3 ms·

The question presented is not whether it makes a stylistic difference visible to those in-the-know but rather whether it makes a motivational difference visible

by drostie 11y ago

The question presented is not whether it makes a stylistic difference visible to those in-the-know but rather whether it makes a motivational difference visible in the actions of the mud-people. Those are two very different questions.

hodwik 11y ago
I worked for a multi-billion dollar finance company that worked primarily with middle and lower class people. Our marketing department swore by bad design. Not just simple, accessible. Intentionally bad. They believed it grabbed more attention, and that their customers felt safe/found them more trustworthy. When we tried out more polished marketing we had measurably fewer responses.
- 1812Overture 11y ago
  If it is achieving the intended impact, it's good design not bad design. I've seen looking at direct mail response rates that a very slick polished classy piece can underperform something more FUCKING LOOK AT ME MY LETTERS ARE BIG COLORFUL HERE'S CLIP ART OF A GUY HOLDING CASH!!!!!
  - hodwik 11y ago
    That's still bad design. It may be good marketing though. Not the same thing.
    - tamana 11y ago
      It's ugly, not bad.
ryandrake 11y ago
Right. I've worked at a place where dozens of different variations of ad copy were tested live against random samplings of users (I'd guess this is what everyone in that business does by this point). Some designs are so much better than others that you can easily eyeball the $ difference just looking at the low-res dashboard. But we didn't go down deep to the level of testing kerning vs. not kerning, subtly different fonts/colors, etc. to see if they had any measurable effect. I think it would be an interesting study. You could probably program a computer to iterate and test by itself over and over until it arrived at the "objectively best" design.
- flycaliguy 11y ago
  Gotcha, blame my commute for the grudge. I would be interested in a simulation based on big data or whatever, but I am passionate about typography as art.

by drostie 11y ago

hodwik 11y ago

I worked for a multi-billion dollar finance company that worked primarily with middle and lower class people. Our marketing department swore by bad design. Not just simple, accessible. Intentionally bad. They believed it grabbed more attention, and that their customers felt safe/found them more trustworthy. When we tried out more polished marketing we had measurably fewer responses.

1812Overture 11y ago
If it is achieving the intended impact, it's good design not bad design. I've seen looking at direct mail response rates that a very slick polished classy piece can underperform something more FUCKING LOOK AT ME MY LETTERS ARE BIG COLORFUL HERE'S CLIP ART OF A GUY HOLDING CASH!!!!!
- hodwik 11y ago
  That's still bad design. It may be good marketing though. Not the same thing.
  - tamana 11y ago
    It's ugly, not bad.

ryandrake 11y ago

Right. I've worked at a place where dozens of different variations of ad copy were tested live against random samplings of users (I'd guess this is what everyone in that business does by this point). Some designs are so much better than others that you can easily eyeball the $ difference just looking at the low-res dashboard. But we didn't go down deep to the level of testing kerning vs. not kerning, subtly different fonts/colors, etc. to see if they had any measurable effect. I think it would be an interesting study. You could probably program a computer to iterate and test by itself over and over until it arrived at the "objectively best" design.

flycaliguy 11y ago
Gotcha, blame my commute for the grudge. I would be interested in a simulation based on big data or whatever, but I am passionate about typography as art.