I always say, "There is no such thing as a bad typeface, only bad application." I believe this to be true. However, often when I say it, people start to correct me by naming fonts (digital typefaces) like Comic Sans or Arial. To which I respond, "What is so bad about Comic Sans?" The main criticism of Comic Sans is that it appears childish or cartoony. Well, yes, it does, and there is nothing wrong with that if you are designing invitations for a child’s birthday party. It may not be my first choice — even in that case — but it would pass a relevance test.

You see, that is the key word here: appropriate. Is the typeface you want to use appropriate for what you are trying to communicate? Comic Sans will always look out of place if you use it, for example, on a business card for a legal practice, as it is not appropriate for conveying serious information. I always quote the godfather of modern typography, Erik Spiekermann, who said, “You are what you’re seen to be.” I also believe this to be true, because it is really important to control what you are communicating when choosing a typeface. After all, the choices we make, visual or not, tell a story about our personality, whether by design or by accident. Because you cannot not communicate. For example, if a man walks into a room dressed like a clown, you would naturally assume he is a clown, not a lawyer dressed in a clown outfit.

It is the same with branding, particularly typefaces. Typefaces are visible language, or the clothes our words wear. They can make words look angry or happy, serious or playful, simple or eloquent; typefaces are that powerful. This is why you should always choose a typeface carefully and never base your decision solely on whether you like it or not. Always ask yourself: how does this typeface make me feel when I read it? Then consider if that first impression is appropriate for the message it is communicating.

When it comes to typemarks (logos that consist only of type), this is vital. If type is all you have, it must be appropriate. If a consumer only sees the logo, their first impression of the brand is formed entirely based on your choice of typeface. Another problem arises when type trends change or the perception of a style of typeface evolves. This can impact the perception of the brand. A good example is NASA, which has a type style that was considered futuristic and progressive in the 1960s but now appears dated and clichéd over 70 years later.

Below are some examples of how famous typemarks would look with inappropriate typefaces instead of their recognisable ones.