How to Choose a Branding Agency: A Founder's Checklist

A twelve-question checklist for founders choosing a branding agency, ordered by what actually predicts durable work, not by portfolio warmth.

May 22, 2026 · Jose Pablo Dominguez

TL;DR: Key takeaways

Most founders pick a branding agency by looking at the portfolio. That's the third most important criterion, not the first.
The two questions that predict whether a branding engagement will produce durable work are (a) does the agency deliver a system or an artifact, and (b) does the agency understand your business's failure modes.
Price correlates loosely with quality above a floor, poorly above a ceiling. A $40K engagement with the right shop usually outperforms a $400K engagement with the wrong one.
The single strongest predictor of post-engagement durability is the agency's governance process, who approves new applications, how the system extends, how deviations get documented. Agencies without explicit governance ship identity PDFs, not brand systems.

---

A founder choosing a branding agency is making one of the most expensive and under-audited decisions of their first five years. Most founders pick based on portfolio warmth, "we loved the Supreme rebrand", and discover, twelve months later, that warmth didn't translate into the one thing they actually needed: an identity system that their team can extend without the agency being in the room.

This is a checklist written for the founder making that decision. It names the criteria that actually predict durable work, in the order they matter, and flags the agency behaviors that signal trouble.

The three questions the portfolio won't answer

A branding agency's portfolio is a curation exercise. It shows you the work the agency wants you to see, in the configurations the agency wants you to see it in. Portfolios are necessary but not sufficient. Before you shortlist, answer these three:

1. What kind of identity artifact am I buying, a system or a document? A brand identity is a PDF of guidelines. A brand system is an operating capability: component libraries, design tokens, governance rules, extension pathways. If you're buying a system but the agency's deliverable is the PDF, you will pay twice: once for the PDF, once for the eventual system someone else builds around it. See the detailed distinction in Brand System vs Brand Identity.

2. Does the agency understand my business's failure modes, or only my category? A branding agency that has done five SaaS brands knows SaaS category conventions. A branding agency that understands how early-stage SaaS brands fail: the specific ways identity decisions compound when runway is short, product is pre-PMF, or the first ten enterprise customers haven't landed, is doing a different job. Ask in the pitch: "What failure modes is this brand architecture optimized against?" Agencies that cannot answer the question have not thought about it.

3. Can I name the designers who will do the work? Agency pitches are often run by a principal or creative director. The execution is run by mid-level designers. The quality of those mid-level designers is the quality of your engagement. Insist on meeting them before you sign. An agency that cannot introduce the people who will do the work is either too large to care about your account or is hiding a talent problem.

The ordered checklist

Use this as a shortlist filter. The ordering matters.

Criterion 1: System deliverable (non-negotiable)

Does the agency's scope explicitly include a design-system deliverable (component library, token set, working code for digital surfaces), or does the scope stop at a guidelines document? If the latter, you are buying an identity PDF.

Red flag: The scope mentions "brand guidelines" but not "design system" or "component library." Mid-size engagements ($80K+) that don't include design-system scope are structurally incomplete for any brand that will operate digitally.

Good sign: The scope mentions Figma library delivery, token specification, or working code. Governance documentation ("who approves new components, how the system extends") in the deliverables list is a strong positive signal.

Criterion 2: Governance documentation

Mature agencies ship explicit governance alongside the identity. Immature agencies assume the client will figure it out. You will not figure it out; your team will fragment the brand within six months without a governance framework.

Red flag: When you ask "how does the brand extend when my team needs a new application in twelve months?" the answer is "come back to us." That's a retainer-preservation answer, not a durability answer.

Good sign: The agency shows you a governance document from a previous engagement (with client permission or redacted) that specifies approval workflows, extension criteria, and deviation documentation.

Criterion 3: Known designers on the engagement

Who will draw the wordmark? Who will design the component library? Who will negotiate the trade-offs between you and the creative director? Name them.

Red flag: Pitch is run by Creative Director X; execution team is "to be assigned." Agencies that cannot name execution staff at pitch stage are either oversubscribed or understaffed.

Good sign: The agency introduces the designers at pitch, shows their individual work history, and commits to them in the statement of work.

Criterion 4: Portfolio relevance (not warmth)

Portfolio inspection comes here, after you've established the agency can deliver a system with governance and named talent. Now look at the work, but look for relevance, not warmth.

