The main aim of this questionnaire is to see if typography really does change a consumers interest in an advertisement, the brand and product.
To make it as unbiased as possible, I felt a discussion on the topic would not be beneficial with those taking part as what I am saying in my essay may influence their decisions when looking at the posters. Giving them the questions and posters with no information seems the most fair way possible to get truly honest and individual answers. It also works the same way in which an advertisement does. Brands come out with new advertisements, and don't discuss the meaning behind these with the consumer to make them understand the angle of it.
As there are seven posters, I wanted to make sure I got a good amount of feedback on each, so had to devise questions taking this into account.
I created the following document with 20 questions, varying in detail. I also added a front page to this so it explained the questionnaire without having to explain the entire concept and creating bias opinions.
Focus Group Questionnaire
Following this, I printed eight copies and each of the posters at A3 scale, numbering them from 1 - 7.
Responses
I then transcribed and collated the information so I could create an informed conclusion.
Summary
Poster 1
Hardest to read because the letters are hard to read. Body copy is too much text in this font.
Illegible.
Angry. Gothic. Mean. Regal. Medieval. Scary
Most unfriendly. Intimidating. Germanic font. Hard to read the type and understand the message. Heavy font.
Least likely to make a consumer buy a product. Look angry. Hard to understand.
Joint most inappropriate typography for content.
‘BIG’ looks like ‘BAB’.
Poster 2
Joint least interesting poster. The typography doesn’t stand out.
Sophisticated.
Classical.
Indifferent.
Stylish.
Old fashioned.
Join most inappropriate typography for content.
Doesn’t have a lot of impact.
Doesn’t support the image well.
Style can be quite alienating.
Too serious for content.
Not bold enough.
Poster 3
Neutral.
Classical.
Indifferent.
Stylish. Classy.
Formal.
Sedate.
Don’t fit the tone of voice of the ads.
Inappropriate for content.
Don’t support the image well.
Poster 4
Least eye catching poster.
Joint least interesting poster. The typeface is too formal and doesn’t suit the product.
Out of place. Doesn’t suit the product. Elegant font.
Classical.
Stylish. Fashionable. Sophisticated serif font.
Feminine.
Elegant.
Body copy is hard to read. Illegible from a distance.
Old fashioned.
Poster 5
Loud and in your face.
Serious. Big and bold.
Friendly.
Manly. Aggressive.
Playful. Cheerful. Loud. Bold.
Puts the message across immediately. Big and bold like a Big Mac. Font goes well with the image. Big impact. Clear.
Thick, defined and clear.
Corporate.
Similar to font McDonald’s have used before.
Reminder of Burger King.
Poster 6
Easiest to read because of simple and clear type.
Boring font.
Loud and in your face.
Corporate.
Unprofessional.
Overbearing.
Cheerful. Playful. Loud.
Heading stands out.
Puts the message across immediately. Overbearing. Type makes the image look bigger.
Clear.
Lacks character.
Not pretentious.
Poster 7
Catches the eye the most because of the hand written type.
Ranks first in order of posters catching the eye.
Most interesting poster. The hand rendered type is unique. Has a homemade feel to it. The effect of a chalkboard is interesting.
Likeable. Creative.
Crafted with care.
Personal. Playful.
Welcoming.
Friendly.
Quiet.
Most friendly because of humanised style. Engaging and appealing. Less in your face and less bold. Handmade and personal touches.
Most likely to make the consumer buy the product. More personal. Friendly. Homemade quality.
Most relatable to McDonalds. Similar aesthetic to what is in use/previous been used. Familiar.
Most likely to be seen as an advertisement now. Trendy. Fits with the brand. A lot of hand drawn type around at the moment. Professional.
Most appropriate typography for the content.
Body copy can be hard to read as a scripted font.
Fits with the brand.
No comments:
Post a Comment