Recently in Corporate Category
When Creative Suite 6 ships, sometime within the next few months, Adobe is hoping you'll purchase a subscription to its Creative Cloud, which is a central component of the release. Let me restate that: Adobe is really, REALLY hoping you'll pop for a subscription. And when you look closely at this cloud-based "creative hub," as Adobe calls it, it's not hard to see why, since it solves a lot of problems for the firm.
Like many of you, I use Adobe Creative Suite applications every day, specifically Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Acrobat Pro. These form the core of the tools I work with to maintain Graphics.com. The only significant exception is in the area of vector graphics—while Illustrator is part of Design Premium, I've never warmed to it and instead use Xara Designer Pro. I also have something else in common with more than a few of you, in that I'm not using a current version of these Adobe apps. Since I pay for the Suite myself, keeping it current, especially with new versions now being released more often, is a luxury I can't afford. But a recent shift in upgrade policy puts into question my ability to ever upgrade my applications.
When complete strangers ask you to lend your voice to their cause, history has shown that it's wise to reflect before taking up the banner. Because sometimes outwardly worthy causes can mask an unsuspected agenda. I guess I've been around long enough that a big red light starts flashing when I bump up against these. So it was when I recently received an email entitled Artists Ask Obama Administration to Protect Copyright.
Those of us who provide fee-based services live and die by our ability to build an ever-bigger "platform," as the book trade calls it—a stew of branding and reach that generates a critical mass of ubiquity and trust in a given domain. Thus we can all take notes from Marty Neumeier who, through a series of books and a recent video, artfully demonstrates how to construct a mechanism that not only drives revenue up front but more importantly feeds the enterprise, hungry for clients, that lies behind.
The world of the favicon is a harsh one. Of all the challenges facing graphic designers, compressing a company's identity into an area 16 pixels square has to be one of the toughest. Some firms, such as Apple and Adobe, catch a break, since their graphically simple logos translate well into favicondom. But others find the task daunting, not least of which, it would seem, is Google.
My previous post was on November 28, the last day of Adobe's 2008 fourth quarter. As it turned out, both events had something in common—the responsibility of designers to move their profession forwards. The first involved an investment in time. The second, money.
So, did you think the first two Microsoft ads sucked? Personally, the first one left me spinning in circles, while the second one seemed like a remake of Un Chien Andalou set in suburbia. But with the latest phase of this campaign, we seem to be on firmer ground.
I don't have a violent aversion to marketing messages in public places. In fact, I’ve even been known to stop in my tracks to take in a particularly effective use of imagery or type, chuckle at a witty play on words or savor an effective branding treatment. But recently things have gotten out of hand here in Lyon to the point where my previously benign feelings have turned into a growing dislike for outdoor advertising. Strangely enough, bicycles are largely to blame.
Web site designer and search engine marketer Lance Dutson recently found himself on the receiving end of a multi million-dollar lawsuit. The legal action was a result of continued criticism in his Maine Web Report blog of how the Maine Office of Tourism was conducting its marketing campaign, and by extension the large New York City-based firm responsible for the campaign. The case is quickly becoming a cause célèbre in the blogosphere from a freedom of speech perspective. But it also raises significant questions for those who create, purchase or comment on marketing communications.
Imagine a world in which Epson made cars, instead of printers. In this brave new world you'd be admonished to buy special gas at Epson stations, no matter what the price. Use of other gas might risk damaging your car, and would void its warranty, although these stations would be rare, due to legal challenges by Epson. When filling up at an Epson station, you'd pay for a full tank of gas, but never know how much gas you were really getting for your money.
