Adobe has provided comments on the Print Industry Advisory Forum they held yesterday to address concerns raised within the printing industry after Adobe's June 6th announcement of an agreement with FedEx Kinko’s to include Kinko's proprietary web-to-print technology in Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat 8 software.
The comments from Adobe:
At today's Print Industry Advisory Forum, more than two dozen leading print industry executives and print partners met with Adobe executives to discuss the recent Adobe / FedEx Kinko's announcement. The open forum was an opportunity for Adobe to listen to the community's concerns and suggestions. Many ideas were discussed, but the key recommendations resulting from the forum were:
1. Reevaluate the implementation of the FedEx Kinko’s service in Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader.
2. Explore options of making print service providers more discoverable in Adobe’s creative products.
3. Investigate the ability for printers to distribute a branded plug-in to their customers.The next steps are to review the meeting notes and for Adobe to communicate its response by August 1. Also, Adobe informed print providers concerned about exposing their customers to a competitive solution that there has always been a way for users to remove the button. More details can be found at http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb401726
Adobe has a long history with the print industry that it appreciates and values greatly. Today's forum was open and honest, and Adobe looks forward to continuing the dialog and working toward a solution.
John Loiacono, Adobe's SVP of the Creative Solutions Business Unit has also posted a note on his blog about Adobe's Lessons Learned. In his post, Loiacono says:
The last several weeks have been weeks filled with a number of painful lessons learned.
Some of you might have seen the announcement we made with FedEx Kinko's regarding putting a "Send to FedEx Kinko's" button in the 8.1 version of Adobe Reader and Acrobat Professional. And you might have also seen the blogs and articles about the reaction of many members of the print community. The reaction was immediate, strong, and negative. That was our first lesson learned. We met the objective of developing new business opportunities for our technology and addressing a customer's print workflow problem, but did not engage with print industry thought leaders and influencers early in the deal cycle to determine how to best implement the program. We have a long-standing, very supportive relationship with the print community, so getting their input should have been baked into the process.
I'm glad to see Loiacono is starting to use his blog to discuss this issue in the open. I hope he continues to use it to keep us updated as they work towards a solution.
What are your thoughts on the comments Adobe made today?
Previously on PrintCEO blog:
Adobe and Kinko’s deal has printers in an uproar
More on the Adobe-FedEx Kinko’s Deal
Discussion
By Dr. Joe Webb on Jul 19, 2007
So basically nothing concrete happened at the meeting. One would have hoped that something definitive would have been announced. Obviously the deal with FedEx is rather ironclad, otherwise there would be hard actions rather than "explore, investigate, and evaluate" steps.
On an investment relations side, I wonder if the Adobe/FedEx deal will be mentioned in their business conditions review in their SEC filings, and if the print business reactions will be mentioned in their risks assessment. All of these events have happened in the company's third fiscal quarter. Their next investor conference call is on September 17, a week after GraphExpo.
Will the Adobe PR machine be focusing on the show and on that conference call as their timetable for setting things straight?
By Pat Berger on Jul 19, 2007
Sounds like the usual corporate BS. If we drag our feet long enough things will be forgotten. I don't think so. It didn't take very long to provide a fix to turn the Fedex/Kinko's fiasco off. Come-on we know Adobe is in hot water they just want to anger the least amount of customers and call it fixed or minimal damage control.
By Bob Herion on Jul 19, 2007
I'm certain we'll hear more details soon and I'm looking forward to August 1st and perhaps Adobe shold hve stopped right there in their broadcast email. For those who didn't get it, in it they say "...print professionals that are concerned about exposing their customers to another print solution can disable the 'Print to Kinkos' feature. More details can be found at..."
Well, at least I know I can visit all my customers and all their workstations and edit their registries to prevent further exposure. Some customers will require that I spend several weeks in a far away place. Does anyone know of other valuable register edits I can make while I'm there?
By Patrick Berger on Jul 19, 2007
On the fiasco fix I was referring to the post Adobe put on their web site to turn off the Fedex/kinko's icon. We receive emails from Adobe every week and they NEVER mentioned anytrhing about turning off the Fedex/Kinko's icon. If it wasn't for this Printeblog very few would have been informed of the software to turn off the icon. Adobe has a very good record of keeping us informed of bugs or fixes BUT NOT ON THIS ONE.
By John Polvino on Jul 19, 2007
I would agree that this is business as usual for any large corporation run by hired guns versus true owners. I would also agree that the print community needs to collectively keep responding to Adobe in direct, purposeful terms. I beleive the national associations have an obligation to their members to speak up loudly and forcefully. Stop pussyfooting around the issue and having "dialogues" and tell Adobe flat out this is not the way business is done and the print community will not tolerate the decision. We pay substantial money to these orgainzations like PIA/GATF, NAPL, etc and they should respond on our behalf in language that makes clear the sentiment of their membership. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly until Adobe reverses course.
