In my mind, from there, users would then consider purchasing fonts for other applications—print materials, general branding etc.

For example, I recently helped a small grassroots network of energy committees in Vermont design and launch a new website. I used FF Meta Serif and Ronnia for body and headers. Without the subscription service, I would have never found those fonts and thought of using them. If I were going through a design process with an organization that had more print materials and did a greater amount of promotional work, being able to experiment with fonts at a web-level would then make it easier to convince an organization to purchase fonts for print in their overall branding strategies.

Just a thought, but I do think having access through subscription generates exposure that otherwise would not occur, and is a missed opportunity for future font purchases.

best,

Jake

It is nice to combine Tisa and Tisa Sans, and you can. You acquire the license for Tisa Sans in a different way, by purchasing directly from FontFont, but using an externally licensed font is just like using any Typekit font.

Erwin, as you appreciate Tisa Sans, I’m sure you can appreciate that type designers are experimenting with many different business models. Purchasing fonts directly from FontFont has its advantages and disadvantages, just as Typekit’s subscription library has.

Personally, I enjoy licensing fonts both ways. Typekit’s library lets me experiment freely and get to know the work of many different type designers. FontFont lets me bundle print+web licenses and manipulate web font files. Either way, I am happy to support type designers for their fine work.

That all said, I’m happy to pass along your request to FontFont. Feedback about which business models customers like (or don’t) is great.

Amen.