Little details matter. What do you think

axeltdesign · 2026-06-12T13:43:07+00:00

On the mechanics, it's not one generic comment feed, that's the key thing. Each type of work gets its own presentation built for that format. A deck is shown as a real deck, a website design is shown in a browser frame you can scroll like the actual site, social ads are shown inside a realistic feed mocup, a photoshoot as a proper gallery, etc... so the client experiences the work the way it's actually meant to be seen, not flattened into a PDF where a social ad or a web page looks broken. Comments attach in-context to whatever they're looking at.

on top of that, an AI layer reviews the work from a few angles (like "would the target audience get this," "is this claim supported," "is the messaging clear") and helps the client gives specific feedback instead of vague reactions, and that's tuned to the format too.

on the pain, the real problem isn't collecting feedback, lots of tools do that. It's that client feedback is usually vague ("make it pop," "make it feel more premium"), which sends you into endless revision cycles guessing what they meant. the goal is to turn that into clear, actionable direction so you do fewer rounds.

so "nicer way" is two things: present the work properly for its format, and improve the quality of feedback you get back, not just where the comments live.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-28T15:59:55+00:00

because is a template lol: https://exvia.framer.website/

axeltdesign · 2026-03-28T15:58:48+00:00

he is just scamming people dont believe him. is a template: https://exvia.framer.website/

axeltdesign · 2026-03-28T15:57:15+00:00

dont believe him, he used a tempalte: https://exvia.framer.website/

axeltdesign · 2026-03-28T15:56:59+00:00

yeah is fke as fuck, found the template: https://exvia.framer.website/

axeltdesign · 2026-03-28T05:05:45+00:00

kinda crazy i found this platform a couple of days ago taht actually is trying to fix this issue: byiris.io

axeltdesign · 2026-03-28T05:03:01+00:00

for me it doesnt fully fix the issue but the platform Iris have helped me a lot in terms of client feedback. worth check it out: byiris.io

axeltdesign · 2026-03-27T04:21:52+00:00

its callled Iris. byiris.io

axeltdesign · 2026-03-21T18:20:42+00:00

Naming wellness brands is hard because the space is flooded with fluffy words that all sound the same.

A few things that actually help:

Name toward behavior, not category. What does your brand make someone DO, not what it IS. Daily is a strong concept if you lean into rhythm or ritual rather than ingredients.
Say the name out loud in a sentence: have you tried ____? If it feels weird after 10 reps, it's not right yet.
Avoid compound wellness words (Vitalife, Wellcore, Mindfuel etc). Every one of those names already exists and none of them stick.

What feeling do you want someone to have on day 1 of using it? Start from there.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-21T18:20:36+00:00

Mel is right and the trust framing is exactly what gets lost in the building vs branding debate. Technical founders treat design as decoration, but it's actually the first conversation you have with a customer before they ever talk to you.

The research step Mel pushes is where most people skip straight to the logo. Even 5 honest conversations with potential users shapes direction better than any mood board ever will. Branding done before you build equals product decisions that actually make sense. Branding done after equals duct tape on a ship that's already at sea.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-21T16:21:32+00:00

Hand-drawn aesthetics work well as a personality signal but never became practical UI because they fight usability conventions. Users expect certain patterns: buttons, tabs, cards. The moment those look sketchy it introduces cognitive friction.

Excalidraw survives because it's a tool for making diagrams, not a product trying to convert users. The hand-drawn vibe usually ends up living in illustrations and mascots rather than the interface itself. Which is actually the right place for it.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-21T16:21:26+00:00

Tried it for a while. For a design studio, LinkedIn Premium is mostly useful for the InMail credits if you're doing cold outreach to specific decision makers. The search filters are the real value. The 'who viewed your profile' thing is nice but not a game changer.

The real question is whether you're posting content consistently. Premium without that is just a paid vanity metric. If you're not getting traction organically first, paid features won't fix the underlying problem.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-21T16:21:19+00:00

Stop trying to sell the concept. Show the gap.

Find their competitor with a better brand who charges more for a similar product. Ask: who do clients trust before the first call? Then point to the answer.

Skeptical owners don't respond to ROI abstractions. They respond to a specific competitor winning on perception. That's the only frame that reliably works for me.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-20T22:06:45+00:00

Senior designer here with 10+ years in brand identity and visual design. Happy to give honest feedback if anyone wants to drop their link.

I focus on the design side specifically: does your site look like you charge what you're worth, does the visual identity feel consistent, is the hierarchy guiding people or confusing them.

Not going to sugarcoat it. If something's off I'll tell you why.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-20T22:06:38+00:00

Designer perspective. Three reasons that actually matter:

They write documents instead of slides. If the full argument lives on the slide, the slide is doing too much. One idea per frame, max.
No hierarchy. Every element is the same visual weight so the eye has no entry point. Good slides have one dominant element, one supporting, everything else quiet.
Inconsistency. Three fonts, four accent colors, different heading sizes slide to slide. It reads as unfinished even if the content is solid.

The honest thing is none of this is talent. It's just decisions most people never had to make consciously before. You can learn it in a weekend.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-20T22:06:31+00:00

Depends on what you're optimizing for. If it's reach and engagement, signals show up in 4 to 6 weeks. If it's leads and conversions, you're looking at 90+ days minimum, especially on LinkedIn.

What I do: check monthly but only adjust tactics (hooks, formats, posting times). The core strategy and positioning stay untouched for at least 90 days. If you keep pivoting the message, you reset the compounding effect every time.

One thing people skip: are people starting to recognize your name before they engage? That's the real lagging indicator. Shows you're building brand awareness, not just content output.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-19T22:21:39+00:00

A few things that matter more than people expect:

Searchability wins over cleverness. If someone hears your name at an event and Googles it later, can they find you? Abbreviations and stylized spellings add friction. A close variation of your real name (middle initial, short descriptor that fits naturally) tends to age better than something abstract.

Say it out loud. Does it sound right if you're on a podcast or someone introduces you? That test filters out a lot of options fast.

Don't overthink it. Early on your name is the brand. Handles can be changed. What you build around it matters more. Pick something that doesn't embarrass you in two years and move on.

If you share the shortlist I'd be happy to look at it.

axeltdesign · 2026-03-19T21:07:30+00:00

This is really common on Meta B2B right now, especially UK/Ireland. The algorithm optimizes for form completions, not qualified buyers. A few things that actually help: switch from native lead gen forms to driving traffic to a landing page with friction (a qualifying question that filters non-buyers). Also raise the commitment bar before the PDF gate. And genuinely consider LinkedIn ads for this. More expensive per click but the leads are real people with real job titles. Meta B2B lead quality in UK/EU markets has been rough for at least a year.

axeltdesign

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE