Choosing Your Path to the Perfect Font Webinar Transcript

Our Director of Product Design Jamie Neely shares three strategies for finding fonts, why classifications are less useful than we think, and how an awareness of your own habits can lead to better font choices.

Watch the webinar video and view other resources.

Shelly:

Hey everybody and welcome to today's webinar, Choosing Your Path to the Perfect Font. My name's Shelly and I work here at Monotype, and I'll be your host for the next hour, broadcasting from our offices here in what is an unusually sunny Belfast, Northern Ireland. I'm pleased to see so many of you guys tuning in.

So far we're up to about 550 of you, which is great, and for those of you who've tuned in before, you know that each month we're going to be tackling a new design issue or challenge, bringing in an expert to shine a light into those areas of design and typography, where we sometimes stumble, or get slowed down, or just want to understand better. Now some of you may know Monotype by our typefaces, and others maybe use our design tools and services. And hopefully when we're finished today, you'll all think of us as the folks who helped you think a little differently about choosing type.

Now with me today is Jamie Neely, who is our Director of Product Design, and who's also based with me, here in Belfast. Do you want to say hello, Jamie, and give everyone a taste of your Belfast accent.

Jamie:

Hello everybody.

Shelly:

So, now to be honest, Jamie keeps pretty busy with design work, so he doesn't tend to do too many speaking engagements, but over the past few years you might have seen him on stage, at both Typo Berlin and The Type Director's Club. So, I've got to say I'm feeling pretty good about myself for talking him into this webinar today. Before I hand over to Jamie, I just want to reiterate that this is not a practical talk and it's not a demo. At no point in the next hour will we be revealing THE definitive way to find the perfect font. Okay? But, we will be sharing some interesting anecdotes and observations about how designers work, and the habits that probably influence the ways you find and choose type.

Okie doke, so over to you Jamie.

Jamie:

Okay, so Shelly sort of touched on this, but really this talk explores the ways that I've observed designers getting to the perfect font choice, and I don't mind telling you upfront that I believe that being aware and mindful of your own personal strategies for finding fonts will basically lead to better decisions. And before I'll show you how, just let me fill you in, and introduce myself.

In the late 1990s as a student of graphic design, I was doing what perhaps some of you were also doing at college, I was committing many crimes against taste and typography. So, you can see in this masterpiece, I didn't know how to choose fonts, so I basically just used them all.

In the following 10 years, I ran a small web design studio, and that gave me more of an opportunity to hone and refine my type selection. Towards the end of that time, around 2010, there was a perfect storm brewing, and this involved browser support for web fonts and responsive web design. That lead to our team here in Belfast developing Typecast. So, perhaps some of you guys have used this. It was sort of the first of its kind in that it was a UI for designing with and experimenting with web fonts. So it started as a side project, and then we got a little more serious, and then, in 2012, Typecast, along with our Belfast studio, was acquired by Monotype. And so, last year, around Christmas time, we passed our millionth user mark, and made Typecast free to use.

So now, in my new role at Monotype I work with what you could describe as a cross-functional team of product managers, designers and engineers on cool projects like Typecast, and also like Membership. We describe it as Membership by Monotype. And this is really where we've been experimenting with ways to surface the Monotype library as well as trying out more flexible licensing models and team collaboration features.

We also developed Skyfonts, which I'm sure some of you are familiar with. It's a technology for syncing fonts to your devices from the cloud without messing around with files. And a few months ago we released something called the Web Font Platform, which is a set of technologies and APIs that give other digital product teams a way to put great type in front of their users.

Okay, so throughout this time we carried over a reasonably healthy behavior in our product teams, and that was spending time with users of type, or our customers, who test all kinds of things with folks—prototypes, business models, and so on. And so, over the last three years I think I've spoken to hundreds of designers about how they choose and use type, and the insights that I've gathered have really helped me build up my own mental model for choosing a font. And so, it turns out that there's a lot that goes into that.

So first of all there's a discovery phase, where we get familiar with the design problem, we kind of translate that brief into the jobs we need our type to do, and we adjust our strategies to go get the right font.

Then, we audition. And this is where we really take a short list and we put that shortlist of fonts onto the stage to see which performs the best. Sometimes this means finding ways to trial or borrow type temporarily, let’s say, and other times it just means prototyping—by building web pages or printing things out.

And then, finally, there is the stage of commitment, where we make a purchase, we often download files and sometimes we have to agree guidelines for how we will use that type. And in a brand system situation we might also mandate how other people will use type. So there’s quite a lot in there. So, I’m just going to focus on the discover part for today.

