Before examining specific guidelines for selecting typeface, a number of general conclusions are supported by our analysis. The results provide broad empirical support for the contention by CEOs, corporate identity analysts, and creative agencies that typefaces convey a variety of strategically important impressions (Dolen 1984; Hutton 1997; Somerick 2000; Spaeth 1995). Just as a spokesperson projects an image of the company, typeface appears to have the potential to influence the impressions created by corporate communications. In addition, the strength of the relationship between typeface design and the resulting impressions (adjusted R2 from .514 to .734) suggests that corporations can have significant control over the resulting impressions (all content issues being equal). Since type is inherent to most corporate communications, companies can cost effectively leverage the benefits of an appropriately designed typeface.
Our findings further reveal that corporations should take into consideration all four responses that their typefaces create. Thus, typeface should be carefully selected to ensure consistency with other elements of the corporate identity strategy. For example, Hilton’s original logomark was redesigned using a “script look” to make it more friendly (Spaeth 1999).
Our results show that natural, “scripted” typefaces produce more reassuring and pleasing
fonts. However, Hilton’s new font is only average on elaborateness and harmony.
==== END PAGE 17
The combined result is a font that is less prominent, (more subtle), and only moderately engaging. Simply changing to a “script look” in an attempt to make a friendlier impression had a more complex effect in that a combination of responses (pleasing, less prominent, and only moderately engaging) resulted. Focusing only on a single response may lead to unintended consequences in the other types of response. Firms must recognize the implications of design for all responses, since multiple responses may be elicited.
Our findings further reveal that corporations should take into consideration all four responses that their typefaces create. Thus, typeface should be carefully selected to ensure consistency with other elements of the corporate identity strategy. For example, Hilton’s original logomark was redesigned using a “script look” to make it more friendly (Spaeth 1999).
fonts. However, Hilton’s new font is only average on elaborateness and harmony.
==== END PAGE 17
The combined result is a font that is less prominent, (more subtle), and only moderately engaging. Simply changing to a “script look” in an attempt to make a friendlier impression had a more complex effect in that a combination of responses (pleasing, less prominent, and only moderately engaging) resulted. Focusing only on a single response may lead to unintended consequences in the other types of response. Firms must recognize the implications of design for all responses, since multiple responses may be elicited.
Common Response Combinations
We draw on the cluster analysis results to illustrate the tradeoffs. Among the wide range of commercially available fonts in this study, we found six general profiles (see Table 5).
===== END PAGE 18
We draw on the cluster analysis results to illustrate the tradeoffs. Among the wide range of commercially available fonts in this study, we found six general profiles (see Table 5).
===== END PAGE 18
The first cluster comprises pleasing, subtle (not prominent), and engaging fonts that were average on the reassuring dimension. These are liked, warm, attractive, interesting, emotional, feminine, and delicate (Scheherezade).
The means on design dimensions for this cluster confirm predictions from the regression results. Namely, fonts that evoke these responses will be high in harmony and flourish and low in weight. A good example is Anglewizard Films (see Table 5).
The second group is comprised of unsettling but engaging fonts. These fonts are interesting, emotional, exciting, informal, dishonest, unfamiliar, and innovative (Paintbrush).
While most companies would not want to be referred to as unsettling (not reassuring), these fonts communicate an edginess that is of value in many communication efforts. For example, Terrwear.com (see Table 5) produced clothing for mountain biking. Again the design dimension means for this cluster confirm the regression analysis predictions that fonts that evoke these responses are natural, somewhat elaborate and lack harmony.
The next cluster of fonts is unlikely to be used heavily by corporations. These fonts are displeasing and unengaging (i.e., boring) but are average on the reassuring and prominence dimensions. They are disliked, cold, unattractive, uninteresting and unemotional (Chainlink).
The cluster means confirmed regression analysis predictions that these fonts would be unnatural, low on compressed, and have little flourish. Even the tradeoffs predicted by the regression (elaborate designs are displeasing but engaging, and harmony creates boring but pleasing fonts) were consistent with the cluster results. Although their use in marketing will be limited, there may be some communication situations where a font such as this would be used; for example, to
The second group is comprised of unsettling but engaging fonts. These fonts are interesting, emotional, exciting, informal, dishonest, unfamiliar, and innovative (Paintbrush).
