Monotype
The (once) empire of words
When you think of typography, Monotype quickly comes to mind. And yet Monotype has varied almost as much as typography itself.
Stanley Morison’s Monotype is not the same as the Monotype of the 1980s (the legal entity itself is quite different), itself a world away from the Monotype we know today.
There was a Monotype up to IBM, then a different Monotype took shape with Microsoft. Microsoft and Monotype often walk hand in hand.
So far, there is no new Microsoft, there is no new Monotype.
We can think of Monotype as a giant of typographic intellectual property, but this pre-eminence was not built indifferently.
It is a media conquest at least as much as a typographic conquest. Monotype started out as printing machines, titans of the mechanization of writing.
As long as the Monotype equipment was in use, it was necessary to go through an adaptation on the Monotype machines in order for the typefaces to be used — there was thus an infrastructure control. These positions revenues gave Monotype time to build an initial collection of reference typefaces — Plantin, Gill Sans, Times New Roman, etc. Where the situation became more delicate was when digital photocomposition and then digital printing came to free up the infrastructure. From then on, Monotype was only worth its intellectual property, the industrial infrastructure — its machines — no longer being used. In typography in the 1970s, soft power became more important than hard power. ITC embodies this, but also the Helvetica typeface adapted to all infrastructures, all systems whose design in itself is becoming more and more valuable. When IBM and then Microsoft came to see Monotype, the latter was credited with the design of Times New Roman and with an industrial capacity to produce a functional typeface close to Helvetica (1 ■), even if this capacity in a still nascent digital typographic universe was not so much due to considerable technological means but above all to human resources that could be mobilized to use them to the maximum of their possibilities. With the MT-MS deal, Monotype understands that Microsoft and the personal computers’ operating systems represent the infrastructure that must be invested. Thereafter, Monotype will continue to do what it has always done — push classics, old and new, into the infrastructure. To do this, it acquired the intellectual property it needed — prestigious intellectual property but also useful intellectual property. Zapf is mostly prestigious, Frutiger is as prestigious as it is useful (Frutiger, Avenir). Office automation, communication agencies, applications. Not so much the Web, because this infrastructure is much better controlled by Google. In the smaller creative segment, Adobe has better understood and again better controlled the infrastructure (the Creative Suite, the Creative Cloud, interface design with Figma in addition to XD — Adobe-Figma is not so sure these days though) and therefore is very relevant. But Monotype knows how to play alliances (see “Monotype and the Yalta of Type”), Helvetica is present in Google Workplace (which is an infrastructure in itself), Noto was developed for Google, some Monotype fonts are in Adobe Fonts and Adobe Originals fonts are also distributed by Monotype.
Monotype is Helvetica, Arial, Gotham, Meta, Akzidenz Grotesk, Times New Roman, Plantin.
It is also Futura, DIN, Garamond, Didot, Walbaum, Bodoni, even if you can find flavours of these typefaces with other vendors.
Monotype covers the 6 typefaces of the Vignelli canon — for the record: Garamond, Times, Century Expanded, Futura, Helvetica, Bodoni, Helvetica.
But the control of Helvetica illustrates perfectly the asset strategy of Monotype and how pervasive it became. First, in the 1980s, Monotype was saved because it was able to bring a functional alternative to Helvetica to Microsoft. In 2006 Monotype acquired Linotype (2 ■), finally getting a hand on Helvetica. In 2012, Monotype acquired Bistream, a huge provider of Helvetica (and other iconic typefaces) clones (3 ■). In 2014 Monotype acquired FontShop (4 ■), including Meta, the Helvetica of the 1990s. In 2019, Monotype launches Helvetica Now, as as restart of both Helvetica brand and iconic design. In 2020 Monotype acquired URW (5 ■), including Nimbus Sans, a clone of Helvetica — a open source flavour of Nimbus Sans exists which it is still somehow a liability (6 ■). In 2021 Monotype acquired Hoefler & Co (7 ■), including Gotham, the Helvetica of the 2000s. Finally in 2022 Monotype acquired Berthold inventory (8 ■), including Akzidenz Grotesk, the ancestor of Helvetica. And subsequently in May 2023, Monotype acquired the David Berlow inventory of Font Bureau, including Bureau Grotesque and Benton Modern (9 ■).
The other foundries are constrained to perpendicular or parallel lives. Perpendicular when they approach the same registers, more or less legally/ethically. Parallel when they imagine something else.
