Optimal Font Store?

Igor Petrovic

Here at TD, we often post and read about the issues that type designers encounter at font stores. This implies that could exist a font store that is better both for customers and type designers and still make money for owners.

The hope is that by presenting our ideas, we can define a reasonable (optimal and sustainable) model.

Not only our wishes but also important functioning questions. For example, if the hyperproduction/quality are issues, there should be criteria or jury or a limited number of additions per year, etc. In the case of a jury, those people spending time carefully reviewing entries should be paid, maybe anonymous or temporary members. Also, which ideas are implemented (upvoting or decision-making board) etc.

The market is oversaturated, but still, there might be a space for a font store that delivers the best products on the market, educate users on what to look for and why it is important, and communicate that "buying on this store you are directly supporting type designers".

Because the model should be "optimal and sustainable" (and if turns out that such a model could be defined) maybe TypeDrawers would be interested in opening such a store. The commission rate should cover the salaries of the employed people, marketing costs as well as a stable support for the TD forum.

Igor Petrovic

The features that would be important for me:

- The system adjusted to font versioning. I would like to publish 0.x versions, and have an easy option to update customers. The price would rise during the time, while early customers get it as a free update (or updates would be free until some defined point).

That would incorporate crowdfunding logic into type design. Also, I would get better feedback from users while the font is in progress, like where the problems are, which set to cover etc. 

- My guess is that a 30% commission rate would be optimal.

But to support the opening of the hypothetical TD font store, I would be ok with the commission rate starting from 80% in the first period, and then gradually going down to 30%.

- I would like to see a standardized specimen for all fonts. It could be modular like I can turn off OT features preview for early versions etc.) But the specimen devised in a way that even type designers can use it as a reliable quality check.  

Craig Eliason

The hesitations I'd see:

• Existing Typedrawers visitors (I'd guess) are more makers of type than purchasers of type. So there's not a large built-in paying audience.
• I can't see a juried inclusion system not becoming politicized and harming the spirit of cooperation that is happily the dominant ethos around here. 
• I think there are resellers out there that are already doing what you describe. 
• The type buyer (and the talented independent type designer) are probably better off with education and guidance on type being separated from its commerce. When ilovetypography converted to a shop (a very welcome addition to the market in many ways), it did raise questions about the growing dearth of independent critical voices in type design. Those worries would be furthered by a TD store I think.

Igor Petrovic

Thanks @Craig Eliason, these are very valuable insights!

• Existing Typedrawers visitors (I'd guess) are more makers of type than purchasers of type. So there's not a large built-in paying audience.

 The target audience would be the same as for every other font store, meaning that conventional online marketing would be a primary source of traffic. It would be funded by the commission rate.

• I can't see a juried inclusion system not becoming politicized and harming the spirit of cooperation that is happily the dominant ethos around here. 

This is a very important and delicate issue that should be discussed very carefully. I was aware that I can't predict the possible problems, so I put the accent on discussing the model, and TD store at the bottom just as a hypothesis. I've just changed the name of the topic from "TD font store" to "Optimal Font Store", because you are probably right that that possible store should be separated from the forum at all.

• I think there are resellers out there that are already doing what you describe. 

The only store I know that transparently implemented font versioning is FutureFonts. But they decide about new entries once in three months and not on fixed dates IIRC, which is kind of slow. I have tried once and I was rejected with a very short reply which didn't reveal the reason. Probably the concept wasn't interesting for them, because they are mainly focused on experimental and conceptual fonts.

Not exactly sure why I didn't send my current project at some point (I will try again probably). They keep the quality with a very limited volume of new fonts, but their dynamics and number of published fonts are not exactly what I proposed. 

James Puckett

Igor Petrovic said:

- My guess is that a 30% commission rate would be optimal.

Not really. With only 30% the store wouldn’t have enough marketing money to attract customers. 

Igor Petrovic

That's interesting because 50% is often described as too much from type designers' perspective.  