The right questions to ask the portfolio:

Does the agency have work in a category adjacent to yours? Not the same category, adjacent. Same category often means the agency has a playbook it will reuse. Adjacent means the agency has solved similar structural problems without formulating them as identical ones.
What's the durability track record? Ask to see three clients from 5+ years ago and compare their current brand use against the agency's original delivery. Either the system held (positive signal) or it didn't (learning signal).
Which portfolio pieces were led by the designers you met in Criterion 3?

Red flag: Every portfolio case study looks aesthetically similar. Either the agency has a strong house style (acceptable if that's explicitly what you want) or it lacks the capacity to range across client needs.

Good sign: Portfolio pieces are visually distinct from each other, grouped by industry challenge rather than aesthetic. The agency can articulate why each project's solution differs.

Criterion 5: Process transparency

How many review cycles? What happens when you disagree with a direction? Who holds the editorial pen when the agency and your CEO see the work differently?

Red flag: The process is opaque ("we iterate until you're happy"): there's no specified number of review rounds, no conflict-resolution process, no explicit decision framework.

Good sign: The process document specifies review-round counts, names decision-makers by role, and includes a documented conflict-resolution process for creative disagreements.

Criterion 6: Pricing transparency (and its relationship to scope)

Pricing is an output of scope, not a scope input. Agencies that lead with a number (and build scope backward) are doing something different than agencies that lead with scope (and price the scope).

A meaningful engagement range in 2026 for a Series-A-stage brand identity + design system:

$40K–$80K. Boutique or solo practitioner with a strong portfolio. Requires you to provide more internal project management.
$80K–$200K. Established mid-size studio. Full identity + design system + 6-12 month extension support.
$200K–$600K. Top-tier studio (Pentagram, Collins, Wolff Olins, Sagmeister, and peers). Premium signal alongside the work.
$600K+. Multi-quarter engagements that include environmental design, product-UI work, internal-culture programs. Usually reserved for Series-C+ or major rebrands.

Above the $80K floor, price correlates loosely with quality. Above the $400K ceiling, it correlates poorly: you're paying for prestige signaling, brand name, and partner-level attention. Both have value. Neither automatically produces better work.

Criterion 7: The intangibles

Beyond the structural checklist, three qualitative signals are worth weighting.

The agency challenges you in the pitch. An agency that asks hard questions about your business during the pitch, questions you don't immediately know how to answer, is an agency that will produce better work. An agency that nods through everything you say is selling, not consulting.

The agency has its own opinions, and defends them. A strong creative director has editorial views. You want those views in the room, because they're the ones that will push your brand past your own default instincts.

The chemistry is right at the principal level. You'll be spending three to twelve months in close collaboration. The relationship compounds. A "fine" pitch experience usually produces a "fine" engagement; a "this feels right" pitch experience usually produces better work.

Who to shortlist: examples by tier

From our brand and studio coverage, agencies that consistently execute at the level implied by the checklist:

Top tier (prestige + execution):

Pentagram: the category's scale reference
Collins: New York agency behind movement-style identity work
Wolff Olins: fifty years of major brand refreshes
Lippincott: corporate-identity-at-scale specialist

Strong mid-tier (execution-focused, strong systems):

Koto: London studio, contemporary digital-native work
Dinamo: type-led identity work
Happycentro: illustration-first packaging and identity
Atla Branding Agency: Austin/Mexico City, hospitality and consumer-goods focus

Boutique / specialist:

Triangle Studio: Seoul, narrative-driven identity
Pop & Pac Studio: Melbourne, property and consumer
Zoo Studio: Vic (Spain), heritage-brand specialist
Jo Cutri Studio: Melbourne, product-packaging specialist
Lukas Diemling: Graz (Austria), independent, food and heritage specialty

These are a starting shortlist, not a recommendation: the right agency for your engagement is an output of the checklist above, not a default choice from a list.

The twelve-question founder checklist (printable)

Before signing:

Is the scope explicit about delivering a system, not just a guidelines document?
Is governance documentation part of the deliverable?
Do I know, by name, which designers will do the work?
Has the agency done work in a category adjacent to mine?
Can the agency show me three 5+-year-old engagements and how those brands use the systems today?
Is the process transparent: specified review rounds, conflict resolution, decision-maker roles?
Is the pricing derived from scope, not the other way around?
Am I paying for prestige signal, actual execution, or both, and do I know which I want?
Did the agency challenge me in the pitch?
Does the agency have opinions it will defend?
Does the chemistry at principal level feel right?
If this engagement produces the right outcome, will my team be able to extend the brand six years from now without the agency?

If seven or more answers are solid yeses, proceed. If fewer, keep looking.