Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Typeface in Packaging Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multisensory Packaging

Abstract

Choosing the appropriate typeface and font for use in product packaging is an important part of the design process (or at least it should be). Yet, at the same time, it is also an area that is often neglected in books on packaging. This is particularly surprising given that virtually all packaging incorporates some text (e.g., logotypes, slogans, product information). A growing body of empirical research, however, now demonstrates that typefaces can be used to convey/reinforce specific brand associations. Insights into which features of the typeface might be best suited to conveying (or priming) different meanings emerged from the older research on the semantic differential technique and from more recent research on the crossmodal correspondences. Choosing typeface and font for the packaging that is incongruent with what a product stands for can negatively impact the consumer’s perception/evaluation of a brand. Meanwhile, iconic typefaces may, over time, come to be attached with specific brands, given our repeated exposure to them on packaging in the marketplace. In this chapter, we review the emerging literature on the scientific approach to typeface design, stressing the key role it can play in creating the most persuasive packaging solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    At the outset, it is important to clarify the difference between typeface and font (Brownlee, 2014). Nowadays these terms are, in many cases, used interchangeably. To illustrate the difference, whilst Tw Cen MT 14pt in italics would be a different font from Tw Cen MT 10pt without italics, Tw Cen MT is a different typeface than Times New Roman. According to Brownlee, in the old days of analogue printing, the metal blocks that followed the same design principles (e.g., Tw Cen MT) were considered the typeface while fonts, on the other hand, indicated the specific sub-blocks of a given typeface (i.e., bold, italics, underline, upper and lower case, different sizes).

  2. 2.

    One can think of this as an aspect of semiotics (cf. Nöth, 2001). Interestingly, neuropsychological research by Barton et al. (2010) suggests that the processing of the meaning and style/script of the text may actually rely on activity in different cerebral hemispheres.

  3. 3.

    One way in which to make text more difficult to read is simply to vary the typeface/font on a letter-by-letter basis (Sanocki, 1987). This, though, is not recommended unless one happens to be composing a ransom note.

  4. 4.

    Though note that a ‘positive effect’ is not always the healthiest. For example, Gomez, Werle, and Corneille (2017) reported a study in which they found that nutrition information that is easier to process (vs. more difficult to process) leads to higher purchase intentions not only for healthy but also for unhealthy foods.

  5. 5.

    Warde (1930) captured this almost a century ago when he said that ‘The type which, through any arbitrarily warping of design or excess of “colour”, gets in the way of the mental picture to be conveyed, is a bad type’.

  6. 6.

    Note that much of the early literature on the design of typeface was focused primarily on issues of legibility (e.g., Burt, Cooper, & Martin, 1955), rather than on the assessment of connotative meaning.

  7. 7.

    The participants in Berliner’s (1920) study were instructed to arrange the 18 typefaces in order, in terms of their suitability for expressing the ‘atmosphere’ of the product.

  8. 8.

    It is perhaps a remaining question though, whether the associations between typeface and gender are internalized by consumers as a function of some regularities in the market place.

  9. 9.

    Notice here how essentially the same results were observed no matter whether the text was presented in isolation or when it was presented on the front of a drinking vessel.

  10. 10.

    That said, in future research, it will be important to replicate and extend this result in the same/other remote groups in order to assess the robustness and extent of this apparent cross-cultural difference.

References

  • Alter, A. L. (2013). The benefits of cognitive disfluency. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 437–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, J. J., Sekunova, A., Sheldon, C., Johnston, S., Iaria, G., & Scheel, M. (2010). Reading words, seeing style: The neuropsychology of word, font and handwriting perception. Neuropsychologia, 48(13), 3868–3877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, A. (1920). “Atmosphärenwert” von Drucktypen [“Atmosphere value” of printing types]. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Psychologie, 17(1–3), 165–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, G. (1980). Pour une sémiologie de la typographie (Doctoral dissertation). Paris: Universiti de la Sorbonne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, G. (1998). Aide au choix de la typographie—Cours supérieur. Reillanne: Atelier Perrousseaux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremner, A., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J., Linnell, K., & Spence, C. (2013). Bouba and Kiki in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape-sound matches, but different shape-taste matches to Westerners. Cognition, 126(2), 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bringhurst, R. (2004). The elements of typographic style. Vancouver, BC: Hartley & Marks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee, J. (2014, May 6). What’s the difference between a font and a typeface? The Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcodesign.com/3028971/whats-the-difference-between-a-font-and-a-typeface

