Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 23:10 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 382285
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I'm not so sure it saves them money
by topcat on Fri 4th Sep 2009 01:42
in reply to "I'm not so sure it saves them money"
IKEA does sacrifice design in order to save money. Flat packing furniture limits design (and even alters it) in order to save money on transportation.
I do agree with you that it seems odd that they don't already 'own' the font that they were using previously. Also, they've had stores all across the world for awhile now and I assume they've all been using the same Futura in all those locations.
RE[2]: I'm not so sure it saves them money
by rajan r on Fri 4th Sep 2009 01:47
in reply to "RE: I'm not so sure it saves them money"






Member since:
2005-07-27
1) Their Futura (IKEA Sans) is a custom font, its very likely they have it royalty free.
2) If not, transiting to generic Futura, widely available royalty-free, is a lot more seemless than to Verdana.
3) As for internationalization, there is no reason why IKEA couldn't use a generic font (for example, SimSun in Chinese) if Futura or IKEA Sans doesn't support those scripts, while retaining IKEA Sans/Futura for scripts it supports.
4) As for print+screen synergy, I really, really don't see why they will save resources by using the same font on catalogues, billboards and their website.
5) It's the message this move sends: IKEA is, or at least, was all about affordable design. Typography is an important part of design. If they're sacrificing design in their marketing material to save, at most, a couple thousand dollars, sooner or later, we may see IKEA sacrificing design in its products to save pennies. In any case, the font, and catalogues and ads, is part and parcel of its brand. Making them uglier is hardly helpful.