The mainstream business media is starting to cover the Adobe-FedEx Kinko’s Deal that has caused an uproar in the printing industry. The Wall Street Journal has a story in today's edition, Adobe-FedEx Link Pushes A Hot Button (link expires in 7 days). The WSJ article does not offer any more details on the deal between Adobe and FedEx, but does provide commentary from Wall Street analysts:
Analysts say the backlash over the Adobe/FedEx deal is unlikely to affect the financial health of Adobe, which reported that profits jumped 24% to $152.5 million in the second quarter. Still, as it tries to generate revenue from more sophisticated graphics tools and, increasingly, compete with larger software companies like Microsoft, Adobe "needs to be making friends, not creating enemies," said Bill Whyman, an analyst with New York brokerage firm International Strategy and Investment Group.
American Public Media's Marketplace reported on the deal this morning during their Marketplace Morning Report. The report Printers see red on Kinko's PDF deal (MP3 of the report) did not go into detail, but included a comment from NAPL president Joe Truncale:
This afternoon Marketplace filed a second report, Printers concerned over Adobe deal, that includes comments from WhatTheyThink.com's Cary Sherburne:What they've essentially done is struck an accord with one customer, which on the surface is certainly their right to do. In doing that, they've upset literally tens of thousands of their other customers.
This is like Ford Motor company putting a blinking light on your little electronic control panel in all of the Ford models that says "You're oil needs changing. Go to Jiffy Lube... They obviously wouldn't have done it if they'd have known, people . . . it was going to create such a firestorm.
Adobe has stated that they will propose a solution on August 1st. Watch for reactions from PIA/GATF, NAPL and others here and on WhatTheyThink.com
Also see continued coverage published today on WhatTheyThink.com with Dr. Joe Webb's Was Adobe's Action an Attempt to Monetize Free Content?.
Discussion
By Michael Josefowic z on Jul 31, 2007
Looking at the deal from the Kinko's perspective might be useful. According to the WSJ article, "The Adobe partnership is part of a new plan to enhance online document services through a digital network that links all FedEx Kinko's stores in an effort to sell office-support services to small businesses and business travelers. FedEx Kinko's has around 1,675 shops around the world, with the bulk of them in the U.S. The idea is that customers can send their printing orders directly from Adobe software -- without even going to FedEx Kinko's online site -- to any shop in the world. From there, the order can be picked up at the FedEx Kinko's store, or sent further via the FedEx services now at the shop locations." The notion of "deliver and print" is not a new idea. But it still doesn't exist for a mass market. It should work that in a world where creatives and business are connected by the internet and not all in the same physical space. The tech is all there, but so far the business problems of bringing it to the ground have kept it from really working. The fact that it is not yet successful is not evidence that it is a bad idea. Just that it doesn't exist yet. Maybe this perspective helps in figuring out some proactive responses to Adobe's decisions. How about if a network of printers asked that they had the same right to bundle a send to XYZ network, but without the cost that Kinko's presumbably paid. Or if that sell is a little too hard, how about if a network of printers joined together to add the links to their network, and then got into the distribution business of Acrobat to their customer base. I could easily imagine VistaPrint putting a button to download the New Free Acrobat Reader with an atuomatice button to them. Any group of printers should be able to do the same. But of course, this assumes that there are a network of printers that would be part of a "Deliver and print" network. Kodak and Xerox seem to have the same idea, but an idea is only an idea, until everyday people can easily buy the service that really works.
By Clifford Scott on Jul 31, 2007
I work for one of those big printers that are not what I would call a small mom & pop print shop that this deal really affected. Why didn't Adobe make this deal with say Quad, Trend, RRD, or Quebecor World? I'll tell you why, because if they did they would get their pants sued off!!! Adobe is acting like Wal-Mart, lets run the small mom & pop print shops out of business, like Wal-Mart did with the small mom & pop hardware, and plumming stores that can't compete with them because of unfair trading practices. I'm tired of big businesses taking advantage of the small business, we should all try to buy from companies that only encourage free trade, not the tyrants that try to run others out of town, and ultimately limit our choices.
Wake-up America, it is time we take our country back, and make big business pay for their mistakes!
By Adam Slutsky, CEO, Mimeo.com on Jul 31, 2007
I applaud Adobe’s effort to support simple, seamless access to online printing services, but they should embrace a model where many providers can operate on an even playing field. In the end, such a model will bring increased awareness to the value of online on-demand printing, create a new revenue stream for Adobe, bring incremental revenue to the best players in this unique space, and most importantly, best serve the needs of everyone’s customers.
It is important for people to know that there are real options available to them. Mimeo.com competes successfully against FedEx Kinko’s for business in the printing of documents using Adobe products. Print buyers want choice and will always demand superior high quality products and services.
By Jack Powers, Recovering Typographer on Aug 01, 2007
As Adam said to Eve walking out of the Garden of Eden, "We live in an age of transition." We've been talking about the consolidation of the printing industry for a long time. This is one more step: a print buyer is getting redefined as one who can point-and-click.
New technology sucks the profit out of everybody's business. Flesh and blood humans can never compete with ultra-efficient robotic processes. The segments of the industry that can be automated, outsourced, offshored, de-skilled -- in other words, de-valued -- will inevitably become hyper-competitive. Are we really talking about fighting over print-out work?