Did it?
Did it?
But eventually digital became good enough to be largely indistinguishable to the unprofessional eye, while also being 10x cheaper.
Point being: the print shops may have misinterpreted "customers want professional-looking results" as "customers want handmade kerning on offset plates". The specific technique wasn't really relevant, even though it seemed that way to the ingrained pros. (There's perhaps a lesson there to today's web developers who spend their time arguing about frameworks, languages and flat design icons rather than customer-oriented results.)
My belief has always been that all design work should be measured and have to withstand the "does it actually provide value" test, since otherwise, how do you know one design is better than another?
I'm going to say that yes, 100%, it provides value by creating a more appealing display. Frankly, it's embarrassing to have your brand displayed without the typography handled properly. If you don't see the difference then maybe you should do yourself a favour and not delve into the art of type because there is no turning back once you start noticing the bad stuff.
Our marketing department swore by bad design. Not just simple, accessible. Intentionally bad. They believed it grabbed more attention, and that their customers felt safe/found them more trustworthy.
When we tried out more polished marketing we had measurably fewer responses.
Not the same thing.
I would be interested in a simulation based on big data or whatever, but I am passionate about typography as art.