 |
|
|
|||||
Last week, two fonts became the unlikely stars of a political messaging firestorm, after the Trump administration replaced Calibri as its official diplomatic font in favor of Times New Roman, claiming that an initial shift to Calibri in 2023 was part of former President Bidens DEIA agenda. The implication was clear: Calibri was framed as a liberal, Democratic font; while Times New Roman took its place as the Trump administrations more conservative choice. Now, a new study is revealing the major flaw in this logic: font is certainly a political tool, but its not inherently partisan. The study, titled Youre Just Not My Type: How Attitudes Towards Fonts Explain Affective Polarization, examines how affective polarizationor the tendency to associate positive feelings with ones political ingroup, and negative feelings with outgroupsimpacts peoples reception of different fonts. The study showed that, across multiple kinds of fonts, respondents were more likely to respond favorably to a font if they were told that it was associated with their own partisan and ideological beliefs. As the studys conclusion explains, “People will ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ the typeface in a political logo based on their political views of the candidate it represents. According to the researchers behind the study, Katherine Haenschen, Shannon Zenner, and Jessica R. Collier, this finding demonstrates that campaign designers shouldnt feel constrained to only using certain kinds of fonts in their workbecause, at the end of the day, constituents vote for candidates, not fonts. Emotion leads to analytical inconsistency This new study adds another layer of nuance to several years worth of research on how fonts are perceived in a political context. In 2019, an initial study coauthored by Haenschen found that individuals do make some instinctive ideological distinctions between typefaces. Serifs, like Times New Roman or Garamond, were rated by study participants as more conservative; while sans serifs such as Helvetica or Arial were rated as more liberal. But that perception isn’t the same as reality. Based on 2020 data from the Center for American Politics and Design, both Democrats and Republicans are more likely to use sans serif fonts, with 68% of Democratic candidates and 62% of Republican candidates using sans serifs that year, respectively. Haenschen, Zenner, and Colliers research offers more context on why that might be the case. Across three survey experiments, the researchers tested the relationship between political identity and emotional reactions to typefaces. They found that, when it comes to fonts in politics, emotions matter more than stylistic preference. In one condition, participants were shown a font along with a brief description framing it as ideologically associatedlike, for example, Time magazine rates Garamond as the most conservative font. In another, participants were shown a typeface with a partisan description (which refers to party affiliation), like, Time magazine rates Century Gothic as the most Democratic font. They were then asked to rate how much they liked the font. In both the ideological and partisan cases, respondents’ favorability ratings were noticeably impacted by their own political views. And the more partisan a respondent was, the more these descriptors impacted their choices. If you tell me, This font is liked by conservatives, and I’m a conservative, then that makes me like it even more, Zenner says. If you tell me that liberals like this typeface, and I’m not a liberal, then I tend to dislike that typefaceor it will affect how much I like it. While some respondents resisted these impacts, she says, most peoples political affiliation dominated their responses more than their actual taste. We saw that the political grouping you have can really overrun any kind of taste. But it’s good news for designers, actually For campaign designers, these results may actually be good news. Zenner says designers shouldnt worry about constraining their font choices based on ideological associations, because, ultimately, voters will associate their positive (or negative) feelings about a candidate with the font itself. Designers need to keep in mind that they still have the ability to make choices about typefaces, Zenner says. They shouldnt say, I can only pick a sans serif typeface if we have a liberal candidate, or I can only pick a serif if we have a conservative candidate, because, no matter what, the partisanship of the people who are voting swamps all these taste-level things. For some candidates, she adds, this research also opens the door to convey a more nuanced platform through design. For example, a Republican candidate campaigning in a swing state might opt for a sans serif font more traditionally perceived liberal to communicate a more forward-thinking, modern, or progressive stance, without actually alienating their voters. Affective polarization can also help explain how a font can so easily become a political flashpoint, as in the case of the Trump administrations nixing of Calibri in favor of Times New Roman. As soon as these typefaces became a topic of political discussion, Zenner says, the way people responded to them became inherently tied to their own political affiliations. Its no longer about how the font looks, or works, or whether anyone actually likes itits all about how its been politically labeled. People will be like, I only want stuff that looks like Times New Roman because I associate with MAGA and Trump, and therefore I’m going to back that up, Zenner says. Or the opposite will be like, Im definitely going to use Calibri in everything and I am going to make a statement by doing that, and I don’t know if I even care for it or if I like it or notit’ll just be the politics of it. I think it’s an example of where, yes, these differences in taste exist, but they’re very much driven by culture.
