The Frame Has Changed.
IDENTITY +CONTEXT + INTELLIGENT INTERFACES = STRATEGY
Just the one, simpler, newsletter from me over the last fortnight as I deal with a family member’s medical emergency.
Is all of my thinking and writing unique to me?
No.
I’ve been influenced by several experience/brand strategists.
I’m not here to tell Zygmunt Bauman, Susan Fournier, Dave Norton, or Joe Pine they got it wrong.
I’m here to explain where UNCX and Intelligent Interfaces shift the ground they stand on.
People are harder to pin down, more “in-between” , and feel cut loose from normality than they ever have been.
Yet most of the models we use to design for engagement for them are built on the idea that they are one stable person, with one stable set of needs, moving slowly through a clean funnel.
This is the ‘experience gap’ and where a lot of wrong strategy lives.
I want to re-frame that gap in a simple way.
Not as “customers are changing” but as “people are living many selves, moving through many modes, inside systems that now react to them in real time”.
And how that has consequences. For how we think about segmentation, loyalty, interfaces, and what our brands are for.
What “Entanglement” Means
Traditional consumer strategy:
Identity: Stable, demographic predictability (now robustly disproved).econstor+1
Behaviour: Consistency and path dependence (now increasingly invalid).saleshub+1
Brands: Discrete, distinguishable units (partially supported but less relevant than ever before).collinsongroup
Interface: Neutral mediation by technology (falsified with rise of AI social actors).frontiersin+1
I point to a system where:
Identity mutates with context and triggers (with strong empirical support for fluidity in digital environments, esp. youth cohorts).
Behaviour follows “modes,” not fixed preferences (though 100% conclusive mapping from mode to purchase requires more research.)neuralt+1
Brands vie for position in digital ecosystems, with relevance, not loyalty, as the main currency (though the role of emotional attachment remains high for some categories) .
AI interfaces actively shape and reinforce these patterns, sometimes with unintended consequences for consumer agency (robust documentation, but causal mechanisms are still being detailed).pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+3
The future of Experience Strategy isn’t about who people are
it’s about who they are right now.
If you look at the foundational frameworks for Experience Strategy - the ones in our strategy decks or that we teach in workshops - you’ll notice an assumption.
They nearly all assume stability.
Whether it’s Bauman’s Liquid Modernity, Susan Fournier’s “Brand Relationships,” Dave Norton’s “Time Well Spent,” or Joe Pine’s “Transformation Economy,” models presume a relatively coherent consumer entering a relationship with a relatively stable brand.
I don’t any longer. And, I believe the screen between brand and consumer is NOT a neutral window.
Our era is now one of Consumorphosis, when consumer identity is constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed at a velocity we have never seen before.
It means the “Who” in your consumer audience is a moving target.
And
Standing between you and this fluid consumer are new, powerful gatekeepers: Intelligent Interfaces.
Interfaces that aren’t a passive glass surface.
They’re active agents. Curatingchoices, filtering reality, and negotiating identity in real-time. They decide which version of your brand the consumer sees, based on which version your consumer is at that moment.
I’m not saying the giants of our industry have got it wrong. I’m saying the game board has expanded.
Here is how the ground has moved, and why our interfaces are intelligent enough to move with it.
Part 1: The Acceleration (From Liquid to Vapor)
Zygmunt Bauman told us decades ago: “Liquid Modernity”3. He rightly observed that identity was becoming a project, not an inheritance4. But Bauman died in 2017 and finished writing in a world where his version of fluidity moved gradually.
Covid shattered that timeline.
2020 brought mortality awareness to all of us, simultaneously.
It wasn’t abstract; it was immediate, visceral fragility.
When a species can ask, “What if I only have limited time?”, the result is accelerated reconstruction of identity and purpose.
We started using our digital ecosystems to remake our identities, to career pivot, to relationship exit, and overhaul our value systems.
Compounding this is the Polycrisis. Climate instability, economic volatility, polarization, and now AI tensions and disruption.
This changed our permanent operating condition, into Consumorphosis.
