Set in Style

In our last installment on logotype, (Setting Logotype — Part I), we noted that logotypes are typically stored as images, rather than as text. Because of that, font smoothing — the process used to make type look good at all sizes — can’t be applied to logotype.

Now we ask, “Why?” Why store logotypes as images rather than as text?

Well . . . there’s a darned good reason for that.

First, recall the poor quality logotype that often graces Venable’s publications. Here it is:

Now, what we’re going to do is create a high quality version of Venable’s logotype (shown below).

________
Let’s get started.

To begin, Venable’s logotype is set in Times Roman, all caps, with the initial cap being larger than the rest.

So, we start by setting the logotype as text:
.

VENABLE

As you can see, Venable doesn’t look all that impressive when set as plain-jane text.

Next, we stretch the type vertically by 50%:

Then, we adjust the spacing between the characters, eliminating the big gap between the first two characters and equalizing the spaces between all the characters:

Finally, we add the trademark symbol and the LLP:

So, there’s our logotype, which is stored as a graphic image.

Why store it as an image?

Because we want a browser to display the logotype at the firm’s web site, but browsers — unlike typesetting programs — can’t do the things we did to transform the name set in Times Roman to the logotype. (Though they will be able to do such things in the near future.)

________
Now, zoom way in on this page. As you do, note that the one instance of Venable set as text is the only one that remains nice and smooth at any level of zoom. All the others, being images that can’t be smoothed, look fuzzier and fuzzier the more you zoom in on them.

In our next and final episode, we’ll see what we can do to improve the quality of the logotype at all levels of zoom.

There are several ways to write marketing materials that save readers lots of time, and this introduction to the firm of Bereskin & Parr LLP embodies a few of them:

Bereskin & Parr LLP is a leading Canadian intellectual property (IP) law firm serving clients of all sizes, in a variety of industries, domestic and international. The firm was founded in 1965 and has grown to be one of the largest IP law firms in Canada with four offices located in major economic or technology centers. The firm has offices in Toronto, Mississauga, Waterloo Region and Montréal. Bereskin & Parr is made up of over 70 lawyers, and patent and trade mark agents, many of whom are recognized as leading practitioners in their respective fields. The firm’s practice is comprehensive, encompassing all aspects of intellectual property, with practice groups including:

1. First, throw your readers a curve. One way to do that is to start off with a nice grammatical error, leaving readers to wonder what are “domestic and international industries.”
2. Next, start each and every sentence with the same exact subject, like “the firm, the firm, the firm.”
3. Take a bunch of different thoughts and stuff them into one paragraph.
4. Don’t use transitions.
5. Be sure that no sentence refers to another, and there’s no logical progression from one to the next.

It really works. If you want people to stop reading your copy right quick, be boring, boring, boring.

I notice that quite a few law firms publish PDFs in which the type isn’t rendered properly. Instead, it looks bold and rough unless you zoom in on it, in which case it looks just fine.

Consider the following block of type. The left side is from a PDF published by a Great Big Law Firm; the right side is from the Word document that was the source of the PDF.

The type in the Word document looks fine; the type in the PDF is much heavier and less distinct. To use some highly technical typesetter’s terminology, “it just don’t look right.”

In this case, the problem is that the PDF was saved in the wrong format. But that’s not especially important, as there are a number of problems that can prevent PDFs from looking as good as they should.

No, what’s important is that no one caught the error. They just distributed it to their “friends and clients” with clunky type.

That’s a mistake. It’s quite like showing up for an important meeting all dressed up for yard work.

Read the rest of this entry »

In an earlier post, we made the distinction between logos (images) and logotypes (stylized text).

In this and subsequent posts, we focus on the latter.

If you want your firm’s logotype to look good to everyone — including those with iPhones and Blackberries and who-knows-what’s-next — then make sure it’s produced correctly.

The most recognizable logotype of all bears the name of Coke’s signature soft drink:

Most logotypes are not so highly stylized as Coke’s. Consider Google’s logotype:

Note: Notice the trademark symbol at the end of Google’s logotype. It’s small, but legible.

Like Google’s, most law firm logotypes are only mildly stylized. And some are registered trademarks.

__________
Now, the goal of this series is to help you set your firm’s logotype so it always looks its best, on line and in print. Before we get into the details, let’s take a closer look at on-line  type.

Go to Google’s home page and zoom in on the logotype.

To Zoom:

Macintosh — Command + (plus sign) to zoom in; Command – (minus sign) to zoom out
PC – press and hold the Control key, rather than the Command key

The logotype looks sharp at one size. If you zoom in or out, it gets fuzzy.

Zoom way in, and it looks like so:

Note: When we zoom in, the trademark symbol becomes less legible.

The logotype for Coca Cola has a similar appearance.

But why? Why don’t these logotypes act like regular type? Why do they look fuzzy close up?

It’s because they’re stored as images (like logos), rather than text.

And why are they stored as images rather than text?

Well . . . we’ll get into that in our next episode of Setting Logotype.

Test Your Logotype

Display your firm’s home page. The firm’s logotype is displayed at the top of it, right?

Look at the logotype as you zoom in and out of the page.

Zoom in and out of a PDF file with your firm’s logotype.

Does it look good at all sizes, just a few, or none at all?

If it looks anything like the Coke or Google logotypes, then it’s probably OK.

But, if it looks anything like the following when viewed at normal size, it’s not OK.

Note: Notice the registered trademark symbol at the end of Venable’s logotype. It’s not legible.

