John Montgomery: I like to start these conversations with a fairly loaded question. What does innovation mean to you?

Roy Maute: I would say for us, Pheast, we have a macro version and a micro version. The micro version is every day in the lab, or, as we put together our strategic plans for the company, challenges arise. We want to be a company and a team that always thinks creatively about those challenges. We always want to second-guess assumptions and make sure that we’re not just following a default path due to a lack of thinking.

On the macro level, we want to be a place that values both execution and ideas. We want that to be reflected in everything we do. As a company, we have a distinct scientific focus, which is not the same as other companies out there. As the trends in the industry change, we want to ensure that when we’re focused on a scientific problem or approach, we’re doing so from a first-principles basis and not just chasing what others are doing.

Tiffany van Londen: Innovation, to me, is about challenging the status quo and finding better ways to solve problems. It’s about being proactive rather than reactive and always looking for opportunities to improve. My lens is more from the overall corporate framework. Trying to be nimble, trying to really focus on the employee experience and ensure that the scientists have what they need to promote innovation. So, clearing the pathways for them to do their best work.

RM: I’d like to give a very proactive plug to everything that Tiffany does for the company in terms of making sure all the infrastructure is in place, that people don’t get distracted by small things that are not core to our mission of innovation. And second, by creating a cultural and a physical environment that is conducive to that kind of collaboration and innovation.

JM: So awesome. The first time we came to your offices and labs, we were blown away be how young, diverse and collaborative you guys all were.  And a real deep thoughtfulness and playfulness across the team.  That open culture really can accelerate innovation.  When it comes an innovation culture, what are your thoughts on the role that brand plays?

RM: I remember you mentioned there is an epidemic of sameness within our industry. To me, that is a really funny feature of a lot of these companies because they are typically built with science at their core, which I believe is an inherently innovative process or requires at least some innovation at steps. And yet, the way that many companies will frame their work internally and to external audiences doesn’t reflect that at all. I think it is aimed in a way that has a certain perspective on how the company should be looking to outsiders, particularly to patients and to physicians – which is an important consideration.

As I think about the ways we’ve worked with GoodLab, first to gather our ideas and articulate what we are and what we want to be, and then thought about a way to express that to the outside world, visually and through text, I think that has brought us to a place where we are still respectful of those outside audiences but also emphasize our own culture of innovation. And as we move toward a clinical program, we’ll want to increasingly meet them where they are with specific information or visuals that appeal to them. But in the meantime, I think we’ve developed a brand identity and a visual language that properly expresses the spirit of the company. It’s serious, but it’s also interesting, fun, and welcoming, too.

JM: I was going to get into this later, but I think it’s a good time now. Have you felt a distinct difference between the conversations you were having with outsiders and insiders prior to the brand redesign work versus now? Did you notice any shift or change in the way you talk about the business or the way people react to Pheast in general?

TVL: I was just kind of reflecting on the whole process. At the beginning of Pheast, we had this very DIY logo that was navy and red, a different color scheme to our current navy, hot pink and coral, which didn’t feel as clean and professional.

GoodLab came in after, in true startup fashion, we’d done a round of rebranding through a designer friend. She did a great job of getting us to a strong starting place in terms of our overall vision for the logo mark and color palette. Then GoodLab just put that on a rocket ship and took it to the next level, you really elevated our entire brand, the entire way that we present ourselves to the world. It’s an amazing website and all the assets that we create around this theme, I think, put us in a place where we’re presenting a fun, creative, visually appealing company, but also one that looks really well done.

I think through the execution, we’ve demonstrated that this is a well-run company. Everything that we do is high quality. The way that we present ourselves from a branding perspective is representative of how the inner workings of our company operate.

RM: I completely agree, and I can speak to one specific aspect of that. One of the most frequent outsider groups that we interact with are investors. When we were doing our early pitches, we had things nicely constructed, but as Tiffany said, generally DIY design elements. It was a good package of data, a good story, and a visual presentation that was as good as the team could pull together on their own. But it did not quite match up to the quality of what was underneath. As we have grown as a company, the visual presentation of even our data-focused decks has now caught up to the quality of the underlying data through our branding work. That’s very satisfying.

JM: I remember us discussing something that was really interesting and I’d love to unpack it. You mentioned to me that sometimes the grad student in you wants to avoid making something that looks too designed because it undermines the integrity of the science. Maybe I’m reading into this, but if somebody makes too pretty of a slide, it probably means their science isn’t strong enough to stand on its own. Is that a perception in this space among scientists?

