M50x Colour Participation / LAB

Read the campaign story

monopo’s account traces Audio-Technica’s annual headphone colour-vote campaign to 2020. Its 2024 LAB execution added a design interface before shortlisting and public voting. The agency’s role is scoped to that later execution, not the whole programme’s origin. Voting editions and the design extension are counted as one family rather than separate launches.

The agency describes participation and intended product release, but this study does not adopt engagement totals or treat an announced release as independently verified fulfilment. Colour preference is not evidence of audio performance. The useful decision is how to expand participation from choosing among options to making a proposal while making the limits of that influence clear to everyone involved.

Editorial interpretation: a design interface can make a product feel more understandable by exposing a bounded set of choices. The participant learns what can vary and what remains fixed. That experience can be satisfying without granting genuine control over manufacturing, pricing or availability. The invitation should distinguish creative play, submission, selection and eventual production rather than letting the interface imply that all four are equivalent.

Editorial interpretation: moving from creation to a shortlist changes the meaning of participation. A person may enjoy making something even if it is not selected, provided the process was clear from the start. The brand should explain which decisions belong to a panel and which belong to public voting. Otherwise a playful experience can create expectations of ownership, influence or reward that the later process cannot meet.

Show the limits before the creative work begins

State which elements can be changed and what happens after someone finishes a proposal. Do not hide important conditions behind the excitement of a visual tool. In a paper prototype, ask reviewers to describe what they think they own and what the organiser may do with their work. If those answers differ from the intended arrangement, revise the invitation before collecting anything.

Separate popularity from suitability

A public vote can identify a preference among those who participate, not the best design for every customer or purpose. Explain that distinction in the selection story. Compare a popularity-led result announcement with one that also describes practical constraints. Ask reviewers which conclusions are justified. Avoid turning an enjoyable participation mechanism into a universal claim about quality, performance or market demand.

Give non-selected contributions an honest ending

An invitation should explain how people will know the process has ended and what will happen to their submissions. Do not imply that every participant receives a product, payment or lasting recognition unless that is actually promised. A fictional test can include a non-selected design and ask whether the outcome feels consistent with the original explanation, without judging the participant’s talent or effort.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: sketch a paper customisation exercise for a fictional bookmark, followed by a clearly labelled panel shortlist, optional preference vote and hypothetical result notice.

Measure whether reviewers distinguish creative choices, submission rights, panel decisions and public preference. Compare the staged explanation with a single invitation to design a winner. Ask what they expect if their proposal is not chosen. Retain the participatory structure only if people understand its limits and can enjoy the exercise without inferring guaranteed production, ownership transfer, reward or proof that the selected design is technically superior.

Stop if participation obscures rights, overstates public control or treats popularity as evidence of product performance.

• Use fictional bookmarks and original templates.
• Collect no actual submissions or votes.
• Promise no manufacturing, prizes or rights transfer.