WEBVTT

00:00:16.811 --> 00:00:19.752
We encounter messaging constantly:

00:00:20.142 --> 00:00:21.736
on billboards,

00:00:22.316 --> 00:00:23.860
our phones,

00:00:24.490 --> 00:00:27.032
the labels of products we use every day.

00:00:27.868 --> 00:00:29.437
J. Walker Smith,

00:00:29.437 --> 00:00:32.656
president of marketing firm Yankelovich,

00:00:32.656 --> 00:00:38.267
stated that we are exposed to as many
as 5,000 advertisements a day.

00:00:39.137 --> 00:00:43.173
Our minds are constantly
being saturated by messaging.

00:00:43.543 --> 00:00:47.760
But to what level
is our perception of these brands

00:00:47.760 --> 00:00:50.798
being dictated
by the advertising industry?

00:00:51.628 --> 00:00:55.055
Is our preference
for one brand over another

00:00:55.055 --> 00:00:56.730
based on its quality,

00:00:57.540 --> 00:00:59.493
our awareness of the brand,

00:01:00.103 --> 00:01:02.635
the way it's presented
at the point of purchase?

00:01:03.609 --> 00:01:06.621
When a product's catchy jingle
gets stuck in our head,

00:01:06.621 --> 00:01:10.338
we might be more inclined
to choose that product over another.

00:01:10.338 --> 00:01:13.246
That's a more obvious advertising tactic.

00:01:14.016 --> 00:01:17.186
But is there a subtler persuasion at play?

00:01:18.128 --> 00:01:23.908
Can designers use typography
to manipulate us on a subconscious level?

00:01:24.568 --> 00:01:25.771
Think back.

00:01:25.991 --> 00:01:28.750
How many times have you
bought a bottle of wine

00:01:28.750 --> 00:01:31.172
based on its fancy-looking label,

00:01:31.172 --> 00:01:34.784
later to only be basically
pouring purple vinegar?

00:01:35.504 --> 00:01:36.496
Me too.

00:01:38.346 --> 00:01:40.991
So first, let's do a quick
crash course on typography,

00:01:40.991 --> 00:01:42.963
so we can all become experts.

00:01:44.833 --> 00:01:50.277
Typography is the general term
for the style and appearance of text.

00:01:50.787 --> 00:01:56.258
A typeface is a stylized collection
of letters and numbers.

00:01:57.328 --> 00:01:59.938
The whole collection is called a family.

00:02:00.258 --> 00:02:01.955
Much like your own family,

00:02:01.955 --> 00:02:05.248
they're similar,
but they have their own style.

00:02:05.248 --> 00:02:07.754
See, you have the fun uncle,

00:02:08.394 --> 00:02:11.420
you have the cousin going through
his heavy-metal phase,

00:02:11.770 --> 00:02:14.513
you have the aunt that insists
you have a second plate.

00:02:16.139 --> 00:02:19.793
Typeface and font
are often used interchangeably.

00:02:20.293 --> 00:02:25.726
However, nowadays,
a font only refers to the digital file.

00:02:27.086 --> 00:02:30.614
The two most common ways
to group typefaces

00:02:30.614 --> 00:02:33.203
are serif and sans serif.

00:02:33.633 --> 00:02:37.467
Serif means the typeface
has little feet at the bottom

00:02:37.467 --> 00:02:39.545
whereas sans serif does not.

00:02:40.045 --> 00:02:43.598
But, of course, there are many
other subcategories.

00:02:44.388 --> 00:02:47.878
Different type designs
convey different emotions.

00:02:48.737 --> 00:02:50.353
For instance,

00:02:50.353 --> 00:02:55.184
something in bold
might feel heavy and impactful,

00:02:56.104 --> 00:03:00.849
something in script might feel elegant,

00:03:02.059 --> 00:03:06.798
and something in a geometric sans serif
might feel more modern.

00:03:07.792 --> 00:03:11.103
The emotion a typeface evokes

00:03:11.103 --> 00:03:14.415
can be considered a subjective gray area.

00:03:14.415 --> 00:03:16.352
However, I can assure you

00:03:16.352 --> 00:03:22.887
the majority of people would not say
Comic Sans gives off a "scholarly" vibe.

00:03:23.797 --> 00:03:25.484
About seven years ago,

00:03:25.484 --> 00:03:29.707
scientists at the European Organization
for Nuclear Research

00:03:29.707 --> 00:03:33.038
announced they'd discovered
something called the "God Particle."

