenishment, Deliveroo at the door in twenty minutes — the most convenient options are now among the most expensive. Convenience has moved up the value chain and become a premium product. The people buying back their time can afford to. The people who can't are still doing the friction themselves. What was once a budget category has become a class marker running in the opposite direction.

Mintel is right that convenience has stopped being a differentiator and become a baseline expectation — cognitive offloading, the quiet business of removing decisions and effort from the consumer's plate, is now the whole product in category after category. But the mechanism that delivers frictionlessness is worth examining more carefully. Once you are inside an Amazon Subscribe & Save loop, a Nespresso capsule subscription, a Deliveroo default order — you often stop choosing. Convenience as entry strategy, lock-in as the business model. The consumer who wanted less friction ends up with less agency.

Which brings the uncomfortable conclusion: the friction that convenience removed was also doing something. The effort of choosing, comparing, waiting — browsing a bookshop, wandering a market, discovering something you hadn't searched for — was the mechanism through which preferences were built, taste was developed, and unexpected things were found. Frictionless commerce doesn't just save time. It narrows the world to what the algorithm already knows you'll accept. Convenience optimises for satisfaction. It does not optimise for surprise. The places most associated with genuine discovery — the independent bookshop, the concept store, the farmers market — are high-friction by design and growing precisely among the consumers who can already afford to outsource everything else. Inconvenience, it turns out, is also becoming a luxury product.

The tulips last eight weeks. The logo lasts decades. That asymmetry is the most interesting thing about this brief. The digital identity Thonik designed will be seen by vastly more people than will ever walk through the gates: it lives permanently on Google image results, on Instagram grids, on every travel article written about the Netherlands between now and whenever someone commissions the next rebrand. For a destination that physically exists for two months a year, the visual system is not dressing up an experience. It is building the primary reality of a place most of those contacting it will never visit in person. The brand has become more permanent — and for most people, more real — than the garden itself.

Thonik's solution is characteristically Dutch — direct, graphic, unfussy. A stylised tulip for the garden, a coat-of-arms shield for the castle, colour palettes pulled from the physical environments themselves. Nothing that screams "look how clever we were." The system is flexible enough to travel across formats and contexts without a permanent home to anchor it, which is exactly what a brand with annual spikes and zero continuity requires. The identity has to work before people arrive and long after they leave, in places the institution doesn't control.

The question the rebrand doesn't answer — and perhaps doesn't need to — is whether design is the right lever. Keukenhof had 1.4 million visitors before the new logo. Nobody was confused about what it was. The audience already coming doesn't need a new visual system. The audience that hasn't heard of it won't be converted by one. What institutions like Keukenhof increasingly face is not a branding problem but an experience problem: the pressure of condensed demand, the gap between the image circulating online and the reality of sharing a tulip field with a hundred thousand other people. A refined logo won't close that gap. It will, however, make the Instagram grid look better.