Why does a change in typeface within re-
branding affect the way in which it is perceived by the audience?
Type is an
essential aspect of design. With
regards to type alongside branding, it can be a powerful force of identity if
executed successfully. If this
process is communicated effectively, the typeface is then associated with that
brand. In relation to logos, the
type can be seen as image, letterforms as shapes conveying personality. If the wrong typeface is used, the
audience starts seeing the type as a word, rather than a logo. Graphic and Type
designer Gerard Unger believes that ‘It is almost impossible to look and read
at the same time, they are different actions.’ This rings true to ill-chosen typefaces. The audience is distracted by the act
of looking, rather than reading the information it is supposed to be
communicating. When engaging with
the subject of type and re- branding, it is important to look into the effect
it can have on its audience. Author
Melissa Davis states that
‘A brand may
reposition to target a new audience or to change its market altogether- such as
shifting from an upmarket position to a lower one’. ‘More than a name’ 2006 (pg62)
In extreme cases,
the audience can switch because of a simple typographical alteration- the power
of type is often overlooked, but even subtle changes like a curved bracket on
the descender of a letterform can completely change the tone of a word. Choice of type provokes emotion
generally without the audience knowing they are being manipulated by it. Type within branding is a point that
deserves much consideration and analysis- a closer exploration is necessary to
further understand an audience’s reaction to it.
The main case to reference
would be the subtle rebranding of the Swedish lifestyle superstore ‘Ikea’ mid
2009, where they abandoned the well-known ‘elegant’ customised version of
‘Futura’, and in its place switched to a more modern font ‘Verdana’ for the
signage and catalogue. Journalist
for ‘Time’ Lisa Abend believes that ‘Branding has been a large part of the
Swedish chains success’, this is because of its strict consistency constantly
re-enforcing its identity to the audience. However, this strict consistency was challenged in the form
of font. Although so many brands
before have made subtle changes to their identity through a slight alteration
in type choice, it usually has little reaction, aside from the odd blog post of
an outraged ‘typophile’. Yet, the
surprising notable was that Ikeas strategy was recognised- and not just by
typographers and graphic designers, but by the general public. This signifies the power of a slight
change in type within a large brand. This form of re- branding is the easiest
way to update an (arguably in Ikeas case) aging company. The reason for this modernisation, Ikea
argued, was that ‘It’s more efficient and cost effective. Plus a simple, modern looking typeface’
Ikea spokeswoman, Monika Grocic from the article ‘Font wars’ in ‘Time’ Aug 28th
2009. This sounds more like an
economically led choice than a respectable choice of identity. The Ikea vision
‘Is to create a better
everyday life for the many people. Our business idea supports this vision by
offering a wide range of well-designed, functional home furnishing products at
prices so low that as many people as possible will be able to afford them.’ Sourced: www.Ikea.com.
This vision
supports the earlier statement from Grocic on the subject of ‘efficiency’ and
‘cost effectiveness’- the type reflects the vision in this aspect and is
therefore a good typeface to choose? But it is not the solid concept of this
rebranding that is the focus, it is the reaction this rebranding from the
audience. Such a response surely
begs the question, is it a case of people getting used to a brand once it makes
a change. One of the main reasons
against using Verdana in line with the IKEA brand is that it is used across the
whole of the web. Such widespread
use means that some of their originality and classy denotations through their
use of Futura are now lost, and are instead replaced with a font that has no
true identity because of the broad spectrum of brands it is already associated
with. McMutrie believes that
‘The
outward form of modern typography is of little importance in itsef; the
expression of the sense of the copy is vital. Easy comprehension of the message, which in typography
represents function, is therefore determinant of form. 1929 (p40-42)
McMutrie is
essentially stating that when the message is clearly received in typography, it’s
because the aura of the message has been successfully communicated- its
function has been fulfilled. This
function directly relates back to form, i.e. the way the type is designed and
the connotations it holds. For
example, Futura denotes a more personal style against Verdana. This is because of the continuous
construction of the stroke- there are no emphatic points of transition between
strokes, or breaks between elements.
This flowing construction feels friendlier against the abrupt and
instant transition of Verdanas counters, which are more angular, connoting a
feeling of impersonality (Fig 3). ‘Futura
has a quirkyness to it that Verdana do es not’ argues Simon Garfield, ‘Just my Type’, 2011
(pg.82). It is the bulkiness of
the weighting juxtaposed with a quiet sense of style that one can relate to
this ‘quirkiness’. There is a
certain level of delicacy to Verdana, with key characters such as double storey
letterforms and in contrast, a relatively thin weighting. However, the large x- height and wide
proportion of Verdana let the audience know it is there to be read, the
confidence of the type signifies a sense of authority that was previously
masked in Futura by its stylish yet welcoming look. This confidence on Verdanas part is one of the reasons that
the change was rejected so profoundly- IKEA had changed from a self assured and
silently industrial personality, to one that arrogantly demands the audiences’
attention.
