8 Comments
User's avatar
Nev's avatar

Sorry I don't agree Drew. It's an inaccurate description of the situation, and I don't like the inference that your audience don't give a toss, I find that insulting. I'm sure I'm not the only one who cares about accurate communication.

Drew Heatley's avatar

In today's digital era, they're essentially used interchangeably. Font is the more instantly recognisable term, so I went with it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Nev's avatar

You say you work in branding and you don't know the difference between 'font' and 'typeface'??? Unbelievable!!

Drew Heatley's avatar

I think when writing to an audience who broadly don't give a toss about either, Nev, it's probably OK to use them as synonyms.

Jim Buttons's avatar

You'll never sing in that font!

I like it, I wonder if they will release it to commons or keep it private?

Drew Heatley's avatar

More chance Bellingham following Alvaro to the Cottage I suspect!

Terry Wildman's avatar

I confess I read that article/release only this morning and thought, all the way through it, “what a load of old bollocks” which was very quickly followed by “what difference does it make to the players, the performance, or the fans?”

Yeah, the font looks okay, but frankly, I don’t think most of us give a shit. We’d rather they spent the (I suspect not inconsiderable) money on something that improves the fans’ experience at The Cottage.

Tommy Melville's avatar

As you say Drew, 'audience' is the most revealing. Because in business and marketing parlance that makes us 'consumers', not fans. A worrying evolution. I do like the new font, for what it's worth.