All I know for sure is, I’d happily cross swords with whoever created the Cistermiser brand.

…and maybe it’s just a sunrise or sunset over a body of water that each communal flush was once a part of, and eventually will be again.

Practically, I have no idea if the depiction of a space being 85% full is functionally accurate.

Maybe it connotes 15% in savings?

Maybe customer trust for product efficacy starts to erode exponentially below a suggested 80%?

Maybe its sole intention is to make you question arbitrary waste?

Visual Semiotics: Ignoring expected connotations of the blue and the characterful but simple semi-bold sans… the logo mark as a sign, presents as a signifier of a partially full space; its universal *product attribute* (reduces water use/waste) being signified.

So, not only is there a smart play on ‘systemizer’ as a *function descriptor* using ‘cister(n)’ as a root *category descriptor*, there’s also a potential double entendre in unapologetically owning it’s *emotional benefit* in saving all but the minimum needed.

While traditionally considered a derogatory term, these days any hospitality business owner in the UK is [understandably] more likely to consider ‘acts of miser’ as a means of everyday survival.

A ‘miser’ being a person who is extremely reluctant to spend money, even to a point of hardship, in order to maintain or accrue wealth.

Verbal Semiotics: ‘Cistermiser’ obviously reads as a play on ‘systemizer’, with cistern as the descriptive root word of the coined term.

BUT is ‘miser’ simply the continuation of the noun, “‘sys’t-e’ -MISER”? (Something that systemizes)

Or does it intentionally introduce its own meaning?