My workshop on design begins with a slide of the two photos shown below. The question I ask the class is "Which one of these two signs looks better to you?" It is not a trick question, but I'm tying to find out which one the class thinks is more attractive and will do a better job for the client. (I did both of them)
Over the years the answer has always been "the one on the right" and then I go on to ask "why" and that leads into the class on design principles and the "why" of design that they will learn in the class.
This past week I was in Fort Worth and asked the same question and there was a long pause until someone said "the one on the left". No one chose the one of the right and on person even said that the one on the right looked "too expensive".
I had to back up and regroup at that point. So...which one do you think is better...and why?
Posted by Michael Boone (Member # 308) on May 17, 2010 01:46 PM:
the red one looks better but the white one does a better job as a sign because its easier to read..
Posted by Joe Cieslowski (Member # 2429) on May 17, 2010 01:49 PM:
Purely on gut (that's all I got. )
The one on the left reads quicker....telling me what the business is. If this were a mag on a pickup, I'd choose the one on the left.
On a dump truck, the right one would be OK.
(If I took your class in Cinci, I'd have a better answer)
Joe,
Makin Chip$ and Havin Fun!
Posted by Dale Feicke (Member # 767) on May 17, 2010 01:52 PM:
I can't give that opinion, Raymond. To me, the one on the right is more attractive. The one on the left is more visible and easier to read.
So there.......no decision.....blame Michael.
Posted by Ed Gregorowicz (Member # 1842) on May 17, 2010 01:58 PM:
I always tell customers that
1. A sign has to be easy to read, and...
2. It has to be attractive enough to get people to look at it so that they get a chance to read it.
The red one is more attention getting, the left one reads better. Beyond that , the choice belongs to the customer as defined by their budget.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on May 17, 2010 02:07 PM:
I had the same reaction as the above posts... eye catching colors vs. better legibility...
Posted by Bruce Brickman (Member # 8180) on May 17, 2010 02:53 PM:
Same as above, esthetics on the right and function on the left.
Posted by Dennis Kiernan (Member # 12202) on May 17, 2010 02:59 PM:
Ditto the above.
The guy in your class who said the one on the right looks too expensive has a point, tho, I think. When I'm looking for a car mechanic, mover, handyman, etc., I tend to look for the guy who works lean, but does good work, and I shy away from the snazzy looking ones because I think they probably charge more to cover a larger overhead, are so big they've lost the personal touch, the customer gets lost in the crowd, stuff like that. So I think for certain kinds of businesses, the sign shd communicate the idea that he does good work and cares about your situation, not what a big deal he is. Now if he's selling luxury goods or prestige goods, that's a different story.
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on May 17, 2010 03:07 PM:
The one on the left, and Honestly, that is the conclussion I came to with out reading anyone else's opinion, even what you had posted... so there.lol The Phone number is easier to read, the name and what he does.. same deal, easier to read.
Posted by Wayne Webb (Member # 1124) on May 17, 2010 04:10 PM:
What Mikey said.
Posted by Dan Sawatzky (Member # 88) on May 17, 2010 04:46 PM:
I would make the primary copy and the black oval a little bigger on the design on the right and then pick that one. This is a LOT of information to put on one little sign.
The one on the right has everything in the same colors and similar fonts... Although it may be a little easier to read I'd have trouble knowing what to read first and if the viewing time was limited I wouldn't remember what the name of the company was.
You just had to ask right?
-grampa dan
Posted by Pat Welter (Member # 785) on May 17, 2010 05:04 PM:
I agree with Dan , there is no focal point in the one on the left and if the viewer is on the move the one on the right would at least drive the name home in a glance. The use of negative space is better in the one on the left too. Thats my canadian 2 cents.
Posted by jack wills (Member # 521) on May 17, 2010 05:06 PM:
Make the corners a little smaller,inset border closer to edge. Black section, a long rectangle out to the edges. Leaves more room for all of the copy. Maybe a black shade behind the secondary copy, (top line & bottom ph.#)
Posted by Raymond Chapman (Member # 361) on May 17, 2010 06:26 PM:
The purpose is not to critique either one about all the fine tuning points because that could go on forever....and each would be right.
The purpose is to decide between the two (as they are) - which one would be more effective for the client. In the end, what we design must work for our customer - make him look good.
Now, with that in mind, which of the two would make the customer look better?
Yes, there is too much copy, but that is what we have to work with sometime.
Posted by Tim Barrow (Member # 576) on May 17, 2010 06:38 PM:
Having painted billboards most of my career I have to choose the one on the left,...if the possible client is riding down the road looking out the window of their vehicle they have aprox. 3 seconds to absorb the message and understand it,..the design on the right while pretty is confusing ,hard to read and ineffective if I use that good old 3 second rule.The copy on the red one is not "black" enough,....the one on the left needs repainting though,.....
Posted by Joe Cieslowski (Member # 2429) on May 17, 2010 07:24 PM:
"work for our customer - make him look good"
IMO, the one on the left "works".
The one on the right "looks good".
Joe,
Makin Chip$ and Havin Fun! Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on May 17, 2010 10:21 PM:
They are both 'alright'.... but I see areas in design that could be improved in both.
But as to your main question - the one on the right because color and contrast make it distinctly more inviting and catches the eye over the one on the left.
The one on the right immediately draws you to the customer's name first, phone numbers second.
Posted by Ian Stewart-Koster (Member # 3500) on May 17, 2010 10:54 PM:
I'll say I'd like a composite of both!
Posted by Brad Ferguson (Member # 33) on May 18, 2010 12:21 AM:
Ray, this is a cool post.
Which looks better? Everyone so far agrees that it's the one on the right. It has more eye appeal. It's colorful and has visual interest.
