Drifting through Portugal with Meg, my partner, we often experienced frustration when we paid more for a meal but received smaller portions and poorer service. 

The restaurants weren’t elite traditional fancy restaurants where you anticipate paying more for less. No, they were often small designerly concept spots. Meg and I would discuss how it felt like our money went more toward the trendy branding and interior design—the space’s vibe—than any tangible product or service. 

I started calling this extra expense a “design tax” because it’s the payments above the actual price of a product or service. Think of it as a hidden entry fee. 

Frustrated with the not-so-hidden impact on my wallet, I realized that the so-called hole-in-the-wall spots were much more enjoyable and memorable. They often lacked the veneer of branding found in the other restaurants.

The contrast reminded me that we live in a time where symbols matter more than ever, where branding can create desire through the perception of significance instead of function or utility. People—it seems—want to be near symbols that communicate they’re cool good people doing fantastic things. It doesn’t matter if the food is good; the vibe matters. 

We’re all subjects—designers and non-designers—to hidden design taxes. 

In my thesis, I used the framework of functional reality and ideal reality. Functional reality describes current conditions, whereas ideal reality describes preferred conditions. Design can be a good bridge between the two. Branding inherently focuses on the ideal—creating a veneer—which dims functional realities. 

It can feel futile to do otherwise. But when we settle for visual communication design that increases profits through design taxes, we’re doing a disservice to ourselves and the world. I believe visual communication design can do much more than taxing people through branding.

Do you?