Science isn't just about discovering information. Dissemination is critical. Communicating ideas is just as important as discovering them and promotion is part of effective communication. It's natural and healthy for researchers to promote their ideas.

Names are critical to enable discussion.

The "marketing" page is where documentation is. Summaries that don't require reading a whole academic papers are a good thing, and they are the place where all the different links are collected. Same reason software has READMEs.

Logos... are cute and take 10-60 minutes? If you spend months on some research might as well take the satisfaction of giving it a cute logo, why not.

Well, names are useful for the same reason people's names are useful. The rest just kinda happens naturally, I think.

Dunno, but I'm glad they do it. In other fields of research, researchers often purposely hold off on naming something, so that the community kind of has no choice but to name it after the authors themselves.

Eg in my field, they would have called Spectre "the Horn-Genkin-Hamburg vulnerability" or something. Which one of these is hard-to-remember jargon, and which one is catchy and evocative?

It's science these days. They need funding, one way is to get people to recognize the importance of their work

So people talk about it

Why does the comments of every such attack need a question about why it has its own branding, marketing page, etc…? Genuine question.

(Seriously, this comes up every time, just do a search for it if you actually want to figure out why.)