So before we dive right into that, let me just explain quickly how I believe, as designers, our relationship to type is important. And really I’ll start with just what type is.

So, if you think about any font or typeface you work with on a regular basis, there will always be two ingredients there—two things that are ever present. The first is that all type has an essence. And the essence of type is simply what it is. So these are the anatomical decisions and the qualities that make this font unique from another one. This is 100% under the guidance and skill of a type designer.

And the second quality that you’ll find in a typeface is its feel. This is really the product of the essence, and this is experienced in the intuitive right brain of the reader. So you guys all know that this results in all kinds of emotional responses. And when creating a typeface, a type designer may have an intention about how it should feel, but in truth, designers like us get in the middle, and it’s heavily influenced by our role. So we can manipulate using context, things like composition, things like art direction, and even things like typesetting. So that could be used for good, and for evil, and the reason why I’m pointing this out is that I think we should acknowledge the special relationship—in being respectful to type and its designer, and doing what’s best for the reader. We should realize that’s really our job, and, basically, it’s our privilege.

So Jan Middendorp summarizes this much more eloquently than I ever could in the Type Navigator book. He says fonts are like half-products, they’re the building blocks used to make something bigger. So let’s be mindful of that.

Okay, but our relationship with type isn’t always that straightforward. So now it’s time for a little bit of audience participation. So, if you’re joining this live, you can probably see there’s a chat screen somewhere on the right side in GoToWebinar. So in a moment I’m going to show you a typeface and I want to see if you can recognize what that is and tell me the name. It’s as simple as that.

Okay? Here it comes!

What is the name of this typeface?

Shelly:

So just put your responses in that questions panel, folks. Best guesses, we will not name and shame anybody.

Alright, oh, they’re so quick! They’re so fast. Okay, so I see there’s one right, two right, three, four… close… an honest ‘don’t know’. Good job! Always best to be honest. Well, yeah, so it’s a bit of a mix Jamie.

Jamie:

What's our strike rate?

Shelly:

I would say two thirds ‘not sure’ or off, and maybe one third getting it right on the money. You want to know the first person who got it correct?

Jamie:

Yeah.

Shelly:

Okay. The first person to get it correct was Steven Oakley.

Jamie:

Steven Oakley, you win respect! Okay, the typeface is Antique Olive. So this was designed by the late Roger Excoffon in the late 60s. The typeface itself actually isn’t the point here. So I want you to think back to how you felt after I asked the question, especially to those who didn’t know the answer or didn’t feel like they could make an attempt. So, how did you feel? Did you feel excited? Did you feel frustrated or did you feel embarrassed, even? Or a mixture?

Well, I would say not to feel too bad, because I’ve asked this question a couple of times now, to a room of 200 or more designers, and often I only really get one or two hands up, and I think the reason for this is there’s a stereotype. There’s a stereotype that exists of designers in general, and that is, perhaps, that at a mere glance of a restaurant menu we’re able to tell the specific typeface, the designer’s name and the year of release. And I don’t know about you guys, but for me that’s hard. I can’t really do that. And for me, as well, choosing fonts is another one of those stereotypes. On the face of it, it should be easy, but actually it’s pretty complicated, and sometimes even daunting, and I don’t think we talk about this enough.

So whenever I think about the posters, and the book covers or book jackets, and the word marks, and the brand systems, and the apps, and the websites that I consider to be world-class, I wonder how their creators choose type in such a way that it basically feels like it’s always been there, and I couldn’t imagine it being any other way. And more so, how do these guys do that repeatedly? Well, perhaps they know all of the fonts. Okay, so nobody really knows just how much type is out there, and as the biggest marketplace for fonts, MyFonts is surely a good indicator of what we’re dealing with. So, if you could see the numbers here, I don’t think that a strategy that involves knowing all of the fonts is going to work, because getting to grips with 140,000 fonts is going to be tough.

It’s plain that the world is full of great typefaces. And that’s part of the problem. The world is full of great typefaces! And whenever I begin thinking about this choice, as well as all the other factors involved, like family, weight, character set, target devices, screen resolutions, and so on, I panic. It feels overwhelming; I get stuck in the fog. And from speaking to other designers I don’t think I’m the only one. But choice isn’t always bad.

So, legend has it that Adrian Frutiger, who designed Avenir and Frutiger, and a bunch of other classics, was once put on the spot, perhaps by a reporter, and he was asked a question:

Hey, Adrian, why do you design more typefaces? The world is already full of fonts, so how on Earth could we possibly need any more?

