Neue Haas Grotesk's pricing

When Neue Haas Grotesk was published a few years ago, it was presented as a joint project of Linotype and Font Bureau, distributed by both foundries. As far as I understand, Linotype's version and Font Bureau's version are supposed to be identical.

So how come Linotype sells the complete family (22 styles) for $299 (or even $150, at the moment, as there's a sale) while Font Bureau sells it for $880?

Anyone understands what's going on here?


  • JoyceKetterer
    Does someone know if the font has one license or if each company is using its standard license for its sales?

    It's been a while since I read the Monotype EULA but that could be the difference.  Remember that neither entity is "selling Neua Haas Grotesk".  Both are licensing it.  As such, the lowest level standard license price is as much a calculation of what use is permitted as it is of the functionality of the font as a tool.

    That said, I would never permit a font to have more than one associated license because doing so makes enforcement exponentially harder. 
  • Ori Ben-Dor
    Ori Ben-Dor Posts: 383
    @JoyceKetterer, thanks for you comment. I guess that could indeed be the difference.
  • SiDaniels
    SiDaniels Posts: 277
    Requiring a font be distributed under a single license eliminates revenue associated with some ISV / OEM sales. 

    In this particular case a number of styles of Neue Haas Grotesk were licensed to Microsoft and distributed under the Windows 10 license and separately under a Windows Store license, and also under the Microsoft Office font service TOU. 

    The pricing of the TN v Monotype collection does seem odd, for very similar rights. If I had to speculate I'd say TN is selling primarily to publishers, who standardize on TN fonts, based on library exclusives and after sales support - so in this case they'd just go with the TN version without shopping around. 

    But this is an anomaly as there are few fonts shared between these two outfits. If there were more cases of price difference I think people would notice.  
  • JoyceKetterer
    JoyceKetterer Posts: 794
    edited March 2018
    @SiDaniels Thank you for pointing out the way in which I was unclear.  I meant that I would never allow more than one desktop license.  I think of OEM distribution as being a different animal because we grant it as an addendum to the license granted to the distributing entity.  When one licenses fonts using addenda the desktop license functions as the primary document and is always issued to all licensees and is then modified as needed.  It amounts to a different way of conceptualizing licensing and I sometimes forget to alter my way of speaking about licensing when I am talking to people function under a different paradigm.