Category:
E-Commerce
Chipotle is officially in its Ozempic era. Today, the brand is launching an all-new High Protein Menu in the U.S. and Canada, which it describes as a clean menu for the protein movement. The menu comes with six items, including proteinmaxxed burritos and bowls and a new salad option. The real stand-out, though, is what Chipotle is billing as its “first-ever snack,” but is really just a tiny cup of chicken. The High Protein Cup is a topping-less, four-ounce serving of adobo-seasoned chicken that you could easily hold in the palm of your handand it’s a perfect, if somewhat depressing, symbol of the GLP-1 age. For Chipotle, the new menu means embracing two emerging trends in the food and beverage space: bringing off-menu, TikTok-inspired hacks into its official product offerings, and offering more nutritionally optimized (and visually unappealing) options as GLP-1 weight loss drugs begin to transform American consumers eating habits. [Photos: Chipotle] Menu hacks go mainstream Over the past few months, popular chains have increasingly been turning to platforms like TikTok and Instagram Reels to see exactly how their fans are engaging with menusand bringing those popular online hacks into the real world. Starbucks ignited the trend in July by launching a secret menu in its app that built off of the digital-driven consumer behavior of drink customization. That same month, Taco Bell tried something similar by rolling out a feature called Fan Style, which let users build their own menu items and share them on socials. In a press release, Chipotle explicitly cited a viral TikTok of a fan ordering a side of chicken for an extra protein boost as one of the inspirations behind its new High Protein Menu. “On social media, guests have been ‘hacking’ their orders by getting a side of protein as a standalone snack,” says Chris Brandt, Chipotle’s chief brand officer. “Were formalizing that behavior.” @maditev #chipotlehacks #chipotle its just so satisfying original sound – Madi Teeuws Chipotle’s Ozempic era Chipotle’s new menu appears to be targeting two different prospective customers: Those who are embracing the broader high protein trend, and those who are seeking low calorie, nutrient-dense options out of necessity driven by GLP-1s. The difference between these two categories is stark. Protein in its own right is currently having a moment across the fitness and nutrition worlds, and that’s snowballed into the macronutrient finding its way into everything from Cheerios to Starbucks drinks and Propel electrolytes. New protein-focused items on Chipotle’s menu include a double high protein bowl and burrito, both filled with chicken, beans, and other toppings, and both clocking in at around 80g of protein for 800 calories. But what really stands out about the Chipotle High Protein Menu are its options geared toward customers on GLP-1sa group that would otherwise be left behind by Chipotle’s traditional, high-calorie burritos. These include a High Protein-High Fiber Bowl and High Protein-Low Calorie salad, both explicitly labeled “GLP-1 friendly”; an Adobo Chicken Taco (which is a singular taco with 190 calories); and the aforementioned four-ounce chicken cup. “We designed GLP-1-friendly builds to generally align with widely shared guidance: approximately 300 to 550 calories, 20 to 40 grams of protein, and 6 to 12 grams of fiber,” says Brandt. “Our goal is to make it simple to find options that fit those ranges.” The logic behind the tiny chicken cup is clear: GLP-1 users need small, low-calorie, protein packed portions, because their brain’s hunger signals have been altered to feel fuller faster. But the unfortunate side effect of this effort is that, compared to Chipotle’s iconic chunky burritos and overstuffed bowls, its Ozempic-optimized chicken snack looks more like plain, sad fuel to be dutifully digested than a meal to look forward to. Chipotle is hardly the first brand to rethink its menus for the GLP-1 era, and it wont be the last. The brands embrace of new menu items geared toward smaller appetites signals that, as weight loss medications continue to fly off pharmacy shelves, GLP-1-centric menus may become the norm for other fast casual spots. We just hope they’ll add a few toppings to their offerings.
