The Great Typeface Debate: Serif or Sans-Serif

I'm far from the first to wrestle with this question, but given its ability to elicit passionate responses, and not being one to shy away from controversy, I thought I'd weigh in.

At the risk of seeming to avoid the question, let me first state that the correct answer is considerably more complex. Arguments can be made either way, and truth be told, I could arguably defend either point-of-view. How? Well, to my mind, typeface choice is only one part of the equation when it comes to issues of readability. At least just as important are the formatting choices, intended audience, final output medium and personal preferences involved.

The Argument for Serif:

The argument for serif dates back to the beginning of the print medium itself (and way earlier than that if one takes into account ancient handwritten scripts and stone carvings). Conventional wisdom has taught for centuries that serif fonts are easier to read, especially with regards to lengthier types of documents such as books, newspapers, magazine articles and so forth. Unfortunately, in terms of quantifiable science, there's no credible evidence to support this point of view.

The Argument for Sans-Serif:

Support for sans-serif really took flight at the dawn of the PC age (early 1980s). Of course, it had been a popular choice before then, but was mainly to be found in large headlines and labels comprised of one or two sentences. With the emergence of monitors as a reading medium, sans-serif fonts were considered friendlier to the eye, especially when one takes into account the rather limited resolutions of the then available technologies such as Videotext and first generation personal computers.

Enter High-Resolution and The Internet:

As display devices improved in the nineties, along with the debut of type-enhancing screen technologies (ex. ClearType), the early consensus supporting sans serif as the preferred typeface of choice (for electronic display devices) became less so. The emergence of the Internet (in the late nineties) as a mainstream vehicle for receiving information further raised the stakes. Amongst early web designers, sans-serif fonts were still the preferred typeface of choice, but not for very long. Fissures began to erupt along a 50/50 split, that pretty much continues to this day.

Consensus Impossible

Younger designers post mid-1990s are more likely to consider sans-serif as their initial typeface of choice, not just for online applications but also for print. Older designers skew more towards the serif side of the fence, but not exclusively so.

Good designers, young or old, quickly come to learn that there is room for both serif and sans-serif in their quiver. Issues pertaining to readability are more apt to be determined by choices such as kerning (the space between individual characters), line space, paragraph settings and the relationship of words to other elements sharing the page (Ex. graphics). Also influencing their choices are the type of audience they are speaking to, the type of product, service or message being spoken about, and a host of other material factors - including plain old personal preference.

In general, I myself prefer the look of sans-serif typefaces (they just feel more progressive to me), but I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable not having the option of serif fonts available to me. My guess is that I speak for a lot of designers in this regard.

In support of this article, I consulted with a number of other other designers and took time to read a large number of essays on the subject (including some very passionate ones backed by all kinds of "scientific" data). I was open to the idea of being swayed by one side or the other, but at the end of the day, it simply didn't happen.

Consensus, it would seem, is simply unattainable at this point in history - at least when it comes to the very broad argument of serif vs. sans-serif.

The next time someone tries to tell you that one type of typeface (serif or sans-serif) is easier to read than the other, take comfort in the knowledge that they likely don't know any better, and most certainly have never stopped to seriously consider all the other elements of typography that enter into the readability argument.

Everyone's a Sales Person

I believe it's the job of everyone who works for a living to sell.

"I'm not in sales" you say?

Fact is, you are - maybe not in the conventional way you think of a "sales person", but trust me, if you're working for a living, you're selling (or probably should be).

Here are some examples of people who "sell" on the job: 

• Your hairstylist
• An office cleaner
• A cook
• A server
• Police officers
• Your doctor

Do you go the same hairstylist on a regular basis? If yes, that individual has successfully sold you on the merits of their work. The office cleaner? They make your workplace more inviting. What about the cook and server at your favorite restaurant? Quality food served with a smile goes a long way in convincing restaurant patrons to return to a place of business. The local police - by enforcing the law, are in the business of selling your city as a safe place to live, work and visit. Do you have a regular physician? He or she has sold themselves as someone you can trust - with your life!

You see? Everyone sells.

It's not always about the hard-sell. There's a lot to be said for simply doing whatever it is you do well, and doing it with a smile.

That's sales!

How Applebee's Completely Mismanaged a PR Crisis and Damaged Their Brand

In my last blog, I spoke of how important it was for companies to recognize the connection between the people that work for them to the reputation of their brand.

Do right by your employees and you'll do right by your brand. Of course, the opposite holds true as well, as chain restaurant Applebee's is discovering much to its chagrin this week.

