Adobe: Why So Serious?
January 25, 2011
Author 
In 
Adobe is best known for…you guessed it, Photoshop. As we can see below it’s not just anecdotal: there’s almost as most interest in the world for their Photoshop product as the brand itself:
And who is most interested in Photoshop? Creatives, clearly an audience they need to embrace and market to for their product to thrive with the next generation. And yet Adobe basically turns their back on one of the most well-known cultural phenomenons behind their product: to Photoshop, Photoshopping or Photoshopped.
Go search the term Photoshopped – we’ll wait. What did you find? Not a page or a blog post from Adobe acknowledging the term or some ongoing contest or UGC site embracing the cultural phenomenon of Photoshopping sponsored by Adobe. That would be smart. No, instead you find some posts on great Photoshop jobs from popular blogs like Psdtuts and Smashing Apps.
But keep looking on the page and you will find a legal disclaimer page from Adobe, which basically communicates that Adobe wants no part in a pop-culture phenomenon having to do with their product:
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
Correct: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
Incorrect: The image was photoshopped.Trademarks are not nouns.
Correct: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
Incorrect: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
Correct: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
Incorrect: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
Incorrect: My hobby is photoshopping.
Someone at Adobe thinks this is protecting their Trademark – by making sure no one uses it as a noun or verb. Yeah, that’s working out pretty bad for Google. Maybe someone can clue me in: how does flat out ignoring or disdaining how the world (and the web) like to talk about your product help? Also who talks like their “correct” versions of the term, seriously?
I know Adobe want to be more social, their Omniture team pinged me within about 5 minutes of mentioning the product on Twitter the other day. Really nice people.
So rather than “protecting your trademark” (not what this is doing anyway) why not actually embrace the fact that the web loves to Photoshop as a verb and start marketing to us in our own interpretation of the brand? To ignore Photoshopping (and to throw it on a legal page telling us how we should and should not use it) is basically saying you don’t like us being social with the product. And yet the product is used to produce half the memes around the web.
Seems like they are ignoring the opportunity to leverage a huge marketing asset to popularize the product with a new generation and are instead demonizing it or passively letting it happen. Either way, seems silly not to embrace it.
John E. Bredehoft replied | Jan 25, 2011 (8 comments)
It’s enough to make you want to take an aspirin, which is what Adobe would do if some no-name company released a software product called Photoshop, and Adobe was unable to stop the other company from doing so.
Kimmo Linkama replied | Jan 25, 2011 (3 comments)
I’m constantly amazed at companies who think their legal departments are in a position to influence the way language evolves. We already have Google trying to forbid using its name as a verb, and now this. Let alone the pathetic requirement to add the (R) sign after the name.
One would think it is one of the greatest compliments to a product or company if their name is adopted into the language. I, for one, would be absolutely delighted if, for example, editing corporate BS into human-readable copy would be called Kimmoing :)
Steven Bradley replied | Jan 25, 2011 (8 comments)
I’m hardly a lawyer so take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt.
From my understanding Adobe has to have language like that on their site and they probably even need to take someone to court every so often to maintain their Trademark.
However I doubt they’re very public about stopping people from saying they photoshopped an image. I’m sure they’re very happy people use the name as a verb, noun, adjective, or any other part of speech. The language you found is on a legal disclaimer page, which most people aren’t ever going to look at.
It’s the same with Google. Both companies are likely extremely happy to see how people talk about their brands the way they do. It’s just that they have to put in a small amount of saying people can’t in order to keep their Trademark.
Adam Singer replied | Jan 25, 2011 (552 comments)
I get it, they need the legal stuff. But why not ALSO do something fun with it that outranks it in the search engines and actually embraces how their market talks? Why not connect with their customers vs. talking down to them? At what point does legal out-prioritize marketing? There has to be some sort of balance here vs. demonizing their customers. Tilting in favor of legal 100% positions them far less relevant of a brand.
Catherine Lockey replied | Jan 25, 2011 (61 comments)
Interesting Adobe has not yet fully embraced the new media mindset. It’s remotely possible their marketing department is not as creative as their programmers (scary). More likely this rule has been drummed into employee brains from the get go. Now, what was once a way to show respect is an outdated blue law. I think you’ve done them a big favor pointing this out Adam and if you receive Adobe swag as a result, I’ll be quite jealous. :P
marcus replied | Jan 26, 2011 (4 comments)
By not fighting to protect the trademark, Adobe would in essence be acknowledging that their trademark had entered the public domain. Once it becomes public domain, anyone can use the name for anything they want.
And for those that think google hasn’t done the same thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401536.html
Adam Singer replied | Jan 26, 2011 (552 comments)
Indeed, but more people using their name increases the awareness of it. I still think there is a balance between legal and marketing that can be found. This isn’t it to me. I am certainly not a lawyer (I’m a marketer) so naturally I’ll go that direction.
marcus replied | Jan 26, 2011 (4 comments)
Unfortunately, I think where things stand now is about as much balance as Adobe, as the trademark holder, can afford. That is, they’re not suing everyone, only the most egregious cases of misuse. If Adobe were to hold a photoshopping contest, or otherwise concede that the term was now a word in common usage, then they would lose the exclusive right to use it. Yes it could promote awareness, but think of how difficult your job would be if you were trying to market Photoshop, and everyone other photo editing application out there could legally say “use our product to photoshop your images” or call itself the best photoshopping software. I imagine it would be pretty tough.
Adam Singer replied | Jan 26, 2011 (552 comments)
Thanks for the comment Marcus I do get they need to protect the brand. I wonder if they might be able to say “The Image was Photoshopped Using Adobe Photoshop” – as Google does allow “you can Google something using Google.” Maybe that’s possible?
marcus replied | Jan 26, 2011 (4 comments)
I’m curious under what conditions Google would allow such usage. According to their trademark guidelines page, and the blog post I linked below, they don’t allow such usage.
Adam Singer replied | Jan 26, 2011 (552 comments)
The link on the Google blog post you sent below says that :)
marcus replied | Jan 26, 2011 (4 comments)
And one more from the google blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html
Dong replied | Jan 27, 2011 (1 comment)
In China, I bet at least 80% internet users understand and even frequently use the term “PS”, which is the abbreviation of photoshop as a verb. For instance, “Did you PS your photo?”