I recently noticed the redesign of the Adobe Edge newsletter and was floored. I thought to myself, ‘This is Adobe?’. It looked like something from a first year design student. Ok, maybe that is a little harsh. It is clean and well spaced, so it is decent from a layout stand point. However, what’s with the outer glow on the Edge typeface? Very reminiscent of 1995. The heavy drop shadows on the titling type, and inset shadow on the main navigation certainly don’t help it either. Is the Adobe brand going downhill?
Seeing this brought to mind the Adobe.com site redesign after the Macromedia acquisition. The site was redesigned earlier in 2006, and I remember what I thought when I first saw it…corporate compromise. It was essentially the Macromedia layout. However the headers were ruined by replacing the pleasing ‘gel-like’ style with an ugly, bland version derived from the gray of the previous Adobe.com site. The bastardization completely clashes with Adobe’s logo, and in my view, their brand as a whole.
What’s in a Brand
When we think about brand, we see it as the intangible glue between the product and the customer. A brand is not about the visuals, as the word is often demoted to, but rather it’s about how a customer sees the company or product, and their relationship with it. The brand visuals should communicate this relationship, and backup what the company promises about the brand. In this case, Adobe’s brand was about producing the worlds most powerful and ubiquitous design software. It is the stuff for pros. Photoshop is the king in the world of design and as customers we view it as very high-end software. This is how we relate to their brand, and Adobe’s logo embodies this well. A powerful, strong black, exciting red, and refined angular lines all silently communicate these qualities and backup their brand promise.
Earlier Adobe.com designs did a decent job at conveying this. Adobe.coms’ 2001 redesign was done by Hilman Curtis, and is our favorite for communicating their brand. It was clean and sported a strong black header. The overall feel matched the Adobe brand well by communicating sophistication, elegance, and quality. It was very appropriate for the creator of the worlds most powerful design software. The design that followed corca 2003 wasn’t as good, however it was still accurate in conveying Adobe’s brand compared to the latest version.
Macromedia, in from stage left
Now compare that with what happened since Macromedia came in. The site has neither the high-end sophistication of Adobe, nor the more technical, edgy 
look of Macromedia. The powers that be, clearly took half the visuals from one brand, half from the other, and force fit them together. It reminds me of the same thing that happened with the Sprint and Nextel merger. Rather than taking the opportunity to reevaluate the brand and design for a new exciting direction in the company, it looks like a business driven compromise.
You can see the lack of care in other areas as well. For instance, the shockingly awful design of the Adobe Labs sub-brand. The Labs are a great idea but the imagery about it on the Adobe site, and the ‘logo’, are terrible. Is this really the same company that creates world class design software? Am I supposed to care about their products when they don’t show concern for our craft in their own work?
Maybe they aren’t out of the game yet. Perhaps as we speak they are consulting with a firm to rebrand themselves and deliver on their promise. Time will have to tell.
Update
As Kyle noticed, their packaging is just as bad. Looking at it you get the feeling something is hiding from you. I want to rip off the blue and reveal the nice leaves behind it. Very annoying.
Resources
- Hilman Curtis Adobe.com design in 2001.
- Other comments on the Adobe.com redesign here and here.
- Insider comments on the Macromedia.com redesign in late December. This was the obvious inspiration for the Adobe.com redesign in April.
- Adobe Labs
Published on August 14, 2006
Resides in Design
Comments feed | TrackBack URI
7 Responses to “Adobe and the Death of a Brand”
1
Kyle on August 14th, 2006
The sad thing — it isn’t relegated to the web; they regurgitation can be seen in the packaging. It’s a mashup of the (Chen Design?) clean, colorful Adobe packaging with the boxy, overpowering Macromedia style. Alone, they work. Together, it looks painful.
Outside of possible legal issues, I don’t understand why companies don’t let acquired brands stand on their own (especially strong brands). Nobody says, “Adobe Flash” or “FedEx Kinkos”. I chalk it up to insecurity (or dimwits in an echo chamber).
2
Matthew Anderson on August 15th, 2006
What can I say? I completely agree with you, Ryan. Both sites are extremely lacking in the personality department. It seems as though Adobe.com is trying to stay Adobe-ish, while Adobe Edge is attempting to retain some Macromedia-ness. Neither accomplish what their main goal should be though which is, like you said, appropriately communicating the Adobe experience/relationship back to their users.
3
Ryan Nichols on August 16th, 2006
Your exactly right Kyle. I added a pic of the ‘new’ packaging.
4
Kevin Cannon on August 17th, 2006
Actually, I completely disagree. I think the adobe website is a very good representation of the company.
The company is in the middle of a merger and they’re fusing the company together. It’s a messy experience and it’ll take awhile before the new company emerges as a whole and not two parts stuck together.
For that reason, I think the website and product boxes mashups are great. They show the company in the transitioning phase that they’re in.
I expect a full redesign and effective representation of the brand to happen when Adobe CS3 is launch and all the apps are brought under a single strong Adobe brand.
We’ll have to wait and see!
5
Ryan Nichols on August 17th, 2006
Good points Kevin. I agree on the release of CS3. Perhaps we’ll see the new company emerge at that time.
(Not to mention my MacBook Pro is CRYING for a universal version of my Adobe apps)
6
Tazz on October 24th, 2006
First of all, I wonder why Macromedia sold itself. That it happened, I wonder why Adobe could not keep the products separate. I agree Adobe site looks mediocre.
Same thing with Google and Yahoo taking up smaller companies. Bad trend.
7
Anand on December 9th, 2006
Hmm.. I never noticed this before but you are totally right!
Ironic.
Perhaps it has to do something with the lack of competition (slightly scary) - I mean if they do start slacking off there are still no alternatives.