You open Netflix. Ta-dum. You boot up your Xbox. Startup chime. You visit a website. Autoplay video with sudden music. You receive a notification. Cheerful ping.
For most people, these sounds are barely noticeable—pleasant audio signatures that reinforce brand recognition. For autistic individuals with auditory sensitivities, they're assault weapons.
That Netflix "ta-dum" isn't charming when you're already overstimulated. It's a sharp, loud, unexpected sound that can trigger genuine physical distress. The Xbox startup chime at full system volume isn't nostalgic when you have hyperacusis. It's painful. Website autoplay isn't engaging when unexpected sounds cause immediate anxiety. It's a reason to leave and never return.
Acoustic branding has become ubiquitous. Every app wants a signature sound. Every brand wants audio recognition. Every platform employs notification sounds, startup chimes, confirmation tones, and ambient audio.
The problem: brands optimizing for memorability are creating accessibility barriers for consumers with auditory processing differences, hyperacusis, misophonia, and sensory sensitivities. The very sounds designed to create positive brand associations are instead creating trauma associations.
And almost no brands are acknowledging this in their audio design.
Autistic auditory sensitivity isn't uniform. It's not simply "all sounds are too loud." It's frequency-specific, context-dependent, and individually variable.
High-frequency sounds—notification pings, electronic beeps, sharp consonants in voice audio—are particularly problematic. These frequencies can feel physically painful to individuals with hyperacusis. They're also the exact frequencies that audio branding loves because they cut through ambient noise and demand attention.
That's the whole point. Create a sound that can't be ignored. Make it distinctive, sharp, attention-grabbing.
For neurotypical consumers, this works. For autistic consumers with frequency sensitivity, you've just created a pain stimulus associated with your brand.
Consider the standard notification sound: a high, bright chime. Pleasant to most. Absolutely intolerable to someone whose auditory processing treats that frequency as threat-level stimulus. Now imagine that sound playing unexpectedly while they're already managing sensory input from their environment.
The result isn't brand recognition. It's brand avoidance.
Low-frequency options cause fewer problems. Bass tones, deeper chimes, lower-pitched audio signatures—these frequencies are generally easier for sensitive auditory systems to process. They're less likely to trigger pain responses or overwhelm.
Yet most audio branding skews high-frequency because it's "crisper" and "cuts through."
Let's look at this in the real world.
Discord, a communication platform heavily used by autistic communities, has notification sounds that many autistic users find intolerable. The default notification is a high-pitched electronic tone that plays constantly in active servers.
The problem: For users in multiple servers, these notifications can occur dozens of times per minute. Each one is a high-frequency interrupt. The cumulative effect isn't just annoying—it's sensory overload that makes the platform unusable without modification.
What they did right: Discord allows complete customization of notification sounds, including the option to disable audio notifications entirely. Users can set server-specific sounds or turn all audio off.
What they could do better: Make the default notification lower-frequency. Offer a "sensory-friendly sound pack" with gentler tones. Provide audio descriptions of available notification sounds so users can evaluate without testing each one.
McDonald's self-order kiosks emit a sharp beep with every screen touch. In a restaurant environment with existing noise, these beeps compound sensory load.
The problem: The beep frequency is high and sharp. It plays at fixed volume regardless of environment. Multiple kiosks operating simultaneously create overlapping beeps. The sound provides no essential information—users receive visual feedback from the screen.
What they did wrong: Made the sound mandatory with no volume control. Used high-frequency tone. Provided no silent operation mode.
What they could do better: Add a volume slider or mute option on the first screen. Use haptic feedback instead of audio for touchscreen confirmation. Offer lower-frequency tones as alternatives. Allow silent operation entirely.
When an iPhone begins charging, it plays a distinctive two-tone chime. This sound plays automatically, at system volume, whenever the phone connects to power.
The problem: The sound plays unexpectedly when users plug in their device—often at night when they're winding down. For autistic individuals with startle responses or auditory sensitivity, this sudden sound in a quiet environment can be genuinely distressing.
What Apple did right: The sound can be disabled through accessibility settings (though not obviously). Silent mode overrides the charging sound.
What they could do better: Make the charging sound opt-in rather than opt-out. Provide volume control separate from system volume. Offer lower-frequency alternatives. Include "charging sound" in accessibility settings rather than burying it in behavior settings.
Slack's notification system uses multiple distinct sounds for different message types: direct messages, mentions, channel messages, calls.
The problem: In active workspaces, these sounds create constant auditory interrupts. The "mention" sound is particularly sharp and high-frequency. Customization requires navigating multiple menus.
What they did partially right: Slack allows notification sound customization and can be muted entirely. Do Not Disturb schedules prevent off-hours sounds.
