[Closed] Clever logo... (well I thought so anyway)

charlie - edited above

I am not being dishonest.

you asked for a simple yes / no which is impossible as as I have continually tried to state its qualified not absolute

Cheeky rhetorical trick.

I struggle with long sentences - Synopsis?

Look, earlier, this is pretty absolute. I asked if you did it or not.

Here you say you do, the answer is clearly yes.

The other point is that I can disregard it and make free choices - and I do so deliberately and actively. as do many other people

Not only is it explicit, it is one of your 2 points.

Surrounded By Zulus - Member
I struggle with long sentences - Synopsis?

C'mon TJ, it's nearly over

So, just to make it easy for you, and labour the point, you do disregard marketing don't you?

My wording does make me sound sceptical.

but i would say font and colour have little bearing.

Not being sarcastic; but [i]have little bearing[/i]...on what? People's perception of a product/advert/etc.?

I pity anyone who believes in all this stuff and who wastes their life and / or money doing it.

This whole thread has become one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen on an internet forum. Why, if you choose not to engage with something would you spend the best part of four days almost continually arguing about it?

Indeed - that everyone can tell the character of someone by the font they use and some of the other waffle

Mmmm... that's a bit of a twist TJ. I don't think anyone suggested we could identify murderers by their use of bold Garamond. 🙂

The assertion is that fonts and styles do convey a message/meaning which most* people "get" (even those who haven't been told the secret code).

So as exampled earlier, the majority of people would recognise that an undertaker who uses a jaunty comical font would not be their first choice for a traditional sombre funeral.

This was backed up nicely by the peer-reviewed evidence you asked for.

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/clever-logo-well-i-thought-so-anyway/page/39#post-2788989 ]Militant_biker posted two papers that explicitly dealt with this.[/url] and many of the other papers posted mention it as an important part of the advertising (e.g. the fags with a plain font appearing to be lower quality than the same fags in real packaging).

[b]Where is your peer-reviewed counter evidence that Militant_biker asked for?
[/b]
-

* yes "most" not "everyone". Only you deal in absolutes. I'd qualify most as a very sizable majority though. Even you rejected some logos based on fonts that were "too winky" and said you prefer logos that use plainer fonts.

Why, if you choose not to engage with something would you spend the best part of four days almost continually arguing about it?

Symptom of some sort of psychological problem, would be my guess.

Graham - thats exactly what was claimed - check page 4 / 5 IIRC

OMG!

I see no mention of Garamond or murderers on pages 4 and 5. Quote me.
Neither do I see any mention of "character" - a term I think you've just introduced.

Nice attempt to ignore and derail the thrust of my entire post by getting into irrelevant arguments around a quip made on the first line though.

Quite clearly it was said that the character of the person could be assessed from the font used.

Good day to be arguing that branding is irrelevant ...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Quite clearly it was said that the character of the person could be assessed from the font used.

Where? Quote?

I discussed that fonts have meanings and that these provide cues about the nature (or "character" if you like) of the product/service being advertised.

You are attempting to mutate that into an unsupportable claim that we can determine the entire character of an individual based on whether they used Times or Arial.

And you are doing so to divert away from the discussion about evidence, which you have lost.

Tj, please, were, not going to gonthrough this again. Can we just finally clarify, do you disregard marketing? please it's really simple and trivial and you've almost answered it before, only you've never quite been precise.

Charlie - because as I have said repeatedly it is qualified, nuanced,inexact and does not have a simple one word answer.

you guys are funny - you are trying to push me into an absolutist position I do not have and Graham is running away as hard as he can from the same thing.

Graham - read page 4 adn 5

Whole lists of characteristics that people can see from the font. You cannot have this both ways - either this aspect is there as people all over that section of the debate claim or it is not.

From p4:

TJ Why would you keep posting on a thread about a subject that you're clearly against / not interested in or don't 'get'?
are you trying to convert people?

DenDennis - i'll butt out again

[img] [/img]

It's not absolutist! Do you do it or not? Just admit that you do, you pretty much said so earlier, i'm just giving you the opportunity to accept it here.

It's not absolutist! Do you do it or not? Just admit that you do, you pretty much said so earlier, i'm just giving you the opportunity to accept it here.

FFS Charlie !!! Do you imagine for one second that you will get a straight, honest answer, no matter how many times you ask the question?

CharlieMungus - Member

It's not absolutist! Do you do it or not?

Yes or no questions are completely absolutist. Where is the space for nuance?

I can give the answer mu again, I can refer you to what I have said before, I can say it depends upon the exact circumstances, I can say I do my best to do so, I can say I am working towards that position.

you guys are funny - you are trying to push me into an absolutist position I do not have and Graham is running away as hard as he can from the same thing.

No I am resisting you pushing me into a ludicrous extreme absolutist position that no one, least of all me, has suggested.

Graham - read page 4 adn 5
Whole lists of characteristics that people can see from the font. You cannot have this both ways - either this aspect is there as people all over that section of the debate claim or it is not.

[i]Can you assess an individuals ENTIRE true character from a font?[/i]
Of course not, that is daft. NO ONE has said that. You are creating that straw man yourself so you can draw attention away from the debate about evidence.

[i]Does using a particular font in a logo/brand suggest certain characteristics (true or otherwise) about a product, service or person to people who see that logo but have not been told the "secret code"?[/i] Yes, I believe it does. People listed the characterics they inferred from a font on pages 4 and 5 (not "character", just "characteristics"). And the studies offered later on back this up this position.

