visit the site

visit the site

visit the site

visit the site

visit the site

For the last fifty years or so, there were a few ways for a person to be influenced by the outside world (radio, television, printed materials, actually leaving the house)  and advertisers had every base covered with their brand-related stories: a billboard with a smile, a commercial alluding to Orwell’s 1984, an ad that talked about cars like normal people do… each expertly tuned to play on our emotions. With the explosion of the web, a whole new line of communication with the outside world was opened, and advertisers have been scrambling, ever since, to figure out the key psychology of reaching us in this brave new space.

There have been wonderful attempts, but from what I have seen, the advertising world as  a whole has still not fully grasped this problem. Instead, people like Randall Rothenberg, president & CEO at the Interactive Advertising Bureau, insist that we make a massive effort to get this internet thing back under creative control, so that we can give people more of those resonant, emotional brand experiences for which consumers still surely pine.

The Creepiness of It All

Imagine you are sitting around a table with a group of friends, having a conversation. One person says something, another reacts and rebuts, another reacts to the rebuttal, and so on… Thoughts are shared, bonds are strengthened, and the conversation builds in to a pleasing, enriching experience. Everyone gains, as everyone learns from those that contribute.

Now, imagine that a slightly plastic, well-designed facsimile of a person takes measured strides up to your table, has a seat, and, in an aluminum voice, begins telling you of the value of Acme brand shaving products. You try to respond to what this robo-person is saying, but you get no encouraging feedback from the bot; just continued praises of the Acme brand. You turn to your friends, each as bewildered as you, and after a few goofy looks and sarcastic remarks about the new psuedo-entity at the table, everyone continues their conversation, doing their best to drown out the noisy insistence of Acme brand marketing-speak.

This is internet advertising’s failure, and it happens because of the tired notion that people want to hear a story about the brands they consume. The internet is a social medium, and stories do not make for engaging conversation.

The Internet is Full of Pragmatists

The Cluetrain Manifesto (soon to celebrate its tenth birthday) reminded us that before there was advertising, there were markets, and before there were mediums for advertising, there was conversation. With our new found ability to reach out and share with anyone over the web, conversations are again becoming the crucial aspect of any brand-consumer relationship. On the net, consumers are no longer broadcasted to; consumers can actually join in the conversation, and now give continual brand feedback, both to the brand and amongst themselves (or in the worst scenario: only amongst themselves).

Now I cannot tell you the last time I had a conversation about any specific brand, but I can guarantee you that the conversation was based on product benefit, not on any story that was handed me by that brand. If any stories were related, they were entirely my own.

This is how internet advertising succeeds: by facilitating the sharing of the consumer’s brand-related story with both the brand, and other future/present/past consumers. And, of course, encouraging further sharing.

Who Decides What’s “Creative”?

So maybe this is too boring for an industry full of massive budgets, elaborate photo-shoots, and celebrity endorsements. Maybe it is a bit tough to tie a Ludacris endorsement in to a forum thread, or leverage your client’s NASCAR sponsorship in a Facebook application. Creativity on the web, or anywhere for that matter, is not easy, nor is it wholly centered on well-crafted stories, or expensive aesthetic ephemera.

The more advertiser’s try to mold the net in to another story delivery system, the less their clients will see any return. Sure, TV advertising is still succeeding, mainly because advertisers have had lots of time to find what works best for that medium. Television also happens to be perfectly suited for delivering stories, as is print. But bringing the story-based model to the web is like airing a radio broadcast on HDTV. In order to fully take advantage of the breadth of experience the interenet can provide consumers, advertisers need to put away the storybooks, and reaquaint themselves with the art of conversation.

visit the site

Some typefaces aren’t bad: they’re just poorly applied. Some are so useful, they become ubiquitous, and others are just completely devoid of purpose. I like to think of typefaces more as tools of communication, with specifically designed purposes, rather than objects of art. By regarding typography as a tool, you can focus more on the intended function of a particular typeface, allowing for a more appropriate application, and generally, a more successful communication. Here are some of the most ubiquitous typefaces used in design these days, and how each is used, abused, or can be properly avoided.