Which one is easier to read? Sitting in front of my computer monitor at a viewing distance of about 18 inches, it's no contest. I can't make out some of the copy on the red sign unless I stare at it. But I got out of my chair and walked back from my desk and looked again. I didn't even see the sign on the left at first glance. The one on the right grabbed my attention and the name of the company practically jumped off the sign instantaneously, though I couldn't read the word "construction." I looked away and then looked again and forced my eyes to the sign on the left. Nothing really popped out but I could read "Ferrel Construction." I could also read the phone number, or rather, I could tell that it was a phone number. But not allowing myself to look at the sign longer than a count of three, I could not recall the exact numbers. (I was about six feet away from a 22" screen for this highly scientific test). Next I tried to imagine 3-second scenarios in real life. I figured that if this was truck lettering and the truck was driving by in the opposite lane at, say, 35-40 MPH while I was standing on the sidewalk or sitting in a parked vehicle, I could get a good, forced 3-second look. Then I imagined I was driving and this was a yard sign in a residential neighborhood where the speed limit was thirty and there was less traffic. I might still have three seconds, but maybe not. I would be watching for traffic and trying to go straight, and I'm almost a senior. Three seconds is a long time for me to take my eyes off the road. If this sign were a huge highway sign on the interstate, I should get three seconds of read time, even if it meant looking three times in one-second intervals.
Now, how much would I be able to read in three seconds in any of these scenarios? I suspect that it would be similar to what I could read at six feet away from my monitor: The name "Ferrel" would instantly jump off the red sign, and "Ferrel Construction" would be legible on the left sign, but not attention-grabbing. Phone numbers would be noticed but not remembered. If the black oval on the red sign were enlarged somewhat, per Dan's comment, and maybe the word construction up-sized, I would probably read "Ferrel Construction" as easily on the right sign as on the left. So, is it a draw?
Now, if I were standing in front of this sign in someone's yard or at the lumber yard parking lot from ten or fifteen feet away, I bet that I could read all of either layout, just not in three seconds. But I could stand there as long as I wanted. There would be no pixelation messing up the small copy, like on my monitor, and besides, I could move a few steps closer if I needed to. I could write the phone numbers down. Heck, I could pull out my cell phone and call the guy while he's in the check-out line at Home Depot.
So which sign is more readable? Is it a wash? I don't think it is. I think the sign on the right is the more effective one. Here's my reasoning:
1.It has eye appeal. I believe that a sign with eye appeal generates more second looks and longer first looks. I believe eye appeal can entice the viewer to read more of the sign. Furthermore, a sign that's slick and professional-looking can make the business being advertised seem more professional. A viewer might think that "maybe this contractor really knows what he's doing." Or, "his trucks look nice, maybe he does nice work, too." Conversely, if it looks like the contractor went cheap on sign work, does he cut corners on his construction projects, too? Does he put siding on straight? Does he even carry insurance?
2. The prioritization of the copy is an advantage for the red sign. It allows the name "Ferrell" to read instantly. Not so with the "Ferrel" on the left. It's just as legible, but you have to find it first. The monotony of color, line value and letter size all work to disguise it just a little. Also, the name on the red sign is in the optical center, the strongest part of the sign. The optical center on the left sign is occupied by a relatively unimportant line of copy. It's true that the prioritization makes the small lettering very small indeed. But let's not blame the layout. There's just too dang much copy. The fact that there is more large copy on the left sign is not really an advantage: There's not enough time to read it all anyway. Not in three seconds. (Three seconds may even be overly generous as an average. An average glance may be more like one or one-and-half seconds. Three seconds may be a forced look).
3.Brand recognition is far more likely as a possibility for the layout on the right. The name in the black oval on the red background could easily achieve recognition as a trademark in a local market. And an easily recognized brand does not always require legibility to be effective. Many logos are instantly recognized simply by their coloring and shape, long before the words and letters can be discerned. This could be a huge advantage for the contractor to use the layout on the right.
.......
An ex-girlfriend of mine has a marketing business. She's good at writing ad copy. She said, "If you make it work to read, few will read it." So when I design, I try to single out the one or two most important elements and make them prominent and easy to read, and hopefully, readable in an instant. I don't let anything else compete with them. The sign on the left looks like too much work to read. The sign on the right? I might not read it in its entirety, but I'll read the word "Ferrel" whether I want to or not.
........
Ray's comment about the seminar attendee saying that one of the layouts looked "too expensive" was interesting. I guess there are businesses that don't want to appear too profitable, thinking they'll entice more customers that way. It reminded me of a sign shop owner saying once that he thought that fixing up the front area of the shop would be a mistake. He wanted it kind of shabby so people would think he wasn't making a lot of money. That way they wouldn't complain about price so much.
Brad in Kansas City
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on May 18, 2010 12:19 PM:
It may have been mentioned, but I never read it but, what is the intention of this sign? Is it a 4X8 to be installed on the side of the highway? or is it a form of advertising in an area where people can get close to it, say like next to an entrance.... if it's to be viewed up close then the one on the right.. no question, but if it's a 4x8 then the one on the left, if it has to be viewed from afar.
Posted by Donna in BC (Member # 130) on May 18, 2010 01:11 PM:
Working AND making look good isn't happening in either one of the above examples.
Neither, as is.
The one on the right would be fine if the sign was bigger for that amount of copy. Compare it to a too small TV in a big room and you have the answer.
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on May 18, 2010 03:51 PM:
This is a good instructive post for basic layout versus custom. Put this in the book you write someday. I just kind of went with what Dan also mentioned about size and added an outline around the oval. Pushed it a little towards the margins also.
[ May 18, 2010, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: David Wright ]
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on May 18, 2010 04:47 PM:
That's a nice script David, what is it?
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on May 18, 2010 05:12 PM:
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[I Don t Know]](graemlins/dunno.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