As we’ve increasingly become unmoored, unsettled, more anxious, self-aware, purpose-seeking, many are now cycling through different identity modes, determined by who we want to be at that moment, in that community, with those friends, within our family, personal meaning within whatever stage they are performing on.
Part 2: The Schools of Thought (And Where They Break)
None of our current models fully handle this new velocity, the fluidity, and the influence of more intelligence in our interfaces.
In my models, this is the fundamental underpinning of everything that comes next.
1. The Linear Model (The Funnel)
This is the traditional view. Loyalty as a logical, step-by-step process.
The Flow: Awareness —>Consideration —> Trial —>Commitment 11111111.
The Flaw: It treats the brand as an object and the consumer as a rational actor making a choice. It ignores the psychological messiness and entanglement of today’s reality.
2. The “Relationship” Model
Fournier changed our thinking with a simple language to understand brand/consumer relationships. Consumers do not simply “buy” products; they enter into relationships with brands that mirror the complexity of relationships between two people.
She categorised three main archetypes:
“Best Friend”: Intimacy and trust (e.g., your skincare brand of 10 years).
“Dependency”: Irreplaceable and obsessive (e.g., your smartphone).
“Fling”: High emotion, zero commitment (e.g., a viral game).
NOW:
Fournier’s model assumes that if we break up with a brand, it’s because the brand failed us.
But in a world of Consumorphosis, instability is internal.
We may engage with Nike as a “Best Friend” (Performance Mode) on Monday. But on Wednesday my identity shifts to “Comfort Mode” and Nike becomes a “Casual Friend”. On Friday, I’m in “Status Mode,” and it becomes a “Fling”.
One consumer. Three relationship types. Temporary relationship, zero stability.
Part 3: The Value Update
Dave Norton (Stone Mantel) gets me closest to the truth. His POV isn’t just “Jobs to be Done” (but is a tool he uses); his core philosophy is Time as Currency.
Norton’s View: Consumers want Time Well Spent.
The Logic: Time is the ultimate finite resource. Consumers “hire” experiences to ensure their time is either Well Saved (Efficiency), Well Spent (Engagement), or Well Invested (Transformation).
The Question: Norton asks: “How can we fill the consumer’s time with value?”
My View: It’s Identity —> Time.
My thinking: Time is the container, but its Identity that determines the contents.
For me, 5 minutes of “time saved” is valuable only if the mode is relevant - eg: I am in “Efficiency Mode.” If I shift to “Discovery Mode,” that same 5-minute shortcut feels like you robbed me of an experience.
Norton focuses on the resource (Time). With Consumorphosis I focus on the driver (Identity).
You can design a perfect “Time Well Spent” experience, but if it doesn’t align with the consumer’s current phase of identity fluidity, it won’t trigger change.
The Question to ask: “Who is the consumer wanting to be right now?”.
Part 4: The Impact on Choice (The Intelligent Interface)
If identity is the trigger dictating the value of time, then we need a system that can detect the shift.
This is the role of the Intelligent Interface.
The interface is no longer a neutral utility; it’s now a Choice Architect.
It actively expands or contracts the consumer’s world based on their identity state.
A traditional interface is a broken clock, right only twice a day. An Intelligent Interface uses behavioral signals 24/7 to infer the active Mode and intent to reconfigure the experience.
Here’s a simple example of how one interface can mediate choice and identity for one user across three states:
State A: The “Rush” Mode (Identity: The Efficient Professional)
Context: Commuting. High heart rate.
The Interface Logic: Cognitive Load Intolerance.
Impact on Choice: Contraction. The interface hides discovery options. It removes the “new arrivals” feed. It limits choice to “Buy It Again.”
The Role: The interface acts as a Tool.
State B: The “Dream” Mode (Identity: The Escapist)
Context: 9:30 PM on a tablet. Slow scroll.
The Interface Logic: Novelty Seeking.
Impact on Choice: Expansion. The interface prioritizes serendipity. It auto-plays video. It offers “wildcard” recommendations.
The Role: The interface acts as a Theater.