00:03:33.804 --> 00:03:35.616
Some refer to this

00:03:35.616 --> 00:03:40.284
as one of the most important
scientific breakthroughs in decades.

00:03:40.284 --> 00:03:42.607
But they presented their information

00:03:42.607 --> 00:03:46.348
in arguably the most hated
typeface on earth.

00:03:47.251 --> 00:03:51.620
That week, trending on Twitter
higher than the God Particle

00:03:51.620 --> 00:03:53.122
was Comic Sans.

00:03:54.412 --> 00:03:56.789
One simple design choice

00:03:56.789 --> 00:03:58.997
completely shifted the conversation

00:03:58.997 --> 00:04:02.580
from this incredible
scientific breakthrough

00:04:02.580 --> 00:04:08.912
to how ridiculous a typeface designed
for Windows 95 children's software is.

00:04:10.467 --> 00:04:15.537
So we've seen that typefaces
can distract us from the message.

00:04:15.927 --> 00:04:21.568
But can simply the style of letters
sway us to believe what we're reading?

00:04:22.528 --> 00:04:26.693
Errol Morris, who's known
for his investigative documentaries,

00:04:27.193 --> 00:04:28.864
was inspired by this

00:04:28.864 --> 00:04:33.263
and conducted an experiment
in 2012 just to test this.

00:04:35.116 --> 00:04:39.448
He found inspiration from reading
designer Phil Renaud's blog.

00:04:39.448 --> 00:04:41.980
Renaud wrote about how in university

00:04:41.980 --> 00:04:45.063
his grades had drastically improved

00:04:45.063 --> 00:04:48.247
despite not adding any additional effort.

00:04:48.667 --> 00:04:50.424
After a bit of detective work,

00:04:50.424 --> 00:04:53.473
he had realized
only one thing had changed:

00:04:53.473 --> 00:04:55.380
his choice of typeface.

00:04:56.020 --> 00:04:58.673
After reviewing 52 essays,

00:04:58.673 --> 00:05:04.734
he realized that essays written
in sans serif Trebuchet MS

00:05:04.734 --> 00:05:07.116
had averaged a B-minus,

00:05:07.116 --> 00:05:12.607
whereas those written in serif fonts
Georgia and Times New Roman

00:05:12.607 --> 00:05:15.485
averaged A and A-minus.

00:05:17.465 --> 00:05:21.909
Now, Morris was definitely
inspired by this,

00:05:21.909 --> 00:05:25.545
but he wanted a more empirical test.

00:05:26.379 --> 00:05:30.076
He wrote a New York Times article
featuring excerpts.

00:05:31.170 --> 00:05:32.776
At the end of the article,

00:05:32.776 --> 00:05:35.003
readers were asked two questions:

00:05:35.623 --> 00:05:38.473
"Is the information in the excerpt true?"

00:05:38.873 --> 00:05:42.210
and "How confident are you
in your conclusion?"

00:05:42.720 --> 00:05:46.988
The twist was readers
were being presented the information

00:05:46.988 --> 00:05:49.402
in a different typeface each time.

00:05:50.642 --> 00:05:52.337
Not surprisingly,

00:05:52.724 --> 00:05:57.669
the excerpts written in Comic Sans
were not very well received.

00:05:57.989 --> 00:05:58.985
However,

00:05:59.476 --> 00:06:03.593
two seemingly similar serif typefaces

00:06:03.593 --> 00:06:06.891
had drastically different results.

00:06:08.451 --> 00:06:11.926
Baskerville had the lowest rate
of disagreement,

00:06:12.376 --> 00:06:15.991
whereas Georgia had the highest.

00:06:17.320 --> 00:06:22.383
IBM designers Alessio Laiso
and Rick Sobiesiak

00:06:22.383 --> 00:06:23.387
wanted to see

00:06:23.387 --> 00:06:28.555
if the superiority of Baskerville
held true outside of news articles.

00:06:29.557 --> 00:06:33.217
Participants in their test
were given four sites -

00:06:33.847 --> 00:06:35.020
a banking,

00:06:35.512 --> 00:06:36.756
fitness,

00:06:36.996 --> 00:06:38.265
shopping,

00:06:38.435 --> 00:06:39.768
a news site -

00:06:39.768 --> 00:06:42.060
all in four different typefaces.