And he simply said: Are there ever too many wines? So I really like this response. First of all, I think it’s a great way to defuse a bit of a prickly question, and secondly, it’s a really good excuse for me to talk about wine.

So, I love wine. And I love wine as an analogy for fonts. I love its complexity. So, with even the tiniest taste you sense the pride and the passion that the winemakers put into their work. And type rewards you in the same way. It’s in that balance of essence and feel, let’s say. I like wine’s diversity—the abundance of geographies, grape varieties, and flavors that really make it so interesting. Type is like this too. So, at a glance, you’ll differentiate, let’s say, a no-nonsense European geometric font from a lively Brazilian hand script. You’ll just instinctively understand that these things come from different places. I also love how both wine and fonts become even better whenever they’re paired with something great. This is a pretty cool chart. But, there are a lot of them, so, what do we instinctively want to do when we have large numbers of things that are complex? Well, we try to create order out of the chaos.

And so, let’s take a moment to talk about type classification. In previous decades and centuries, we really needed to organize type somehow because of its physical nature. So we were literally putting bulky wood and metal type into boxes. And in order for specific typeface designs to move from one printer to the next, or one country to the next, we needed some kind of grouping system.

What you’re looking at here is an early attempt at classified letter forms and characteristics. This is by Francoise Thibaudeau in the 1920s. Perhaps more familiar to us is a more dominant ATypl-Vox classification. It’s had several iterations since the 1950s. It was even eventually adopted as a British standard. And, actually, we’ve been continually tweaking and expanding these ideas with more and more detailed models ever since. I really like this detailed poster by Steve Matteson, and there are many, many more things like this out there. So, these, and other models have made their way into design education. I’m sure a bunch of you guys are familiar with this, because they’re taught as a way to both reference and choose fonts.

I’m not sure if you guys have read this essay. It’s by professor Indra Kupferschmid, and in this piece she puts forward a couple of really interesting alternatives to the classifications that we use today. But for me, perhaps, more importantly, Indra puts classification into perspective. She explains that the bigger challenge is, perhaps, one of language rather than one of system. So, ambiguous terminology like Modern Transitional OldStyle, these kinds of phrases have really lost some relevance over time. And coming up with a shared taxonomy that works as well for a student of design as is does for a master of the trade is really a tall order. And so, I would say that we’ll continue to see these classifications for some time yet.

So classifications, I suppose, can be useful for finding fonts, but only really when you have a very specific idea of what you want, and again, I don’t know about you, but for me that’s a luxury.

And we still need ways to see through the fog.

So, towards the beginning of this talk I explained that the product team at Monotype tries to spend as much time with customers, or really, users of type, as often as possible. What we learn really falls into two buckets. So, the first you could describe as attitudes. These are the things that designers say—it’s kind of like our view of the world. And the second thing is our behaviors. These are what actually happens—the things that designers do, their routines and their habits, and that is much more observation-based.

So whenever I ask a designer, ‘You know, how do you choose type? What is your personal strategy to see through the font fog?’, the most common answer I get is ‘Classification; so I think about whether it’s a sans or a serif, and so on.’. But when we observe behavior, we see a different set of strategies; they’re much more basic, and they happen on an almost subliminal level. So, this is nothing terribly scientific, but by far the three most prevalent strategies I see for finding fonts are that designers look for safe ground, we revisit the familiar, and that we brave the new. And I want you to think about whether or not you recognize any of this in your own behavior, because I think it will help.

So, let’s talk about this safety. So, a safe strategy is really all about established growth. This is where the strongest typefaces stand proud, fonts that have stood the test of time, they’ve broken free of the crowd, and they’re very, very visible.

So, let’s paint a picture. Let’s imagine it’s day one on a design project and it’s really your first opportunity to start thinking about type. What would be the safest move you could make?

Well, perhaps, you could say that most popular or most used is a good idea. If that was the case, then you might be selling your next annual report in Arial. Okay, so maybe that’s not going to work.

What other safe strategies do we have? Well, you could make the argument for fonts that are well made, and there are lots of them. So you could choose Lexicon. And Lexicon is a typeface that many type designers would agree is exceptionally well made. It’s also $5,000 to buy the family, so you might not do that.

