[themanmaran]

I think this framework makes a lot of sense, but some of the examples fall flat for me ("Low Clarity" you might say).

Considered High Clarity:

- Slack: “Where work happens”

- Notion: “All-in-one workspace”

Considered Low Clarity:

- Snowflake: “The Data Cloud”

- MuleSoft: “The world’s #1 integration and API platform”

I understand why the author chose those companies for the low clarity category. But I think judging on taglines alone doesn't differentiate much from the "high clarity" definitions for Slack and Notion. It would make more sense if Slack was "Instant messaging for startups" or something very explicit. But "where work happens" has to be the lowest clarity item on the list.

[max_]

Thiania a great example of "narrative fallacies"

If a company is successful we associate the tagline to their success.

If a company is a failure or unknown we say it is because the tagline or name is horrible.

What people don't understand is that the brand makes the tagline.

The tagline doesn't make the brand.

People don't buy Apple because they want to "Think Different" and no one buys Nike Shoes because they want to "Just Do It"

[cainxinth]

> People don't buy Apple because they want to "Think Different" and no one buys Nike Shoes because they want to "Just Do It"

If Apple and Nike and others could build their companies without spending billions on branding they would… but they can’t. Hence, branding is not nearly as irrelevant you make it out to be.

[roshankhan28]

i believe that for slack they went with that because they wanted to show that this is the most productive thing any organization can own, and in organization, its mostly the decesion makers who would initiate the idea of using slack in the company and i guess the tagline is more directed towards those type of people.

[bryanrasmussen]

I'm going to have to say that high clarity seems to equate pretty much to "cool, memorable bullshit" and low clarity seems to equal to "boring and understandable by target user-base"

[SenHeng]

I think it’s the difference between why and what.

Yes, there’s not a lot of ‘why’ in just three words, but it’s more meaningful than the latter examples.

IMO they’re not bad examples, just different target audiences. The latter ones are more technical and assumes you know what you’re looking for. The former ones are trying to describe why you would use them.