By Mark Czajka on Jul 19, 2007
Fedex/Kinkos obviously paid some money for this capability (like they paid for the rights to name Fedex Field in DC/MD). Print Partners also pay money to Adobe.
http://partners.adobe.com/public/asn/psp/detail.html
Authorized or Premium Partners should have some vehicle, similar to the Fedex button, to easily have their customers upload PDFs through Adobe Reader/Professional to their ftp or websites, whether it be through a drop down off the menu or a button of their own.
The issue is convenience. Certainly in volume, Fedex/Kinkos is not cheap, and the service varies from location to location.
I don't think printers are asking for a free solution to the problem, just a fair solution for loyal print partners.
By John Henry on Jul 19, 2007
So the end result is go pound salt, we are Adobe and will do as we please. You Printers should be happy that we allow you to use our products.
It is time for printers to embrace other products and move Adobe to the background.
I will not longer Beta or give feedback to Adobe.
I will be buying a Global HQ based Rip with my next upgrade.
I will be working with XPS with open arms.
I will be putting Quark preferred signs up and recommending Quark when asked by my customers what program will prefer they use.
Of course will take Adobe and still use the programs to meet my customer needs. That said I will make every effort to find others ways to run my business.
By Kevin Rofheart on Jul 19, 2007
Sadly, this is the weak response I expected. I will not allow a software manufacturer make me squirm or help a competitor steal my customers - this is business, no negotiations, no threats, no more warnings, I will find new software for my enterprise and allow the forces of capitalism to demonstrate to Adobe the error of their ways. Now, where is that old copy of Ready, Set, Go...
By George Ryan on Jul 19, 2007
Adobe 8.1 has printers in Florida very upset. One printer suggested that we organize a boycott against using Fed Ex in their business in response to this arrangement. This might help motivate Adobe to change directions.
By Bryan Yeager on Jul 19, 2007
I've waited to comment on this issue for a little until more things panned out, and now they have. Ultimately, I understand both sides of the issue. I understand why FedExKinkos would want to have a service in Reader and why Adobe would be willing to go into that deal. I also understand why this would get the printing industry somewhat miffed. However, I think there has been a lot of unnecessary whining and crying from the printing industry. I mean, what did you think Adobe was going to do? Opt out of a seemingly large contractual obligation with FedExKinkos? Sure, that may be the optimal answer for industry, but is it reality? No, it's not, it's simply wishful thinking. Was a response necessary? Sure it was. I think there was some overreaction. Let's think about a few things. First, look who we're dealing with. It's KINKOS. I mean come on. They're wildly overpriced and provide subpar service. Why do you think their sales are doing so horribly? Also, let's think about how many people have personal printers at home, whether laser or inkjet. They can get comparable quality from those printers at home for a cheaper price than they can at FedExKinkos. In my mind, this Adobe/Kinkos deal is a last-ditch effort by Kinkos to try and regain some sort of profit. Ultimately, I don't think it will work. Yes yes, I understand the whole thing where Adobe is choosing one print provider to distribute with its software over all the others. I get it. Do I really care? Not really. If you're that worried that Kinkos is going to take that much business away from you, you should probably be rethinking your business strategy. You've got bigger things to worry about. Finally, let's be honest. Adobe offers the best desktop publishing software out there today. Let's not kid ourselves with dreams of using open source software to operate at a business level. The open source movement is noble, and has made leaps and bounds in other areas, such as with OpenOffice. However, desktop publishing is not one of those areas. Don't even get me started with Quark. Adobe's software suite is excellent, and this little mishap doesn't change that all, as much as some people may want to think that. You use what the customer wants, and the trend is that most customers want Adobe. If you try to diminish that, you're only paying a disservice to your customer and yourself.
By Dennis W. Ewing Sr. on Jul 19, 2007
Adobe does have great software. That does not mean that they should do something this stupid without some outrage from the users of that software. I have been an evangelist for Adobe for years, converting many Quark users. The fact is: Many of us in the industry are small shops and these are the ones that will be most hurt by this link. RR Donnally is not going to feel a hiccup. Ewing and Sons Printing will. This is just Adobe's trial balloon for trying to control where the output goes. I see the future as: If Acrobat is used to prepare copy you will pay Adobe a cut for the "right" to print the job. This is just the first of Adobe's attempts to control print. We have to end it now.
