New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
i'm wondering why these type families...
...cost so little compared to other type families i usually see.
is it because these are not good designs?
or what is going on with these?
P22 sells their fonts at a loss and makes up the difference in movie receipts and t-shirt sales.
you mean they make most of their money from selling t-shirts and movies?
It is possible that Si was referring to the legal action taken by P22 against Universal for selling t-shirts and other merchandise using their typefaces.
The market determines pricing, not the “goodness” of a product.
Quite simply, Kennerley is out of fashion right now.
However, given that it was the most popular face of the teens and twenties, I wouldn’t be surprised if it came back into fashion at some point in the future, if and when historicism displaces modernism as the preferred retro vogue.
But then, new cuts would be required, with size-speciﬁc versions no doubt.
I think p22 has a royalty based licence, so you pay a relativily low price upfront, but are restricted in the ways you can use it. f.i. if you design a book and have it printed 20 000 times or something, you have to pay a royalty fee for this to p22. I don't know how high this fee is, though.
As I understand it, the P22 EULA only requires special licensing for things like logos, packaging, identities, movie/TV use, etc. The wording appears to be slightly ungrammatical, but it seems that designing a book with a P22 font, regardless of print run, does not ordinarily require anything but the basic license. But in the attempt to catch all possible high-value uses they can extract money from, they worded that part in such an open-ended manner that reading the EULA doesn't make this entirely clear. I think it was partially clarified by Richard Kegler in a post here a few years ago.
On the other hand, I would note that the rest of the license is both clearer than usual and quite reasonable. In particular, they allow modifications (for internal use, as usual), which is really important, so they're one of the relatively few foundries I am inclined to license fonts from. I'm not a Goudy fan, but I've even licensed Kennerley.
Would be interested in the clarification by Mr Kegler, any idea how to find this thread?
BTW I reread the license and it seems you are right, that the extra license applies mostly to logos and large campaigns and media productions. It is indeed a quite fair license, and the fonts are very affordable.
I did some looking for it but didn't find anything very helpful. It could be defective memory, or it could be the present deficient searchability of Typophile.