FBlog

While reading through a popular design blog, a comment by a notable typographer – one that I’ve long admired – caught my eye. His comment involved his frustration that many identity designers customize typefaces as part of a logotype rather than finding an existing typeface that meets the needs and characteristics of the brandmark. I’ve since noticed many other designers echoing similar comments and the issue seems to be gaining slow momentum.

The practice of customizing typefaces for a logotype is common, and I certainly understand why typographers might be upset. The specialization and knowledge of letterforms that a typographer must possess deserves admiration. But the arguments I’ve been hearing most often against typeface customization come more from a typographer’s point of view and do not take into account the process or needs of an identity designer. Therefore I’d like to make some of my own observations.

I don’t believe the creation or customization of typography should be left only to typographers. Typography is a core part of graphic design, and designers of all levels should be encouraged to practice and hone their typographic skills. I would argue that in this age of computers, too many designers simply “find a font” rather than consciously conceptualizing and creating the details and integrity of a well-formed piece of type.

But why use an existing typeface rather than creating completely new letterforms? I have found most often it is done for the expediency required by the pace of most identity design jobs, if not sometimes also for a designer’s respect and thorough understanding of the letterforms of particular typefaces. Typically an appropriate, existing typeface is chosen as the basis, and customized as little as necessary to ensure the mark is proprietary and has the desired characteristics.

Brandmarks – by their purpose – must be proprietary, which is a primary reason for customization. Logos are ubiquitous, and therefore standard symbols and typefaces create similarity rather than distinction. The less distinct a brandmark, the more must be spent to build recognition. And this doesn’t broach the subject of creating distinction for legal purposes. The amount of customization in a logotype may be scaled up or down, to build cohesion with other visual elements and to create a unique brandmark.

Is this uniqueness able to be created with off-the-shelf typefaces? To an extent. While a rigorous typeface search should always be performed as part of an ID process, I’ve personally found the searching, purchasing and trial of the more obscure typefaces is most frequently not the best use of the identity designer’s time and the client’s money, in comparison to creating custom letterforms or customizing portions of existing and owned high-quality typefaces to craft a bespoke piece of typography that fits both conceptually and stylistically.

Admittedly, it is easy to find examples of poorly customized logotypes. We all have seen logotypes which use typeface customization as a crutch, that are customized to needlessly fit current trends and many other typographic abuses. But to me, this reinforces an argument for better typographic education and training among the designers in our industry, not a movement against the customization of typefaces in logotypes.

These are my views, based on my own experiences. I would certainly like to hear the views of other identity or type designers. Do you agree or disagree? What are your views on customizing typefaces for brand identities?