Category:
E-Commerce
There’s no shortage of apocalyptic headlines about the future of work in the era of artificial intelligence. For workers, the technology has inflicted anxiety and uncertainty, provoking questions of when, how many, and which kinds of workers will be replaced. Companies have been propelled into a FOMO fury to integrate AI expediently or miss out on efficiency, cost savings, and competitive advantage. The disruption is inevitable, but from where I sit at the nexus of employee mental health and technology, we’re asking the wrong questions. Enhancing, not replacing, humans As CEO of Calm, I have spent the past year visiting with executives and their teams across the country to understand how they are faring amid the uncertainty. No matter their sector or location, employers and employees alike have shared their resounding commitment to a future where human talent will still lead, where work will still be human-powered. There’s no doubt that the future will be different and that workforces will be impacted. The how, who and when of it all is likely to remain uncertain for some time. AI is already transforming how we workbut it isn’t replacing the human element of work. It’s enhancing it. The future of work won’t be man versus machine; it will be man and machine. I see this every day in our work and in conversations with others navigating this transition. An experiment One recent experiment reinforced this truth. Partnering with a major chip company, our team explored whether AI visual-language models could help people recognize and reflect on their own emotions like happiness, sadness, or fearso that they might use them to overcome a barrier many face in seeking mental health support: putting their feelings into words. The aim wasn’t to use machines to tell someone how they feel, but to use technology to help support emotional self-awareness that could lead to better descriptions of their emotional experience and other important outcomes, ultimately enhancing their journey with mental health support. While the AI model achieved 80% accuracy in mapping facial expressions to core emotions, which is closing the gap on the level of accuracy needed to deploy the tool for use, it was clear that achieving the level of accuracy needed could only be achieved with human input to label the data. In short, AI gave us scale to gather and get close to helpful analysis, but human input gave that data the accuracy and meaning we needed to get to a use case. This isn’t just true for mental health technology. It’s the blueprint for the future of work across every industry. Technology supports it, but humans lead it. The organizations that will succeed won’t be the ones deploying technology in isolation. They’ll be the ones that invest as deeply in human capacity as they do in data and algorithmsprioritizing mental-health support infrastructure, designing resilient cultures, and creating workplaces where people and machines complement one another. And that requires a specific kind of leadership: leaders who ask how employees see themselves integrating AI to supercharge their work, not replace itand who actively encourage their teams to engage with these tools in ways that feel empowering and additive. Leaders who listen to what their teams need now to be ready for the AI future. Leaders who model the human capabilities no algorithm can replicate: creativity, judgment, empathy, and emotional intelligence. Overwhelmed But here’s the problem: the very people we need to guide us through this transition are struggling to stay afloat themselves. Calm Health’s latest survey of more than 250 U.S.-based C-suite executives revealed a striking paradox. While nearly nine in ten rate their mental and emotional health as “good,” nearly half say they feel overwhelmed; one in four report anxiety or depression tied to their role. Sleep disruption (41%), exhaustion (34%), and an inability to be mentally present (40%) are rampant. Many leaders say they’ve considered stepping down or changing careers. This isn’t just about the general difficulty of leadership. This crisis is happening as leaders navigate one of the most disruptive technological transformations in history. They’re making critical decisions about AI integration, workforce transformation, and organizational changewhile burned out, anxious, and unable to be mentally present. They’re being asked to model emotional intelligence and human-centered thinking while running on empty. Leaders who are sleep-deprived and overwhelmed cannot do the thoughtful, human-centered work that AI integration demands. They can’t ask the right questions about preserving creativity and empathy in their organizations. They can’t build psychologically safe environments where employees feel secure enough to experiment with new tools. They can’t listen deeply to their teams’ needs or properly mentor the next generation of leaders. And they certainly can’t inspire and sustain organizations through profound uncertainty. The wrong questions This leads me to believe that were asking the wrong questions when debating AI and the future of work. We should not be asking which sectors will be transformed and how fast. We know that it will be all sectors, and transformation is already happening. We should be asking questions about how we are supporting our leaders and employees through this transition. How are we fostering a shared vision and sense of connection? How are we minimizing exhaustion, burnout and anxiety? Eighty-four percent of executives believe that mental health directly impacts their company’s bottom line.Research shows that when workplaces invest in well-being, employees are three times more likely to be engaged, far less likely to burn out, and significantly more loyal to their employer. Burnout alone drives $200300 billion in lost productivity and turnover each year, while companies that invest in mental-health care see returns of up to 4:1 through lower absenteeism, better performance, and improved retention. At Calm Health, we see this firsthand. When employees engage with our offerings, 77% complete a mental-health screening, 39% enroll in a clinical program, and 37% report improved well-being after a single session. The benefits dont just improve individual livesthey lift culture, performance, and the organization as a whole. And that begins atthe top. None of that is possible when leaders themselves are depleted. Contrary to dystopian headlines, most leaders already understand the human + AI future. Just 13% fear AI will replace human workers. Nearly 60% see AI and human talent as complementary. Thirty-one percent believe AI will free people to focus on higher-value work; another 25% believe it enhances human capabilities rather than replaces them. And almost 80% describe the human brain as the “original data center.” These aren’t comfort statements. They’re strategic imperatives. The leaders who hold this vision are right. But vision without capacity is just aspiration. To actually build organizations where humans and AI complement one another, leaders need to be mentally and emotionally equipped to do that work. Well-being in the workplace isn’t just nice to haveit is the infrastructure that enables performance, especially in the era of AI. Technology may speed and scale work, but it doesn’t relieve the need for emotional presence or psychological safety. AI will reshape nearly every job, industry, and business model. The question isn’t whether humans will still be needed. They will. The question is whether we’ll prioritize investment in the mental health of that original data center and AI at the same pace. Human capacityespecially leadership capacityis required to navigate our future wisely. We need to support the leaders and the next generation of management to guide us there. That work begins with ensuring todays leaders not only have access to transformational AI tools, but also mental health resources that support their higher-value work, so they can actually show upmentally present, emotionally resilient, and genuinely human.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||