1
00:00:16,811 --> 00:00:19,752
We encounter messaging constantly:

2
00:00:20,142 --> 00:00:21,736
on billboards,

3
00:00:22,316 --> 00:00:23,860
our phones,

4
00:00:24,490 --> 00:00:27,032
the labels of products we use every day.

5
00:00:27,868 --> 00:00:29,437
J. Walker Smith,

6
00:00:29,437 --> 00:00:32,656
president of marketing firm Yankelovich,

7
00:00:32,656 --> 00:00:38,267
stated that we are exposed to as many
as 5,000 advertisements a day.

8
00:00:39,137 --> 00:00:43,173
Our minds are constantly
being saturated by messaging.

9
00:00:43,543 --> 00:00:47,760
But to what level
is our perception of these brands

10
00:00:47,760 --> 00:00:50,798
being dictated
by the advertising industry?

11
00:00:51,628 --> 00:00:55,055
Is our preference
for one brand over another

12
00:00:55,055 --> 00:00:56,730
based on its quality,

13
00:00:57,540 --> 00:00:59,493
our awareness of the brand,

14
00:01:00,103 --> 00:01:02,635
the way it's presented
at the point of purchase?

15
00:01:03,609 --> 00:01:06,621
When a product's catchy jingle
gets stuck in our head,

16
00:01:06,621 --> 00:01:10,338
we might be more inclined
to choose that product over another.

17
00:01:10,338 --> 00:01:13,246
That's a more obvious advertising tactic.

18
00:01:14,016 --> 00:01:17,186
But is there a subtler persuasion at play?

19
00:01:18,128 --> 00:01:23,908
Can designers use typography
to manipulate us on a subconscious level?

20
00:01:24,568 --> 00:01:25,771
Think back.

21
00:01:25,991 --> 00:01:28,750
How many times have you
bought a bottle of wine

22
00:01:28,750 --> 00:01:31,172
based on its fancy-looking label,

23
00:01:31,172 --> 00:01:34,784
later to only be basically
pouring purple vinegar?

24
00:01:35,504 --> 00:01:36,496
Me too.

25
00:01:38,346 --> 00:01:40,991
So first, let's do a quick
crash course on typography,

26
00:01:40,991 --> 00:01:42,963
so we can all become experts.

27
00:01:44,833 --> 00:01:50,277
Typography is the general term
for the style and appearance of text.

28
00:01:50,787 --> 00:01:56,258
A typeface is a stylized collection
of letters and numbers.

29
00:01:57,328 --> 00:01:59,938
The whole collection is called a family.

30
00:02:00,258 --> 00:02:01,955
Much like your own family,

31
00:02:01,955 --> 00:02:05,248
they're similar,
but they have their own style.

32
00:02:05,248 --> 00:02:07,754
See, you have the fun uncle,

33
00:02:08,394 --> 00:02:11,420
you have the cousin going through
his heavy-metal phase,

34
00:02:11,770 --> 00:02:14,513
you have the aunt that insists
you have a second plate.

35
00:02:16,139 --> 00:02:19,793
Typeface and font
are often used interchangeably.

36
00:02:20,293 --> 00:02:25,726
However, nowadays,
a font only refers to the digital file.

37
00:02:27,086 --> 00:02:30,614
The two most common ways
to group typefaces

38
00:02:30,614 --> 00:02:33,203
are serif and sans serif.

39
00:02:33,633 --> 00:02:37,467
Serif means the typeface
has little feet at the bottom

40
00:02:37,467 --> 00:02:39,545
whereas sans serif does not.

41
00:02:40,045 --> 00:02:43,598
But, of course, there are many
other subcategories.

42
00:02:44,388 --> 00:02:47,878
Different type designs
convey different emotions.

43
00:02:48,737 --> 00:02:50,353
For instance,

44
00:02:50,353 --> 00:02:55,184
something in bold
might feel heavy and impactful,

45
00:02:56,104 --> 00:03:00,849
something in script might feel elegant,

46
00:03:02,059 --> 00:03:06,798
and something in a geometric sans serif
might feel more modern.

47
00:03:07,792 --> 00:03:11,103
The emotion a typeface evokes

48
00:03:11,103 --> 00:03:14,415
can be considered a subjective gray area.

49
00:03:14,415 --> 00:03:16,352
However, I can assure you

50
00:03:16,352 --> 00:03:22,887
the majority of people would not say
Comic Sans gives off a "scholarly" vibe.

51
00:03:23,797 --> 00:03:25,484
About seven years ago,

52
00:03:25,484 --> 00:03:29,707
scientists at the European Organization
for Nuclear Research

53
00:03:29,707 --> 00:03:33,038
announced they'd discovered
something called the "God Particle."