By Bryan Yeager on Jul 19, 2007
Mr. Ewing: Considering that PDF is an open standard (ISO 15930), I would say that your statement about is just another overreaction like the ones I was talking about. There are plenty of ways to make PDFs. If your scenario were true, all I would have to do is use another source for PDF creation, which is very feasible to do. If Adobe were to make PDF proprietary, then we would have something to worry about. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
By Keith Stoner on Jul 19, 2007
What would we all think if Apple or Microsoft added a “send to Kinko” to their operating system? It’s a slippery slope and I think Adobe should re-think this change to Acrobat. But on the other hand if this lame money grabbing idea cooked up by Adobe marketing catches on I have a few suggestions Sell the Acrobat startup splash screen to Starbucks, I could run out and get a coffee after Acrobat crashes. Perhaps I could earn Canadian Tire money for everything I “send to Kinko’s” Inside Canadian joke. Add a “send to overseas to ultra cheap out-sourcing company”
By Paul Bethel on Jul 20, 2007
People, let's give Adobe a little breathing room to get the problem resolved. Nothing can be resolved in the initial meeting(s). I'm sure Adobe has created a legal binding with FedEx Kinko's that will not allow them to just pull the plug. I'm fairly sure there are things none of us really know or understand about all the behind-the-scenes things that have to take place before a resolution can happen. Certainly, some feasible resolution should be available to the general public within 60-90 days. I could be wrong, but let's be patient and see what's on the horizon. If they don't move in a proper amount of time after hearing all of the voices of complaint, then we can pound them.
By Dale Henderson on Jul 20, 2007
Wrong is wrong, regardless who initiates it.
Adobe should "own" up to what they have done (a huge mis-step) and immediately take corrective action (remove the button) and show no preferential treatment to any customer regardless of their size and wallet.
By John Stagliano on Jul 20, 2007
People are obviously upset about this, but hey lets get down to business, Kinkos have the largest available network of instant print infranstructure in North America, so does it make sense, absolutely. Is it really going to impact any one else in the printing industry, NOT AT ALL. These features are rarely used, as we have seen with the whole photo lab direct printing experiment, and that arguably has more merit and practicality. Adobe did the right thing and gave everyone a forum to discuss the issue, and have said they will come back at the end of the month. Sounds fair to me. Why should 2 successful businesses not be allowed to capitalize on the scale of each others operations to better servce their customers? If you ask me its a slippery slope telling them they cant.
By Thomas D. Greer on Jul 20, 2007
"Is it really going to impact any one (sic) else in the printing industry..." http://printceoblog.com/2007/06/adobe-fedex-kinko-deal#comment-1432
By Dr Joe Webb on Jul 20, 2007
Let's give Adobe some breathing room? Adobe is the one who set the date for the meeting.
They have a conference call the week after GraphExpo. There's almost six weeks before the show for something to happen.
I'm curious as to whether or not this is mentioned in the SEC filings for their quarterly report. In their 10Q and 10K filings they have to report anything that can have a material effect on their operations, including any new risks in the marketplace or among competitors.
If nothing appears about the FedExKinko's contract, and the public relations problems, that means that their CFO, and Bruce Chizen, are telling their stockholders that this entire event is not material to their financial results. Imagine that... what if nothing appears... then the printing industry is being told that its purchases are not material to Adobe's sales? It will be quite interesting...
As for not using FedEx, remember that NAPL has a discount program with DHL.
PIA is another matter... Go to
http://www.gain.net/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=lower33&wps_key=f709fe79-7889-449b-a594-a93bfcc020ae
and you will see that PIA has discount programs with Adobe and FedEx! Considering how strong PIA's letter was to Adobe, you would think that these would be removed. Perhaps it is an oversight that should be brought to their attention?
Here's the Adobe discount program:
http://www.gain.net/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=lower33&wps_key=F90464AA-DCF2-46C5-90EF-ECF4D84A0791
Here's the FedEx program:
http://www.gain.net/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=lower33&wps_key=D59B458D-953D-4714-B20C-526EE3D28A6C
There's even an Adobe click-through ad on the PIA/GATF home page (as of the time of this writing, 7/20/07 @ 8:45pm EDT)
http://www.gain.net/eweb/StartPage.aspx?site=GAIN
NAPL has no such programs with Adobe or FedEx.