For example, Creative Market takes 30%. But they deduct tax from US customers automatically, so 50% is the average effective commission I've seen. 

JoyceKetterer

The thing missing in the market is excellent license handling.  Fontspring half heartedly tried to do it with "no hassle licensing" but all that ever really meant was perpetual.

For many years there wasn't a real market for this because all the big customers just bought nearly all licenses from Monotype, so their legal team could count at least on only one set of terms. I have it anecdotally (a few larger company license complance people have reached out to me) that Monotype has been alienating them with the stuff others have observed in other threads (frequent changes to their license and having different terms on Linotype than on the main store).  I have not independently verified this but what matters is the perception, even if it isn't true.  

Big customers know Monotype was bought and taken private a few years ago and I'mp pretty sure it's making a significant minority of them nervous. So, I think there's room right now if someone could enter the market with a good library and a licensing first message.  

Ray Larabie

50% is too much for distributors that require the foundries to take most of the marketing into their own hands. I don't feel like any of the 50% distributors are putting nearly enough effort into marketing apart from promoting the "hits".

Here's a feature that I don't think any distributors have done: multiple storefronts. I released a typeface this year that sold gangbusters through a distributor that specialized in fonts for music professionals and sold exactly zero through other distributors. My best sellers on Creative Market are vastly different from what sells on Fontspring. Different stores; different customers.

The following analogy uses US retail stores as examples. Most typeface distributors are like Amazon, presenting as many options to as wide a variety of customers as they can, mainly relying on search. There's room for Wal-Mart, Amazon, Costco, Target but not many more. Introducing a new player to the marketplace would require money on par with the big players and even more money to attract existing customers to the new store. There's no reason for customers to go beyond the familiar general distributors if they all offer similar selections and a similar experience. Even though those big stores offer everything there's still Home Depot, Bed Bath & Beyond, Best Buy, Dollar General and others which specialize in a different type of customer experience. They don't offer everything, and they don't appeal to everyone.

You could have a font store that deals with trendy display typefaces. When clothing stores have items that have fallen out of fashion, they're put on sale and discontinued—a seasonal churn that keeps the store looking fresh. That fresh look gives customers confidence that anything they buy in the store is on-trend. Why can't we do that with a font store? Out with the old, in with the new. Make it so customers can be confident that they're not buying fonts that look too "2010s". Highlight avant-garde designs that take risks. There could be promotions and commission incentives for foundries to release timed exclusives. Loss-leader retro classics (like Emigre) that might be hard to get a hold of elsewhere. These are things the big distributors can't do. They're not allowed to pull "old stock". They don't have room to present customers with risky, innovative choices. There's no reason for them to do trend forecasting. The big distributors' new releases are a mix of fresh fonts and designs that look like they jumped on the trend wagon a little too late. But a store that specialized could attract a certain customer and have an advantage over the big distributors. The closest thing I can think of to any of this was Hype for Type which attempted to create a trendy store. It started 13 years ago with the idea of a curated, trendy style. They offered better commissions and promotions for exclusives. But stylistically, it never moved with the times and some other issues that I won't get into here. But I thought the initial idea was good and it generated some buzz at first. 

Maybe a "Dollar store" storefront with fonts that are under a certain price. A real-world dollar store doesn't risk cheapening the more expensive offerings with low prices because they're all cheap. Certain customers will avoid a store like this, but that's okay. There are customers who perhaps don't have a big budget, love fonts but would never pay $50 for one font let alone hundreds for a family. It could also attract customers with free promotions without cheapening the high-end brands. This could be a home for some free fonts too to draw traffic.

What about a store that specializes in fonts for embedding in apps? I think FontSpring is already known for their game company/app developer friendly style but that could go even further with a storefront that's specially designed for those customers. Fonts are delivered in TTF and OTF formats. Eliminate ultra-light styles, dingbats, or anything that's not suited to app embedding. An emphasis on cartoon, military, and technical styles.

