For more than five decades, Pentagram has operated on a model that the rest of the design industry finds either enviably pure or quietly infuriating: equal partners, no CEO, no holding company, no shareholders demanding quarterly growth. Each partner runs their own team, takes their own clients, and keeps their own profits. It is, in the truest sense, a collective — and the most commercially successful one the design world has produced.

But a collective is only as vital as its membership. And over the past several years, the Pentagram new partners have been quietly reshaping what the studio means — designers who came of age not in the era of print annuals and identity manuals but in the era of responsive systems, motion-first branding, and interfaces that exist across dozens of platforms simultaneously.

The question the design world is asking, quietly but persistently, is whether these new voices will change what Pentagram means. The more interesting question is whether they already have.

The Partnership Model, Refreshed

Understanding what's happening at Pentagram requires understanding what's unusual about its structure. Most large consultancies — Landor, Wolff Olins, Interbrand — are owned by holding companies. Their creative directors are employees. Their client relationships are institutional. Pentagram's partners, by contrast, are the institution. When a partner leaves, their clients often leave with them. When a new partner joins, they bring not just talent but an entire practice philosophy.

This means that partner appointments are, in effect, strategic decisions about what Pentagram wants to be. Every new name on the letterhead is a statement of direction.

And the recent appointments tell a clear story. Partners like Yuri Suzuki, Jody Hudson-Powell, and Sascha Lobe arrived with practices rooted in interaction design, generative systems, and digital product thinking. They didn't abandon the craft traditions Pentagram is known for — they simply refused to treat them as the ceiling.

Digital-Native Sensibilities in an Analogue Temple

The phrase "digital-native" has been drained of meaning through overuse, but in the context of Pentagram it carries specific weight. For decades, the studio's most celebrated work was built for physical media: book covers, architectural signage, poster campaigns, identity systems conceived primarily as printed stationery suites. The visual DNA of Pentagram — the thing that made it Pentagram — was rooted in tactile, material craft.

The new guard hasn't rejected this inheritance. What they've done is extend it.

Consider the firm's recent identity work for emerging technology platforms and cultural institutions. Where an earlier generation of Pentagram partners might have delivered a logo, a typeface, and a set of usage guidelines bound in a handsome book, the newer partners are delivering systems — flexible frameworks that generate identity dynamically across environments, screen sizes, and interaction states.

This is not just an aesthetic shift. It's a philosophical one. The older model of brand identity assumed a stable mark applied consistently across controlled touchpoints. The newer model assumes a generative system that produces coherent identity across contexts that the designer cannot fully predict. It's the difference between designing a logo and designing the rules that produce a logo's behaviour.

Sascha Lobe's work exemplifies this thinking. His practice, built over two decades at L2M3 in Stuttgart before joining Pentagram, has always treated typography and spatial systems as computational problems — not in the sense of automation, but in the sense of understanding how visual rules produce emergent outcomes across scale. His identity systems aren't static; they're parametric, capable of expressing a brand differently on a business card and a building façade while maintaining a structural logic that makes both recognisably the same.

Recent Work: Case Studies in Transition

The proof of Pentagram's evolution is in the output, and the recent portfolio reads differently from the studio's canonical work.

Jody Hudson-Powell brought a practice steeped in the intersection of graphic design and code. As one-third of the studio Hudson-Powell (alongside his brothers Luke and Sam), his work had long explored generative typography, interactive installations, and identity systems that treat motion as a primary — not decorative — element. At Pentagram, this sensibility has manifested in brand identities that are conceived from the outset as moving, responsive things. The static logo is no longer the master artifact from which all other expressions derive. Instead, the system of movement, colour, and behaviour is the identity, and the static mark is simply one frame extracted from it.

Yuri Suzuki, whose background spans sound design, interactive art, and experimental product design, represents perhaps the most radical expansion of what a Pentagram partner's practice can be. His appointment signalled that the studio's definition of "design" was stretching beyond visual communication into sensory experience design — a territory that most traditional brand consultancies have been reluctant to enter.