No, by far, the best safe strategy that I see designers use most often is to rely on type’s reputation. And so, the late Massimo Vignelli (who you may know is an Italian designer who moved to America and created some of the most iconic pieces of graphic design that we’ve had in the last half century), he got into a little bit of hot water towards the end of his career, and that was for saying this: ‘We use too many typefaces’. And he didn’t just say it once, he said it a lot. And so, I guess there was a bit of a frosty reception from designers and type designers to this, but it did give way to this concept or legend of the Vignelli 12. So these are the 12 typefaces that he used most often in his life’s body of work.

And whenever I look at these typefaces, I think something different. I think, you know, perhaps these 12 represent each a best in class for their own category, or their own use; I think that that’s perfectly viable. And, perhaps, Vignelli was trying to express that, well, actually it takes a lifetime to know a typeface, so there’s probably a limit to how many you can let in. Or perhaps there’s something else that’s going on. And there’s definitely an undercurrent of this in the safe strategy. And, I suppose, you could say that it’s embodied into this phrase (‘Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM’).

This is a phrase that was popular in software and hardware circles in the 70s, and that phrase, I wonder if it could also apply to the font world too. I’m sure that we can all agree that safe typefaces are generally very well made, but, perhaps, in choosing them, sometimes we’re hoping that their success rubs off on our own work. So they carry credibility that sometimes we’re happy to borrow. And, to be honest, that is a very sensible strategy sometimes, as long as you recognize it for what it is.

Okay, so, where do you go to find safe typefaces?

I’ve been using this article to death, for the last five years or so; this is the 100 Best Typefaces of All Time on the FontShop website. I really recommend that you check it out. It’s a very well curated, and very interesting mix of typefaces that I would describe as being squarely in the safe zone. There will be things in there that you may not have used, there will be things in there that may be a little bit of a surprise, and there will be things in there that definitely overlap with the Vignelli 12, but I recommend that you check it out.

Okay, so what about a familiar strategy? This is really all about the pathways, and the routes that are closest to us. So, if you think about it, the journeys that we make most often require the least effort, and are probably the most instinctive of all routes.

So, your familiar fonts you may just consider as your favorites, you may have had them recommended to you by colleagues or friends, and they may become familiar to you just because you’ve paid for them. And because you shelled out, you want to get your money’s worth, so you use them a lot.

Sometimes these fonts come to us. So I bet that the fonts that I used in this masterpiece existed on my dad’s PC whenever I designed it. Fonts come to us embedded in our documents, they’re on our devices, they’re in our shared drives at work, and so on. But, if you’re curious, there’s one place that you can look really quickly, and you’ll definitely get a scent of your familiar fonts, and that’s at the top of your font menu. Because I bet that whatever is here has been used by you in the last day, two days, week, and so on, and you could describe as being familiar with them. They come back time and time again, and maybe you don’t have a very clear reason for why that is.

They might tell you something about your type DNA as well. Fonts can stay with us for a long time. And our attachment, I believe, is heavily influenced by utility.

So I’ve noticed a pattern, when other designers describe ‘utility of a web font’ or specifically a font-family, they talk about the ins and outs and the features, and they talk in terms of weights, and flexibility, and so on.

So I’ll give you an example. So Din Next is a typeface I have used many times, and it’s definitely familiar to me. So, if we break that down, this is a family that’s made up of seven main styles, each with italic variations, so that’s 14 fonts altogether. And when you look at the gradation from thin to thick, the picture is healthy. It’s one of a very complete family. And perhaps, for that reason, I’ve used it often.

So moving from top to bottom here, you could say that there are some functional ranges that we could describe. The first of those are the light weights. So, speaking to designers, they generally describe light weights as performing best in high resolution environments, like print and smartphones, or where there is space available—they can, I guess, express themselves or make a statement in a heading or a pull quote.

Next we have regular, which are sometimes described as normal, book, or 400, say in CSS.And I guess this range can be said to have a function all of its own, and that is simply to be legible in blocks of running text like paragraphs, columns, and foot notes down to sizes as small as 4px. And the medium is interesting. This is sometimes described as SemiBold, and I think this is a grade that’s become even more useful now that we’re using many more typefaces on screen and on the web. Perhaps because they’re just slightly thicker than a normal weight, Mediums carry enough confidence and clarity that they can be used in UI elements like navigation, buttons, and so on, and they kind of stand up on their own in little splashes and drops. You’ll also find that Mediums look great for, say, small titles that are uppercase with a smidgen on letter spacing.

And then, Bold and everything above—when you have these, especially all the way up to the Blacks in your family, you have a lot to play with, because these can act as an anchor, let’s say, to help balance out the contrast in the overall color of the text, as well as to hit home the personality of your typeface selection, and its content.