54
00:03:33,804 --> 00:03:35,616
Some refer to this

55
00:03:35,616 --> 00:03:40,284
as one of the most important
scientific breakthroughs in decades.

56
00:03:40,284 --> 00:03:42,607
But they presented their information

57
00:03:42,607 --> 00:03:46,348
in arguably the most hated
typeface on earth.

58
00:03:47,251 --> 00:03:51,620
That week, trending on Twitter
higher than the God Particle

59
00:03:51,620 --> 00:03:53,122
was Comic Sans.

60
00:03:54,412 --> 00:03:56,789
One simple design choice

61
00:03:56,789 --> 00:03:58,997
completely shifted the conversation

62
00:03:58,997 --> 00:04:02,580
from this incredible
scientific breakthrough

63
00:04:02,580 --> 00:04:08,912
to how ridiculous a typeface designed
for Windows 95 children's software is.

64
00:04:10,467 --> 00:04:15,537
So we've seen that typefaces
can distract us from the message.

65
00:04:15,927 --> 00:04:21,568
But can simply the style of letters
sway us to believe what we're reading?

66
00:04:22,528 --> 00:04:26,693
Errol Morris, who's known
for his investigative documentaries,

67
00:04:27,193 --> 00:04:28,864
was inspired by this

68
00:04:28,864 --> 00:04:33,263
and conducted an experiment
in 2012 just to test this.

69
00:04:35,116 --> 00:04:39,448
He found inspiration from reading
designer Phil Renaud's blog.

70
00:04:39,448 --> 00:04:41,980
Renaud wrote about how in university

71
00:04:41,980 --> 00:04:45,063
his grades had drastically improved

72
00:04:45,063 --> 00:04:48,247
despite not adding any additional effort.

73
00:04:48,667 --> 00:04:50,424
After a bit of detective work,

74
00:04:50,424 --> 00:04:53,473
he had realized
only one thing had changed:

75
00:04:53,473 --> 00:04:55,380
his choice of typeface.

76
00:04:56,020 --> 00:04:58,673
After reviewing 52 essays,

77
00:04:58,673 --> 00:05:04,734
he realized that essays written
in sans serif Trebuchet MS

78
00:05:04,734 --> 00:05:07,116
had averaged a B-minus,

79
00:05:07,116 --> 00:05:12,607
whereas those written in serif fonts
Georgia and Times New Roman

80
00:05:12,607 --> 00:05:15,485
averaged A and A-minus.

81
00:05:17,465 --> 00:05:21,909
Now, Morris was definitely
inspired by this,

82
00:05:21,909 --> 00:05:25,545
but he wanted a more empirical test.

83
00:05:26,379 --> 00:05:30,076
He wrote a New York Times article
featuring excerpts.

84
00:05:31,170 --> 00:05:32,776
At the end of the article,

85
00:05:32,776 --> 00:05:35,003
readers were asked two questions:

86
00:05:35,623 --> 00:05:38,473
"Is the information in the excerpt true?"

87
00:05:38,873 --> 00:05:42,210
and "How confident are you
in your conclusion?"

88
00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:46,988
The twist was readers
were being presented the information

89
00:05:46,988 --> 00:05:49,402
in a different typeface each time.

90
00:05:50,642 --> 00:05:52,337
Not surprisingly,

91
00:05:52,724 --> 00:05:57,669
the excerpts written in Comic Sans
were not very well received.

92
00:05:57,989 --> 00:05:58,985
However,

93
00:05:59,476 --> 00:06:03,593
two seemingly similar serif typefaces

94
00:06:03,593 --> 00:06:06,891
had drastically different results.

95
00:06:08,451 --> 00:06:11,926
Baskerville had the lowest rate
of disagreement,

96
00:06:12,376 --> 00:06:15,991
whereas Georgia had the highest.

97
00:06:17,320 --> 00:06:22,383
IBM designers Alessio Laiso
and Rick Sobiesiak

98
00:06:22,383 --> 00:06:23,387
wanted to see

99
00:06:23,387 --> 00:06:28,555
if the superiority of Baskerville
held true outside of news articles.

100
00:06:29,557 --> 00:06:33,217
Participants in their test
were given four sites -

101
00:06:33,847 --> 00:06:35,020
a banking,

102
00:06:35,512 --> 00:06:36,756
fitness,

103
00:06:36,996 --> 00:06:38,265
shopping,

104
00:06:38,435 --> 00:06:39,768
a news site -

105
00:06:39,768 --> 00:06:42,060
all in four different typefaces.

