Adobe adds customer functionality, receives criticism from partners

Adobe teams up with FedEx Kinko's

You've got to feel for Adobe Systems. It added what it thought was a feature to some of its products and instead discovered it added a land mine. As reported in today's Wall Street Journal, Adobe added a new button to some of its software that lets customers transfer their documents to a FedEx Kinko's for printing. Sounds good, right?

Apparently not if you're a competing printer. A wide range of these printers, which get more and more of their business from orders over the Web, rather than from walk-in sales, have complained, and Adobe is considering how to respond.

The problem with the complaints is that they come from those who have no business--pun intended--complaining. They don't have the kind of reach that offers consumers a local presence to collect their prints/copies, and it would be inanely cumbersome for Adobe to add a similar print feature for every Mom-and-Pop print shop on the planet.

Are these FedEx Kinko's competitors arguing that the print experience should remain Stone Age? The feature makes a lot of sense--I'd use it regularly, just as I use services like Shutterfly and iPhoto (on the Mac) to send photo print orders over the Web. Yes, I suppose this cuts out the local Costco photo service, but I really don't care as a consumer. I want something that is easy to use at a reasonable price.

In other words, I see Adobe's move as about expanding choice, not limiting choice.

Perhaps Adobe could placate these whiners by providing an open API that would allow them to write their own service. The onus would still be on them to drum up customers who would then one-click install the service into the Adobe software, but surely they could start with past customers as a way to try to facilitate repeat business?

Of course, if the code were open source, then the solution would be much easier to come by. But that's a post for another day.

[ckon3]

easier ways than making software!

that button could have been turned into a link to all the printers, Fedex/kinkos and local companies, in the person's local area... then the printers could compete on price and service. i think that's all the small local shops were seeking, a chance to compete. you don't need to build software to make that happen... and Adobe could have probably made even more money by getting printers to sign up for being a part of their new printing marketplace! i'm just afraid this is another example of how Adobe doesn't really understand how ecommerce works.

[mriffey]

Complaining doesnt help the customer

Even if Adobe produced an open marketplace in CS3, there would still be whiners who wouldnt like it for some reason. In every market, there are whiners, and there are people who get things done despite having mud on their shoes.

Case in point: While all the complaining is going on about the Kinko's button, nothing has or continues to prevent the printing industry or the small printers trade association from coming up with an open standard that the entire industry can use that Adobe (etc) would be nuts to ignore. Sure, a little bit of software would be necessary - but not much.

Add the marketplace concept to that - along with amazon/ebay-esque feedback ratings (oh no, not that, says the printers, lets keep that a secret...) and you have something really useful.

But have they done this? Nope. Perhaps it is easier to rattle sabers, call the lawyers and whine to the press, as opposed to doing a little work, a little marketing and making the Kinko's button an afterthought - or at least a version 1.0.

Funny thing is, this button isnt even competition to REAL printers. How many people staffing a Kinkos are industry experts, cognizant of what CMYK, full bleed, perfect binding, 4 color process (much less 5...), etc are? People using Illustrator are not the types to run out to the nearest Kinkos to get their 4 color work done.

But do you see any marketing from the printers hammering these points home? Nope.

Adobe isnt the bad guy here. They were simply doing something that is common sense. Could it be better? Absolutely, but something has to be 1.0.

Mark Riffey
http://www.rescuemarketing.com/blog/

[Jonathansalembaskin]

Good branding done badly

I'm a marketer, so I see this as a case of Adobe improving its product functionality, which is a good way to strengthen its brand. Imagine if we were getting some inert, pointless brand advertising from them instead...at least they're trying to improve their consumers' actual experience of the product and service. That's good branding.

It seems that the immediate problem can be fixed by making the button customizable for any printer -- I doubt few of the complaining entities would ever bother to make work that much easier for their clients, but if they did, good for them! -- and then for Adobe to go back to the planning table and look at what other innovations are on tap that might influence the experience of its brand.

This entire shebang was a communications error more than one of strategy: it was planned poorly, and announced worse. Where were the marketers? Wrapping branding blather around the news wasn't 'branding' done well...they could have gotten a lot more, and a lot more positive, mileage out of it.

I've written a bit about it from a branding perspective on my blog, Dim Bulb, if you'd like to check it out. http://dimbulb.typepad.com