When we choose a type system for a brand, we are not choosing how things will look. We are choosing how the brand will think — at least, how it will appear to think.
The structural argument
Consider two brands in the same category. Both use serif typefaces. But one uses a rational, upright transitional serif (Freight, say), and one uses an idiosyncratic, optical-size-sensitive humanist serif (Cormorant).
These are not aesthetic differences. They are cognitive differences. The first signals: we are organized, institutional, trustworthy within established norms. The second signals: we have a particular sensibility; we have looked at things carefully; we are not trying to be for everyone.
Application pattern
For any new brand identity project, the type system decision should come after a disposition audit: what is this brand’s default mode of address? Is it explanatory, declarative, intimate, authoritative, curious?
The typeface should enact the disposition, not illustrate it.
Common failure: choosing a typeface for its connotations (“this feels premium”) rather than its structural properties (what it does at small sizes, how it sets in long text, what it communicates when used without art direction).