I think the idea that this comparison (to color for display of information) is valid in your mind already proves the author’s point.
Why should the communication of a corporate brand identity or the consumer interface to its products be using the same tactics as visual display of complex information?
The principles of visual display of complex information also derive from goals about clarity, preventing influence of outliers, neutral colors, etc.
What are those goals for a corporate communication strategy? If you think they are anything other than scary misinformation tactics to maximize profit and brand perception while minimizing the company’s bad externalities, you’re just fooling yourself.
When the principles of visual display of information are repurposed to optimize profit, minimize negative externalities and control a brand image, infantilization is one of the results.
Your question does not make sense. No one is going “from” principles of display of information “to” infantilization. That seems like a deliberate attempt to make it sound complicated by not engaging with what was said and oversimplifying it.
Your earlier comment states that the bright color usage is to present complex information clearly. Ok. So you have introduced the idea that in this situation people are using principles of visual display of information.
Now that we have said that, we must ask why would a company think its branding or consumer interfaces need to use principles that are intended for other goals like sharing scientific results or data.
We know company goals are about maximizing profits and hiding negative externalities, so it’s reasonable to believe a corporation would only adopt principles of quantitative display of information for branding and consumer awareness if it serves these purposes.
These purposes are served by oversimplifying the purpose or ethos of the company, so that the brand identity is not associated with negative externalities the company creates. This is textbook infantilization. Present childlike logos, whimsical interfaces with flat colorful designs, simple clean interfaces.
This hides complexity. In the visual display of quantitative information, that’s good. In the pushing of a brand identity that’s disingenuous and manipulative exactly in the way of inviting the audience to believe a childlike sense of wonder and trustworthiness should be applied.
I think it’s really disingenuous that you would require it to be spelled out like this.
Obviously brand identity is used to present a positive image of a company, regardless of the particular style. Are intricate "old fashioned" logos (like often seen on luxury brands or financial institutions) less manipulative? Of course not.
Comments
I think the idea that this comparison (to color for display of information) is valid in your mind already proves the author’s point.
Why should the communication of a corporate brand identity or the consumer interface to its products be using the same tactics as visual display of complex information?
The principles of visual display of complex information also derive from goals about clarity, preventing influence of outliers, neutral colors, etc.
What are those goals for a corporate communication strategy? If you think they are anything other than scary misinformation tactics to maximize profit and brand perception while minimizing the company’s bad externalities, you’re just fooling yourself.
When the principles of visual display of information are repurposed to optimize profit, minimize negative externalities and control a brand image, infantilization is one of the results.
How did you get from "the principles of visual display of information" to "infantilization"? Seriously I don't follow this connection at all.
Your question does not make sense. No one is going “from” principles of display of information “to” infantilization. That seems like a deliberate attempt to make it sound complicated by not engaging with what was said and oversimplifying it.
Your earlier comment states that the bright color usage is to present complex information clearly. Ok. So you have introduced the idea that in this situation people are using principles of visual display of information.
Now that we have said that, we must ask why would a company think its branding or consumer interfaces need to use principles that are intended for other goals like sharing scientific results or data.
We know company goals are about maximizing profits and hiding negative externalities, so it’s reasonable to believe a corporation would only adopt principles of quantitative display of information for branding and consumer awareness if it serves these purposes.
These purposes are served by oversimplifying the purpose or ethos of the company, so that the brand identity is not associated with negative externalities the company creates. This is textbook infantilization. Present childlike logos, whimsical interfaces with flat colorful designs, simple clean interfaces.
This hides complexity. In the visual display of quantitative information, that’s good. In the pushing of a brand identity that’s disingenuous and manipulative exactly in the way of inviting the audience to believe a childlike sense of wonder and trustworthiness should be applied.
I think it’s really disingenuous that you would require it to be spelled out like this.
Obviously brand identity is used to present a positive image of a company, regardless of the particular style. Are intricate "old fashioned" logos (like often seen on luxury brands or financial institutions) less manipulative? Of course not.