yes.

yes. as a matter of fact it is good idea: type for web is more or less a question of a few fonts. everybody uses them. but if you use the same fonts for the rest of your publications, identity is lost. because everybody uses them.

soren o

I dont think it is necessarily a question of "different" so much as being "compatible" or "appropriate". So long as the combination is thoroughly thought through in terms of the messages it gives out, its range, readability, the typographic structure you intend to use and, of course, its historical contexts, it should not matter.

it would be a branding nightmare if we only used one. think of what would be the difference between a title, sub-head and body text...bolds? another bold a heavy? and an underline? - it would look like a high school essay produced in word doc.

a designer's mark should be in matching pairs of type for collateral and corp systems.

the answer is that you need to be wary of anything dogmatic. and yes, this is me saying this.

If you're using Impact you have bigger issues. All the time I be hatin' on Impact.

Thanks for all your input. I am forwarding comments and a couple of quotes I pulled from 'The Complete Typographer' (a book a found from my college days). To the big wigs who (unfortunately) as usual make the choices on final design. Amazing considering all the skills they possess in relation to design

I assume you mean 'corporate identity' as a
system and not just a 'mark.' In which case I'd
also say yes. It's a good idea unless you're
using Helvetica and Impact because you can't get
the right set of weights. (Just one lame example.)

But, in general, it seems to make little sense to make
rules about this stuff, when it's totally dependent on how
you're using it and what it's for.