Set in Style

Yesterday,  we examined this comp (below) in which copy (foreground) was knocked out of a photo (background).

Obviously, the comp’s a dud: thin white type on a light yellow background is hard to read, and that’s not a very good way to market professional services (or much of anything). Better yet, it’s a terrible way to say what you do.

Compare that to this comp from the same site:

Much easier to read, is it not?

Before we get into it, let me ask you this — Did you look at some TV commercials like I said you should?

You really need to.

If you haven’t, then before you read any further, look at some commercials. Look for type on a real image, static or moving. Go do it now, before you read any further.

(more…)

First, study this image with a snippet of copy knocked out of it; it appears at the home page of a law firm’s web site.

If you have a recording of a Super Bowl broadcast, gt get it and cue it to the start of halftime.

If not, turn on your VCR or DVD and record some commercial TV. Then start a big pot of coffee.

Once the coffee’s brewed, grab a cup and stop recording.

Have a seat and browse what you recorded. Look for images with knock-outs (in which the type is lighter than the image) or overprints (where the type is darker than the image).

Compare the images in which the type is very easy to read with those in which it’s not so easy to read.

If you can, describe the differences between them.

Then tune in tomorrow, and we’ll start looking at how to combine type with images so the type not only looks good, but is easy to read.

Note: this our last in the series on setting logotype — how to set your firm’s logotype so it displays properly on line, on all devices under all conditions. But don’t fret. We’ve got another series coming up on setting display type on line.

______
In our last installment on setting logotype, (Setting Logotype — Part II), we examined why logotypes are usually stored as graphics, rather than text.

Now, let’s see how popular viewers (like web browsers) treat graphics and text differently.

Consider the two words below. The one on the left is text; the one on the right is a graphic (of the one on the left).

One

Zoom way in one this page. As you do, note how the text continues to have smooth edges, but the graphic starts to have rough and fuzzy edges.

Zoom way out of this page. As you do, you can notice the graphic takes on a better appearance than the text; i.e., it has smoother edges than the text.

And the point of all this zooming in and out?

It’s just so you can appreciate my secret recipe for setting good looking logotype, and here it is:

Set your logotype four times larger than it will appear on-screen, and then have the browser shrink it down to size.

That way, it will look it’s best on the greatest number of devices (desktops, laptops, BlackBerries, iPods, iPads, and who knows what’s next) under the greatest range of conditions.

That’s it.

______
Oh . . . one more thing — consider large, well known companies, outfits like Coke and Apple and Ford. Look at examples of their logos and logotypes, which appear in many more places than those of law firms. Notice the consistency, and the quality wherever they appear.

There’s a reason for that — big, successful companies really care about how they appear, and for good reason.

If you want to be set in style, your logotype must appear professional. You should be sure it is, especially if you want to seem as one who takes pride in your work.

______
Now . . . that’s it! (Unless someone asks “Which graphics format do you use to store the logotype? GIF? PNG? JPEG?”)

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, and we’ll get right to it.

Previously, we saw this lousy looking logotype from Venable:

Now we’re going to create a good looking version of Venable’s logotype:

In the process, we’ll discover why we can’t store logotypes as text (yet).

________
Let’s get started.

To begin, Venable’s logotype is set in Times Roman, in a text style known as caps and small caps.

So, we start by setting the logotype that way:
.

VENABLE

Next, we stretch the type vertically by 50%:

Then, we adjust the spacing between the characters:

Finally, we add the trademark symbol and the LLP:

So, there’s our logotype set to spec.

Why not use the logotype as set. 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 all the things we did to set the logotype as text. (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.

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’s got fuzzy type.”

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

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

But when your copy’s set in style, that doesn’t happen.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

Some things can be measured, and some can’t. When it comes to law firm marketing activities and their costs, ROI can be measured in some cases, but not in others.

At least, that’s my opinion of it.

Years ago, when I was writing direct mail pieces, I measured response, and it made sense: there was a direct correlation between the quantity and the quality of what I mailed, and how many responded.

But now I’m pitching services, and there’s no practical way to measure the value I add in most of what I do. And that makes my job (of selling services, not of providing them) more difficult.

I can’t tell a firm that if I get $15,000 to revise the copy for the firm’s web site, then the firm can expect $150,000 in new business in a year. There is a correlation (at least, that’s what I believe) between that copy and the firm’s business, and it’s direct, but its coefficient is indeterminate. That, plus it’s just part of a much larger effort.

____________
Still, we may as well take certain measurements of progress, and the very end of the year is as good a time as any.

