Judson Collier

NOTE: In this article, I pose many questions to both TypeKit and to foundries. I’m not exactly suggesting these things will happen, but they are in the realm of possibility and should be answered. I’m a skeptic at best, and I only criticize it because I want web fonts to succeed.

As of late, the hot issue is fonts on the web, with font-face. To keep it simple, Font-Face allows us to upload fonts on our server so any font can be used, rather than just the standard set.  That said, the fonts are unprotected, so everyones in a tizzy on how to fix that (which is fine; i’d rather not deal with it, but I don’t have much of a choice).

So, fast forward a few years later, Jeffery Veen creates TypeKit: a system that masks the location of your font so we can now use font-face. Sweet.  The Catch? Annual fees, limited by the participation of font foundries.

In reality, although I totally dig the concept of TypeKit, it doesn’t seem like a sustainable model for delivering fonts. Realistically we should be getting our web license directly from the foundry, and in a pricing structure that makes more sense.

TypeKit operates in the same way that a music subscription service works (i.e. Napster Pro or whatever). I’m just hoping that foundries won’t act with as much greed as the music industry will. (I’m going to be using a lot of music industry references here, so I hope your caught up.)

Question #1: What exactly happens when the foundry’s contract ends and they ask for more money, or remove a font?

This tends to happen when sales start driving. If the foundry wants more money, they either have to jack the prices up, create a new tier for fonts (and remove it from your clients tier). Which sucks.

What if a Font Foundry backs out? or if they decide to remove a set of fonts? I’m merely suggesting that once designers start building these websites, the fonts have to last. A very long time. If not, your causing me (possibly hours of) pain having to rework designs to work with another font.

Question #2: What happens when a competitor comes into play?

I’m going to be reasonable and assume that at some point, a type foundry will be unhappy with the standards by TypeKit, and want to build their own service. They might even get other foundries in on it, because their plans are more pricey, and deliver more cash to the foundry. Which is, well, attractive.

Even possibly, to reference the first question, a font-foundry moves from TypeKit to TypeKitCompetitor. So I pay TypeKit $50/month, and now I need to pay TypeKitCompetitor $75/month for so-and-so’s font that I need for a client.

Which makes Judson a very unhappy designer.

To sum up: What precautions is TypeKit making to make sure that we, the designers, aren’t going to get screwed out of out money in the future?

Question #3: Why exactly, am I paying per website?

There’s not a lot of logic in that. When I use a font in photoshop, I use fonts on dozens of projects, for no extra cost. But now— mystically— that I want the font to be built in, I need to pay for every domain I use it on?

A lot of foundries base similar claims that it’s not per domain, but that every domain is on a different computer, justifying a second license. Okay then. So, hypothetically, my (dv) server from Media Temple can hold hundreds of domains on one server. So I only need one license for that, correct?

Actually, thinking about it, the entire signifigance of the websites meter actually confuses me. Because technically, in the personal plan, I can use 1000 fonts on my website in the Portfolio Plan, and that ought to rack up fees like crazy. I think they’re just banking on the fact that I’m a legitimate designer who knows better than to use 15 fonts on one site (which is fine, but just makes the process odd for me).

Question #4: Wouldn’t it be better to charge based on how many fonts are being used, or by how much bandwidth?

Realistically, you are currently charging based on the number of websites that is using fonts (the personal plan limits fonts, but honestly, I’m not counting that one). And I’d imagine you’d pay the bills based on whose font is being used x many times, and by how much bandwidth is being used.

To sum up: Why are your payment tiers weird?

Question #5: Why can’t I buy the font, and recieve a web license with unlimited websites, and pay overages in bandwidth?

This seems like the best way to purchase a web license: Bulletproof, my investment is protected, I get the web license for free (as it should be), and I get it for the price of the real font.

This is the method Typotheque uses. They also sell a web license exclusively for 20% of the full font price. They give 500mb of bandwidth perfont, and you pay $1.4/GB a month (also: Typotheque claims 500mb will offer 27,700 impressions, fine for most everyone).

If you ask me, it’s the perfect way to sell web fonts. In reality, just as we use fonts on multiple projects in Photoshop, it should be no difference to use it on the internet. Why should I pay a penalty to use a font on the web? Should I pay for it to be printed as well? I should however, pay for the url to be masked, and the bandwidth involved with that.