And Din Next has some great stuff up there. It’s also one of those typefaces that I would describe as super-featured because it’s part of a super-family. So you may have heard this term before, but Din Next comes with a slab, a rounded, and a condensed series. You could think about them as sisters, brothers and cousins if you like, but for me, these are things that just pair really nicely together. So, with the addition of, you can see the slab here, it just gives this piece a slightly different character and doesn’t move too far from the original family.

And so, when we talk about utility here, I haven’t even dived into things like support for languages, and open type features, the character sets, and so on. This is really what I mean by saying that our familiar typefaces are typefaces that we find flexible, we find useful, and we keep coming back to them because we know we can get a lot of value at the family level. And, I suppose, in speaking to designers, they don’t necessarily talk at the detail level about that stuff. They just say that through trial and error they get familiar with a font, and the more successes they have, the stickier it becomes, kind of like an unconscious attachment.

Okay, and so let’s talk about the new. This is definitively the most exciting and diverse strategy. If you think about it, fonts of all variety spring up on a daily basis. And it’s tough being a new typeface, because they’re really all fighting for survival, you know, down there, on the forest floor, hoping for the right balance of shelter, nourishment, exposure etc. And they’re initially hard to see, so we have to go hunting for them.

And, I think, for designers, that’s really part of the appeal. We sort of get an internal satisfaction, or a feel good factor that you could say is associated with finding an orchid down amongst the weeds; it’s maybe payoff for spending a lot of time hunting. Sometimes we’re internally satisfied just because a new font is a change, so you’re breaking away from the safe and the familiar fonts that you’re already used to. And sometimes it’s just because it’s a stretch, and trying something new makes us uncomfortable; that’s very good for our creative development, and so on. But, I think, whether we admit it or not, we definitely respond well to the external attention that comes with being the first to use a new typeface in work that is notable or remarkable. To get there, some designers describe to me having a secret list. This is kind of like having a secret, special group of typefaces that have been squirreled away in your head. Chances are that a lot of these have been fairly new releases, and they have a short stay. There’s a limited number of hotel rooms in our brain.

And so, for me, at the moment, this week anyway, I’m thinking, well, I like this typeface, Kairos—this is by Monotype. I really like it’s wood type origins. I really like that it feels contemporary, and octagonal, and cool, and a bit spikey. And I want to use it before the rest of you guys.

Think about this! ‘Josef K’, by Juliasys, who is a senior designer at Edenspiekermann, in Berlin. This is her second typeface based on the handwriting of Frantz Kaffka, and actually I just think that’s a fun, interesting piece of design research. There’s probably a great story there, and it’s a great typeface, so I definitely want to use that, partially because it’s new. It’s exciting.

And Inka by Samuel Carnoky, I think, from Slovakia; there’s tons of utility in this typeface. Whenever you dig into it, there’s a broad range of optical sizes, and I’m squirreling it away for things like books and an editorial feel, and so on.

But the thing with these typefaces is that, as I discover newer fonts out there, they may fall further down my list. And this is where a note of caution appears. So, new fonts suffer from the same ironic weakness as popular culture itself, in that they suffer from saturation.

As designers, we’re really, really familiar with trends, a high turnover of facial movements is partially what’s responsible of keeping our profession in demand. I’s what keeps us hungry, and creatively satisfied. And at the same time, I think it can be summed up wonderfully in this cynical statement from John Naisbitt that’s on screen (Trends, like horses, are easier to ride in the direction they are going).

Another word of caution, and because it’s been at least 10 minutes since I last mentioned wine, here’s something that you don’t always hear: very old wine is not always very nice.

And so, this is contrary and not that widely known, perhaps, because very old wine is very expensive. It’s not expensive because it’s old—there are a lot of old things in the world. Itt’s expensive because it’s scarce. And scarcity creates a value, or, at least, a perception of value. And this becomes even more exaggerated when scarcity meets the new, because, if you think about it, you can only be new once, and then you’re forever old. So if you think about the flurry of activity in a new Apple product, for instance, there’s sort of a golden period in which you can be both new and scarce.

The conditions needed for creating notable, or remarkable work in your own portfolio, you can describe as being like this trifecta of beauty, freshness, and scarcity. As designers, we really all want a piece of this, and that, I think, is why the new is so exciting. And actually it’s hard to quantify, it’s hard to describe, it’s not that logical, but the new is a great strategy.

So, where do you go to find the new?