Monotype’s empire is only valid as long as its fonts are prescribed and used. It is true however that Monotype holds many key typographic molecules to draw a parallel with the drug business. Today, Monotype is a meta-agency advising other agencies to make them prescribing and/or commission fonts. Having the word out and formed in the same move, that’s the whole point.
But the question of point of view is also important. In OhnoType Radio, Christian Schwartz and James Edmunson agree that they work in the fashion industry — in the sense of constant renewal (10 ■). It’s not clear whether Monotype feels the same way or not. Financially and economically, MT is banking on a collection of timeless classics that are rented year after year — through the Monotype Fonts service. Even if it is tempting or financially opportune, it is not easy to get out of Helvetica — even if IBM has brillantly demonstrated the contrary with an exemplary project (11 ■). Sure it’s IBM, once a kingmaker of Monotype, but Monotype is more powerful now and for an IBM left, there is Pantone, L’Oreal, Migros, Carleton University, the MIT Civil and Environmental Engineering that all use Helvetica Now, also BASF use Helvetica Neue.
Even if Google’s free alternatives appeal for obvious reasons of convenience, both technical and financial, Monotype is that “bridge over troubled waters” (12 ■) for many agencies and sponsors. The case of Monotype invites better heritage management in the typographic community. Older typefaces have value. DJR brilliantly took over Forma, Klim knew how to tie Rosart and Fleischmann together in a different way (Epicene), also brillantly revived Plantin (Martina Plantijn), what would the Adobe Originals program be without Adobe Garamond, Adobe Caslon and Garamond Premier? As for new standards, it is perhaps today — 20 years, 30 years later — that we best measure the contribution of typefaces such as Le Monde Journal by Jean Fran?ois Porchez or Borges by Alessandro Lo Celso. We will see later that new standards can also be quicker to emerge.
Still, Monotype history’s great lesson is that typographic richness is rich above all of time.
That’s why Monotype is such a fascinating topic to write and learn about. The thing about their “monopoly” is not that much about how many typefaces designs they own; it is about how many type design standards or classics they have. Besides Adobe Originals or perhaps Google’s Roboto (because even as said earlier Noto is a Monotype product (13 ■), there are not many type design lasting standards out of the Monotype realm. But the problem for Monotype is that the new standards are not Monotype’s. Except Noto. But look at LL Circular, IBM Plex, Inter, Proxima Nova — not Monotype assets. We will come to that later.
Monotype and the Yalta of Type
There is a sort of Yalta between Adobe, Monotype and Google (we could call them the Big Three), not that much about font IP but about the fonts distribution. Adobe Fonts, Monotype Fonts and Google Fonts are three ways to distribute fonts and all other foundries are more or less aligned with one at least of these poles. There is also of course Fontstand, but with very few exclusive foundries on it (I can think of CommercialType for instance, but CT collaborates on Neue Haas Grotesk — Monotype IP — and with Google for Roboto Serif). I do not forget I Love Typography (ILT), but again, few exclusive foundries on it. Klim Type is, as far as I know, not tied with either Adobe, Monotype or Google but made a release on Future Fonts, Future Fonts being a very unexpected underdog in the type industry.
The creative leverage
Adobe influence is tied with its control of the infrastructure of the “creative” community (in brackets because Adobe has an extensive notion of creative people, in line with a mass-market strategy). Also Fontstand, FutureFonts and I Love Typography seem to target more indie graphic designers.
The big organisation and office leverage
Monotype is bound with the big agencies culture, also with the office culture, due to its historical partnership with Microsoft.
The Web leverage
Google weaves the Web so to say, so it is not difficult to understand why Google Fonts has such a powerful impact on web sites.
But how could we have a concrete metric of how dominant is Monotype?
I studied the 100 Besten Schriften Aller Zeiten published by FontShop in 2007 (14 ■). Seemed like a good basis. Typefaces controlled by Monotype (as it is today) who were in that list represent around 65 %.
Since 2007, a few successful and iconic non MT designs could be mentioned such as Proxima Nova (released in 2005) and LL Circular (released in 2013).
Also escape mechanisms due to open source alternatives such as Fira (substitute for Meta) released in 2013 or Montserrat since 2010 (substitute for Gotham) play a role through a redirection of influence in favor of Google. In 2017, two years before Monotype leaves NASDAQ, some analysts pointed out that Google was an increasing threat to Monotype position (15 ■).