So we have seen evidence, both anecdotal and peer-reviewed study that fonts DO carry such meanings, even for folk who are not involved in design themselves. This is contrary to your (typically absolute) position that [u]no one[/u] understands this except designers.

[b]Where is your peer-reviewed counter-evidence?[/b]

ridiculous - you cannot have it both ways. I did not say "entire" character. Stop inventing things that I am supposed to have said.

Quite clearly it was said that the character of the person could be assessed from the font used.

an individuals ENTIRE true character from a font

Nor did I say this

no one understands this except designers.

Seriously.

Go to the shed.

Find a big hammer.

return to the computer and smash it.

I`m not joking.

It`ll help you all.

i am not reading this whole thread, and i have to say the OGC logo is genius, but people are visual, they work with pictures, always have. Look at pre reformation churches and the wall paintings that was how you educate people, not through words or voices but through pictures.

What is the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words."

A well designed logo can convey a huge amount about a company.
In the same way text matters, details about which type face are not vital but the style does impact on what you expect. We live in a society we are conditioned through our whole lives to read the subtext of what we see.

Look at the amount of visual information in our world today the human mind is conditioned to filter what it does not need to know, so to avoid this you need to catch peoples attention,

When people talk about "character" they generally mean their entire character. An individual aspect is a "characteristic".

Nor did I say this:
> no one understands this except designers.

Yes, yes you did. Many times. Here are some prime examples from page 4 and 5 talking about fonts:

MF - my point is [u]the difference is only to people in your world who care about logos - the rest of us it makes no odds to at all[/u]

there is no other information there - just clear name or unclear name. this other information only exists if you know the "language" and most of us don't know it and dont care.

Stumpy - only if you understand the "language" which most folk who do not work in that world do not.

its a construction of those in the industry and is meaningless to many of us outside the industry

Now, you've been given evidence that this is not the case so

[b]Where is your peer-reviewed counter evidence?[/b]

I can give the answer mu again, I can refer you to what I have said before, I can say it depends upon the exact circumstances, I can say I do my best to do so, I can say I am working towards that position.

You are Imaking this up as you go along. 'mu' would mean the question is meaningless, that it occurs on occasion means, yes, you do disregard it. In the same way, if someone ask me do I cycle, would say yes, as I do it sometimes, not alll the time, but people would know that. This thread has been so extended partially because you have refused to address the most basic questions that have been asked of you. If in fact what you are saying is that you sometimes disregard marketing, then that makes you like everyone else on here. Do you really think that if right atbthe start, that this is what you had said, that anyone would have disagreed with you. Just about everyone would have said, yeah, me too. You tried to put across the idea that you were in some way above it, which is why everyone thought you were full of it. In fact, what you say with your last statement is that you behave pretty suchlike everyone else on here. Well done for a colossal attention grab.

GrahamS

They are not the same things.

I did not say its only designers who see this. I said its only those who know the code and care about it. Different

People claimed there is a universal and inherent message in the choice of font. I said it was a construct only known to some.

You say

Now, you've been given evidence that this is not the case

Where I have been given evidence that this is not simply a construct known only to some? Are you now back to saying its a universal meaning known to all?

Again - you keep inventing things I am supposed to have said.

CharlieMungus

You cannot give a yes / no answer if one is not available. I have been completely consistent throughout. I have not ever claimed the absolute position you have tried time and time again to give to me - I have consistently rejected this absolutist position.

I have several times summed up my position. Itsw a series of qualifier statements You have consistently tried to put something that is nuanced and has shades of gray in black and white and insist I took an absolutist position when I did not.

Ball-X Tj, I have not tried to do anything other than find out what it is you do that is so different from everyone else on here. I think I finally see what it is, FA.

I did not say its only designers who see this. I said its only those who know the code and care about it. Different

People claimed there is a universal and inherent message in the choice of font. I said it was a construct only known to some.

IF "some" means the entire population of a country then i can agree, the inherent message is the result of conditioning. Why does a bride wear white in the UK, but to a hindu white is a funeral colour. You are born into a society and you learn what that society believes in, no one in the UK believes that infanticide is acceptable, yet it has not always been the case.

such is the power of images, people are conditioned to understand what matters and what does not, i assume you understand road signs, which are simple marketing, but is a universal sign that matters in the UK. i assume you can recognise the nike swish, no words are needed. The same applies to fonts, there are rules written in your life that state what is acceptable, the detail of specific font face are not relevant.

Write a CV in Comic Sans and you will find most employers will bin it without a thought. Write block text in a sans serif font and it is harder work and less effective for the reader. A traditional font means tradition, a block font a statement.

You may choose to ignore what you see, everyone does as is the only way to cope with the amount of visual information, but it does matter and you are affected by it.

Symptom of some sort of psychological problem, would be my guess.

Still here Dr J..?

TandemJeremy -

it really is my position that I do my damnedest to avoid being influenced by marketing and that marketing is far less effective than marketeers would have you believe.

From the 14th page Note the qualifiers. thats all my position is - that I and do not accept that there is a universal meaning in choice of fonts.

are you now accepting this?

I have repeated and repeated this. That is my position. Nothing absolutist there.

Junkyard

I think this is saying that he is aware of brands and this do not affect his purchasing as he uses other criteria than the branding/ marketing to influence his purchasing. I am not really sure why people have chosen to take this as controversial tbh.

See - junkyard understood my position ages ago.

Will it reach 2000?

How many more times will people claim I have said things I never have done?
How many times will people claim I have been absolutist in my position when I have not?
how much longer will people keep posting when I have made it clear I am playing rhetorical games?