Font licensing sucks!
Challenging simplicity in product design
Summary
Font licensing is notorious for being confusing and time consuming. Most of a designer’s time is spent identifying the perfect font for a project but, generally speaking, they simply don’t care to deal with the complexities of font licensing. These factors ultimately lead to an increased use of free fonts, thus decreasing revenue for paid fonts. In response, Monotype set out to introduce a new license model that would simplify font licensing, give designers more value for their dollar, and make it easier to understand.
The team
The team consisted of a lead UX researcher (me), a UX designer, and a product manager.
Impact
The core principles of the Creative License (simplicity and value) didn’t resonate with designers and the experience didn’t align with their mental models. In fact, It actually created more friction through the perception of limited, un-scalable licensing options. These insights, along with low conversions, forced Monotype to abandon the new license structure, ultimately preventing lost revenue. Let’s dig in…
License details were initially unclear and overlooked
The design team’s hypothesis was that the license verbiage was unlear and leading to poor conversions. I tested the following prompt via unmoderated usability sessions: Is the Creative License microcopy effective in its communication of the benefits & limitations of the license? Do customers know what they’re buying and are they confident in their choice?
Testing validated the team’s hypothesis, but it also revealed unexpected points of friction for participants. Participants could choose amongst 3 license options (Classic, Creative, and Custom) however, only 2 options were immediately visible. The third required participants to scroll in order to see it, so it was largely overlooked altogether. Additionally, the limitations of each license were not immediately clear without explanation. Copy and design changes were suggested to ensure clarity and to provide equal hierarchy for the 3 license options.
Prompt A: Please briefly tell us your reason for choosing the specific license that you selected.
Prompt B: What are the benefits / limitations of the license you selected over the other available options?
fig A: The view for most participants. The business license is not noticeable.
Suggested: All licenses should have equal hierarchy and clearly defined uses and benefits.
People were still confused
For the next iteration (see fig B), I tested the updates by having participants simulate the font buying experience. The study revealed a host of new issues. The copy still did not instill buying confidence, participants feared the license would not be able to scale to their needs, and there was a noticeable increase in cognitive load when trying to understand the nuances of the new license model.
But the big A-HA came when we discovered that the Creative License wasn’t actually the problem after all.
The barrier to adoption for the Creative License to succeed was that by introducing it, we were modifying the entire licensing model in order to accommodate it. This new model didn’t align with participants’ mental models of existing licensing structures that had become commonplace in the design industry.
fig B: Updated icons, titles, and micro-copy
Moderated study session
In addition to these new insights, it had also come to light that the existing license structure was actually converting more poorly than the previous structure (see fig c). It was recommended that the previous license structure—where all available licenses were clearly visible and defined—be re-instated as it led to the highest conversion rates. Three years after these sessions, the recommended license structure (A) was finally re-instated.
fig C: The recommended license structure (A) made all license options visible and converted higher.