I'm speaking of the crapstorm spawned in the wake of a story that would almost be comical if it weren't so tragic. You see, earlier this week, an Applebee's customer took exception to the 18% autograt automatically tacked on to tables of six or more. In and of itself, nobody would blame her. The practice is deceptive, unfair and most definitely deserving of scorn, but where the customer erred was in the way she chose to air her grievance, crossing out the tip amount by hand and replacing it with a zero. As if that weren't enough, the customer (a self-proclained "pastor") decided to underscore her decision by writing on the receipt "I Give GOD 10% - Why do you get 18".

It's impossible to know for sure whom the customer was directing her vitriol towards (the server? management? both?), but what is known is that the message was obnoxious, insulting and could only be perceived by the wait staff as a personal slap in the face.

Finding humor in the situation, the person who served the customer chose to share the receipt with a colleague, who promptly snapped a photo and posted it to the Reddit community. The unedited photo immediately went viral and subsequently unleashed the demons of PR hell on Applebee's.

With the photo now garnering huge interest, it didn't take long for Reddit sleuths to identify the obnoxious customer, posting her name to the comments section and subjecting her to much online ridicule. The customer, taking umbridge at this turn of events, then decided to voice her displeasure to Applebee's management, demanding that anyone and everyone connected with the store be fired.

Even with all of this happening, the potential PR damage to Applebee's was limited in scope and likely to fade from the front pages as a story, but alas it wasn't meant to be - Applebee's would soon see to that.

Applebee's Quandry:

You have a difficult customer, who while initially having a legitimate grievance, turned all sympathy against herself by seemingly choosing to go to war with the front-line workers - the servers who make less than subsistence wages and have no control or say over Applebee's automatic gratuity policies.

You also have a worker, who perhaps exercised a lapse in judgement - not born out of the desire to seek personal revenge - but driven simply by frustration and the need to cope by sharing what she saw as a humorous situation with a generally sympathetic and supportive audience (the Reddit community).

There are a lot of wrongs here to be sure, what with Applebee's autograt policies to begin with (that many in the restaurant going community had not even known of until today), the customer's snarky treatment of the wait staff and the unfortunate decision of the Applebee's worker who chose to take her story to Reddit without properly redacting information that could lead to identification of the customer.

What to do? It's an embarrassing situation for all, especially for Applebee's. Everybody is watching to see how the company will respond.

Their response? Fire the worker who posted the picture to Reddit.

Oops...

In choosing to make a martyr of the dismissed worker (whom the overwhelming majority of the internet community have thrown their support behind), Applebee's instantaneously gave rise to a nationwide movement to boycott their establishment.

But it doesn't end there!

Seeing the tide of sentiment rapidly rising against them, Applebee's took to Facebook to issue a cringe-worthy justification of their actions - only serving to make matters worse and cement the company's reputation as ogres in the minds of the public and in the hearts of the workers who up until today, represented the company with a smile on their face (in spite of low wages and the requirement to serve abusive and ungrateful customers such as the one at the center of this story).

Clumsy attempts to bury the story followed, first by deleting negative posts from their Facebook page, then by issuing a series of canned responses put forth as arguments and expressions of shared concern - none of which rang true or came across as genuine in the slightest.

Applebee's awkward attempts to take control of the script display complete ignorance of Social Media, placing on display for all to see, a profound disconnect with its users and failure to understand the perils and potential of the medium.

Regardless, the damage has been done. Of all the actors in this sordid tale, none come off as more petty, more unfeeling and more clueless than the people at Applebee's HQ. It's truly amateur hour - epic in scope and amazing to witness - a comprehensive text book example of how not to handle a PR crisis. It will serve as an important case-study for years to come!

And to the loyal and hard-working servers of Applebee's, you've just been told that you're a disposable commodity whom the company you work for will not hesitate to toss overboard if the twits running the show decide the move will best serve the corporation's interests (no matter how short-sighted, narrow-minded and ultimately misguided). IOW, you are replaceable and must know your place, lest you be subjected to a similar fate.

Nice going Applebee's - way to build your brand!

Why now would anyone care to work for you, and why pray-tell would anyone care to eat at your establishments (where they are subject to mandatory gratuities and the risk of abuse)?

At this hour, the situation continues to play out on the internet and has since made the jump to mainstream media. Whether or not the story has legs is unknown, but had I been in position to counsel Applebee's in the erly hours of this crisis, I would have forcefully recommended against any move that could be seen as reactionary and vindictive - especially with regards to its people.

The bottom line?

Applebee's should have taken the worker aside and administered a stern talking to (while at the same time openly and strongly reiterating its respect and support for both its workers and its customers, even when - as was clearly the case in this instance - they are in the wrong). The situation would have been dealt with fairly and the company's brand would not only have emerged unscathed - but might even have been enhanced!

Instead, the company chose to take a big giant dump on itself.