What they could do better: Offer a "low-sensory mode" that uses visual indicators instead of audio. Provide frequency-filtered versions of sounds. Make "silent notifications" a prominent option, not a buried setting. Create notification sounds at lower frequencies from the start.
YouTube ads often play at higher volume than the content video. The sudden volume increase is a common complaint even among neurotypical users, but for autistic viewers with auditory sensitivities, it's a platform abandonment trigger.
The problem: Volume normalization fails to account for perceived loudness. Ads use compressed audio that sounds louder even at technically equal volumes. The sudden shift from content to ad is an auditory assault for sensitive listeners.
What they did wrong: Allowed advertisers to use audio compression that makes ads perceived as louder. Failed to implement effective volume normalization. Made volume inconsistency a standard user experience.
What they could do better: Implement strict volume normalization between content and ads. Offer "reduced audio dynamics" mode that compresses volume range. Provide warning before ad audio begins. Allow users to set maximum volume limits.
Duolingo uses cheerful, high-pitched sounds for correct answers, level-ups, and streak reminders. The owl mascot's voice clips are high-frequency and exaggerated.
The problem: The gamification strategy relies on audio rewards that are designed to be exciting and stimulating—exactly what causes problems for auditory-sensitive users. The push notification sounds are guilt-inducing rather than motivating for users who've learned to associate them with stress.
What they did right: Notifications can be disabled. In-app sounds can be muted in settings.
What they could do better: Offer "calm mode" with gentler, lower-frequency sounds. Provide haptic-only feedback options. Create visual-only celebration animations without sound. Stop using guilt-based notification copy that makes users feel worse about muting sounds.
Here's a radical thought: make silence an option for every acoustic brand element.
Not as an afterthought buried in accessibility settings. As a primary design consideration from the beginning.
Visual brand signatures work without sound. Apple's startup process is recognizable even with sound off—the logo, the loading bar, the visual progression. Netflix's opening sequence is identifiable before the sound plays—the red screen, the letter animation.
Haptic feedback creates brand recognition through touch instead of sound. The distinct vibration pattern of an iPhone notification is recognizable without audio. Gaming controllers use specific vibration patterns to convey information silently.
Animation timing and visual rhythm can create brand recognition without acoustic elements. The speed of a logo animation, the pace of screen transitions, the rhythm of visual changes—these create pattern recognition that doesn't require sound.
Google's Material Design includes motion principles that create brand consistency through visual timing rather than audio cues. Tesla's user interface relies heavily on visual feedback with minimal audio. The Nintendo Switch allows system sounds to be disabled completely while maintaining full functionality.
These aren't "accessible versions"—they're primary design approaches that happen to work for everyone.
Every acoustic brand element should have independent volume control. Not system-level volume. Individual control for each sound.
Spotify allows users to set separate volumes for music, notifications, and voice content. This is accessibility. A user can have music at comfortable listening level while keeping notification sounds much quieter or off entirely.
Windows allows application-specific volume control through the volume mixer. Users can mute specific programs while maintaining system sounds. This prevents applications from hijacking audio space.
iOS Accessibility settings include "Headphone Accommodations" that allow users to amplify soft sounds and reduce loud sounds, customize frequency ranges, and adjust audio to their specific hearing profile.
These aren't niche features for a small population. They're usability improvements that benefit everyone who's ever been startled by an unexpected sound or struggled with inconsistent volume across applications.
Do:
Don't:
The assumption that audio branding is universally positive needs to end. For a significant portion of autistic consumers—and many others with auditory sensitivities, hearing differences, or situational needs—acoustic branding is a barrier.
Your brand can be recognizable without being audible. Your audio can be optional without losing effectiveness. Your signature sound can exist for those who want it while remaining silent for those who don't.
The "ta-dum" isn't your brand. Your content is your brand. The sound is just one possible way to mark it. When that way causes pain, anxiety, or overwhelm, it's not building brand equity. It's creating brand aversion.
Give users control. Offer alternatives. Make silence a feature, not a failure.
Winsome Marketing understands that accessibility isn't optional—it's essential brand strategy. We help companies build recognition that works across different sensory profiles. Let's create branding that doesn't require hearing to appreciate.
.png)
Neurodivergence Writing Team : Aug 1, 2024 2:26:27 PM
In today's diverse and inclusive marketplace, brands are increasingly recognizing the importance of connecting with the autism spectrum disorder...
Writing Team : Oct 21, 2024 9:20:41 PM
In recent years, businesses have begun to embrace neurodiversity—the idea that variations in brain function, including conditions like autism, ADHD,...
-1.png)
4 min read
Neurodivergence Writing Team : Mar 31, 2025 3:17:33 PM
We often underestimate the power of predictability in consumer experiences. For autistic individuals, this predictability isn't merely...
Neurodivergence Writing Team