The subscription-based racket, part 1: Adobe and Pantone

Once upon a time in the wild and free years before 2012, a designer would scrape together  $1,700 to buy an Adobe Creative Suite software package, which came in a box filled with compact discs. It was a tangible item that you owned outright for the rest of your life. In fact, you can still buy one of these boxes today on eBay for under $40. Maybe only for decoration, but hey, it’s a thing.

This software suite contains most everything needed to create print and digital design and earn a living. Other than some upgrades, this software could last a designer 6-10 years. Today a professional Adobe Creative Cloud software subscription costs $54.99 per month, per person. So, it’s kind of like buying it all over again every 2 1/2 years. And if you can’t make that $54.99 payment each month, you’re shut off and you can’t earn a living to make the money to pay for your subscription. You never walk away with software that you can use. You just pay and pay and pay until you stop designing or die.

Sound familiar? This is the current way of the world. Companies don’t want to sell a product once any more, they want us on the hook for that never-ending payment plan. We accept it because honestly, we don’t have much of a choice in many cases. Adobe figuratively has a monopoly over designers. It’s the industry standard, as ubiquitous as its PDF. 

So when Adobe makes changes like discontinuing use of certain fonts or Pantone spot colors, it deals a blow to designers. The Pantone Color Matching System has been around since 1963 and it’s not just the industry standard, it’s the ONLY method to deliberately choose colors for print work. For whatever reason, Adobe and Pantone have parted ways regarding the use of these specific colors. Now, if a designer needs to use a spot color, they’ll have to … wait for it … subscribe to something else. 

A $15/month Pantone Connect subscription will allow designers to select Pantone spot colors in Adobe programs again. This affects freelance designers, agencies, as well as every single print shop, sign-maker, or company that deals in this universal color system. Meaning all of them. There is no workaround. 

What can you get for $15 a month? Unlimited cinematic streaming entertainment on Netflix or all of the music in the entire world on Spotify, or umm, yeah… the right to choose a color. If you’re a small company, every one of these subscriptions are per user, per month. The fees pile up rapidly when you factor in all of the tools used to run a creative company. Production management, website plugins, hosting and features, accounting software, emails, the list is monstrous, and I don’t think Pantone spot color selection measures up to any one of those other subscriptions. But there it is. 

Pantone should let the color naming system go into public domain. Escalator was a brand until everyone called those moving stairs escalators. Band-Aid is perilously close to losing their brand name because of common usage. At some point, when you are the owner of names of colors that are the ONLY ones used by every single printer and designer in the United States — I think it’s unethical to charge everyone $15 a month to use them. They don’t even make the actual inks. They just named colors... and only nature owns the actual colors. 

Alas, capitalism dictates that we will be forced to pay and play along. At the moment, companies using a subscription model have us all by the cojones and the monthly expenses keep rising — squeezing tighter. Don’t even get me started on TV channels and entertainment apps, I’ll save that for another blog.

Dahmer: art doesn't need to be understood to be great, but should it be responsible?

I confess, I'm confused.

Within days of release, Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story was being watched and talked about with a kind of eager respect. I love to follow hype but I hesitated, conflicted. I don't know what we are supposed to learn from digging so deep into this terrible story — something inside of me was whispering that maybe it's not a healthy thing to spend time and energy on. 

My 20-year old daughter, who is fairly well versed in the true crime and serial killer genres, said that she already knew so much about Jeffrey Dahmer that the show bored her and she stopped watching it. She said perhaps it's good to understand mental health and the circumstances that could lead a person to such monstrosities — but that she's disgusted that there are already "thirsty edits of Evan Peters as Dahmer" out there.

I was still having an internal debate. It's not like Hitler. Learning about the Holocaust is important to remember and understand what happened to millions of people and, in fact, the entire world. So is it a numbers thing? Dahmer only killed 17 people. This series is an exploration of one single man with one single psychological profile, I'm not really sure if there is a warning for us all to be found? He's not an anti-hero that we can get behind, either. We have become accustomed to watching "bad people" be heroes. We still want some good to come to them, even if it's criminal we tend to root for their success. Redemption and victory, overcoming dangerous odds. But this is too real, gross, terrifying, and unthinkable.

Finally, curiosity got the better of me. I watched several episodes. I struggled because it's not enjoyable (which is a relief). It shouldn't be enjoyable. Mostly, I find it sad. I'm sad for every single character in the show. Sad for Dahmer, for his mom, his dad, his grandmother, the victims, even his neighbors and the police who didn't know what to do with him. I suppose sadness is appropriate. I mean, when you set out to make a series like this, what are you trying to evoke? 

As of today, it's one of the most watched shows that Netflix has ever streamed. I'm still confused, undecided as to whether I should finish watching — maybe if I do, some of my questions will be answered. So far I did learn how Dahmer tried to ask for help, but his family and the community didn't really know what to do with him — and that there were real opportunities to catch him but lax law enforcement, racism, and homophobia all contributed to Dahmer slipping through the cracks much longer than he should have. Are those lessons good enough reason to invest so much energy watching something so dark and depressing? 

As an artist I think it's a strong, beautiful piece of work. It showcases the era interestingly, Evan Peters is absolutely stellar, the mood is steady and unhinging at the same time — it's difficult and that's not a bad thing. I just want to know if it's responsible to have made this, or for me to watch it. There's a lot of press about victims' families being unhappy because they weren't consulted. It has unearthed the subject, emotions and memories for many who are angered to see it part of the popular culture.

So I'm confused. Why was this series made? Is it enriching anyone's life? Why am I okay with almost any fictional work that is dark and disturbing but not this all-too-true telling? What say you all?

Insta-logos: the trail of Instagram copycat logos

You may hate or love Instagram's new logo — there's definitely enough commentary out there from every level of expertise imaginable — or you might not care about it at all. While there is much debate as to whether it is a great, modern logo or a total design fail, one thing is for certain: Instagram is so big that it really doesn't matter. No one is going to stop using Instagram because they hate the garish, childish icon. Conversely, I doubt Instagram is picking up any new users who fell in love with the simplistic, flat, colorful bauble.

Instagram is a giant owned by the landlord of the entire land of giants, Facebook. No matter what the logo looks like, the app is already an indispensable tool for the masses. This kind of power is inevitably trend-setting and creates followers who jump on board hoping it will gain them some of the riches that flow in the wake. While imitation is a form of flattery, I say it's just unoriginal. Photo Collage Editor and Life360 followed Instagram's unveil with copycat logos. Even if they are all under the same corporate umbrella (which as far as I see, they are separate companies) they are still completely different brands.

I've spotted these "flattering imitations" because I use the apps... maybe there are more out there. Have you seen any? Post in the comments if you have!