The last time I mentioned TypeKit —the simple, bulletproof, standards compliant, accessible, and totally legal way to use non-system standard fonts on a website— they were in beta. They went live in early November and I've been watching and waiting to see how things pan out. In a very short period of time they've added quite a few foundries to their list of available fonts and highlighted a major site or two that are using their services. All well and good! There is one thing that perplexes me, however, specifically in relation to my own business model: the 50/250 spread.

50/250 Spread

As with many freelancers, I usually take care of much of my clients' needs when it comes to designing, building and supporting their website(s). I and/or my team draw up a few comps, get the approval from the client and start building. But things get sticky when it comes to non system-standard fonts. TypeKit aims to solve this, but the large gap in their plans leave me in a dilemma.

To incorporate TypeKit into the design and implementation workflow, I would have to do something akin to:

• checking the fonts available on the plan to which I'm subscribed;
• using those fonts in the client's comp;
• configuring my TypeKit account and adding the js to the client's site.

Not that big of a deal. Enter the spread:

I can pass the nominal $45/year cost along in the overall compensation for particular projects and hope that I'll have repeat business for next year's cost. However, after I reach five clients and/or web sites that utilize TypeKit's service, I have to jump to $250/year to continue using the service for new clients' sites. Of course I can then use TypeKit on up to 40 unique web sites, but $250/year borders on "a big deal" for a small studio like mine. From $50 to $250? This is where TypeKit's model escapes me.

Possible Solutions

What to do? I've got at least a couple of options, but I'm not sure any of them are that great.

1. Absorb the $250/year cost and be glad I've got 40 clients/web sites to support.
2. Pass the cost along to my clients in the overall compensation.
3. Sell the client on opening their own TypeKit account.
4. Use @font-face and sell my client on Internet Explorer looking textually different than modern browsers.

#1: Frankly, if I had 40 active, paying clients all at the same time with monthly retainers for my services I would absorb the cost. I could afford it. However, I'm not making plans for this option as much of my work entails one-off, short-term projects.

#2 would make sense, as long as I don't go over five unique web sites that use TypeKit. But I'd prefer (and have) more than five active clients, and none of their designs include Arial or Helvetica. Not a good long-term option.

#3 seems the hardest sell. I imagine it would go something like:

• Comps presented to Mr. Client.
• Mr. Client is ecstatic and wants to move forward immediately.
• Me to Mr. Client: "Great! Now, you need to go open this account at a place called TypeKit and pay $25-$45/year to have the fonts I used in your design."
• Mr. Client mails me the ashes of what was once our contract.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it wouldn't be that big of a deal. I have, after all, convinced clients on the benefits of using hosted service like Squarespace.

#4 has been my method thus far, and for the most part it has worked. It may continue for the foreseeable future.

Target Audience

It makes sense for The New York Times to use TypeKit: design and development are (most likely) all in-house. But for freelancers with small studios who have multiple clients, TypeKit's model is bit of a challenge. Could that be because we're not they're target audience?

Outside of using TypeKit for a few personal sites, the 50/250 spread don't seem to add up for us independent types who need to something in between and scalable. But I'm definitely open to other points of view.