Times New Roman: The Underdog

Times New Roman could easily be considered the most successful typeface of all time. Within a few years of being commissioned from Stanley Morison (with Victor Lardent) for The Times newspaper in 1931, TNR was the most widely used typeface in the newspaper industry, seeding its massive popularity 60 years before it was ever packaged with Microsoft products. One of the safest bets in the world of design these days, though, is that in any “properly” considered piece (except newspapers), the type setting will not be in Times New Roman. The mindset persists, with designers, that if TNR is a default typeface (as it is in the majority of software), any designer worthy of firing up an Adobe product should be able to explore options beyond the default. Is popularity, though, really a sound reason to banish a typeface from our type libraries?

TNR has enjoyed such a wide application for a reason. It not only revolutionized the newspaper industry at its birth, but it has survived on the merits of its design to out-live its original medium, and extend its typographic legacy long in to our digital times. Default or not, Times New Roman continues to be used in fresh and interesting new ways, and serves as a consistently solid serif choice in both print and web-design.

Suggested Usage:
For further examples of Times New Roman’s continued relevance, check out this article by David Shea, and take a look at how Coudal Partners have successfully utilized TNR for their site.

Helvetica: Mr. Popularity

If we’re still betting on typography, the second safest bet in design today is that in any given design piece, Helvetica has been used somehow. Helvetica has been, and continues to be an immensely popular typeface. Heck, like any good celebrity, it’s even had a movie made of its life. First drawn in 1956 by Max Miedinger, and based on Akzidenz Grotesque, Helvetica’s forms “evoke uncultivated strength, force and persistence”, as Robert Bringhurst has described it in The Elements of Typographic Style. Given these attributes, it is no wonder why designers have applied Helvetica to everything from subway signage, to toothpaste ads, to web pages.

But are all of these applications appropriate? Mr. Bringhurst goes on to say that even the lighter weights of Helvetica, issued in more recent years, “have done much to reduce its coarseness, but little to increase its readability.” The fact is, Helvetica, and its recent incarnation Helvetica Neue, are primarily successful as display typefaces, used best in headers and signage, not body copy. Therefore, Helvetica, as a tool for any typographer, is seriously limited.

Suggested Usage:
Helvetica’s not-too-distant cousin, Arial, is actually much more adept in the areas that Helvetica is weak, since Arial was designed for better readability at small sizes and on the screen. Like Times New Roman, Arial is also an unfortunately overlooked typeface, and many designers ridicule its homeliness, while negating its usefulness as a body copy workhorse. But by combining Helvetica and Arial, and utilizing each for their specific strengths, both can work in tandem to achieve a typographical success.

Copperplate: The New Black

Banks, steakhouses, law firms, and auto-repair shops… Copperplate has been used for all sorts of purposes, and has fastly become the de facto typeface for any piece that requires an air of establishment. Designed by the enormously successful typographer Frederic Goudy in 1901, Copperplate Gothic was intended to be set at small sizes on letterhead and business cards. Today, Copperplate has become the typeface of the modern suburb, assuring consumers that businesses of every sort are worthy of their money.

Copperplate’s sharp serifs work well to aid its readability at smaller sizes, but also seem to be misunderstood as giving the characters an old-world, stable ambience. The main distinctive feature of Copperplate is exactly why it has become so attractive to designers, and is exactly why it fails as a display typeface. The pointy serifs, at larger sizes, create distracting hot points at the ends of the letter-forms, severing the relationships between each letter, and forcing each character to be read individually. This destroys readability, and when Copperplate is overused, the effect can become quite nauseating.

Suggested Usage:
Keep it small.

Serpentine: Why?

I see the growing popularity of Serpentine as heralding the eventual descent of the Western world in to utterly encompassing idiocy. In fact, I cannot view any piece utilizing Serpentine without thinking of Mike Judge’s Idiocracy. Unleashed in 1972 by Dick Jensen for the Visual Graphics Corporation, Serpentine has a few weights, but only one speed: maximum warp. But even with its overly emphasized, horribly distorted letter-forms,  Serpentine has its place. And for the love of all that we hold sacred as designers: keep it there.

What kind of a prison should we keep this beast in? One contained within the four walls of NASCAR, Professional Wrestling, strip clubs, and all-night discos. Anything including and related to these establishments have full reign to use Serpentine. Everything else must please find some other way of trying to convey speed, power, aggression, or machismo, unless you wish to do so in the cheapest fashion possible.

Suggested Usage:
Other type families to consider, besides this plague: Akzidenz Grotesque, Univers, Eurostile, or anything else bold and italic.

Special thanks to Richard Molinaro for the piece featured on this page. See the full piece here, or to view other examples of Richard’s typographic works,
visit him here.