Redundant titles are redundant.
I can't help but be frustrated with companies these days who decide they need a rebrand, even more so with the agencies/design firms/freelancers turning out this work. This post is brought to you by Urban Outfitters.
Now it's important to understand I've done my research, and I'm aware it was done by Horrible Logos (no joke, real company, real person). This is a person who, for $5, will create a horrible logo for you to do with whatever you please. I support this intrepid designer 100%, and am very glad (s)he has found a niche in the world that allows him/her to gain beer money (self proclaimed purpose for the site). This post is in no way meant to bash on Horrible Logos.
What this post is meant so bash is Urban Outfitters' use of it. I understand leaving it up for a awhile to gain some PR, this kind of stunt is not unheard of, but we're going on two weeks now and the game is essentially up. It's time to switch back.
While bad design is good for a laugh, it should not be exalted to the point where a major company uses it as a permanent fixture. The problem is most people don't KNOW Urban Outfitters also thinks it's a horrible logo. When a major company endorses this kind of design work, it changes the general public's opinion of what good graphic design can be.
There's some corporate responsibility here that Urban Outfitters needs to accept, especially when they were previously considered a well designed brand. The general public, consciously or not, in addition to many aspiring designers look to them as an example. If they believe Urban Outfitters has released this new brand because they actually consider it good design, Urban Outfitters has given the public an excuse to create anything they want in Microsoft Word and use it as their logo.
People have a right to create and use horrible design for their companies if they really want to. With that in mind, let's gloss over a few of the many reasons why good graphic design is important.
1. It organizes information so messages are easily received.
2. It makes user product experiences easier.
3. In a world where we are inevitably bombarded by graphic design in the form of advertising, good graphic design makes the experience as pleasant as possible.
The slippery slope theory is a hard one to rely on because it's usually wrong, but with the slew of unintentional bad brand design out there I really don't think we need another one that's being done on purpose.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Hard to Read Typefaces: They're Hard to Read
The redundancy in the title of this post should make sense as we go along, and I promise you it will be related to brands eventually. It requires a fair amount of setup.
The topic of the blog today comes from this article on Futurity.org. To summarize, Professors at Princeton University ran an experiment to see if students would learn better if what they were learning was typeset in typefaces that were difficult to read. This idea is reinforced by the following:
There is, however, a problem in how the results were interpreted and I think they would have had different findings if graphic designers were actively involved in the experiment (and I highly doubt they were).
Graphic design has existed for thousands of years dating to before the printing press, into the middle ages, and even to ancient Rome. It is a very well established profession with rules and guidelines that have existed for a very long time. If there's anything we have come to learn in those thousands of years regarding typography, it's that people are more willing to read type that is easy to read for the simple fact that hard to read typefaces are hard to read.
"But wait!" you say, "Mitchell, this study has nothing to do with what people are willing to read!" This is true, but there's another fact graphic designers have also known for at least hundreds of years. Things that look and feel different attract attention. When you're paying closer attention, you're more likely to retain information. It is my theory, then, that the students were able to retain the information not because it was hard to read but because it was something new and different. When they've spent the majority of their lives reading text set in Times New Roman and Arial, of course something typeset in Monotype Corsiva and Comic Sans is going to grab their attention. This is a strategy used on a daily basis by graphic designers worldwide.
Yet another thing we've learned, and you don't need to be a graphic designer for this, is that over time people become jaded to these new things. If textbooks were set in nothing but Comic Sans, you can bet they'd learn material no better than with Times New Roman now. Typefaces like Times New Roman, Garamond, and Baskerville were developed for the purpose of making words easier to read. Again, this was done because people are more willing to read what's easy to read. And really, who looks at a full page of Comic Sans in 10pt font and doesn't groan about having to read it?
SO, after a long setup, what does this have to do with branding? Honestly, my first reaction to the study was a vision of a world where websites, handouts, advertisements, and publications were filled with hard-to-read typefaces. Call it an attempt at a preventative measure by getting out the word that crazy, ridiculous typography on your websites and publications won't necessarily make the information stick. It could just as easily aggravate your potential customer into not reading it because it's too difficult to read. Creative typography doesn't need to be crazy or hard to read to avoid being boring or to make your message stay with the customer. It takes a little more care, but when done properly there can be really elegant, easy to read type that still looks eye catching and amazing.
