How do people think type should be priced?

based upon the principles of supply and demand.

Paul,

That would seem to imply that the current range in pricing can’t be justified unless there are significant differences in type quality (real or perceived) and/or service.

redge, there was a discussion of this some time ago, kicked off by questions about the high price of TEFF and DTL fonts.

One of the interesting comments was that the type market is segmented just like the car market—a Mercedes is competing for a different buyer than the cheapest Ford. So in the type market you have scrap bookers, newspapers, graphic designers etc. as buyers.

I still don’t pretend to understand it well, but I thought that was a start.

William,

That seems to be a “you get what you pay for” argument, based on the idea that a Mercedes is a better car than the cheapest Ford.

Is there a consensus that the Enschede Foundary and the Dutch Type Library make better products, or provide better service, than their competitors? If so, in what way(s) are they better?

Not to focus solely on these two companies. They are not alone in relatively high pricing.

the type industry has been likened to the fashion industry. Is there a difference between clothing you find at Wal-Mart and what you find at boutique shops? yes, they all do the same thing, namely clothe the body, but some with more flair and personality. Some labels are known for high quality workmanship. some are known for quick and dirty digitizations. some people are brand-loyal to certain foundries. I say the market should dictate prices, because if a foundry isn’t paying their bills, they will change their policies so that they can.

Search is your friend.
See The High Price of Type

Paul,

I know how to do a search and I have read that thread.

I am not raising the question of how one deals with people who think that type is too expensive, nor am I talking about free fonts or free work.

Indeed, I think that type is inexpensive, in many cases seemingly cheaper than it ought to be (which is why I referred to commodity pricing) unless it is being sold in quite high volume or unless there are clear distinctions in quality and/or service.

In other words, I am raising these issues as someone who is in the process, without any reservations, of buying type at the high end of the price range.

However, if I am wasting your time, please feel free to delete or lock the thread.

Could I make the observation that the phrase “Search is your friend” has a certain tone to it?

redge, i appologize if i came off condescending. I’ll be sure not to use that phrase any more. this is a completely valid discussion (as you know, or you wouldn’t have started it). I was just trying to be helpful, probably overly so. Anyhow, I’ll quit buzzing and just follow along with the more informed input that i’m sure this thread is boud to attract.

Paul,

No problem.

I just edited my last post a bit in an attempt to avoid any misunderstanding about what the issue is that I am raising.

This is not about attacking type designers or foundaries or unappreciative customers. It is about trying to understand fairly large price differentials among apparently reputable designers/foundaries, large and small.

I don’t know whether the following has much to do with the issues raised in this thread, but perhaps it will elicit observations from those who are knowledgeable about typographic history.

The web site of the Swedish foundry Fountain has a copy of a Frank Goudy specimen book from 1914. If I understand the book correctly, Goudy sold his fonts by the pound.

Does anyone know what the rationale was for pricing by weight? Was that standard practice? Was there a standard price per pound, or did foundaries set their price per pound for a font in accordance with what they considered the quality of the product and the demand for it?

Does the way that digital type is priced have any similarity to how metal type was priced?

Some thoughts:

A problem I see with likening type to the motor vehicle or fashion industry is that the perceived differences in quality is very subjective.

’Quality’ type is given its distinction for an almost limitless array of subjective reasons. Whereas the workmanship, physical materials and overall workings of a motor vehicle or fashion item is more easily distinguished. Distinguishing a Mercedes to a Kia, and Prada to a Target is very easy. The higher prices of a Mercedes and Prada are justified, to the reasonable ’average’ person.

Focussing on these subjective qualities, likening type pricing to artistic works, such as paintings also has downfalls. Most obviously paintings are unique, and type is a ’software’ - make once sell many.

And continuing on, likening type pricing to software perhaps has its problems. I dont think the ’average’ person respects font EULAs as highly as software packages.

So perhaps the answer is technology. Improving type technology to enable subscription based font usage (the way software is going these days), and forcing user registrations and respect of EULAs.

Perhaps the currently limited type technologies have left us with this interesting issue of pricing type.

Nathan,

Type may be perceived to have differences in quality, but where I disagree with you is where you seem to be saying that there are no differences:

“‘Quality’ type is given its distinction for an almost limitless array of subjective reasons. Whereas the workmanship, physical materials and overall workings of a motor vehicle or fashion item is more easily distinguished.”

On the contrary, there are a number of very clear differences in the actual quality (usefulness, versatility, reliability) of different typefaces. Only one of those is design quality. Other measurable ingredients in a font’s quality are performance on screen, completeness or usefulness of character set, outline quality (which affects output performance), thoroughness of design, spacing, and kerning. There are fonts out there worth nothing, and there are fonts out there worth hundreds of dollars. Ask very experienced graphic designers whether they would prefer to rely on Adobe Garamond, for example, or an unkerned freeware student font with no numerals and no punctuation, caps only. One can be used for thousands of uses, and is therefore more valuable to the user. The other may never prove to be useful for anything.

