#quality type
4 messages in this thread
Quality type may be part of a quality image. And, in that fashion, it may even
boost sales. But I have seen no proof that it improves readability, legibility,
recall, recognition or readership.
RE "proof" of the effect of quality type: you haven't seen any nor *will* you.
Advertising is not that scientific. I could quote readership studies 'til I'm
blue in the face concerning layout, typeface, retention rates etc ad nauseum.
They're *all* meaningless. The bottom line is the marketplace decides. In *my*
market, quality type is a *MUST*. In other markets it's not given the time of
day. I confess to a personal prejudice in favor of "Ad" typography; it takes
skill and a good eye. Mediocre type can be set by anyone. "Mostly good" type
can be set by anyone who has a little common sense. Does any of it affect
sales? I don't know but I suspect it does. Otherwise, I can't see why so many
companies spend so much money to achieve that "quality look." I know if *I*
were paying $50,000 to run a nationwide ad I'd want quality.
For starters, you might look at "Scientific Advertising" by the late Claude C.
Hopkins.
After doing ad work for years, if there's anything "scientific" about the way
agencies approach things I must have missed it. My friends who work for
agencies are not so kind in their assessment. I have heard of the book you
mentioned before and it comes highly recommended.