By James Tampone on Jul 21, 2007
It is interesting that there is a great focus on penalizing FedEx for doing what any business core purpose is.....to generate revenue. While I'm not excited about the idea of Adobe getting in bed with FedEx I'm also know, as well as the rest of the print community, that Adobe's applications have benefited tremendously by input from the print community. It would seem to me that if the print community wanted to send a clear message it would be to begin to investigate and migrate to other applications.... This may even be a good thing as the small startup firm out there with the new app can now possibly get a start and not be dismissed by the print community because the first words out of our programmed responses is that Adobe has that locked up. Any application is made or broke by its users. This reminds me of another little company who is recent times has seen it's death grip on businesses around it take a hit because of backlash from the consumer ..... they call themselves Walmart.
By Charles Dostale on Jul 23, 2007
Adobe added a FedEx/Kinko's button to a FREE product, possibly to keep it FREE. The pay-for Acrobat does not have the button, or I can't find it. I would rather have a free product with the FedEx/Kinko's button than have Reader become a pay-for product. A pay-for Reader would hurt my business more than this button.
Also, have you used the button ? It is not as easy to use as some might think, and there is a size limit to files uploaded. Our clients already use FedEx/Kinko's for some projects, I don't think the built-in button will increase their use of that vendor. Our clients can already get the same functionality from the FedEx/Kinko's web site.
We have tried to stake out a printing niche that we think provides better service than what the FedEx/Kinko's web site/Reader button can provide, and make sure our clients understand that difference. Other companies may be in more direct competition with FedEx/Kinko's, their opinions will differ. Those companies would have had to already have a website similar to the FedEx/Kinko's site.
By Mark Czajka on Jul 25, 2007
The argument to remove the button is ridiculous. It's too late, and software is already in the field. If someone installs an update, and it removes the button, then Adobe will have another group of people who will be upset, the users who are current Kinkos customers (or government users - I have to believe federal government users are somehow involved in Adobe's decision to add this feature! See this link: http://www.gpo.gov/gpoexpress/index.html) that find it to be a useful tool. NAPL, NAQP and their coalition should focus on getting the same or similar functionality to Adobe's Print Partners. Don't waste this opportunity sitting right in front of you now that you have Adobe's attention!
By Michael Josefowic z on Jul 26, 2007
Framing this argument as Adobe vs the Printing Industry doesn't really help. It draws off lots of thought and energy that could be used much more productively. Based on my experience, the problem of printers "being concerned about exposing their customers to a competitive solution" is bogus. It is based on a pre internet world where a printer thought they could "own" a customer. Does anyone seriously believe that most potential customers don't already know about most of the possible competitors and make their decisions every day on the basis of what works best for them. What is a bigger problem for quick printers? The Reader button to Kinko's or Staples, Office Depot,Office Max or the other quick printer three blocks away. No buttons necessary. This is the kind of misdirected anger that has impeded the kind of collaboration among print manufacturers and the "trade secret" mentality that tends to hold back honest discussion. If a button on Reader is a real threat to printing company, it is probably time for that printing company to think very hard about their customers and what they have done for them lately.
By Steve Swonk on Jul 30, 2007
While I initially saw a threat to my own status quo because of the now famous "button", I now see it as a mild challenge. Sure, offshore Indigo and iGen operators are at the ready, waiting to take your call. But even Lou Dobbs must agree, they can't compete with a ready and willing group of printing professionals in the areas we can and will be competing in in the future. The Wal-Mart model wasn't what Adobe was thinking about. It's a pure "yeah, I'll sell that" hunch that is best looked at as trivial by a savvy printer these days. Adobe owes zero to anyone. They have the right to sell whatever they want. In that sense, I am thinking about the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority selling the right to name "State Street" subway stop in Boston after Citizens Bank. That was a focal point for many flames from rail and public infrastructure purists for a while. Well, they tried it, the public yawned and it went away. This is that type of boondoggle for FedEx. Adobe is laughing all the way to the bank.
By pmv on Aug 01, 2007
I think this deal with kinkos goes back a good 10-12 years, with kinkos dragging its feet and essentially trashing adobe's attempt at becoming a fully brokereable online printing solution. Originally they had interested various vendors in a more generic offering (which included online pdf preflighting and preview for markup, etc) this process was helped by adobe's own overzealous marketing and eventually the entire plan collapsed under the weight of confused kinkos and netscape (yes I said netscape) intermediaries. I suspect after hp's dropping adobe's postscript 2 from its printers, adobe felt a little worked up over the potential of losing a large oem, and jumped the wrong way. But I think its unlikely that printing vendors define format (they never could previously) and its pretty clear that pdf has 'won' as the desired format - so even if print shops are 'outraged' they really don't have anywhere else (including quark) to turn at the moment without adopting device dependant formats that fail to provide production features (eg trapping). That said, in the interest of its overall product line adobe needs to do what it can to remain vendor (and platform) neutral - and should be encouraged to do so.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free