Vague feedback is a vocabulary problem, not a taste problem
When a client says “make it pop,” they are not being lazy. They are being precise about a feeling they do not 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. That is how you end up three revisions deep and further from right.
Figure 1 · A precise feeling, an imprecise word
This is a field guide to the most common phrases, what is usually hiding under each one, and which of them would simply disappear if the team had perception data going in. It is a companion to the wider translation problem between clients and creatives, narrowed to the eight phrases you hear most.
The catalog: reactions to the work
“It feels off.”
Underneath: something in the work is creating dissonance with what the stakeholder expects the brand to feel like, and they cannot 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 Audience Perception Maps measure. The fix is not to add gold and serifs. It is 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 are holding in their head but have not described. “Not quite there” means there is a “there,” and they can see it and you cannot. 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 do not like it personally and cannot articulate why. This is the one that turns a project into a mind-reading exercise, because there is nothing specific to fix. It is 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 is not communicating its intended meaning to this person. That might be a real clarity problem or a context gap. Either way it is measurable. You can test whether the audience “gets it” and stop debating whether one stakeholder should.
The catalog: the ones that point upstream
Two phrases in the catalog are not really about the work in front of the room. They are about what was never captured before the work started.
“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, or it becomes the pivot that arrives at the first concept review.
Figure 2 · The translation table
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.
Figure 3 · The review, with and without evidence
The one that is hardest to dissolve is “I just don’t love it,” because it is 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. That is a different conversation than the loudest voice winning.
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 have been guilty of this with students in my classroom and with designers who 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 there is only so much time I can spend on a project review. I have gotten good at following up with specific instructions for how to improve type hierarchy, color contrast, and so on. If I cannot offer specific on-the-spot direction for what would make a difference, I can at least point them toward where to look for better answers, what questions still need asking, and examples of work worth examining.
That is a lot to ask of someone who has been working as a creative director for 15 years and teaching undergraduate and graduate design for just as long. It is far too much to ask of a client who has spent their time and energy mastering a skillset that likely does not include design. They are not going to hand you the translation. Bring the evidence, and the phrase takes care of itself.
Frequently asked questions
Why do stakeholders give such vague creative feedback?
Because they are 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 and the language is approximate, and that gap is a vocabulary problem everyone has, including experienced creative directors.
How should a creative team respond to “make it pop” or “it feels off”?
Do not solve for the word. Translate the feeling into a measurable question, then test it against the audience. “Feels off” becomes: does the audience feel the same dissonance, and where does it live? Solving the phrase literally is how projects drift into endless revisions, each one further from right.
Which vague phrases go away with audience data?
Most of the perception-based ones. “Feels off,” “more premium,” “needs more energy” and “I don’t get it” become testable questions instead of debates. The hardest to dissolve is “I just don’t love it,” because it is about personal taste, though data at least makes it visible as one person’s opinion beside the evidence.
Is vague feedback the stakeholder’s fault?
No. It is a vocabulary problem everyone has, including creative directors who have been giving critiques for fifteen years. The fix is not blaming the phrasing. It is giving the room evidence, so feelings can be checked against what the audience actually perceives rather than against another feeling.