The next cluster of fonts is unlikely to be used heavily by corporations. These fonts are displeasing and unengaging (i.e., boring) but are average on the reassuring and prominence dimensions. They are disliked, cold, unattractive, uninteresting and unemotional (Chainlink).
The cluster means confirmed regression analysis predictions that these fonts would be unnatural, low on compressed, and have little flourish. Even the tradeoffs predicted by the regression (elaborate designs are displeasing but engaging, and harmony creates boring but pleasing fonts) were consistent with the cluster results. Although their use in marketing will be limited, there may be some communication situations where a font such as this would be used; for example, to
==== END PAGE 19
display the characteristics or claims of a competing brand or in non-profit advertising to describe undesirable behaviors (e.g., antismoking advertisements). However, some companies may want to produce this type of displeasing image. For example, Cleopatra Records (see Table 5) produces albums such as Zeromancer’s “Clone Your Lover,” and “This is Neo–Goth.”
The fourth profile of fonts is prominent while being average on pleasing, engaging, and reassuring. These fonts are masculine and strong and are characterized by designs with weighty lines (NewYorkDeco).
They may also have some elaborateness. It appears that any font can be made to fit this category simply by making it thicker. For example, Canon (see Table 5) uses a fairly simple font with thick lines. Again the regression results would predict fonts are made more prominent by increasing weight (although the regression results suggest these fonts should be less natural and have less flourish than was found with the cluster analysis).
The fifth cluster of fonts is low in reassuring (i.e., unsettling), displeasing, and yet engaging while average on the prominent dimension. These fonts will be interesting, emotional, exciting, informal, dishonest, unfamiliar, innovative, cold, disliked and unattractive (AluminumShred).
Consistent with the regression results, these responses are created by designs low in harmony, below average in naturalness, and above average in elaborateness. Like cluster three, these are fonts that are unlikely to be used heavily by corporations unless they want to convey negative information (e.g., fear appeal ad) or are targeting a niche market. For example, Abominable Records (see Table 5) carries bands like Helicopterejectionseat which plays, "an eclectic species of mathematical rock and/or roll.”
The final profile is highly reassuring, but low in engaging (i.e., boring). It comprises fonts that are average on pleasing and prominent. This cluster contains many common, highly readable fonts (Georgia). Consistent with regression results, they are low on elaborateness and
They may also have some elaborateness. It appears that any font can be made to fit this category simply by making it thicker. For example, Canon (see Table 5) uses a fairly simple font with thick lines. Again the regression results would predict fonts are made more prominent by increasing weight (although the regression results suggest these fonts should be less natural and have less flourish than was found with the cluster analysis).
The fifth cluster of fonts is low in reassuring (i.e., unsettling), displeasing, and yet engaging while average on the prominent dimension. These fonts will be interesting, emotional, exciting, informal, dishonest, unfamiliar, innovative, cold, disliked and unattractive (AluminumShred).
The final profile is highly reassuring, but low in engaging (i.e., boring). It comprises fonts that are average on pleasing and prominent. This cluster contains many common, highly readable fonts (Georgia). Consistent with regression results, they are low on elaborateness and
===== END PAGE 20
high on harmony. Such fonts are commonly used in the content of print ads as well as by “stalwarts of the community.” Just looking at the logotype of Mark Rushing & Associates (see Table 5) conveys this reassuring impression.
The cluster analysis results provide evidence of the tradeoffs necessary when selecting fonts commercially available fonts. Yet, further examination of the regression results reveals that new fonts can be created to achieve additional arrays of response profiles. The regression results provide guidance to corporations for enlisting graphic designers to modify existing fonts or create new, corporation-specific fonts, rather than using commercially available fonts that may limit the combination of impressions created. Following are guidelines for creating response arrays beyond those described above.