106
00:06:42,350 --> 00:06:45,695
They were then asked to rate them

107
00:06:45,695 --> 00:06:47,758
on a scale of trustworthiness,

108
00:06:48,508 --> 00:06:50,321
how appealing they were,

109
00:06:50,321 --> 00:06:52,492
and how easy they were to use.

110
00:06:52,982 --> 00:06:57,860
Overall, Baskerville held its title
as the most trustworthy.

111
00:06:58,476 --> 00:07:00,309
But if we look closer,

112
00:07:00,309 --> 00:07:05,223
we see that the fitness site
opposed the news site,

113
00:07:05,223 --> 00:07:08,671
naming Baskerville
as the least trustworthy

114
00:07:08,671 --> 00:07:11,576
and Fira as the most.

115
00:07:12,986 --> 00:07:17,783
So perhaps typefaces can influence
our sense of credibility.

116
00:07:17,783 --> 00:07:21,302
But can they go further
and affect our senses?

117
00:07:22,652 --> 00:07:27,989
Researchers Vincent P. Magnini
and Seontaik Kim

118
00:07:27,989 --> 00:07:33,237
published research in the International
Journal of Hospitality Management

119
00:07:33,237 --> 00:07:36,748
indicating that italicized menus

120
00:07:37,160 --> 00:07:41,454
caused potential diners
to see a restaurant as more upscale,

121
00:07:41,454 --> 00:07:45,116
with the capability
of delivering top-rate service.

122
00:07:45,956 --> 00:07:49,993
Is it possible that this design choice

123
00:07:49,993 --> 00:07:53,955
sets up customers to enjoy this meal

124
00:07:53,955 --> 00:07:57,478
more than one ordered off of another menu?

125
00:07:58,188 --> 00:08:03,398
That this design choice will set up
a preconceived notion of quality

126
00:08:03,398 --> 00:08:05,618
before they even taste the food?

127
00:08:08,758 --> 00:08:10,953
So before I began my talk,

128
00:08:10,953 --> 00:08:13,148
I gave you a slip of paper.

129
00:08:13,148 --> 00:08:16,082
This slip of paper had a spray of perfume

130
00:08:16,082 --> 00:08:19,493
as well as the logo
of that perfume printed on it.

131
00:08:19,493 --> 00:08:21,984
I then asked you to estimate

132
00:08:21,984 --> 00:08:26,046
what a 50-milliliter bottle
of this perfume might cost

133
00:08:26,046 --> 00:08:29,645
and rate its quality
on a scale of 1 to 100

134
00:08:29,645 --> 00:08:31,867
via a live online poll.

135
00:08:32,310 --> 00:08:34,674
So these are the results.

136
00:08:35,814 --> 00:08:39,270
The more cheesy-looking sans serif logo

137
00:08:39,270 --> 00:08:45,979
had an even spread of votes
among the lower brackets of price scales,

138
00:08:46,369 --> 00:08:48,344
whereas if we look over here,

139
00:08:48,344 --> 00:08:53,596
the large majority for the script logo

140
00:08:53,596 --> 00:09:00,512
rested in the 150 to 300 RMB,
or 22 dollar to 45 dollar, price points.

141
00:09:01,292 --> 00:09:04,829
Additionally, we can see
a difference in the rate of quality.

142
00:09:04,829 --> 00:09:07,815
Those that were given
the cheesy-looking logo

143
00:09:07,815 --> 00:09:13,763
had a quality estimate median of 48.9%,

144
00:09:14,373 --> 00:09:16,613
but those that were given the script

145
00:09:16,613 --> 00:09:19,677
sat at 57.1% -

146
00:09:19,677 --> 00:09:24,278
nearly a 10% difference
in quality estimation.

147
00:09:24,878 --> 00:09:28,828
These two fictitious brands
have the same name.

148
00:09:29,298 --> 00:09:32,710
In fact, all strips of paper

149
00:09:32,710 --> 00:09:38,929
were sprayed with the same 2 dollar,
15 RMB, bottle of perfume.

150
00:09:39,299 --> 00:09:43,842
The only difference
is the typeface of the logo.

151
00:09:46,062 --> 00:09:50,261
How can we be more cognizant
of this persuasive messaging?

152
00:09:50,971 --> 00:09:56,885
Is there a way that we can see past
the implications these typefaces give us

153
00:09:56,885 --> 00:09:59,603
to judge in a more objective way?

154
00:10:01,193 --> 00:10:03,405
Before you make your next purchase,

155
00:10:03,405 --> 00:10:04,758
ask yourself:

156
00:10:05,248 --> 00:10:08,618
are you buying the product
or the packaging?

157
00:10:08,918 --> 00:10:10,027
Thank you.

158
00:10:10,027 --> 00:10:12,223
(Applause)