Is Hand Addressing Better Than Handwriting Fonts?

By | April 9, 2013

I often see online discussions about the virtues of hand addressing over using traditional addressing, and when this happens, my thought is, “Well, of course!” Hand addressing stands out from the same old, same old addressing you see in the mailbox every day.

But then, so does a handwriting font. You may not mistake it for real handwriting, but it’s still different enough to grab someone’s attention. Even if the recipient’s response is, “Oh, look! Another handwriting font trying to fool me into thinking this is real handwriting,” it still gets them to look for that extra second or half-second that can make the difference.

So when I see these discussions, I remain mystified by the fact that the discussion always seems to revolve around the same old thing. To me, the more relevant question is, has anyone bothered to do a split test to see whether there is a difference between true handwriting and handwriting fonts?  Is anyone asking that question?

Has anyone out there done a split test on real handwriting vs. handwriting fonts? What was the result?

Share this post


3 thoughts on “Is Hand Addressing Better Than Handwriting Fonts?

  1. Joe Kern

    Wow, great post Heidi. I have often wondered the same thing. Does it make sense to use handwriting (my handwriting is horrible) or a font that looks like handwriting. I know that when I get either, it does stand out. Isn’t that what makes the direct mail piece effective? I would be interested to know if anyone has done a test as well.

  2. Val DiGiacinto

    I’ve not created a split test but my own reaction is the same as Joe.
    I always create 3 piles of mail:
    1. I know it and have to open (bills, invoices, continuing or known correspondence, etc.)
    2. Junk mail
    3. I’m not sure so I will open to review

    Pile 3 would definitely include hand written address.

    I’ve discussed with many business and personal associates and almost everyone agrees.


Comments are closed.