So please, next time you sit down in your comfy computer chair and open Microsoft Word or your website content editor, think of me curled in the fetal position in the corner of the office and take your mouse off the Comic Sans selection; because hard to read typefaces are hard to read.
The topic of the blog today comes from this article on Futurity.org. To summarize, Professors at Princeton University ran an experiment to see if students would learn better if what they were learning was typeset in typefaces that were difficult to read. This idea is reinforced by the following:
The authors theorized that by making the font harder to read the information would seem more difficult to learn. Based on the concept of disfluency, the students would concentrate more carefully on learning the material. Disfluency, which occurs when something feels hard to do, has been shown to lead people to process information more deeply.I want to stress that I feel this experiment was done as well as an experiment possibly can be. After reading the article I don't feel like it was executed poorly in any way, and they do say at the end "...we do need to further test the theory..."
There is, however, a problem in how the results were interpreted and I think they would have had different findings if graphic designers were actively involved in the experiment (and I highly doubt they were).
Graphic design has existed for thousands of years dating to before the printing press, into the middle ages, and even to ancient Rome. It is a very well established profession with rules and guidelines that have existed for a very long time. If there's anything we have come to learn in those thousands of years regarding typography, it's that people are more willing to read type that is easy to read for the simple fact that hard to read typefaces are hard to read.
"But wait!" you say, "Mitchell, this study has nothing to do with what people are willing to read!" This is true, but there's another fact graphic designers have also known for at least hundreds of years. Things that look and feel different attract attention. When you're paying closer attention, you're more likely to retain information. It is my theory, then, that the students were able to retain the information not because it was hard to read but because it was something new and different. When they've spent the majority of their lives reading text set in Times New Roman and Arial, of course something typeset in Monotype Corsiva and Comic Sans is going to grab their attention. This is a strategy used on a daily basis by graphic designers worldwide.
Yet another thing we've learned, and you don't need to be a graphic designer for this, is that over time people become jaded to these new things. If textbooks were set in nothing but Comic Sans, you can bet they'd learn material no better than with Times New Roman now. Typefaces like Times New Roman, Garamond, and Baskerville were developed for the purpose of making words easier to read. Again, this was done because people are more willing to read what's easy to read. And really, who looks at a full page of Comic Sans in 10pt font and doesn't groan about having to read it?
SO, after a long setup, what does this have to do with branding? Honestly, my first reaction to the study was a vision of a world where websites, handouts, advertisements, and publications were filled with hard-to-read typefaces. Call it an attempt at a preventative measure by getting out the word that crazy, ridiculous typography on your websites and publications won't necessarily make the information stick. It could just as easily aggravate your potential customer into not reading it because it's too difficult to read. Creative typography doesn't need to be crazy or hard to read to avoid being boring or to make your message stay with the customer. It takes a little more care, but when done properly there can be really elegant, easy to read type that still looks eye catching and amazing.
So please, next time you sit down in your comfy computer chair and open Microsoft Word or your website content editor, think of me curled in the fetal position in the corner of the office and take your mouse off the Comic Sans selection; because hard to read typefaces are hard to read.
Monday, November 1, 2010
A Grownup Analysis of a Brand for Kids
In light of the passing of Pokémon chief writer Takeshi Shudo, I've decided to dedicate this post to him and take on an adult analysis of a brand for children.
Those who grew up in my generation know Nintendo's Pocket Monsters (AKA Pokémon) got its hooks into us very young. I was ten at the premiere of the first season, which means Pokémon has been a part of my life for over half the years I've been alive. I have very close friends I've known for less time. Since the premiere of that first show at 3:30pm on Kid's WB when hero Ash Ketchum (also ten) ventured out of Pallet Town I was right there with him, Game Boy in hand, and still am today. Over the course of my life I've been the owner of no less than three Pokémon Game Boy games, two Nintendo 64 games, hundreds of cards, multiple action figures, one Halloween costume, one movie, and one book. I spent the first couple years of my fascination drawing new Pokémon and trying to send them in to Nintendo, and you know what I did just two weeks ago after years of not having anything to do with the franchise? Submitted this graphic design series I've been working on for three months to show what they'd look like in real life in the hopes Nintendo would pick it up for promotional material.
The question, then, is what on earth did they do with their brand to keep an active customer for twelve years and counting? I know I'm not alone either, not by far. How amazing would it be to keep all your business's customers for that long while constantly gaining new ones and know they'd be hooked for just as long?
