Type Lost &Foundry

Thoughts on the recent trend of microfunding the development of new typefaces

Traditionally there have been basically two ways to fund the development of a new typeface: Externally, as a commision, wherein a client pays a designer or foundry to create a new typeface. Or internally, as a speculative project self-financed by a designer or foundry (usually in the form of time away from paid projects) to finance the design. Of course, there are variations within both of those funding models: funding from grants, private art patrons, the designer as employee, perhaps even a government contract could be considered a variation of it.

Now, with the advent of microfunding websites like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, crowdsourcing as a means of funding creative projects is gaining popularity.

The many-to-one funding model is not necessarily a new one, per se. Public art funded by public tax dollars comes to mind. However, one remarkable aspect to this is the seemingly built-in public taste filter indicating approval/disapproval of the proposed type design. Will the design public-at-large consider this new type design worthy of completion? Votes are cast with euros, dollars, etc. in funding or not funding the project.

The Exo type family by Natanael Gama

Some recent examples of typefaces proposed for development, or expansion using microfunding:

• Montserrat by Julieta Ulanovsky
• Pragmata Pro by Fabrizio Schiavi
• Exo by Natanael Gama
• Folk by Marcelo Magalhães Pereira

Some of the typefaces are slated to be released as free fonts or open source upon completion, if they are fully funded. That’s a great outcome; everyone benefits.

However, microfunding has the potential to stifle creativity. If a typeface is not funded bacause it is not the flavor-du-jour, the designer may never follow through, and in that scenario something has been lost. Maybe professionals and scholars, studied in type design could weigh in on each project, objectively pointing out each proposed design’s merits (or lack thereof) that may otherwise go unnoticed.

For projects that are intended to produce a typeface that will then be sold upon completion, this kind of immediate feedback can save a designer from investing a lot of time and energy into developing a typeface (however brilliant it may be) that may never sell enough copies to recoup the designer’s expenses. So from a sales and marketing perspective, this method helps to eliminate some guesswork.

Microfunding typeface development may be just a short-lived trend riding the wave of popularity funding sites have been enjoying lately or it may well be here to stay as a viable alternative. It will certainly be interesting to watch, either way.

Update - November 17th, 2011:

Based on recent discussions I’ve had with other type designers on this subject, there is concern that funding platforms can be abused by those seeking to produce knock-offs of existing typefaces. Another point made is that those passionate about making type do not do it for the money; that there is some integrity lost when one solicits funds to pay for a project. Both warrant further consideration and discussion by the type design community.