toiletries & cleaning 2

I found this around the house looking for a bad example and when I turned this container around I was immediately greeted with an explosion of typefaces.

I count at least 4 different typefaces, so there can be more than what I counted, but the only reason why I wasn’t completely sure is that each instance of text feels like a different typeface in general. Although some typefaces might be the same like “KILLS MOST GERMS AND BACTERIA” and “SANITIZING WIPES,” because of a difference in type size they give the illusion of two different typefaces at a glance.

Though the main reason this product was bad typography to me is the disruption to visual hierarchy. Each line of text is visually different and attempts to emphasize something different with each one. But the effect that ends up occurring is that when everything tries to be different, nothing is different. Each line of text feels independent from one another so there’s no consistency or harmony. Since there isn’t any consistent typeface being used as a standard, it’s hard to say that any of these words are truly emphasized meaningfully.

When attempting to utilize different typefaces, the choice is to either have very minimal changes or have very dramatic ones, but this product somehow feels as if it does both. There’s enough minimal changes for the viewer to notice something different but also annoy them and also lots of drastic changes that ultimately doesn’t contribute to the product meaningfully.

This was also found around the house but at the moment this picture was taken, there isn’t a green tea sugar scrub in this container, but red paint. That aside, this would be a good example of typography. Usually this would be something I’d consider a bad example of typography due to the many typefaces and fonts being used, like the previous example,but I think this is one of the few cases that manages to have many typefaces without being overbearing and disruptive.

The main attraction of this product is the large “GREEN TEA” in a vastly different typeface than the rest of the product with an almost brush-like appearance. With that being the major distinct typeface, how the rest of the text remains undisruptive while appearing different is most likely through the combination of different fonts and uppercase and lowercase characters. A closer inspection will see that the words “Tree Hut” and “Shea Sugar Scrub” have a very similar appearance in typeface, notably with the capital E and U they share, with Shea Sugar Scrub most likely being a bold font. These two seem to be a pair of the same type family. “Tree Hut” also seems to recede how dominant it is by being a brown color that complements the peach color behind it.

The last three lines of text, the line under Shea Sugar Scrub is a sans serif font, but it isn’t disruptive due to how extremely small the type size is in comparison to everything else. The last two lines seem very similar in appearance and could be in the same type family but it’s difficult to tell. One thing for sure is that one is regular and one is italic. All three lines of text appear different but because they aren’t very large and emphasized, they also aren’t disruptive. The takeaway being that it might be possible to include many different typefaces if each typeface isn’t fully emphasized and doesn’t take away from the main product or advertisement, which in this case the different typefaces doesn’t take away the attention from “Green Tea Shea Sugar Scrub.”