The Room Is Not Neutral
We treat research as the answer. Usually it just hands everyone permission to hear what they already wanted.
A few weeks ago I wrote about a juice brand that spent a fortune redesigning a package, watched sales drop, and blamed the design. Many of you wrote back. Some agreed, some pushed hard the other way, and one question kept surfacing in different words: so was the research wrong?
That question is why I am writing this. Because the answer is almost always no. The research was fine. What went wrong happened afterward, in the room, when people started deciding what it meant.
Each week, I unpack one real-world brand signal at a time. If you’d like the next one in your inbox, subscribe.
I have sat in that room from nearly every seat.
As the designer waiting for a verdict.
As the person who wrote the brief.
As the one watching a focus group through the glass.
As the one turning a transcript into a decision.
And later, as the one quietly checking whether that decision had worked.
That mix is why I stopped treating research as neutral just because someone had written it down.
Let me tell you about a planter.
Years ago I designed a self-watering planter. A wick sat inside it, drawing water up from a hidden reservoir, so the plant took exactly what it needed. Simple physics, turned into an object you would actually want on a shelf. It won two international design awards.
And it almost died on arrival.
Someone at the marketing side with an influential talk looked at it and decided it did not work. Not the mechanism, which worked fine. The idea. It did not fit what he already believed a product in that line should be, so his reading became the verdict, and the piece was nearly pulled from the catalogue before it ever reached anyone. An international jury had said one thing. One person in the room said another. His reading was the one with the power to end the conversation, so his reading won.
Then it reached the stores, and the second filter kicked in. Someone saw the wick inside, decided it must be an oil lamp, and the shops began trying to sell my planter as a candle holder. I remember the disbelief. There is soil in it. There is a plant in it. But that no longer mattered, because the object had already passed through someone else’s frame and come out the other side as a different product entirely.
Same object. An award-winning design, a failing product, and a candle holder, depending entirely on who was looking and what they already expected to see.
There is a well-known idea in psychology called selective perception. When two people receive the same information, each filters it through what they already believe, expect, and fear. The classic example is two fans watching the same match, each certain the referee is against their side. Same footage, two different games.
That is the first layer, and on its own it is almost harmless. The planter shows the second layer, the one that does the real damage. It is not just that everyone filters the same input differently. It is that the room decides whose filter gets to pass through and become real. One reading is allowed in. The rest are quietly kept out. I have started thinking of it as selective permeability, and once you see it, you cannot unsee it in any meeting you sit in.
Watch which filter passes through, and you will almost always find power sitting next to it.
A design jury makes this visible in seconds. A student pins up their work. The most senior person speaks first and says something warm, and within a minute everyone else is finding reasons the project is strong. Reverse it. Let that first senior comment be cold, and the same room starts locating flaws it could not see ten seconds earlier. The work on the wall never changed. What changed is which reading the room let through. It takes real confidence to hold a view the room has turned against, and most people, sensibly, save that confidence for another day.
This is the part missing from every process diagram.
The different readings in a room do not carry equal weight. One wins, and the winning one is rarely the most accurate. It is the one attached to the most power. The senior voice, the loudest certainty, the person who can close the meeting. Their filter becomes the official version of reality, and everyone else’s reading is filed away as if it was never spoken. An award could not outvote it. A wick became a candle. Power decided, and the evidence adjusted itself afterward.
Which is why “the customer said so” is such a comfortable sentence. It sounds like evidence. Often it is cover. The customer becomes a way to avoid saying “I decided this,” so that if the decision fails, no single person has to own it. The research did not remove the risk. It just spread the fingerprints thin enough that none of them belong to anyone.
None of this makes research the enemy. Good research is one of the few things that can show a team what it cannot see from inside its own brand. It exposes a vague brief. It separates what people say from what they do. It breaks the story a room has been telling itself.
The problem is never the research. The problem is the moment a finding stops being information and becomes permission. Permission to hear what you wanted. Permission not to decide. Permission to hand the choice to whoever holds the most authority and call it objective.
So before the next finding goes onto a slide as settled truth, sit with a quieter set of questions.
What did this method actually let us observe, people explaining themselves or people choosing? Whose reading of it are we treating as the reading? What did this result make easy to hear, and what did it let us ignore? And the uncomfortable one: are we using the customer’s words as evidence, or as a place to hide from a decision that was ours to make?
A focus group can tell you what people are able to explain. A shelf can tell you what they can find. A purchase tells you what they will actually pay for. None of those is the same truth, and a strong team knows which question each one is allowed to answer.
The research is rarely what fails you. The room is.
Ps. Brand names mentioned here are used purely as examples for analysis, not for advertising or endorsement.
When We Work Together
There are two ways this usually begins.
A company building a product, somewhere inside a process of continuous signal reading, who needs the form to carry what the brand is actually trying to say.
Or a designer, or a student, who wants to learn to read these signals on their own, through a workshop or one to one.
Both start with one conversation info@sinemhalli.com
If this felt familiar, subscribe.
Thanks for reading. It means a lot.
If you’d like to say hello, collaborate, or invite me to speak, I’d love to hear from you.
This can be a talk, a workshop, an interview, or a consulting project.
You can email me at info@sinemhalli.com or send me a message. I read every note and reply when I can.
More ways to stay in touch:
📥 LinkedIn: This is where I’m most active.
📸 Instagram: A small window into my recent design work.
✒ Substack: Where the full archive, comments, and practical resources can be accessed more easily in one place. If this is relevant to your work, you’re welcome to follow here.
If someone forwarded this to you, you’re warmly welcome to subscribe for future notes.
Wish you a gentle week,
Sinem
Hi, I’m Sinem Hallı. I teach designers to read brand signals, because every designer will work for a brand one day. Maybe someone else’s, maybe their own—but always a brand. The work is never “just design.” It’s design within a set of values, promises, and expectations.
I’ve worked across design and brand communication in corporate settings, and I also teach this as a structured course at universities and in company workshops. I have taught more than 500 students. This newsletter is where that framework meets real-world stories and hands-on tools.
More at sinemhalli.com