It is fair to say that for a given printed or displayed word, there is almost 50 % chances that the font you read is provided by Monotype.
This list by Just Creative (16 ■) says it all:
领英推荐
Helvetica — The most iconic font overall Bodoni — The most iconic serif font Baskerville — The most popular font for publication layouts Times New Roman — The most iconic font for anything official Futura — The best iconic casual font Garamond — An old-style serif font for books and newspapers Sabon — A classy serif typeface for business requirements Rockwell — The most popular slab serif font Franklin Gothic — An iconic font for newspapers and advertisements Gill Sans — The British equivalent to Helvetica
Monotype has them all but they are all past standards. What we should observe is how and if Monotype is able to build new standards. As mentioned earlier, Roboto, LL Circular, Proxima Nova are new standards, IBM Plex is on its way to become a new one. Adobe Source Sans and Source Serif (17) are also new standards. Also the Cleartype fonts commissionned, especially Calibri, established new standards by indie type designers as Microsoft departed from Monotype for this series — Verdana and Georgia are beyond Monotype reach, same goes for the new Aptos, the successor to Calibri.
Some most recent standards among MT assets (Avenir, 1988 ; FF Dax, 1995 ; Gotham, 2000) has been acquired by MT but not created within it. Even if initially designed outside Monotype initially (18), Noto is probably the most recent Monotype type standard and it is open source, bringing no more revenues to MT, adverse to the Monotype Fonts subscription model. Pfizer 2021 rebranding using Noto (19 ■) is perhaps is a bitter victory for Monotype.
Is Monotype empire doomed by open source? Not sure because some recent big Google Fonts hits raise ethical issues regarding their designs. Montserrat is similar to Gotham, Inter is based on Roboto (20 ■), ending up being similar to both Helvetica and San Francisco. Roboto itself was once a Frankenstein borrowing from many iconic typefaces (21 ■). Not anymore.
Monotype is probably now stuck with similar-to as it was once save by the similar-to Arial. How ironic…
Still Monotype could very well cut a new deal with Google to clear these similar-to cases. Because Monotype history proves, the position is stronger when the similar-to cases are closed. In exchange, Google infrastructure could welcome more widely Monotype fonts (as it does now with Arial, Helvetica Neue and Times New Roman).
But the other question is to know if Monotype has still the upper hand for creating new designs. Monotype Studio has been busy, the marketing effort is significant — the case of Macklin by Malou Verlomme is interesting. In the middle of pandemic and lock-down, Macklin is released (April 30th 2020) with a 75% discount and variable fonts are free until May 4th. Also Macklin is still widely featured on the Monotype Fonts promotion clip (22 ■) so it seems that Monotype had/has high hopes for establishing Macklin as a new standard. Besides Macklin, Monotype new creations seem sometimes centred on a fantasized British universe — Cotford by Tom Foley also Touvlo by Emilios Theofanous belongs to the same vein. They are great designs but far from a universal safe bet. As a matter of fact, Monotype seems bound to play collective to thrive (Noto of course, but the foundational Times New Roman is a perfect example involving men and women (23 ■) alike) as if in the Monotype culture, design must be first tamed by the institution to be eventually widely adopted.
How deep Monotype will share in its midst besides value will probably say a lot about its future.
But, after all no empire is bound to last forever.
(1) — https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/thirty-years-monotypes-times-new-roman-arial-windows-greg-hitchcock/
(11) — https://www.ibm.com/plex/
(12) — As a reference to the 1974 song of Simon & Garfunkel
(13) — As a consequence of the acquisition of Ascender Corp. in 2010 (https://creativepro.com/monotype-imaging-acquires-ascender-corp/) and subsequent work on Noto project, based on Droid Sans, initially a product of Ascender Corp for Google.
(17) — Now the typeface of Medium, instead of the foundational iconic Charter
(18) — Droid Sans and Droid Serif also Open Sans are all basis of Noto
Type designer, founder of Typofonderie, ZeCraft, TypeParis — Join us for #now25 graphic and Type conference — TypeParis learn type design #typeparis25 — #amplerbikes
1 年Interesting piece. I will had that before recent time, typefaces became iconic not necessarily by what they represent, but their availability in some machines as default fonts. (nb: the current Monotype isn’t the same company as the historic Monotype who had gone bankrupt early 90s. It’s also a buyout.)