Henry David
Thoreau states that ‘It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you
see.’ In the case of IKEAs rebrand
this is the problem. The audience
went from a personalised front that resonated with them because they were used
to it, then onto an impersonal, distant typeface that they related to (being an
original digital type) in a digital manner. This is not what IKEA is about. They sell ‘well-designed’ products with personality (Fig 1). Roland Barthes argues the death of the
author,
‘Outside of any other function than
that of the very practice of the symbol itself, the disconnection occurs, the
voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins.’
The Death of the Author, 1967 (pg.142)
In this
instance the voice is the feeling the customer gets when walking through the
store, reading the catalogue- it has lost its origin because of the use of the
typeface Verdana. When you go into
an IKEA store there is a certain closeness and physical sense to the experience.
As a customer you have the
opportunity to touch the products, walk into a homely environment as if you
live there. Verdana does not
reflect this mood. It is a more
clinical typeface that has no particular identity. When customers enter the store they can choose to walk into
these environments, each with their own personalised, specific identity that
they can relate to (Fig 2). There
is a divorce between the meaning the type is trying to communicate and its
visual form. ‘The death of the
author’ has arisen in this case because of this divorce in a critical design
relationship; the audience began to have an opinion on this decision to re-
brand IKEA through type. Beatrice Warde,
who states that type should be invisible in order to communicate effectively,
argues this point. The only people
who should notice type are the people who design it. If the receivers recognise the type within design then the
message (subject matter) is not being communicated successfully. The viewer is then distracted by thoughts
on design choices rather than the information in front of them.
With reference
to Barthes ‘Death of the Author’, the reason there was so much response from
the public was because ‘the author’ (IKEA) had failed at communicating ‘the
symbol’, (their brand aura- personality and craft) because of this ‘writing
begins’ through the customers of IKEA.
The audience has been challenged because of inconsistency within the
re-brand; it forced them to think about something they had never noticed
before. One
aspect that needs to be considered is how existing customers are going to react
to the re- branding of a company. Melissa
Davis states that, ‘A repositioning can be a difficult tactic for a brand-
while it may open the brand up to a new audience it may also alienate an
existing one.’ ‘More than a name’,
2006 (pg 63). In IKEAs case this
rang true. The general reaction
was one of confusion that forced the question, ‘why?’ This change took away the focus from selling the product and
put it on the change of typeface, which E.Lupton argues is a detrimental flaw
within typographic design. Good
type should be transparent.
In conclusion,
it is important to note that in some cases, brands do so well because they have
kept consistency for such lengthy periods of time, forming a relationship of
trust and reliability with their customers. This can be relevant even in poor design choices. If a brand keeps their style consistent
for long enough it means that not only does the company have longevity for
staying in business for so long, but it also means that whenever the audience
sees this brand, they are seeing the same thing, reinforcing their image upon
you. ‘Legibility is only a matter
of being used to something: it is the reader’s familiarity with faces that
accounts for their legibility’ Licko, 1991, (pg.12) This could be true in the
case of IKEA. If they stick with
Verdana for long enough people will accept it, and possibly even respect the
change- they have to show strength in their decisions. However, in answer to the initial
question, on a technical level, the type now suits the company and their values
more so than Futura. Nevertheless,
on a personal level, Futura was more suited, the audience related to this
because of its transparency. The
re- brand only really had a measureable effect on the way designers perceived
IKEA, there is little evidence to suggest that the audience then thought
differently about the brand.
Initially there was a huge reaction from designers and public alike, but
after time, the public lost interest and sales were not affected, signifying
that the re- brand didn’t change the way people perceived the brand enough for
profits to either increase or decrease.
Does this, therefore mean that type cannot change the way non- designers
perceive a brand? Or does it mean
that respect can be lost or gained for a brand without effecting sales?
Bibliography:
Books:
Greenhalgh,
P. (1993) ‘Quotations and
Sources on design and the decorative arts.’ Manchester University Press.
Garfield,
F. (2011) ‘Just my Type-
a book about fonts.’ Profile
Books.
Davis,
M. (2009)‘The
fundamentals of Branding.’ AVA
publishing, 1st Edition.
Baines,
P. Haslam, A. (2005) ‘Type and typography’ Laurence King; 2 edition.
Unknown. (2008) ‘Postmodernism: New typography for a new
reader.’
Barthes,
R. (1967)
‘The death of the Author’
Airey, D.
(2009) ‘Logo Design Love: A Guide to Creating Iconic
Brand Identities (Voices That Matter).’
New Riders; 1 Edition.
(2009) ‘IKEA. Home is the most important place in the
World.’
(2010) ‘IKEA. New lower prices, same great quality’
Sites:
Abend,
L. (2009) ‘The font war: Ikea
Fans Fume over Verdana.’ Time.com
Unger,
G. www.gerardunger.com
Challand,
S. (2009)
‘IKEA says goodbye to Futura.’ Idsgn.org
