Crowdfunding for typeface projects

[Andreas Stötzner]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

I hope I didn’t miss that this has been discussed here before.

There is an initiative to create a local typeface for Chattanooga, TN. Perhaps more interesting than the mere fact is the way they try to gain funds for it (->
see on Kickstarter)

I think it is worth getting backed by more people. And I think, if they succeed, this will be a nice showcase for the type industry as a whole.
The general market for fonts is over-saturated. There is more potential in customfonting, perhaps.

[Riccardo Sartori]

https://typography.guru/forums/topic/99329-forwarding

[Frode Bo Helland]

When I saw the title, I hoped for a general discussion on the topic. It’s obviously needed, with so much hostility against these kind of projects.

[Jackson]

Gimmicky fund raising that trumps the actual concept/process/result/thinking of the design is not a good showcase for the "type industry". Good typefaces that are both thoughtfully produced and successfully explained to the public would be much better at helping people understand what good type is all about (which is also the solution for a market over saturated with mediocre and pointless options).

[Trevor Baum]

The "Valuco" Kickstarter project really rubbed me the wrong way, as did Google Webfonts' constant endorsement of the platform to fund their rubbish fonts.

Just build the font. Don't ask us for money upfront, and then also charge for the font. If people like it, they will buy it. End of.

[Christopher Dean]

Agree with Trevor. And certainly don’t advertise them as “*free.”

*As long as you give me money now so I can give it to you for “free” later.

[eliason]

Here's a type-design kickstarter of a different flavor: a new foundry type.

[aluminum]

"Just build the font. Don't ask us for money upfront."

Why take the risky financial route when there's an alternative?

"and then also charge for the font"

That's what Kickstarter is.

[Trevor Baum]

I was referring to multiple Kickstarter projects that asked for donations to cover the overhead/upfront costs of creating a font, and then charged for the font after it was complete.

Either ask users to cover the overhead and release it for free, or do the labor yourself and charge for the font upon release. Trying to charge twice for the same product is shady and unfair.

[Christopher Dean]

Couldn’t we call Kickstarter shady in and of itself? I don’t know the rules, but what if someone wants to raise $100 to release something for “free” and they only get $50, so they never release it. Do they simply pocket the $50?

[eliason]

The rules are right on the site.

Every Kickstarter project must be fully funded before its time expires or no money changes hands.

[hrant]

All things being equal, personally I can't see
anything wrong with using a Kickstarter approach.

hhp

[Andreas Stötzner]

Trying to charge twice for the same product is shady and unfair.

Managing to charge twice for the same product is utterly clever, from a merchand’s point of view ;-)

We should not turn to unduely moralize about it. Frankly, at the end of the day it’s about marketing our work. To possibly develop new channels of gaining profit. What’s wrong with that?

Having said this, I still feel kickstarting a font project may be an intersting option to go for. Why? Well, the fontist sits in his/her laboratorium breeding upon a new groundbreaking font idea. He estimates the amount of labour neccessary to get it done, to get it shipped to the market. He (she) estimates the time it will take, the costs of that time ... you understand. “Will the market pay back?”
But now he turns to ask the public *in advance* what they make of the concept. Is it any good? Is it worthwhile, promising? Is it wanted? Would anyone give a penny for its success? Worthy questions, i.m.o. Maybe Kickstarter functions similar to a stock exchange: people deal with estimations and expectations. – I’m just curious.

It’s fairly new and fragile. Let’s monitor it with care.

Recently I thought about announcing a typeface which would get licenced only to a fixed number of licencees. A kind of limitation, similar to local limitation (“Chattanooga”), which may or may not add value to the product by the implementation of shortage. Which means: exclusivity.

[Nick Shinn]

As I’ve mentioned before, Kickstarter is a good way for foundries/type designers to form a relationship with their customers, and even accomodates feedback into the design process.

[Trevor Baum]

I love Kickstarter as a service. I think it's one of the best uses of the web in its short history. I just think some projects are using it in (most likely unknowingly) questionable ways.

[aluminum]

"Trying to charge twice for the same product is shady and unfair."

No it's not. No one is getting charged twice.

[Frode Bo Helland]

Spending a few quids on an unoriginal, poor quality free font is ok. I just wish they had a layer of (constructive) professional critique prior to presenting the projects. Think business mentoring.

[Andreas Stötzner]

… a layer of (constructive) professional critique prior to presenting the projects

I can’t imagine how you would manage this. “Please give advice for my design” and “please donate for its production” at once??

[Frode Bo Helland]

Andreas: I think it’s probably out of the scope of Kickstarter, but projects could be reviewed by someone with professional experience in the field on submission. The cost could be covered by a submission fee.
Perhaps a better approach for the type community is more serious critique of these kind of public projects. When Roboto came out Typographica published a piece on its design and M. Butterick wrote a piece on the Google Web Fonts a while back — both examples of the kind of critique we need.

[Frode Bo Helland]

We have music critics, but mostly just type praisers.

[cerulean]

Kickstarter is meant to fund things that couldn't happen without an outlay of expenses. Here we're often seeing it used to promote a font that appears to be basically done and ransom its release. There is no investment in printing costs or camera rentals or anything of that nature (assuming you already have the software you're using), so it comes down to convincing people that there is still $X worth of work to be done and that you'll do it.

[Trevor Baum]

@Cerulean You nailed it. That was exactly my point.

Most type design projects I've seen are charging for labor that's already 90% done, and basically using Kickstarter as more of a PR play than an actual means of fundraising.

[aluminum]

"We have music critics"

And has that really change the quality of any particular music? No.

"Kickstarter is meant to fund things that couldn't happen without an outlay of expenses. "

It's not really meant for any specific model. It's basically "do you like this enough to be willing to pay in advance?" or, as stated, PR. Or whatever people can morph it into.

There's some stuff I find silly that people are willing to pay for up front, but who am I to judge? If it establishes a new product, more power to them.

[Frode Bo Helland]

alu: I think yes. It definitely has.

[Riccardo Sartori]

We have music critics, but mostly just type praisers.

Put this way, it seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Anyway, music critics do their thing only "after the fact", they don't go into recording studios giving advice.