  • Brumberger, E. R. (2004). The rhetoric of typography: The persona of typeface and text. Technical Communication, 50, 206–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, C., Cooper, W. F., & Martin, J. L. (1955). A psychological study of typography. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 8(1), 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celhay, F., Boysselle, J., & Cohen, J. (2015). Food packages and communication through typeface design: The exoticism of exotypes. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, T. L., & Jass, J. (2002). All dressed up with something to say: Effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H., & Schwarz, N. (2006). If I don’t understand it, it must be new: Processing fluency and perceived product innovativeness. In C. Pechmann & L. Price (Eds.), NA—Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33 (pp. 319–320). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colarelli, S. M., & Dettmann, J. R. (2003). Intuitive evolutionary perspectives in marketing practices. Psychology & Marketing, 20(9), 837–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. C., & Smith, H. J. (1933). Determinants of feeling tone in type faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 17(6), 742–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2004). Font appropriateness and brand choice. Journal of Business Research, 57(8), 873–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2006). Dressed for the occasion: Font-product congruity in the perception of logotype. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 112–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2009). The massage in the medium: Transfer of connotative meaning from typeface to names and products. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 396–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2010). Norms for Osgood’s affective meaning (evaluation, potency, activity): Ratings of logos, colors, products and services, names, and typefaces. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1640198

  • Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2011). Mixed messages in brand names: Separating the impacts of letter shape from sound symbolism. Psychology & Marketing, 28(7), 749–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2011). If it’s hard to read…try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustment. Psychological Research, 75(5), 376–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durgee, J. F., & O’Connor, G. C. (1996). Perceiving what package designs express: A multisensory exploratory study using creative writing measurement techniques. In A. Gelinas (Ed.), Creative applications: Sensory techniques used in conducting packaging research (pp. 48–61). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fajardo, T. M., Zhang, J., & Tsiros, M. (2016). The contingent nature of the symbolic associations of visual design elements: The case of brand logo frames. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 549–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feely, M., Rubin, G. S., Ekstrom, K., & Perera, S. (2005). Investigation into font characteristics for optimum reading fluency in readers with sight problems. International Congress Series, 1282 (September), 530–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, S. (2011). Just my type: A book about fonts. London, UK: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, P., Werle, C. O., & Corneille, O. (2017). The pitfall of nutrition facts label fluency: Easier-to-process nutrition information enhances purchase intentions for unhealthy food products. Marketing Letters, 28(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B. (2016). Communicating brand gender through type fonts. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(4), 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B., Giese, J. L., & Parkman, I. D. (2013). Using type font characteristics to communicate brand personality of new brands. Journal of Brand Management, 20(5), 389–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guenther, R. K. (2012). Does the processing fluency of a syllabus affect the forecasted grade and course difficulty? Psychological Reports, 110(3), 946–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gump, J. E. (2001). The readability of typefaces and the subsequent mood or emotion created in the reader. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 270–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, P. W., Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2004). Impression management using typeface design. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hine, T. (1995). The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes, bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers. New York, NY: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Li, C., Wu, J., & Lin, Z. (2018). Online customer reviews and consumer evaluation: The role of review font. Information & Management, 55(4), 430–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Z. T., & Kwong, J. Y. (2016). Illusion of variety: Lower readability enhances perceived variety. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(3), 674–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, J. (1987). How to think corporate identity. Public Relations Journal, 43 (May), 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyndman, S. (2015). The type taster: How fonts influence you. London, UK: Type Tasting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, K., & Pasricha, D. (2017). Role of color and typography in determining brand personality. Indian Journal of Marketing, 47(5), 48–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juni, S., & Gross, J. S. (2008). Emotional and persuasive perception of fonts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106(1), 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, P., & Lenk, K. (1998). Principles of typography for user interface design. Interactions, 5(6), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnal, N., Machiels, C. J., Orth, U. R., & Mai, R. (2016). Healthy by design, but only when in focus: Communicating non-verbal health cues through symbolic meaning in packaging. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 106–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastl, A. J., & Child, I. L. (1968). Emotional meaning of four typographical variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(6, Pt. 1), 440–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, Y. H. (2017). The effects of luminance contrast, colour combinations, font, and search time on brand icon legibility. Applied Ergonomics, 65, 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulesza, W., Szypowska, Z., & Dolinski, D. (2014). Attractive chameleons sell: The mimicry-attractiveness link. Psychology & Marketing, 37(7), 549–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labroo, A. A., Dhar, R., & Schwartz, N. (2008). Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 819–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. Y., & Pai, S. Y. (2012). The affective feelings of colored typefaces. Color Research & Application, 37(5), 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, P., Biswas, P., Vinnakota, S., Fu, L., Chen, M., Quan, Y., … Roy, S. (2016). Invariant effect of vision on taste across two Asian cultures: India and China. Journal of Sensory Studies, 31(5), 416–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundholm, H. (1921). The affective tone of lines: Experimental researches. Psychological Review, 28(1), 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, M. A., & Metz, M. (2009). Ease of reading of mandatory information on Canadian food product labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(4), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M. S., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2002). Effects of typographic factors in advertising-based persuasion: A general model and initial empirical tests. Psychology & Marketing, 19(7–8), 663–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, J. A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2018). Price font disfluency: Anchoring effects on future price expectations. Journal of Retailing, 94(1), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R. (1986). Communicability of the emotional connotation of type. Education, Communication and Technology Journal, 34(4), 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, J., Donthu, N., & Eroglu, S. (2014). The fluent online shopping experience. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 2486–2493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nöth, W. (2001). Semiotic foundations of iconicity in language and literature. In O. Fischer & M. Nänny (Eds.), The motivated sign: Iconicity in language and literature (pp. 17–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Okuhara, T., Ishikawa, H., Okada, M., Kato, M., & Kiuchi, T. (2017). Designing persuasive health materials using processing fluency: A literature review. BMC Research Notes, 10(1), 198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Y., & Schmitt, B. H. (1996). Language and brand attitudes: Impact of script and sound matching in Chinese and English. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(3), 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pocheptsova, A., Labroo, A. A., & Dhar, R. (2010). Making products feel special: When metacognitive difficulty enhances evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1059–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poffenberger, A. T., & Barrows, B. E. (1924). The feeling value of lines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(2), 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poffenberger, A. T., & Franken, R. B. (1923). A study of the appropriateness of type faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7(4), 312–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwartz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, C. L. (1982). The connotative dimensions of selected display typefaces. Information Design Journal, 3(1), 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salgado-Montejo, A., Velasco, C., Olier, J. S., Alvarado, J., & Spence, C. (2014). Love for logos: Evaluating the congruency between brand symbols and typefaces and their relation to emotional words. Journal of Brand Management, 21(7–8), 635–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanocki, T. (1987). Visual knowledge underlying letter perception: Font-specific, schematic tuning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(2), 267–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanocki, T., & Dyson, M. C. (2012). Letter processing and font information during reading: Beyond distinctiveness, where vision meets design. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 132–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, G. (1935). An experimental study of the appropriateness of color and type in advertising. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19(6), 652–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroll, R., Schnurr, B., Grewal, D., Johar, G., & Aggarwal, P. (2018). Humanizing products with handwritten typefaces. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 648–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19(10), 986–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20(2), 135–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2010). If it’s easy to read, it’s easy to do, pretty, good, and true. The Psychologist, 23(2), 108–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C. (2012). Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalizing on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, W. (Ed.). (1981). Handbook of package design research. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, P. H., Jacobson, H. K., & Norris, E. L. (1964). An experimental investigation of typeface connotations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 41(1), 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tantillo, J., Lorenzo-Aiss, J. D., & Mathisen, R. E. (1995). Quantifying perceived differences in type styles: An exploratory study. Psychology and Marketing, 12(5), 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turoman, N., Velasco, C., Chen, Y.-C., Huang, P.-C., & Spence, C. (2018). Symmetry and its role in the crossmodal correspondence between shape and taste. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(3), 738–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Horen, F., & Pieters, R. (2012a). When high-similarity copycats lose and moderate-similarity copycats gain: The impact of comparative evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Horen, F., & Pieters, R. (2012b). Consumer evaluation of copycat brands: The effect of imitation typeface. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rompay, T. J., & Pruyn, A. T. (2011). When visual product features speak the same language: Effects of shape-typeface congruence on brand perception and price expectations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(4), 599–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, C., Hyndman, S., & Spence, C. (2018). The role of typeface curvilinearity on taste expectations and perception. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 11, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Spence, C. (2014). Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typographies, names, and sounds. Food Quality & Preference, 34, 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Hyndman, S., & Spence, C. (2015). The taste of typeface. i-Perception, 6(4), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Petit, O., Cheok, A. D., & Spence, C. (2016). Crossmodal correspondences between taste and shape, and their implications for product packaging: A review. Food Quality & Preference, 52, 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, C., Woods, A. T., Wan, X., Salgado-Montejo, A., Bernal-Torres, C., Cheok, A. D., & Spence, C. (2018). The taste of typefaces in different countries and languages. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 236–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagemans, J. (Ed.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of perceptual organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, P. (2008). Font tuning: A review and new experimental evidence. Visual Cognition, 16(8), 1022–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, P. (2016). Cross-sensory correspondences and symbolism in spoken and written language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1339–1361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warde, B. (1956). The crystal goblet, or printing should be invisible. In H. Jacob (Comp. and Ed.), The crystal goblet: Sixteen essays on typography (pp. 11–17). New York, NY: World Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yiannas, F. (2015). Font style & food safety. In F. Yiannas (Ed.), Food safety = behavior (pp. 53–55). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

    Carlos Velasco

  2. Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Charles Spence

Authors
  1. Carlos Velasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles Spence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Velasco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

    Carlos Velasco

  2. Crossmodal Research Laboratory Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Charles Spence

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Velasco, C., Spence, C. (2019). The Role of Typeface in Packaging Design. In: Velasco, C., Spence, C. (eds) Multisensory Packaging. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94977-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation