Hi all,
I'm developing one or two display cuts for the text family I'm currently working on. Since the text cuts still require a lot of work (to establish a spectrum of weights), the display cuts are going to be finished much sooner.
Now, I'm tempted to start selling the display cuts before the rest of the family is ready, as a sort of teaser for the upcoming text cuts. However, I'm not sure this is a good idea, since it might take some impact and novelty out of the family release. On the other hand, it could generate interest and anticipation. I'm rather inexperienced with the politics of font release, so I'm curious to hear your opinions on this.
(1) Would you advocate pre-releasing the display fonts?
(2) If so, should the display and text font all bear the same family name (such as the different optical weights of Minion Pro) or different but related names (like Satyr and Faunus)? I am currently tending towards the latter, though I'm afraid it might reduce the attractiveness of the family by making it less obvious that it has both display and text cuts.
(3) In case of (1) pre-release and (2) keeping an explicit family name; would you advocate releasing them as two separate font families on MyFonts (like Brandon Grotesque and Brandon Text), or as a single superfamily (like Minion Pro)? I guess the former would be preferable here, since otherwise the upgrade from the display font to the complete family might just go unnoticed. Then again, my worry in (2) applies here too.
(4) Dave Crossland proposed that we get paid by Google Fonts to make our font freely available. I am, in principle, interested in this concept (though I haven't made a decision yet). Would you recommend restricting this to one or two weights of the text cut, leaving everything else for the paid Pro version on MyFonts, or releasing everything through Google Fonts? Or would you not recommend going Google in the first place?
Thanks!
0
Comments
1. I wouldn’t suggest it. It would likely have a bigger initial draw if you were to release everything at once.
2. Personally, I like to have them in the same family. As time goes by, it’s less likely that people will remember that there are two different cuts. Not to mention that it’s already hard enough to get people to use the correct cut for the correct usage; removing “text” or “display” or whatever indicator you put after the name won’t make it any easier.
3. I’m planning on releasing my own as a superfamily but also bundling the type optically. My guess is that the only reason Brandon wasn’t done this way is because there was probably no initial plan for a text version.
4. What makes you interested in the GF route? I assume it’s not the money. If you want to give away a few weights, it would be better to do what Exjlibris did and just give away a weight or two.
2. Marketing will be easier if the family has one name.
3. See 1.
4. By releasing a font through Google you’re giving away years of license fees for a small payment up front. Is it really worth losing money in the long run so you can see your work used in a lot of low-budget projects?
@ James Todd (1): Yeah, I was afraid it could be a drawback. I can imagine that people might buy the display cut and then call it a day, whereas they would have bought the entire family in one go if they'd had the chance right away. Too bad, though; I really could use the motivational boost of an early release. It's been a while, and the display cut is going to be ready soon.
@ James Puckett (1): Not quite sure how you mean that; is that a statement (it could provide a compelling reason!) or a question (can you provide a compelling reason?)?
@ James Puckett (4): If I'm going to release the Regular weight for free, for example, why shouldn't I let Google pay me for that...? Would that mean I couldn't include the free Regular in my MyFonts releases anymore?
(4) in general: GF tempts me because I'm not in it for the money, and I like my work seeing use. I do enjoy selling licenses — it's an ongoing source of gratification —, but as a non-professional user of fonts, I greatly admire the people who make things like Alegreya, Open Sans, and EB Garamond available to the masses. I've heard the argument that most of the freeloader users are going to use the fonts badly, if at all, but as a free-font user myself, who am I to judge? And is a professional designer really going to refrain from using a font they like simply because it's free...? Apparently it didn't stop Google, Mozilla, WordPress, and everybody and their dog from using Open Sans...
@ Dave: I've heard a lot of doubtful or even derogatory opinions on GF; I would be interested in hearing your pitch for fairness' sake. What's in it for me?
However, I wonder if MyFonts would consider the similarity to Times New Roman problematic... I heard they are getting stricter about these things. For me, if you say you really drew everything and can show the process from day 1, I'm cool to publish similar yet original designs. Cool 'Use them badly'? This is up there with 'fonts have a soul.'
Who says that?!?! Mozilla have their own, and even DaMa was using Open Sans via GF for a while I think http://jessicahische.is/thinkingthoughts is typical of this [FUD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_Uncertainty_and_Doubt) : This seems fairly typical, and, well, rather anemic
Jessica's point though, that full families are much more useful than single styles, is true; and that's what I'm more interested in these days.
The full blooded objections I've seen are in http://typedrawers.com/discussion/504/google-fonts-your-questions-answered and https://groups.google.com/d/msg/googlefontdirectory-discuss/k2Rx0lanVss/atm7-KWBiRIJ - and http://typographyforlawyers.com/why-google-web-fonts-arent-really-open-source.html Rather than listening to those who haven't published large families in GF, maybe you should speak to those who have You can see all their names in the GF directory, and contact them via G+ or their homepage. Or invite them here. Or ask them on the GF forum.
While I'm happy to answer any general questions, I'll also be happy to answer any questions you wish to ask me privately about your specific project via email
You’re welcome to enlighten me. Given the criticism Google Web Fonts gets from type designers it seems that you would be happy to refute us.
Is this face more Times New Romanesque than Starling?;)
@ Pablo: How are things working out for you? Are you releasing all your fonts through GF, or do you keep some cuts "premium"? Are you seeing your GFs in use more often than your commercial fonts?
@ Dave Crossland: Would I have to make my font Libre to work with GF, or would somewhat more restrictive licenses be acceptable too? I don't know my way around the different licenses that well, but I would certainly want to require Attribution, and prevent people from releasing variants of my font under a different name.
@ Thomas: I remember reading that a while ago. It doesn't seem all that negative. In particular, considering that I'm doing type design as a hobby, the fact that I could earn something in the ballpark of a low-end wage for doing it is pretty damn cool, all things considered.
I feel your pain. Just do it. Release the display and don't worry about it. Your soul needs to be fed.
Do whatever you want, both approaches are valid. Just follow your instincts and you will be fine.
As for being a young and new foundry: You're also a highly acclaimed, award-winning, and successful foundry. Apparently things worked out just fine. Perhaps it's my turn to make my beginner's mistakes now? ;o)
@ Chris: Thanks for the sympathy!
@ Pablo: Thanks, I'll ask my further questions by PM, then.
Doesn't it also have advantages, though? Two different pages on MyFonts, two different names on GF, two different announcements on Twitter might just give the family a second chance to be noticed. I just saw Mariné released on MyFonts, which is a variant of Amelia, but apparently its roman cut is identical to that of Amelia, and its supposedly different upright cursive and italic cuts look so close to Amelia to me that I can't tell the difference. Yet Mariné is doing just fine (#35 Hot New Font after 11 days). Not that I'm suggesting to do the same, obviously: My display cuts and text cuts would be visibly and functionally non-redundant with each other. Perhaps the marketing material could make the connection to the other half of the family obvious on the title page so that the information is not lost on the casual viewer?
@ Craig: As you know, the text font family in question is Traction, and the display and stencil versions would be called Attraction and Subtraction. Isn't that close enough to be obvious...?
In any case, if the marketing material makes the existence of complementary text/display cuts obvious, the naming shouldn't be an issue in terms of font sales. A designer who expects to use the font in both display and text contexts would likely go for the economical family bundle.
I can see how designers who own a plethora of fonts might then forget they bought a display version of Traction if they don't see it next to Traction in their font menu. This would lead to the "bad use" problem that's been controversially mentioned above. Don't most designers keep sorted lists of fonts for display and text use, though? (I wouldn't know, not being a professional graphic designer myself.) Is it really my job to ensure graphic designers do their jobs properly, though?
Ultimately, though, if I'm more interested in people using my fonts than people paying for them (particularly through the Google Fonts route), perhaps I should be more worried about this issue.
@ Craig, Jan: So does nobody use the category tabs in Font Book and the Mac typography dialog to sort their font list? (I don't, but I don't own that many fonts.)
Also, don't fonts usually only appear as family names in menus, with different cuts hidden in submenus? In this case, having three font names rather than one would increase visibility.
There is no way to enforce such a requirement I've ever seen.