The single most important thing Nintendo has done with the Pokémon brand is continue to promote product awareness. It hasn't died out because they're not only consistently coming out with new products, but new Pokémon as well. They're altering their brand every few years to reintroduce it to new potential customers while reminding old ones that they still exist and are still working on the product. They don't do it through spam email, twitter spam, facebook, or even physical junk mail either. They avoid all the avenues that are commonly known as annoyances. They simply release a new product or idea and let the word spread. This is why they've outlasted competition like Digimon and Monster Rancher, both of which just stopped trying.
Pokémon also got to us very young, while our minds were still soaking up any and all information they could and embedded itself there. Now days Pokémon isn't just a cool concept to me, it's a major nostalgia inducer. I have great memories of connecting my Game Boy with other friends to battle, participating at a tournament in the Mall of America, trading cards, etc. While "going after" children isn't something appropriate for all products, there's still a brand lesson that can be learned here. It helps immensely if your brand, your products, consist of things that are really useful or memorable to the customer. This seems like a no brainer and a fairly worthless piece of advice until you really think about what a lot of products are; useless. Throwaway. The customer interacts with it and never thinks about it again. We need to stop trying to sell products that customers mindlessly consume. When your brand can be linked to something memorable it will be significantly more successful.
Pokémon has deservedly earned millions of very devoted fans because of successful branding. There are countless fan artworks, fan community sites, and even fan games dedicated to it. And you can bet that even today if Nintendo were to release a live action Pokémon movie or a MMORPG I'd be the first one in line for either, twelve years later. If that's not the sign of a strong, healthy brand I don't know what is.
Those who grew up in my generation know Nintendo's Pocket Monsters (AKA Pokémon) got its hooks into us very young. I was ten at the premiere of the first season, which means Pokémon has been a part of my life for over half the years I've been alive. I have very close friends I've known for less time. Since the premiere of that first show at 3:30pm on Kid's WB when hero Ash Ketchum (also ten) ventured out of Pallet Town I was right there with him, Game Boy in hand, and still am today. Over the course of my life I've been the owner of no less than three Pokémon Game Boy games, two Nintendo 64 games, hundreds of cards, multiple action figures, one Halloween costume, one movie, and one book. I spent the first couple years of my fascination drawing new Pokémon and trying to send them in to Nintendo, and you know what I did just two weeks ago after years of not having anything to do with the franchise? Submitted this graphic design series I've been working on for three months to show what they'd look like in real life in the hopes Nintendo would pick it up for promotional material.
The question, then, is what on earth did they do with their brand to keep an active customer for twelve years and counting? I know I'm not alone either, not by far. How amazing would it be to keep all your business's customers for that long while constantly gaining new ones and know they'd be hooked for just as long?
The single most important thing Nintendo has done with the Pokémon brand is continue to promote product awareness. It hasn't died out because they're not only consistently coming out with new products, but new Pokémon as well. They're altering their brand every few years to reintroduce it to new potential customers while reminding old ones that they still exist and are still working on the product. They don't do it through spam email, twitter spam, facebook, or even physical junk mail either. They avoid all the avenues that are commonly known as annoyances. They simply release a new product or idea and let the word spread. This is why they've outlasted competition like Digimon and Monster Rancher, both of which just stopped trying.
Pokémon also got to us very young, while our minds were still soaking up any and all information they could and embedded itself there. Now days Pokémon isn't just a cool concept to me, it's a major nostalgia inducer. I have great memories of connecting my Game Boy with other friends to battle, participating at a tournament in the Mall of America, trading cards, etc. While "going after" children isn't something appropriate for all products, there's still a brand lesson that can be learned here. It helps immensely if your brand, your products, consist of things that are really useful or memorable to the customer. This seems like a no brainer and a fairly worthless piece of advice until you really think about what a lot of products are; useless. Throwaway. The customer interacts with it and never thinks about it again. We need to stop trying to sell products that customers mindlessly consume. When your brand can be linked to something memorable it will be significantly more successful.
Pokémon has deservedly earned millions of very devoted fans because of successful branding. There are countless fan artworks, fan community sites, and even fan games dedicated to it. And you can bet that even today if Nintendo were to release a live action Pokémon movie or a MMORPG I'd be the first one in line for either, twelve years later. If that's not the sign of a strong, healthy brand I don't know what is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)