State C: The “Fear” Mode (Identity: The Risk-Averse Planner)
Context: Switching health insurance plans during open enrollment.
The Interface Logic: The system detects anxiety through behavioural signals such as repeated visits without completion, time spent on fine print (deductible clauses, out-of-network penalties, prescription coverage exceptions etc), comparison of the same three plans across multiple sessions with no narrowing of options.
Impact on Choice: The interface doesn’t push me to a decision. It reduces cognitive load. It surfaces a comparison table showing only the differences that matter based on my prescription history and doctor network, and adds a “decision deadline: 12 days” counter without urgency language. It introduces friction by requiring me to confirm I’ve read the out-of-pocket maximum clause before enabling the enroll button. It offers a “schedule call with navigator” option but doesn’t force it.
The Role: The interface acts as a Patient Advisor. It acknowledges this is a high-stakes decision with a long term commitment. It doesn’t artificially simplify or use false urgency. It makes the complexity manageable without pretending the stakes are low.
If you served the “Dream” interface to the “Rush” user, they would rage-quit. If you served the “Rush” interface to the “Fear” user, they would panic. The interface determines whether the choice feels “compatible” or “hostile” 30.
Part 5: The Optimisation Trap (it’s Why “Frictionless” is a Lie)
This brings us to a fatal flaw in modern strategy: this obsession with “Hygiene”.
Many CX pro’s and consultants preach “frictionless” journeys as the universal virtue. But this is just service maintenance dressed as strategy. Making sure the button works, the ‘phone is answered, memory is across channels, is table stakes .
True strategy is not about how efficiently you remove friction; it is about knowing when to insert it.
With Intelligent Interfaces, I don’t talk optimisation.
I talk Compatibility.
I don’t ask, “How do we make the consumer faster?“ I ask, “How do we make the system compatible with the fluid, complex human?“
Part 6: The Cultural Infrastructure (Jasmine Bina)
The Meaning Behind the Machine
While I focus on the operational interface, Jasmine Bina (Concept Bureau) provides the necessary cultural counterweight.
She argues that in a world of “Post-Authenticity” - where truth is fragmented and institutions are failing - brands must act as “Cultural Infrastructure”.
Bina sees that when society dissolves, consumers look for brands to provide the structure. It’s the myths, the worlds, the belief systems, that allow them to make sense of the chaos.
I see this as the perfect complement to Consumorphosis:
Bina’s Approach: Solve the chaos with Meaning (Stories, Myths, Cults).
My Approach: Solve the chaos with Operation (Interfaces, Agents, Modes).
While Bina builds the story that explains why we are here, with Intelligent Interfaces we build the responsive system that listens and acts on who you are right now. We need both.
But in an age of AI, “Infrastructure” isn’t just a metaphor for a belief system; it is the literal digital code that mediates your reality.
The New Architecture
We can stack the models to complete the strategy.
The Spark (Consumorphosis): The Trigger. “I am changing, this is me now, and I need a brand to help me be my new self”.
The Method (Norton): The Enabler. “I will spend time here because they provide the context for my transformation”.
The Bond (Fournier): The Stabilizer. “I trust this brand to hold my hand while I go through this change”.
The Mediator (Intelligent Interface): The Curator. “I need a system that knows who I am right now, and gives me the choices that fit.”
The “lanes” are gone.
We can no longer market to who the customer is.
Our strategy must focus on who the customer is becoming.
Have a good week and thank you for reading. I will be publishing more frequent but shorter thoughts on Notes for the next few days.
The shift from marketing to "who the customer is" to "who they're becoming" fundamentally changes how brands must design for compatibility rather than consistency. Your framework connecting identity fluidity with interface intelligence addresses a critical gap—most CX strategies still optimize for efficiency without considering whether that efficiency aligns with the user's current mode. The distinction between Norton's "time as currency" and your "identity as driver" is particularly sharp: a time-saving feature becomes friction when it robs someone in discovery mode of the experience they're seeking.
Couldn't agree more. Your point about systems reacting in realtime is so good. What if intelligent interfaces push us into modes we didn't even choose?