RM: Yes, and I’m not sure whether most people in our category would be able to identify that bias or articulate it in that way, but I’m very confident in that declaration. Even if you think about it constructively, the brands in the world that anyone would identify as having the best visual identity are typically ones that really need to have a great visual identity to achieve their core mission.

Apple, for example, as a consumer-focused company, has excellent advertising, brand identity, and visual assets all calibrated to that mission. Meanwhile, people the world over, including me, are a bit uncomfortable every time they see a TV ad during the NBA playoffs for a pharmaceutical product. People often get stuck with the notion that if you’re science-focused, clinic-focused, or patient-focused, visual design should not be where you’re focused in terms of energy or effort. There is some level of credibility that comes along with looking at nothing other than indecipherable scientific figures that we sometimes generate. But ultimately, that’s limiting.

JM: That’s fantastic. Good design gives the user on the other end confidence. If a website is poorly organized, I don’t trust putting my data in there. It’s amazing what a well-designed system can do for confidence. I think the same is true for “team” design. Are you guys intentional for how you manage your teams?

RM: We have a cross-functional team at the heart of our mission right now. For the development of our lead program, planning the big regulatory package we need to submit and move into clinic requires input from subject matter experts, coordination from a project manager, participation from our finance team, people focused on the manufacture of the drug, and quality assurance. Soon, we’ll have people using preclinical information to decide what makes sense in the clinic and how to implement that.

TVL:. I have many interactions with people across different parts of the company and often get to play a collaborative role in what they’re working on. The diversity of my job is one of the best parts, and I really enjoy being part of that cross-functional team.

JM: One of the things we worked with you on was emphasizing Pheast as “next-gen scientists”. A lot of old-school biotechs have a hard time connecting with this next generation of diverse talent entering STEM fields. How have you managed to find and retain such a diverse group, and what role does your brand play? 

RM: We have built an incredible team that is the envy of every company at our stage. Our turnover rate has been low, we’ve pulled together a great group of people, and they have stayed, and I’m very proud of it. It has benefited our company’s execution of its business. The language we developed with GoodLab to describe us felt right and put words to what we wanted to be.

TVL: From chatting with people we onboard, they are always excited to submit their bio for the social post. They want to be part of this team that is outwardly facing and represented on our website. Everyone goes to our website before deciding to join and looks at the branding and visuals. They are excited by it, and a big part of that is the bright colors and different flavor from most biotech companies. The fact that we went with hot pink is a bold statement in itself.

JM: It always puts a big smile on my face!

RM: Circling back to communication around the company and its appearance to different external audiences, I definitely see that with investors and people interviewing to be part of the company. In the early days, it wasn’t uncommon for people to find Pheast a weird name. An unusual name for a company that wasn’t yet presenting itself as professional didn’t always land great. Now that the company is established, and we have a website to match that level of professionalism, the unusual choices we’ve made appear as innovative and land as innovative.

Doing it in total, not thinking about each element individually but putting together the full package, helps communicate to potential employees and others what we want to say about the company. Every time I talk to a candidate and mention the website, they have looked through every single thing on it. It’s a great reminder of how important that can be for that specific audience.

JM: What was your favorite part of the rebranding journey?

TVL: The whole process was incredibly well guided. There were nuances and deep philosophical questions. It was wonderful to go through that experience and be prompted in such a way. You drew out of us, the purest form of the essence and vibe we were trying to portray in a tangible way. The fact that over a year later, it still rings true, is evidence that what your prompts and questions gleaned was very authentic in nature. I felt extremely comfortable and able to share openly.

RM: I’d love to add onto that. As facilitators, you were exceptional. I love the product and the stuff everyone gets to see, like the website and design assets. But what I think about most is the work you did to communicate with us and draw out what we wanted to say about the company. I’ve heard people talk about their process with other design companies, and it’s often said to be corny or misaligned. You guys are excellent communicators, expressing your interest and passion in what we’re doing, making it easy for us to engage in reverse.

It was clear from the beginning that this was a comprehensive approach, not just picking a logo or colors. It started with understanding what we were trying to accomplish, who the people involved were, and what path we were walking. Everything flowed from there. I appreciated it so much. The combination of prompted introspection with help and expansion from you was the right mix for us.

JM: We think the world of you guys too.  Thanks so much for your time and we look forward to the road ahead!