Condé Nast - Platform as a system
Scaling quality across a global publishing platform.
Turning a fragmented set of editorial tools into a connected system that shapes content, experience, and business outcomes for some of the world’s biggest brands.
OverviewCondé Nast operates at global scale, with 25 brands, 60 sites, and over 4,000 editors across more than 20 markets.
The challenge wasn’t just scale. It was coherence.
The publishing platform enabled content production, but it didn’t shape the quality, consistency, or performance of what was produced. It needed to operate as a system. The platform technically supported the full content lifecycle, from planning through to publishing and experience. In practice, it operated as a collection of disconnected tools, owned by different teams, with different standards.
I led the shift from a fragmented toolset to a connected platform, aligning systems, workflows, and teams around a shared model that could scale quality across brands and markets.
The approachThe work centred on three areas: connecting the content lifecycle, defining where to standardise, and enabling flexibility where it created value.
Connecting the content lifecycle
Defining where to standardise
Enabling flexibility where it created value
The realityThe platform worked in parts, but not as a system.
The platform technically covered the full content lifecycle, from planning through to publishing and experience. In practice, it operated as a collection of disconnected tools, owned by different teams, with different standards.
Planning, Creation, Rendering, Distribution, and Front-end Experience were all handled through different tools, owned by different teams, with different standards.
And that meant:
Teams were solving the same problems repeatedly.
Experiences varied significantly between brands and markets.
And quality was inconsistent, because nothing was enforcing it.
In short, the platform enabled output, but it didn’t shape it.
The tensionEditorial teams needed flexibility to tell stories.
Engineering needed consistency to scale.
Commercial teams needed predictable surfaces to monetise.
These needs don’t naturally align.
If everything stays flexible, the system fragments.
If everything is locked down, brand value is lost.
The problem was defining where to draw the line.
The challenge wasn’t the tools. It was the tension between competing needs.
The decisionA deliberate shift in how the platform was defined.
I stopped treating the platform as a collection of tools and started treating it as a structured system supporting the full content lifecycle.
This created a clear model across planning, creation, rendering, distribution, and experience.
I defined where standardisation was non-negotiable, focusing on structure, performance, and core building blocks.
I then defined where flexibility remained, allowing editorial teams to create value without breaking the system.
Building the systemFrom tools to a connected system
The platform was restructured as a system of systems, connecting planning, creation, syndication, and experience into a continuous workflow.
Instead of tools handing off to each other, content flowed through a unified system from planning through to user experience
This connected the CMS, design system, planning, and syndication tools into a single operating model, rather than separate products.
Content could now be created once and scaled globally, rather than recreated across markets.
Content reuseCreate once, scale globally.
One of the biggest unlocks of this effort was being able to treat content as something that flows through the system, not something that gets recreated each time.
Editors can now create a single piece of content, then syndicate across multiple markets and languages.
A good example of this was for Vogue, where a single story was reused across 9 different markets in 5 languages, generating a combined 7.3million Unique Page Visits.
The results
+30% increase in time spent across flagship brands
84% faster page response times
5–15% uplift in commerce click-through rates
These were not isolated improvements. They were the result of system-level decisions.
Experience controlControlling quality without removing flexibility.
The front-end needed to scale quality without making every experience the same.
I broke the page down into layers, identifying where structure and behaviour needed to be standardised, and where expression could remain flexible.
This allowed brands to shape their experience without breaking the system underneath.
System governanceThe system only worked because it was actively governed.
Clear governance was introduced to ensure decisions were made consistently and for the right reasons.
This included dedicated forums focused on decision-making, not discussion, and clear standards for how the system evolved.
A key principle was reducing complexity, not adding to it.
In one case, a heavily customised component with over 10 variations and 60+ properties was removed entirely and replaced with a more flexible, composable system.
The principle became: fewer, more capable building blocks. Not more.
Tension in practiceHolding the line on scale vs customisation.
The new approach created real tension.
A clear example was global navigation.
Several brands wanted to retain legacy structures and extend them. While reasonable in isolation, this would have limited the ability to scale a more consistent system.
We also pushed back on the number of navigation items.
A/B testing showed that beyond 6–7 items, users experienced decision paralysis and engagement dropped.
These decisions required holding the line, even when there was pressure to diverge.
Build vs ExtendStrengthening the system, not expanding it
There were cases where teams requested new components.
Instead of adding to the system, I prioritised strengthening what already existed.
For example, rather than introducing a new product card, we extended the existing component to support additional use cases.
This avoided increasing system complexity and ensured consistency across experiences.
The default wasn’t to add. It was to strengthen.
Regional adaptionAdapting where it creates real value.
Where there was clear user and business value, the system adapted.
For example, supporting Arabic required right-to-left layouts, new typography, and changes to CMS workflows.
This affected structure, tooling, and experience, but enabled expansion into new markets and audiences.
Adaptation wasn’t driven by preference, but by meaningful need.
Operational impactAs the system started to hold, the impact was both operational and behavioural.
We reduced system errors by 75% simply by removing inconsistencies at the source.
Teams stopped recreating components and patterns, and content could move more easily across brands and markets, particularly through syndication and reuse.
And importantly, decision-making became clearer. Teams understood where they had flexibility, and where they didn’t.
That reduced a lot of the friction that had existed before.
Business impact
+30% increase in time spent across flagship brands
84% faster page response times
5–15% uplift in commerce click-through rates
These were not isolated improvements. They were the result of system-level decisions.
Leadership roleA platform that scales quality, not just capability.
This work went beyond connecting tools. It required aligning teams, redefining ownership, and establishing a shared way of working across a global organisation.
I led design through this shift, working across Product, Engineering, and Editorial leadership to maintain delivery while transforming how the platform operated.
The result was a platform that didn’t just enable content production but actively shaped the quality, consistency, and performance of experiences across markets.
It scaled not just technically, but as a driver of business outcomes.