Here’s what you do: review the activity logs for your firm’s web site. Does the site get more traffic now than last year? Less?

Review the site’s News or Events section. Does the next upcoming event occur three months ago? Is the latest news nearly a year old?

Then look at the site’s error logs. Has the site been generating hundreds of errors a day, or just a few?

And ask Whois for the site’s stats:

1. Enter the URL for the site in the Whois Lookup field, and hit return.
2. When the Whois Record appears, click the Site Profile tab.
3. Scroll down to see the site’s Alexa rank.
4. Note the number of visitors the site gets per month.
5. Compare that to some other sites, like the sites of other law firms.
6. Click the Complete Rank number (#488,216 in the image below), and look at the site’s rank over time.

____________
Now, if you’re selling legal services and you want prospective clients to notice, then the more popular your site is, the better off you are.

And the better the site (including the copy, the graphics, the usability, and so many other aspects of it), the more popular it will become.

I can’t put a number on it, but I’m sure there’s a correlation.

Let’s say you’re a law firm. You have a web site and it has lots of links — hundreds of them — to things your firm has published: client alerts, newsletters, bylined articles, etc.

A key reason you publish these things (and provide links to them) is so people (esp. prospective clients) can learn about your attorneys: they can read their bios and what they’ve written.

Now, it’s time for a change. Either you’re redesigning the site, or revising it, or the IT department is changing things in such a way that the links to all these publications is going to change.

There’s a problem: a sizeable one at that. You see, other web sites contain some of those links too, which is good for you: it raises your visibility.

Suppose the National Law Journal (or the Wall Street Journal) mentions (and links to) something you published. Good.

Until the change comes along, that is. Then all the links to everything you’ve published stop working. When a reader clicks a link to your article (mentioned in either Journal, or any link to any of  your articles mentioned anywhere), a page-not-found error is displayed.

So far as readers can tell, the article no longer exists. And that does you no good at all.

This happens at large law firms all the time. All the links to all the firm’s publications get changed for a web site redesign or some IT project, and no one at the firm does a thing about it. The authors of those articles don’t even notice it.

What a waste.

Here’s what I find surprising — a large law firm claims excellence in all it does, but there’s a typo, or a misspelling, or a grammatical or logical error in the first line of type on the home page of the firm’s Web site. And it stays there for quite some time, as if no one at the firm looks at the home page, or cares much about errors.

Oh well. Perhaps most corporate counselors who hire large law firms don’t really care if those firms are sincere about their commitment to excellence.

Perhaps I’m more fussy than most, but I won’t hire a lawyer who can’t write well (esp. one who doesn’t even try) to write a license agreement or a contract. No way!

And I’m not alone. There must be corporate counselors out there who are just as fussy as I. There must be those who are not willing to spend $600 per man-hour for attorneys who makes too many obvious errors.

If you want to impress fussy corporate counselors, you need to dot all your eyes and cross all your teas, or they’ll notice, and that’s because they look for small details, the way drill instructors do.

“Does this firm really pay attention to detail? If it does, its Web site won’t say it doesn’t.”
____________
If you are sincere in your commitment to excellence, then, in addition to the regular attention you pay to detail day in, day out, you’ll find an annual review of your firm’s publishing effort’s central nervous system — your firm’s Web site — worthwhile.

Here’s what I recommend. Each year, check the following:

1. Activity and Error Reports — These reports help you see what visitors are looking at, and what they’re not; they also show what visitors are trying to see, but can’t.
2. Content of Top-level Pages — If it’s been a year since anyone at the firm has read this material, it’s time to review it again, especially for timeliness.
3. Date-sensitive Content — Does the site say your next event happened six months ago? To visitors, that says you’re not on top of things.
4. The Site’s Popularity — Does the site have a better Alexa ranking than last year?
5. The Site’s Functionality — How does the site look on a BlackBerry or iPhone?

This article discusses my recommendations in greater detail.

I’m reviewing the activity log for Set in Style.

I’m surprised to find that a two-year-old post got lots of hits yesterday. I wonder why.

I review the old post, which is about not wasting readers’ time — it’s good advice for attorneys who tend to use far more words than necessary.

The old post contains this link to a client alert published by O’Melveny & Myers LLP, but the link is outdated and no longer works. Click it, and you’re presented with this fruitless message:

The page you requested was not found. Please check the URL path and try again.

Well, you can check the URL all day if you like, but it won’t help you find what you want.

The problem?

The firm revised its Web site last year, but a piece of engineering was left undone.

(more…)