Designing Corporation-Specific Fonts
Several strategically attractive response profile options emerge from examining the regression analyses. Pleasing, Engaging and Prominent Fonts (average on reassuring) - This combination is very similar to Cluster 1 except it is prominent rather than subtle. As noted earlier, simply making the lines thicker can make any font more prominent.
For example, Fluf is a much more prominent font than the similar
Disney (see Table 5) uses this strategy to create a more prominent looking logotype than is common for cluster 1 designs.
Pleasing, Reassuring and Prominent Fonts (average on engaging) - Creating pleasing and
reassuring fonts should be fairly easy since no tradeoff is required. Pleasing fonts are natural and simple while reassuring fonts are harmonious and simple. In addition, while harmony does not have a large effect on pleasingness, it tends to be positive. The same is true for the effect of naturalness on reassuringness. Thus, pleasing, reassuring fonts can be created through with
The cluster analysis results provide evidence of the tradeoffs necessary when selecting fonts commercially available fonts. Yet, further examination of the regression results reveals that new fonts can be created to achieve additional arrays of response profiles. The regression results provide guidance to corporations for enlisting graphic designers to modify existing fonts or create new, corporation-specific fonts, rather than using commercially available fonts that may limit the combination of impressions created. Following are guidelines for creating response arrays beyond those described above.
Designing Corporation-Specific Fonts
Several strategically attractive response profile options emerge from examining the regression analyses. Pleasing, Engaging and Prominent Fonts (average on reassuring) - This combination is very similar to Cluster 1 except it is prominent rather than subtle. As noted earlier, simply making the lines thicker can make any font more prominent.
Disney (see Table 5) uses this strategy to create a more prominent looking logotype than is common for cluster 1 designs.
Pleasing, Reassuring and Prominent Fonts (average on engaging) - Creating pleasing and
reassuring fonts should be fairly easy since no tradeoff is required. Pleasing fonts are natural and simple while reassuring fonts are harmonious and simple. In addition, while harmony does not have a large effect on pleasingness, it tends to be positive. The same is true for the effect of naturalness on reassuringness. Thus, pleasing, reassuring fonts can be created through with
===== END PAGE 21
natural, simple, harmonious designs. These fonts can be made more prominent simply by making the lines thicker (which does not affect evaluations of pleasing or reassuring). Surprisingly, none of the fonts in our sample had the design characteristics needed to create pleasing and reassuring fonts. All the fonts that were high in both naturalness and harmony were also very elaborate.
The closest example to the desired font was Hamburger which was high in naturalness but only average in harmony and was slightly below average in elaborateness. Hallmark (see Table 5) is a good example of this type of design.
Pleasing, Reassuring and Subtle Fonts (average on the engaging) - As noted above, creating pleasing and reassuring fonts is fairly easy. To also make them subtle, lines should be thin and natural. There was no example of this type of font in our sample, and it was extremely difficult to find a corporate example. However, Imagination Web Design (see Table 5) provides a good example.
Combining Fonts
A final option is to combine fonts with different response profiles to create a hybrid response. For example, first initials and delimiters might be used to create a sense of pleasingness and subtlety. This could be followed by generic fonts to create a reassuring impression. Elkins and Associates1 provides a good example of just this strategy. Similar approaches might be used to grab attention, through engaging first initials, without making the typeface overly unpleasant.
The closest example to the desired font was Hamburger which was high in naturalness but only average in harmony and was slightly below average in elaborateness. Hallmark (see Table 5) is a good example of this type of design.
Pleasing, Reassuring and Subtle Fonts (average on the engaging) - As noted above, creating pleasing and reassuring fonts is fairly easy. To also make them subtle, lines should be thin and natural. There was no example of this type of font in our sample, and it was extremely difficult to find a corporate example. However, Imagination Web Design (see Table 5) provides a good example.
Combining Fonts
A final option is to combine fonts with different response profiles to create a hybrid response. For example, first initials and delimiters might be used to create a sense of pleasingness and subtlety. This could be followed by generic fonts to create a reassuring impression. Elkins and Associates1 provides a good example of just this strategy. Similar approaches might be used to grab attention, through engaging first initials, without making the typeface overly unpleasant.
No comments:
Post a Comment