________
In upcoming episodes, we’ll review the steps you can take to make sure your firm’s logotype always looks sharp.

The largest law firms tend to be very active publishers, attaching a copyright notice to a new publication just about every day. And they have an army of authors at hand — hundreds of attorneys.

Though they function as publishers, most law firms don’t do many of the things that professional publishers (of books, magazines, or newspapers) do as a matter of course.

One of those things is this — most law firms don’t have editors review what their authors write. In fact, the whole notion of having an editorial review process is an alien concept to most attorneys (including those managing very large law firms).

That’s too bad, because not reviewing what you’re publishing (before you publish it) can be downright embarrassing.

Case in Point

Consider the following, the intro to this article “On The Enforceability Of State Bars To Discretionary Clauses.”

In 2009, several courts considered whether state laws that bar discretionary clauses in plan provisions governing the administration of benefit claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and, if so, whether they were saved from preemption by virtue of ERISA’s savings clause.

If an editor reviews this article before it’s published, he can’t help but notice a problem in the logic of the intro. No court is going to rule that a state law is both preempted and saved from preemption, now is it?

This simply has to be fixed — for the sake of the author as well as the firm. And here’s why. It portrays the author as a careless writer, and that’s a liability for the author, described by the firm as “a prolific writer on cutting-edge ERISA litigation issues;” and it portrays the firm as one that can’t possibly be sincere about its commitment to excellence — not if it doesn’t even review what it publishes.

So, what would a skilled and experienced editor do with this?

Very likely, he’d revise it like so:

In 2009, several courts considered whether state laws that bar discretionary clauses in benefits plans were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) or whether they were saved from preemption by ERISA’s savings clause.

After that, readers won’t have a good reason to question the author’s skills, or the firm’s commitment to excellence (or whether it even reviews its associates’ work).

__________
Of course, most attorneys aren’t used to working with editors. By and large, those who haven’t worked with skilled and experienced editors express fear — fear that an editor might make a mistake and reword something that shouldn’t be reworded.

Well, that’s just not so. Good editors don’t turn good copy into bad; they save busy attorneys from letting others see the mistakes that busy attorneys make.

Your law firm probably doesn’t have a logo. Few do. But it very likely has a logotype, which it uses in place of a logo.

What’s the difference between them?

A logo is an image; a logotype is stylized type.

Logo	Logotype

Both logo and logotype (and other elements) distinguish one entity (e.g., person, business, agency) from all others, and these visual cues are so effective that most any substantial business or organization has a logotype; the larger the outfit, the more likely it is to have a logo as well.

And most outfits, regardless of size, have a style guide – a guide that describes lots of things, including the visual identity for an entity, like how its logo and its logotype should appear.

Read the rest of this entry »

Consider the following introduction to a law firm’s employment practice:

Our Employment Group provides employers with comprehensive legal services pertaining to the employment relationship.

That’s a common approach to practice area descriptions, but it’s hardly persuasive. It sounds clinical. “We offer services, just like every other firm.”

Now, consider this revised introduction:

Successful organizations manage their human resources with care; they take care to avoid difficult situations, they respond to problems quickly, and they respond aggressively when they must. We know; we help them succeed.

That speaks directly to potential clients (companies with employment law matters looking for counsel), and it’s much more inviting. It says, “We can help you.”

When it comes to practice areas, don’t waste your ink sounding just like every other firm with an employment practice.

Use it to stand out from them.

Before you start writing that client alert, grab a newspaper and a cup of coffee.

If you can, get a widely read paper: The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Chicago Tribune. If not, find a paper that carries AP stories.

Read a few stories. At least, read the first few paragraphs of a few stories.

Now, here’s my good advice: when you write your alert, write like a journalist.

You’ll be glad you did.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s quote comes from John Gillies, director of practice support at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP:

Since lawyers spend a large portion of their time writing, either directly to clients or in publications of some form, clients will necessarily come to a conclusion about a lawyer’s capabilities based on his or her written work.

— Source: The Lawyers Weekly

Keep this in mind: anything you write can inform a potential client’s (or employer’s) first impression of you. Make it a good one.

Lawyers need editors for this reason: they’re authors. They write client alerts, newsletter articles, and seminar materials published by their firms, and by-lined articles published by others. Some maintain blogs.

Lawyers need editors for this reason too: they’re human. Not only are they capable of error, but they’re susceptible to an occupational hazard. Since they spend so much time writing legal matter and so little time writing promotional matter (e.g., client alerts), they tend to approach the latter just like the former.

The result is promotional material written like a statement of facts — overly formal, hardly interesting (especially when the audience includes not only corporate counselors, but those who influence them, and others of interest*), and way too wordy.

Here’s a quick example. Consider the following intro to a client alert written by an attorney without an editor:

On September 22, 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated its long awaited final rule (“Rule”) that imposes a mandatory national system for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas (“GHGs”) emissions.¹ The Rule enables EPA to collect comprehensive, economy-wide GHG emissions data that can be analyzed on both geographic
and facility-specific levels.

Compare that to this intro to a client written by an attorney with an editor:

On Monday, the EPA issued its long awaited final rule that requires nationwide monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. Under the rule, large sources of emissions, and large fuel and gas suppliers and manufacturers of vehicles and engines, will have to make annual reports to the agency.

What’s different, and why?

______
* To attract journalists looking for quotes, the intro has to satisfy a very broad audience.