Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

I believe the most important distinction is that cost is most often used as a verb, whereas fee is always a noun. But there are times when cost is used as a noun, too, so I'll give you my opinion.

I think cost is a more general term, and it does not necessarily need to refer to monetary expense. In the one arena in which I'm familiar with a very important distinction between the two terms — law — fees and costs break down in a manner you imply. Fees in that case refer almost exclusively to what one pays to his or her attorney, and in the American legal system, they are the responsibility of the party hiring the attorney, win or lose (there are some exceptions). Costs are basically everything else attendant to the prosecution of a lawsuit: court filing fees, deposition expenses, outside document reviews, photocopying, expert witnesses, etc. Costs are often recoverable by the winning party. In this particular case the distinction between fees and costs is pretty clear (and pretty important), but I also think the distinctions in litigation fit into the larger scheme of distinguishing between the two: fees are what one pays for a particular service; costs are the expenses attending whatever service one is paying the fees for.

I can see the "negative" implication you see in the word cost. In economics — and in some general usage — it indeed has that sense. Cost is that which one gives up for a particular benefit, monetary or otherwise. In that regard, cost embraces fee; what a client pays an attorney is a cost to that client to obtain the benefit of professional services. In most contexts, I doubt the distinction makes much difference. However, as I said above, sometimes the distinction makes an enormous difference.

Anyway, after my long post that failed to answer your question, kathyupton, I would suggest that there is, for example, a "$1000 fee" for attending the workshop, and that is how it should be represented on the flyer. Attending the workshop would cost each attendee $1000.

I have always used "fee" to denote something which is a privilege, e.g. an annual membership fee to the golf club. A cost would be something like the cost of parking your car, or getting in to a cricket match.

So the deciding factor in this case would be whether or not the workshop is open to the general public without any scrutiny of the suitability of would-be attendees (cost) or only to those considered the type of person wanted there (fee).

Shep said:

I have always used "fee" to denote something which is a privilege, e.g. an annual membership fee to the golf club. A cost would be something like the cost of parking your car, or getting in to a cricket match.

So the deciding factor in this case would be whether or not the workshop is open to the general public without any scrutiny of the suitability of would-be attendees (cost) or only to those considered the type of person wanted there (fee).

Perhaps there is some distinction in the above in British usage, but I am having a hard time finding the difference or sense in the definitions you offer, Shep. Maybe I've misread it. And, Peter, I hope I didn't diverge us down some mostly inconsequential path with my above remarks on the distinction between fee and cost in litigation; even there costs can be things that are called fees — e.g., court filing "fees", expert witnesses' "fees", court reporters' "fees" for depositions. My point was only that there is a special distinction in the profession for "attorneys' fees" in one category, and "costs", generally, in another category. (By the way, for our friend Shep in the UK, this distinction is less important, because in that legal system attorneys' fees are recoverable by the winning party; it is thus referred to as the "English system".)

Within Shep's argument there is a point, I think, for the original poster. A fee is a price one has to pay for admission to some event or the benefit of some service. That fee then is a cost to the one paying it; admission or the services then cost the person paying the amount of the fee. A flyer, then, should call the price of admission to an event a fee, in my opinion. That's the best I can do.

Since I'm bored, let me go back into the archives and pull one out for rehashing.   No one here seems to have said what occurs to me, that "fee" is to "cost" as "tactics" is to "strategy"—or perhaps vice versa

"Strategy" is what you want to accomplish, "tactics" is how you're going to go about it, right?   So the politicians decide that one of their strategic goals is to acquire a reliable source of heavy water and also to stay at peace with their neighbor to the east; to accomplish this they must figure out their tactics.   The commander-in-chief decides that tactically his forces must occupy Harkanto by early May; he assigns that task to one of his generals, for whom that becomes a strategic goal, and to accomplish it he wants to begin by establishing long-range artillery on hill 47.   That assignment becomes the captain's strategic goal, and the captain must develop tactics to accomplish it, and so on.

What I'm getting at is that you can charge a fee to cover your costs, but that fee becomes a cost to the man who has to pay that fee and pass it on to his customers.   Suppose I put on a class; I have to pay a fee to rent the classroom.   I also shell out for materials, phone bills for setting up the class and what-not.   That rental fee is just one of my costs.   To cover all that I charge a fee for the class.   You, to attend this class, must pay my fee; in addition you'll have to pay for travel to the class, meals while you're there, probably a hotel a night or two, like that.   So one of your costs for the class is the fee you pay to me, as well as the other items.

This is not to disagree with other distinctions described above.   It's just an alternative way of looking at it.