00:06:42.350 --> 00:06:45.695
They were then asked to rate them

00:06:45.695 --> 00:06:47.758
on a scale of trustworthiness,

00:06:48.508 --> 00:06:50.321
how appealing they were,

00:06:50.321 --> 00:06:52.492
and how easy they were to use.

00:06:52.982 --> 00:06:57.860
Overall, Baskerville held its title
as the most trustworthy.

00:06:58.476 --> 00:07:00.309
But if we look closer,

00:07:00.309 --> 00:07:05.223
we see that the fitness site
opposed the news site,

00:07:05.223 --> 00:07:08.671
naming Baskerville
as the least trustworthy

00:07:08.671 --> 00:07:11.576
and Fira as the most.

00:07:12.986 --> 00:07:17.783
So perhaps typefaces can influence
our sense of credibility.

00:07:17.783 --> 00:07:21.302
But can they go further
and affect our senses?

00:07:22.652 --> 00:07:27.989
Researchers Vincent P. Magnini
and Seontaik Kim

00:07:27.989 --> 00:07:33.237
published research in the International
Journal of Hospitality Management

00:07:33.237 --> 00:07:36.748
indicating that italicized menus

00:07:37.160 --> 00:07:41.454
caused potential diners
to see a restaurant as more upscale,

00:07:41.454 --> 00:07:45.116
with the capability
of delivering top-rate service.

00:07:45.956 --> 00:07:49.993
Is it possible that this design choice

00:07:49.993 --> 00:07:53.955
sets up customers to enjoy this meal

00:07:53.955 --> 00:07:57.478
more than one ordered off of another menu?

00:07:58.188 --> 00:08:03.398
That this design choice will set up
a preconceived notion of quality

00:08:03.398 --> 00:08:05.618
before they even taste the food?

00:08:08.758 --> 00:08:10.953
So before I began my talk,

00:08:10.953 --> 00:08:13.148
I gave you a slip of paper.

00:08:13.148 --> 00:08:16.082
This slip of paper had a spray of perfume

00:08:16.082 --> 00:08:19.493
as well as the logo
of that perfume printed on it.

00:08:19.493 --> 00:08:21.984
I then asked you to estimate

00:08:21.984 --> 00:08:26.046
what a 50-milliliter bottle
of this perfume might cost

00:08:26.046 --> 00:08:29.645
and rate its quality
on a scale of 1 to 100

00:08:29.645 --> 00:08:31.867
via a live online poll.

00:08:32.310 --> 00:08:34.674
So these are the results.

00:08:35.814 --> 00:08:39.270
The more cheesy-looking sans serif logo

00:08:39.270 --> 00:08:45.979
had an even spread of votes
among the lower brackets of price scales,

00:08:46.369 --> 00:08:48.344
whereas if we look over here,

00:08:48.344 --> 00:08:53.596
the large majority for the script logo

00:08:53.596 --> 00:09:00.512
rested in the 150 to 300 RMB,
or 22 dollar to 45 dollar, price points.

00:09:01.292 --> 00:09:04.829
Additionally, we can see
a difference in the rate of quality.

00:09:04.829 --> 00:09:07.815
Those that were given
the cheesy-looking logo

00:09:07.815 --> 00:09:13.763
had a quality estimate median of 48.9%,

00:09:14.373 --> 00:09:16.613
but those that were given the script

00:09:16.613 --> 00:09:19.677
sat at 57.1% -

00:09:19.677 --> 00:09:24.278
nearly a 10% difference
in quality estimation.

00:09:24.878 --> 00:09:28.828
These two fictitious brands
have the same name.

00:09:29.298 --> 00:09:32.710
In fact, all strips of paper

00:09:32.710 --> 00:09:38.929
were sprayed with the same 2 dollar,
15 RMB, bottle of perfume.

00:09:39.299 --> 00:09:43.842
The only difference
is the typeface of the logo.

00:09:46.062 --> 00:09:50.261
How can we be more cognizant
of this persuasive messaging?

00:09:50.971 --> 00:09:56.885
Is there a way that we can see past
the implications these typefaces give us

00:09:56.885 --> 00:09:59.603
to judge in a more objective way?

00:10:01.193 --> 00:10:03.405
Before you make your next purchase,

00:10:03.405 --> 00:10:04.758
ask yourself:

00:10:05.248 --> 00:10:08.618
are you buying the product
or the packaging?

00:10:08.918 --> 00:10:10.027
Thank you.

00:10:10.027 --> 00:10:12.223
(Applause)