A Field Guide to Vague Creative Feedback

Vague feedback is a vocabulary problem, not a taste problem

When a client says “make it pop,” they’re not being lazy. They’re being precise about a feeling they don’t have the words for. The problem was never translation. The problem is that nobody measured what “pop” actually looks like to 500 people.

That reframe applies to the entire vocabulary of fuzzy feedback. Every vague phrase is a stakeholder pointing at a real reaction with the wrong instrument. They feel something. The word they reach for is approximate. And the creative team, trying to be responsive, starts solving for the word instead of the feeling underneath it, which is how you end up three revisions deep and further from right.

This is a field guide to the most common phrases, what’s usually hiding under each one, and which of them would simply disappear if the team had perception data going in.

The catalog

“It feels off.” Underneath: something in the work is creating dissonance with what the stakeholder expects the brand to feel like, and they can’t locate it. The feeling is real. The location is missing. This is a near-perfect candidate for perception data, which can show whether the audience feels the same dissonance and where it lives.

“Make it more premium.” Underneath: the current work associates with a lower price tier or a more casual category than the stakeholder wants. “Premium” is an association, and association is exactly what perception mapping measures. The fix isn’t to add gold and serifs. It’s to find which elements the audience actually connects to “premium” and which ones drag the read downmarket.

“It’s not quite there.” Underneath: the stakeholder senses a gap between the work and a target they’re holding in their head but haven’t described. “Not quite there” means there is a “there,” and they can see it and you can’t. The real question is whether their “there” matches the audience’s, which is a question only evidence settles.

“It needs more energy.” Underneath: the work reads as flat, safe, or static relative to the response they want it to provoke. “Energy” is a stand-in for an emotional reaction. Perception data can tell you whether the audience actually feels the flatness or whether the stakeholder is projecting a preference.

“I just don’t love it.” Underneath: often the most honest and least actionable phrase there is. They don’t like it personally and can’t articulate why. This is the one that turns a project into a mind-reading exercise, because there’s nothing specific to fix. It’s pure personal taste with no evidence attached, and chasing it burns enormous time and money. The only real answer is to ask whether the audience loves it, because the stakeholder’s personal love was never the target.

“I don’t get it.” Underneath: the work isn’t communicating its intended meaning to this person. That might be a real clarity problem or a context gap. Either way it’s measurable, you can test whether the audience “gets it” and stop debating whether one stakeholder should.

“It’s not what I was looking for.” Underneath: a mismatch between the work and an unstated expectation, usually one that was never captured at the brief stage. The fix is upstream: surface the expectation, then test it.

“Do whatever you think is best. We trust you.” Underneath: this sounds like a gift and usually isn’t one. It tends to mean “I haven’t engaged, and I’ll react when I see it.” It often reverses the moment real work appears, because the trust was theoretical. Lock alignment and evidence before relying on it.

Which of these disappear with perception data

Most of them lose their grip the moment the review has audience evidence in the room.

“Feels off,” “more premium,” “needs more energy,” and “I don’t get it” are all reactions to how the audience perceives the work, and all of them become testable questions instead of debates. When the data already shows what the audience associates and where they align, those phrases convert into “the audience agrees with you” or “the audience doesn’t,” and the conversation moves on.

The one that’s hardest to dissolve is “I just don’t love it,” because it’s about the stakeholder’s personal preference rather than the audience’s perception. Even there, perception data does something useful: it makes the personal nature of the objection visible. When the audience clearly responds to the work, “I just don’t love it” stops being a directive and becomes one person’s taste, sitting next to the evidence, where everyone can see the difference.

The phrase you used to use yourself

Every creative director has one, a thing they said to junior designers or to clients that felt specific in the moment and was really just “make it pop” in a different outfit. I’ve been guilty of this with students in my classroom and with designers that work with me. My useless catch phrase “it feels like it needs more exploration”. Translation- “I’m not feeling it, show me more”. During class critiques with college students there’s only so much time I can spend on a project review. I’ve gotten really good at following up with specific instructions for how to improve type hierarchy, color contrast, etc. If I can’t offer specific on the spot instructions for what would make a difference, I at least can point them in the direction of where to look for better answers, what questions might still need to be asked, and have front of mind examples of work to examine to hopefully find a good solution. That’s a lot to ask of someone who’s been working as a creative director for 15 years and teaching undergraduate and graduate level design for just as long. It’s way too much to ask of a client who’s spent their time and energy mastering their skillset that likely doesn’t include design.

Frequently asked questions

Why do stakeholders give such vague creative feedback? Because they’re reacting to something real without the vocabulary to name it. Phrases like “feels off” or “more premium” are precise feelings wearing imprecise words. The reaction is genuine, the language is approximate.

How should a creative team respond to “make it pop” or “it feels off”? Don’t solve for the word. Translate the feeling into a measurable question and test it against the audience. Solving the phrase literally is how projects drift into endless revisions.

Which vague phrases go away with audience data? Most of the perception-based ones, “feels off,” “more premium,” “needs more energy,” “I don’t get it”, become testable questions instead of debates. The hardest to dissolve is “I just don’t love it,” because it’s about personal taste, though data at least makes that visible as one person’s opinion.

Is vague feedback the stakeholder’s fault? No. It’s a vocabulary problem everyone has, including experienced creative directors. The fix isn’t blaming the phrasing, it’s giving the room evidence so feelings can be checked against what the audience actually perceives.