I find that most commercially successful display fonts can also handle getting set into a paragraph. It doesn't have to look amazing, just remain legible and not be embarrassing. Especially with packaging uses, if the primary font can do the occasional paragraph that tends to make it "stickier" with users.
Cheap and good are not the same. Remember back when Jos released free fonts? A person starting out does not have the luxury of a seasoned successful designer with corporate backing.
A cheap/free font might be valuable since it simplifies managing licenses. An expensive font might be a nuisance because it requires monthly monitoring of pageviews/active computers/…, but it’s more exclusive and provides value by differentiating the brand from others.
The question feels too broad to give good answers. A font with few points and simple shaping rules is of value to low power devices. A font with tabular numbers is of value to table typesetters. A weight variation axis is of value to typographers who want a Quasi Demi Semi Light style. Different grades are valuable to those who print on paper of differing quality (or screens using differing renderers). A nicely drawn ornament may be of value to some, others value a family where changing styles never reflows the page. Some value economical proportions, fitting as much text as possible into a line. Clearly distinguished glyphs are valuable when displaying a password; or when learning to read. Unreadable glyphs are valuable to rebellious teens rejecting the status quo (and heavy metal bands).
Speaking for myself as an end user of fonts in digital spaces, I look for (in order of importance):
Overall design quality / attention to detail. In particular I'm looking for clean outlines, consistent rhythm & colour, and optical balance / corrections.
Legibility on screens is another big priority for me, with the exception that a display face might deviate from this in specific cases. But body text legibility matters a lot to me.
Variable font outlines (more flexibility with weights, condensed / extended, etc) meaning less juggling of font files during development. And you can do cool things with them in CSS/JS as demonstrated at www.glyphsapp.com - mouse over the background text in the footer area!
Multiple language support (at least the basic latin based support)
Nice bonuses (ligatures, alternates etc.) but with more conventional character designs as the defaults.
Availability & price (the budget & purpose can vary wildly for some design projects, so that influences whether I go for an OFL font at Google Fonts, or licence something from TypeKit, or buy something outright to self host, via MyFonts / FontSpring).
Good quality, relevant aesthetics and marketing. Isn’t it pretty straightforward?
And extended character sets and cachet and flexibility and a certain je ne sais quoi, it would seem. Thanks all for your input: it has been most helpful.
Good quality, relevant aesthetics and marketing. Isn’t it pretty straightforward?
extended character sets
Many leading foundries live with a pretty humble “European” charset, so I’m curious how much value does going beyond that add. I’m under impression that at some point extending the charset starts to take the value away by exponentially increasing time and expenses for development and maintaining, which sales in those languages are probably not going to cover. Or is someone’s experience different?
@Alex Visi This is such a tricky one. There was definitely a period where a lot of foundries (including us) added scripts to their top sellers in an attempt to extend their marketability. I'm not sure it did that, looking at our use numbers from Adobe the Latin styles still get WAY more use. But I think it reminded some large companies that Omnes (in our case) existed and it definitely got us a few large company licenses that Omnes might not have gotten otherwise
However, we're not talking about existing top sellers in this thread. I seriously doubt that adding scripts increases the marketability in an initial release enough to justify the extra time (much less money) before you can release it. I do think that having a pretty broad Latin 1 and 2 is worth the extra kerning.
They are included in the standard font as an update. The way I look at it, such expansions increase the value of the font and expand the market. But it's more worth the effort if there is already a proven market for a particular font family pre-expansion.
I start with Latin 1 and 2 support (and, with recent releases,
Vietnamese), and add things like Cyrillic and Greek when they are asked
for.
Do Cyrillic and/or Greek come at a premium, or do licenses for fonts containing same cost more?
I’ve been always wondering whether foundries which do that understand that they charge premium to countries which have less money in the first place, for whom even standard license might be pretty expensive. I guess charging premium for 3+ scripts makes some sense, since that means international business, but Latin + one more doesn’t.
@Alex Visi our intent is just the opposite. Cyrillic (which includes the basic Latin they also use) is licensed separately from Latin and costs 1/2 the cost of Latin, which scales to the realitive labor. Sure, if you want both it's a mark up but in the Cyrillic speaking region you'd not need both and can save by getting Cyrillic only.
@Alex Visi our intent is just the opposite. Cyrillic (which includes the basic Latin they also use) is licensed separately from Latin and costs 1/2 the cost of Latin, which scales to the realitive labor. Sure, if you want both it's a mark up but in the Cyrillic speaking region you'd not need both and can save by getting Cyrillic only.