Sascha Lobe's identity for institutions like the Hochschule für Gestaltung Schwäbisch Gmünd and cultural organisations across Europe demonstrated that systematic, almost algorithmic approaches to identity design could produce warmth and personality, not just rigour. His work refuses the false binary between computational precision and emotional resonance.

These aren't isolated experiments. They represent a pattern: Pentagram is systematically adding partners whose practices expand the studio's vocabulary beyond the graphic design core that defined its first fifty years.

What This Means for Large-Scale Consultancies

Pentagram's generational transition matters beyond Pentagram because it tests a hypothesis that the broader industry is grappling with: can legacy design institutions evolve meaningfully, or are they structurally trapped by the reputations that made them successful?

The consultancy world is littered with firms that couldn't navigate this transition. Studios that were synonymous with a particular era's visual language — the corporate identity boom of the 1960s, the branding gold rush of the 1990s — often found that their legacy became a cage. Clients came to them for what they'd always done, which made it commercially risky to do anything else. The very consistency that built the brand made reinvention dangerous.

Pentagram's partnership model offers a structural advantage here. Because each partner operates semi-autonomously, the firm can evolve not through top-down mandates but through personnel decisions. You don't need to convince the entire organisation to pivot toward digital systems design. You simply invite a partner who already does it. The new practice coexists with the established ones. The studio becomes more plural without requiring anyone to change.

This is elegant, but it's not without tension. A partnership where one partner designs book covers and another designs generative identity systems raises questions about what, exactly, the shared identity of the firm is. If Pentagram partners share no methodology, no visual style, and no client specialisation, what holds the collective together beyond the name and the economic arrangement?

The answer, Pentagram's leadership would argue, is a commitment to design excellence that transcends medium. The new guard would likely agree — but their definition of what constitutes excellence, and where it's applied, is meaningfully different from the generation before them.

The Tension That Makes It Interesting

The most honest reading of Pentagram's current moment is that it contains a productive tension. The studio's heritage partners bring a depth of craft and client relationships built over decades. The new partners bring fluency in systems, motion, code, and platforms that didn't exist when the firm was founded. Neither group is wrong about what good design looks like. They simply have different starting points.

This is, in miniature, the tension facing the entire design profession. The discipline is expanding faster than its institutions can comfortably absorb — into interaction, into service design, into AI-mediated experiences, into spatial computing. Studios that were built to produce beautiful, fixed artifacts are being asked to produce beautiful, adaptive systems. The skills required are different. The timelines are different. The deliverables are different.

Pentagram's bet is that both modes can coexist under one roof, and that the quality of the work — not its medium — is the common thread. It's a bet that requires the older partners to respect practices they didn't grow up in, and the newer partners to respect a legacy they didn't build.

So far, it appears to be working. The firm's client list has diversified, its cultural relevance has held, and its output has expanded without losing the sense of seriousness that has always distinguished Pentagram from trendier, more disposable studios. The new guard hasn't overthrown the old one. They've added rooms to the house.

Looking Forward

The next five years will test Pentagram's model more severely than the last five. The design industry's centre of gravity is shifting rapidly — toward Asia-Pacific markets, toward AI-augmented workflows, toward brand systems that must function across physical, digital, and spatial environments simultaneously. The partners who join the firm in this period will determine whether Pentagram's expansion continues to feel organic or begins to feel forced.

What's clear already is that the studio's willingness to bring in genuinely different voices — not just younger versions of existing partners, but designers whose practices would have been unrecognisable to the founders — has given it something that most legacy institutions lack: a credible claim on the future that doesn't require abandoning the past.

For the rest of the industry, watching Pentagram's new guard is instructive not because every studio should adopt the partnership model, but because it demonstrates something important about institutional evolution. Change doesn't have to mean rupture. A studio can honour its heritage and expand its vocabulary at the same time — but only if it's willing to define itself by the quality of its thinking rather than the medium of its output.

Pentagram's new guard isn't remaking the studio. They're proving that the studio's founding premise — that independent, excellent designers are stronger together — still works, even when "design" means something far broader than it did in 1972.

WeLoveDaily is a design publication for people who care about how things look, work, and feel.