Redge, my initial thought about your thread topic is that due to the radical difference in the market for type, from any previous type market, we’re all making it up as we go along. It would be difficult to model font pricing on any other model, since delivery, storage, generation, design, use, and distribution are all utterly new for us.

I want to take the Ford/Mercedes analogy a bit further.

Some companies want type that is utilitarian and useful, and don’t mind if everyone else driving down the road is using the same type. These are the Ford users, who get their type from Adobe or (shudder, free sites off the net).

But other companies want a more exclusive image, and choose type that is less common. It may not be better built than Adobe’s but it will have lower exposure. This is the Mercedes buyer, who is willing to pay a bit more for some semi-exclusivity.

(You also have the Lamborgini buyer, who commissions a face and refuses to let the artist sell to anyone else.)

Of course, because the Mercedes type will not be sold as often as the Ford type, it needs to be priced at a higher level.

Of course, because the Mercedes type will not be sold as often as the Ford type, it needs to be priced at a higher level.

Perhaps foundries price their type higher so that it will be perceived as more exclusive?

Yup.
Which actually makes it more exclusive, both in terms of purchases as well
as piracy (the more you’ve paid for something, the more you’ll guard it).

I personally think it’s very smart (considering the over-crowding).

hhp

Disclaimer, I’ve just had a bottle of red, so if the following doesn’t make any sense, just disregard this post. ;^)

-

Well, this is called perceived value, if you position your product to the market effectively to the point it is viewed as “prestige” and more “luxurious” like the TEFF and DTL fonts. They’ve succeeded this to some extent that you’re not likely to find fonts of the same quality*. But this isn’t always the case, you could price your fonts higher to create a perceived value. This is the problem, experienced graphic designers and typographers can usually pick out the wannabes, others fall to this trap.

I think Paul’s analogy of the type industry to the fashion industry is fairly true, sure you’re bound to find some fluctuation in type, font and/or design quality relative to pricing but reputation and perceived market value is often always established upon quality work. Like fashion, if someone comes out with staggering work regularly or even once or twice, they’ve built up a reputation quickly and perceived value comes along with that. The better your reputation, the higher you can price your fonts, this is good business, who wouldn’t take advantage of that? But like any business, you need to retain that value by maintaining the competitive advantage (quality or unique fonts etc.) or you will lose money.

Really, I don’t see anything complicated or unusual about font pricing. Like fashion, prestige brands are expensive, reliable brands are priced above average and the rest set the standard pricing. If you don’t agree with the pricing, buy something similar that is cheaper, just like you’d buy a cheaper shirt. Free fonts are perceived, often rightly, to be of bad quality. Just like free shirts are crunchy and uncomfortable. ;^)

* I recently received printed samples from TEFF and I think the quality of their fonts is astounding, but not incomparable to say some fonts by Font Bureau or Porchez which are more competitively priced. I still think TEFF and DTL are a bit over the top just like Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent etc. I don’t buy Gucci shirts... but I want them...

In your initial posts you emphasize the aspect of “reason” (very broad, as “logic” or “rationale”) behind pricing. At least if you have the big picture in mind — i.e. the sum total of typefoundries — this can only fail. There is not one “reason” but many, and different people weight different aspects differently. So, no chance for a “checklist” ...

As a proof of that: Lexicon is still on top of my wishlist. Don’t ask why. I just want it.  ;-)

One way I look at it is that once you sell a given typeface to a given customer, that’s it for that typeface and customer. (This is assuming a static format, but I’m figuring OpenType is good for 15-20 years which is close enough to forever for the software industry.)

So, with pricing, you’re not only looking at how many people will buy a given font, but also at the fact that once they’ve bought it, they won’t buy it again. Would lower prices grow the market enough to compensate for that? I don’t know.

I have, however, noted that some of the companies who seem to be doing very well in retail type appear to have raised their prices rather than lowered them.

Regards,

T

I’ve seen quite a few types I couldn’t afford. But I’ve seen very few types I thought were overpriced. Type is a bargain. And I’ll bet that aren’t many type designers driving Mercedes.

The trick is get an old one.

hhp

Surely there a few typohiles driving those black-stained, smoke-belching, pale yellow diesel Mercedes sedans from the late 70’s and early 80’s.

Are there any type designers driving stylish, french-fry- (or pakora-) scented biodiesels?

I think it is very important to consider the EULA as part of the price of a given font. Obviously it isn’t the most important thing, but without a EULA that allows for the things you wish to do you might as well give up.

I agree with the idea of exclusivity in regards to font pricing. However, that goes only so far as some of the aforementioned foundries really are pricing themselves out of the general playing field. But, I presume they do this with great thought and consideration. I don’t fault them for the pricing, but also think they are too high for most people who do license type.

Fashion is a great comparison as it is more disposable than a car. You can keep the items in your closet well after they have lost their original luster and then dig them out again when the trends comes back around. Also, the idea of building a foundation in your closet of good quality basics and then splurging on some cheap/expensive trendier items.