The high-end luxury store. No cheap fonts. All fonts are curated. PDF specimens are required. Ad copy is up to a certain standard. There are no fonts made of cat paw prints in this store. Custom EULAs for each foundry to encourage high-end foundries to join.  Maybe avoid any free fonts. Minimum pricing. Discount limits. Loss leaders for hard-to-acquire brands.

Thios all might sound like building multiple websites would be required, but the structure could be based off on a main site with a different "skin" for each store with its own selection of fonts. It's like in WordPress where you can use categories on posts to make them show up on different blogs. You'd add categories for each font so it would appear in the various custom storefronts.

The historical type store could specialize in display type for sign painters, film, or anything where retro designs are needed. Fonts could be tagged with an appropriate year range where they would be plausible. Jeff's Fonts (JNL) is an example of a brand that would fit in a store like this. They're not cheap, they're not usually trendy but they offer an authentic historical flavor and "grit" that's valuable to set designers or anyone that requires an authentic feeling they're not going to get from a Monotype design. That's the type of thing that can get pushed into the background by big font distributors. Letterhead Fonts is an example of a store that is aiming for extremely specific customer that may not be well served by the big font distributors.

Craig Eliason

JoyceKetterer said:

The thing missing in the market is excellent license handling.  Fontspring half heartedly tried to do it with "no hassle licensing" but all that ever really meant was perpetual.

For many years there wasn't a real market for this because all the big customers just bought nearly all licenses from Monotype, so their legal team could count at least on only one set of terms. I have it anecdotally (a few larger company license complance people have reached out to me) that Monotype has been alienating them with the stuff others have observed in other threads (frequent changes to their license and having different terms on Linotype than on the main store).  I have not independently verified this but what matters is the perception, even if it isn't true.  

Big customers know Monotype was bought and taken private a few years ago and I'mp pretty sure it's making a significant minority of them nervous. So, I think there's room right now if someone could enter the market with a good library and a licensing first message.  

But you're not really talking about a reseller here (which is the topic of this thread), right? (If so, you quickly get to the issue of the same type going out under multiple licenses, which you've argued elsewhere here is problematic.)

JoyceKetterer

@Craig Eliason I'm flattered that you remember my other posts.  I am talking about a reseller.  You'd not need to have the fonts under the reseller EULA to take a licensing first approach to the storefront.  I'm thinking of something a little bit more sophisticated than what fontspring did (which did include using the foundry EULA).  You're right that it's not exactly replacing Monotype with the same thing that made monotype appealing in the first place, but I think it could be done. 

Craig Eliason

Gotcha, I jumped right to "EULA by the reseller" but you weren't saying that. But what more would you envision being done than what fontspring is doing in terms of pushing foundries towards practical and consistent EULAs? 

JoyceKetterer

@Craig Eliason I honestly haven't thought THAT much about implementation of a licensing first reseller site.  I know, given that I think about EULAs constantly, it seems that I would.  But, honestly, I've only thought about reseller business models just long enough to decide I didn't want to start one.

I do think that Fontspring is 100% wrong about customer feelings about perpetual, and I told them so.  Fontspring's pricing for perpetual licenses was generally the same as the price for Font Bureau 1 year licenses.  Speaking for myself, I tried perpetual only and customers demanded shorter terms.  That's because I priced perpetual correctly, which I later learned was similar to how Font Bureau does it.  The idea of "no hassle" isn't bad, they just didn't understand what it meant from the customer perspective.  

In no particular order, here are the things I think matter (some to foundries and some to customers):
1.  lawyer vetted on-site EULA agreement
2.  EULAs need document numbers with the customer information on it so that larger companies can track multiple licenses in different departments  
3.  Standardised meanings of jargon
4. Standardised offerings of types of EULAs
5.  Just admit that you're B2B, no non-commercial licensees
6. platform neutral app embedding and web embedding that doesn't require url reporting (I solve this by being brand based but there are other ways)
7.  Logos and broadcast are always included at the basic level