As I’m sure a lot of you guys are already familiar with MyFonts’ Hot New Fonts section. And so, this is great, because on a daily basis, typefaces are really jostling for position here. It’s probably the number one place that a lot of designers would go to. And so, that’s good, and at the same time, it’s also where everyone else goes. Sometimes, you want a different influence.

On a slightly slower release cycle, maybe once or twice a week, if I were you, I would check out the blog posts on Typecache’s Font News. And we’ll link all these up for you.

These guys do a really good job of curating new releases, and especially when a new release overlaps with some kind of introductory offer. They’ve a lot of taste, and good sense, so I recommend bookmarking that one.

And then, I’m sure some of you are familiar with Typographica’s Favorite Typefaces of the previous calendar year. I think what’s really interesting about this is how popular these typefaces seem to become in the following 12 months, since this article’s published. I actually really enjoy seeing that, because I think it speaks to the job of curating. So each of these typefaces is exceptional in its essence, and feel, and so on. So this is something that I recommend you keep returning to on a monthly basis, let’s say, for fresh inspiration. You just never know.

And you may be surprised to see some printed matter as a source, that I would cite as being new, but I’d like to just sort of shine a light on the Year Book of Type, Volume 1, because since 2013, when this was released, this is one of, let’s say, only three books, that sits next to my computer, and that I feel like I can go to at any time, and I’ll always see something a little bit new. You will really like this book if you like type. You should buy it now, because it’s almost out of print, and I think Volume 2 is up for pre-order really soon.

Okay, so, let’s recap a little bit here.

So, I believe that as designers, or visual designers, we should be conscious of our relationship with type, and its responsibility to its creators. And if you need it, think about using just those simple building block, essence and feel, as a way to describe type to clients and friends.

If you want to go a little deeper, I always think it’s good to have some reference material, so sitting next to your computer, you could have this great little manual, called Type Matters, by Jim Williams. If you want to dig even deeper than that, you can do no better than The Geometry of Type, by Stephen Coles. Word of warning, this is also known as the Anatomy of Type in some geographies. But either way, Stephen does an exceptional job of drilling into 100 really great typefaces and explaining what makes them different down at the anatomical level—what makes them great.

If you’re interested in feel, and especially if you have a tendency towards psychological reasoning for certain things in design (let’s say, if you work in art direction, for instance), you should check out The Type Taster, by Sarah Hyndman. This is a really fun book. It’s underpinned by some really good and smart observations, and would give you some interesting ways to think about type that again will help you describe why one face is better than another, and kind of give you a map or a route for finding your way through the emotional connotations of your type choices.

Okay, and just when we were discussing classification, I do want you to think about whether or not it is actually useful to you, or if type classification is really just informative. Personally, I find it a bit of a blunt tool for finding type, but it may work a little better for you.

And, you know, to talk about wine again, when I visit my local supermarket and I want a bottle of wine, I don’t read a wall chart on the way in. I simply go for something that’s safe, something that’s familiar, or something that’s new, or preferably on offer.

And so, for a safe strategy, I really talked about the quality and reputation that can be temporarily borrowed from others.

For familiar strategy, I suggested that the respect is earned through your own personal experience with the typeface, and it can stick with you for a long time.

For a new strategy, I talked about throwing caution to the wind, and using scarcity as a creative tool for producing remarkable work.

And, I think, you’re probably wondering ‘well, which strategy is best?’, and there is none. So there may be more strategies, you may have a whole bunch of other strategies. The point that I want to try to get across here is to be aware, because mindfulness leads to consciousness, and consciousness leads to deliberate choices, which will help you be more sure and more articulate about why your choice is right. And it will also help you see what’s not working more quickly.

We may have all been in the situation where we become tangled up or attached to the idea of a great typeface, but we’re considering it for the wrong strategy. And there’s also a lens of reality we need to consider.

So, most of us working in a commercial environment will know that risk, time and kudos, these are always in competition. These are what we’re battling with on a day to day basis. And knowing your strategies, in theory, should make you more nimble when you do have to make trade-offs.

So, perhaps the best thing of all is that your strategies are only going to get better with age, and your pallet will increase in accuracy and adventurousness, with each sip you take.

So there’s a little bit of wine and cheese to finish this off. Thanks very much.

Shelly:

Thank you, Jamie, for taking the time to be with us today. And that’s all. Hopefully we’ll see you guys on the 13th. Have a great afternoon or evening, wherever you are, and hopefully we’ll see you soon!

Jamie:

Thanks guys.