Branding truths and tariff myths: Autodesk's Dara Treseder and Flexport's Ryan Petersen

Executive overview

Two live conversations from the Masters of Scale Summit cover the most consequential branding decisions of 2025 and the most persistent myths about global trade. Dara Treseder (CMO, Autodesk) dissects real brand controversies to extract durable principles. Ryan Petersen (CEO, Flexport) uses five myths to cut through tariff noise with a longer-lens view of trade history.

Healthy brand tension drives acquisition — not just awareness — and transparency with AI is now non-negotiable.

Healthy vs. toxic brand tension

• Healthy tension moves brand and business forward — from awareness to acquisition.
• Tension that produces alienation instead of acquisition tips into toxic territory.
• Sidney Sweeney's American Eagle ad raised awareness but alienated a segment; the acquisition effect remains unclear.
• Gap's counter-campaign (Cat's Eye on TikTok) is the contrasting example: tension converted to sales.
• "Gone are the days where all publicity is good publicity."

Evolving vs. abandoning brand soul

• A brand is "the sum of the promises we make and the experiences we deliver."
• Every brand has a non-negotiable core — the soul — that cannot be redesigned away.
• Cracker Barrel's rebrand stripped the logo of anything signalling southern hospitality; customers immediately questioned what the brand now delivers.
• Rolling back the logo was not capitulation — it was smart stewardship: protect the soul, evolve something else.
• Brands must still evolve; standing still is also a choice that leads to decline.

AI transparency in brand campaigns

• J. Crew used AI-generated imagery without disclosure; when called out, had to retrospectively caption it — trust was lost.
• "Trust is earned in drops, but it's lost in buckets."
• Autodesk's principle: AI lifts the floor; human ingenuity raises the ceiling.
• Frame AI as a tool the creator controls, not a replacement — "the creator decides the direction; AI provides horsepower."
• Be explicit with customers about what AI is and is not doing in any campaign.

Creator and celebrity partnerships

• Every partnership must be an "add and build" — neutral partnerships don't justify the spend.
• Push for both reach and resonance; reach without resonance fails to expand the target audience.
• Partnerships must function as force multipliers within the broader marketing strategy, not standalone stunts.
• Target a 1-to-3 return ratio: every dollar spent should generate at least three dollars back.

Buzzword bingo: Dara's verdicts

1. Return to office mandates — appropriately hyped; in-person time has real value.
2. TikTok's algorithm — underhyped as a marketer, overhyped as a parent.
3. Apple's brand power — underhyped; rare tech brand that still commands genuine trust.
4. Tilly Norwood / Velvet Sundown (AI artists) — overhyped; human ingenuity still essential.
5. Shein and Temu — overhyped (sustainability lens).
6. Next year's World Cup in North America — underhyped.
7. Taylor Swift's power — appropriately hyped; Tree Payne (her publicist) and Travis Kelce are the underhyped ones.
8. Ryan Reynolds' business ventures — underhyped.
9. Labubu — overhyped.
10. Meta's AR glasses — overhyped today, will be underhyped tomorrow.
11. Netflix's dominance — underhyped.
12. Late night TV hosts — underhyped.
13. Pumpkin spice — underhyped.

Myth 1: Don't act on tariff announcements — policy could shift again

• Sometimes doing nothing is the right action: some supply chain moves take years and can be overtaken by further policy changes.
• Companies that shifted production from China to India found tariffs on India equally high.
• The pace of policy change makes long-term decisions extremely difficult.

Myth 2: The government has a plan

• There are legitimate reasons to worry about the erosion of US industrial capacity.
• Good intentions to "do something" don't guarantee the right action — tariffs on components and machinery can inadvertently accelerate offshoring.
• Economies aren't meant to be centrally planned; second-order consequences are hard to predict.

Myth 3: China is better positioned to adapt to trade volatility than the US

• Trade is positive-sum; "winning a trade war" by not having one is the correct frame.
• The US is more self-sufficient in food and energy; China imports roughly 80% of its energy.
• Both parties lose in a sustained trade war — the framing of advantage is largely rhetorical.
• High tariffs create massive incentives for fraud: misdeclaring product values, reducing duty exposure by 90%.
• The US is the only major country allowing foreign companies to import without a legal entity or physical presence — an enforcement gap now being exploited at scale.
• "I only have one rule in life: I'm never going to jail." Don't buy from importers operating on fraudulent terms.

Myth 4: The trade industry is struggling to keep up

• The trade industry is old and expert-heavy; experts default to past rules when new frameworks require fresh reading.
• New steel/aluminum duties are calculated as a percentage of material composition — the first time duties have worked this way.
• Most of the industry couldn't calculate the new duties; Flexport built a calculator in three days that the entire industry adopted.
• "Dumb competition" is a structural advantage: an industry's arrogance and inertia is an opportunity for newcomers.

Myth 5: We've entered an unprecedented new era of trade

• Tariffs have existed for most of human history — governments were primarily funded through them.
• The low-tariff era since Bretton Woods / WWII is the anomaly, not the baseline.
• Global trade has grown at roughly 4% annually for 1,000 years — surviving the Black Death, the 30 Years' War, and two World Wars.
• Petersen's prediction: in 10 years there will be more trade, not less.
• Don't restructure long-term strategy around what may be a temporary disruption.