That’s super nice! Just wondering, is it ok in this case for clients from English speaking countries to get the same license if basic Latin is enough for them too?
@Alex Visi Theorically they could get the Arabic (1/4 cost of Latin licenses) and use only the basic latin but it would probably be a pain to use so I don't think they would.
Also, It occurred to me after I posted my reply that I might have been missing your point. You were responding to Mark's comment that he adds scripts if they are requested. I think what he meant by that is the same thing we do (which is to say that we don't fund the development of non-latin scripts ourselves). Instead, we wait to see if a customer commissions it. It's true that amounts to an initial premium but there's no way around there being someone who covers those costs. We don't let commissioning companies have an exclusive license on language expansions which means that as soon as it's done locals can license it at the scaled rate. It's the best I can do.
Also, It occurred to me after I posted my reply that I might have been missing your point.
Or maybe I missed Nick’s point I was talking about [not] charging premium for retail licenses, but I’d expect the client’s request to extend the language support to be paid. So I think we’re on the same page here.
@alex visi I'm glad we agree. I do think that the attempt with adding a new script as an update to an existing file is to make it widely available , and by not changing the price the goal is not to charge a premium. But you're right that it amounts to a back door premium if the latin set is expensive and not useful. There's no way to win.
So far, I haven't charged for the expansions, but I also don't promise when they will be available. If a customer had a deadline, though, it might be different. I also don't blame anyone for asking the customer to foot the bill.
BTW, when I say "requests" these are often rather noncommittal, such as "Are you planning to add Cyrillic to <whatever>?" This is usually all it takes to send me down the rabbit hole.
@Alex Visi This is such a tricky one. There was definitely a period where a lot of foundries (including us) added scripts to their top sellers in an attempt to extend their marketability. I'm not sure it did that, looking at our use numbers from Adobe the Latin styles still get WAY more use.
It's also good to factor in the bias of the store to Latin script, as they continue to lift up other scripts and attract users who need them it might change.
To answer the OP, for me when I look for type, I often want a large range of style, from very thin to very very heavy. Even display faces benefit from have a thin, regular, and very heavy weight to me. I I also like have some wight options in connected scripts, even ones that emulate lettering and writing. I use the weights to compensate for scale variations, aside from visual impact.
Over the years, we here have exhausted, IMPO, most of the type topics that are out there - ways to draw characters, coding, business. I would, personally, appreciate it, if new topics are either meaningful or else they don't get posted at all. Most of them were already covered before on the board. That, and there is no use in facilitating tentions over menial internet comments.
@Vasil Stanev are you addressing me? If yes, then, not everyone has been around for years, and the search function here is limited, I know I often try searching for topics and struggle to find them (and I have been here for years on and off).
I'm not adressing you, but I didn't know the search option got messed up recently. It worked fine for me back when. Maybe the admins know why this is so??
Comments
The question feels too broad to give good answers. A font with few points and simple shaping rules is of value to low power devices. A font with tabular numbers is of value to table typesetters. A weight variation axis is of value to typographers who want a Quasi Demi Semi Light style. Different grades are valuable to those who print on paper of differing quality (or screens using differing renderers). A nicely drawn ornament may be of value to some, others value a family where changing styles never reflows the page. Some value economical proportions, fitting as much text as possible into a line. Clearly distinguished glyphs are valuable when displaying a password; or when learning to read. Unreadable glyphs are valuable to rebellious teens rejecting the status quo (and heavy metal bands).
However, we're not talking about existing top sellers in this thread. I seriously doubt that adding scripts increases the marketability in an initial release enough to justify the extra time (much less money) before you can release it. I do think that having a pretty broad Latin 1 and 2 is worth the extra kerning.
Also, It occurred to me after I posted my reply that I might have been missing your point. You were responding to Mark's comment that he adds scripts if they are requested. I think what he meant by that is the same thing we do (which is to say that we don't fund the development of non-latin scripts ourselves). Instead, we wait to see if a customer commissions it. It's true that amounts to an initial premium but there's no way around there being someone who covers those costs. We don't let commissioning companies have an exclusive license on language expansions which means that as soon as it's done locals can license it at the scaled rate. It's the best I can do.
I was talking about [not] charging premium for retail licenses, but I’d expect the client’s request to extend the language support to be paid. So I think we’re on the same page here.
BTW, when I say "requests" these are often rather noncommittal, such as "Are you planning to add Cyrillic to <whatever>?" This is usually all it takes to send me down the rabbit hole.