Designing for Kids, Designing for Dogs

Designing products for dogs and kids is rather complicated. The design itself is a negotiation of both the user and the customer.

For example, the iconic "bone" shape that you see everywhere isn't designed solely for the dog. Whether it looks like a real bone or a cartoon bone, the dog doesn't care all that much. It's mostly for the people that's buying it. The most important factor as far as the dog is concerned, is the material choice and durability of the toy. Everything else is probably more so for the owners.

A good example of a great toy for dogs is the Bad Cuz Dog Toy by JW Pet Company. It is one of the more durable rubber toys out there. Sure, the designer could've simply made do with a simple ball made from the same material, but that's not gonna drive up the sales. The designer and the company made a great decision to incorporate something fun and quirky into the toy to get owners interested. They added two small horns and a pair of feet. Sure enough, looking at the dog blogs all over the web, the owners seem to be very pleased with it.

The same goes for designing for young kids and infants. I don't think that the kids are naturally inclined to like one style of a design over another from the get go. I think children's preference for design is environmentally based, and is directly influenced by the wants of their guardians. As such, products designed for the kids are often the negotiations of both parties.​ In the end, the user isn't actually the real user but a fake one:

An imaginary user.

The imaginary user is not quite the user parents or owners know of their kids and dogs respectively, but what they imagine them to be. This is an important distinction, because the kids and dogs do have their preference regarding products, but they cannot voice their opinions adequately. Thus, the guardians and owners are the ones that decide what sort of person/animal they are when buying a product. It's a negotiation of what the ones with power wants, and what they think the opposite party wants.

Negotiating designs between the user and the customer is difficult, because not only is the designer having to design a product for the user, but they have to design it from a marketing perspective.

I predict that after a while, the imaginary user will eventually become the user as the consumer sees fit, therefore, the early design preference for users is dictated by the type of stuff the consumer purchases.

So the best way to design products for the imaginary user is to design something the consumer think the user wants. Negotiate the design. Make it not-so-kitsch but not too high-concept. Corny and not too corny. It's a balance, really.

I've realized that I don't fully embrace industrial design as I used to. It is trash. Garbage. Antiquated way of thinking and only groom to the vices of human nature. But admitting this is actually painful. I've done it for more than 6 years of life. 4 years in school left me disheartened, disillusioned, and demolished my creative spirit. I feel duller than I was before. I feel so boxed in. I feel like I conformed too much. Doing 2 courses on intense reading and writing is killing me. I feel no fulfillment doing these things. It's not creative.

This is why I'm hesitant to advertise the MDes program as much as the professors want me to. As much as I like the people and the way it broadens my view on the world, it really leaves me bitter. I refuse to coax people in the program that would like to join the MDes program with half-hearted intentions. Until they figure out their raison d'etre for the MDes, I will do all that I can to plant doubt until they are either dissuaded or find a strong will. I definitely don't want to see other people suffer the same way I have. Even if I'm heavily reprimanded -- doubtful, because there're already tons of people willing to go through with it despite my warnings. I guess those are the type of people that’ll pull through or do something great anyways. The least I can do is cheer them on.

I think I've realized it from before, but haven't put it into words. My hesitance on doing things with my life, the way I choose to stagnate, it's all because there’s a misalignment on what I believe in and what I practice. I don't fully embrace industrial design. Despite my struggle to tell myself that I'm a designer, I'm frankly not. I'm afraid of actual designers with aligned philosophies and actions, and how it reflects on the degree of failure I am in comparison. Hence, my lack of confidence in my design. Because I'm unsure if my design is actually good or not. Because I don't fully comprehend my designs.

But I've digressed. I don't feel fulfilled because these things I've done is meaningless. The hanger I made? Pointless. An object with no real use because of prohibitive cost. The fact that I'm not pouring blood and tears to bring it to market (even if I have to make them by my own hands) show how much I care about it. Frankly, I don't like the wasteful nature of industrial design. I don't buy into the whole sustainable design, because it's not sustainable at all. It's a hypocrisy. Even the most environmentally friendly product will end up in the landfill. Not to mention the production waste that'll go into making it. It's not worth the trouble to create it in the first place. This is probably why I've stopped following industrial design trends. I'm completely clueless on what's going on in the industry.

So, what does fulfill me?

One thing I enjoy more than consuming media is to analyze them. Recently, we've seen an influx of these entertainment franchises that was intended for one audience, but a completely different demographic seems to have taken a strong interest in it. Or despite all the failings in the entertainment in the traditional sense, it still garners a large fanbase and wide acclaim. I don't think it's at all what critics claim to be “adult-child” or “special snowflakes”. Franchises such as Minecraft, Kemono Friends, Undertale, Friday Night at Freddy's, My Little Pony, and Spooky's House of Jumpscares all seem to have hardcore, diehard fans and often the centre of ridicule to majority of the outsiders.

At first, I too thought the adult-males' infatuation to girls' multimedia franchise with an endless slew of multi-coloured ponies slightly disturbing. However, this type of fanbase, I soon learned, wasn't that uncommon. In fact, after treading with my head closer to the ground, I found that it's actually extremely common. One of the oldest internet example would be the Sonic the Hedgehog series. It garnered a large following on deviantArt and hundreds of original characters were created based on the franchise. What exactly about some sneaker-wearing blue marsupial gathered such a wide crowd? My guess is that it's an example of an Easy to Consume Media. A very basic plot (if any), and a very exploitable art style with semi-interesting characters made Sonic the Hedgehog the perfect series for young artists and writers to latch onto. In this vein, Pokémon and most video game franchises also met with this sort of popularity. On the contrary, movies and comics such as Marvel and DC had slightly harder time with these sort of folks. These type of media are often too complex or too well drawn for the audience to draw inspirations to create their original contents.

This phenomenon is not only limited to the West. In East Asia, especially Japan, series such as Touhou, and Kemono Friends also seem to follow a similar trend. Lacklustre story, shoddy graphics and a large collection of interesting albeit laughable characters allow for much interpretation for the creative audience.

Perhaps this is one of the most important aspect of Easy to Consume Media, the fact that there is room for artistic reinterpretation and the basic storyline allows for more creativity to flow. Thus, inadvertently (read: not designed or intended by stakeholders) increasing the size of the community through fan art and fan fiction.

This is a topic that could be interesting to pursue, and may be a great tool to forecast the popularity of a franchise by the captive audience-channels to better predict the next trendy or viral franchise. In the meantime, here is a simple chart on what could make a good multimedia franchise with lots of enthusiastic fans.
In the meantime, enjoy this three coal diamond chart I whipped up in 5 minutes:

Last post, I mentioned that I would like to pursue multitude of different things, as great men and women have done in history. The many in the past of whom achieved a breadth of knowledge and simultaneously managed to excel in multiple fields, the Renaissance men or polymaths. Is the reason why  polymaths are so far and few because we are at an epoch where knowledge in even one field is so deep, that becoming an expert requires a whole lifetime to achieve? Or does polymaths only exist for those who are more affluent?

Food for thought.

The video I linked above by School of Life, a channel built up and narrated by Alain de Botton, discusses the approach opposite of my thoughts. Nevertheless, his smooth voice, great animation, and compelling narrative is perfect for comparing the topic from two distinct perspectives: a highly-educated, and experienced thinker and a mere design-post-graduate student with no background in anything other than design. As much as I hate to admit it, I'm nowhere near the clarity when it comes to linking thoughts. I practice casual thinking and random musings, so much of the concepts discussed from Foucault to Marx is a little too high-concept for me. This becomes more evident the longer I try to desperately chase the coattails of other professions.