So I’m just going to run with this as a thought exercise. Let’s assume that design is manipulation of perception.
if we posit that no 2 people have the same perception, and we’re trying to achieve a particular goal, then our inputs, onboards, etc, have to be open to numerous perceptions, aka variance. variance in messaging, in framing, patterns and visual metaphors, recall, etc.
however we’re often reminded to limit the audience in order to increase the overlap between people’s perceptions and allow us to decrease the variance. the ‘arrow head’ idea - that the tip of an arrow is ultra narrow and concentrated. after market penetration you may expand as needed.
if we flip this and decide not to narrow our audience because our solution could solve the same problem for across multiple “industries”, it likely will not have the particular impact required to change one’s perception. because that’s what design really is, it’s not about trading problems or making pretty things.
it may not have the impact to change perceptions for a number of reasons eg: intelligence is domain dependent; trust is build through familiarity, not abstraction; marketing budgets are finite.
there is also an assumption here that a design solution needs to appeal to many people in order to be considered a success. in order to change perceptions, growth sort of implied.
so in order to design something that grows, we’re talking about idea transmission. or to use a more human phrase, we might call it something like Advocation.
to put it a different way a la Design Twitter: