3 ms·

This is my experience. We had a freelancer for a few months who needed Photoshop, didn't realise we were signing up for a year. They advertise it as a monthly

This is my experience. We had a freelancer for a few months who needed Photoshop, didn't realise we were signing up for a year. They advertise it as a monthly subscription, but it's actually a monthly payment plan for a yearly subscription. When I told them this was unacceptable, not what was advertised, and demanded a refund, they tried to bribe me by saying if I stopped pursuing a refund for the company they would give me a free year on my personal Adobe account. Explaining to them that I have no need for Adobe products myself, and that this bribery was really dodgy and making me think even less of of Adobe, was a tough process. They couldn't understand.

gervwyk 6y ago
And here I was thinking how did I miss this on the signup process. Incredibly concerning that their marketing seems to deliberately apply this practise.
- danpalmer 6y ago
  On the Photoshop marketing page it's advertised as a monthly fee (no *, no †, no footnote). Not even a "from $X", it just says the price. Clicking "Buy now" takes you to the product selection page. On this page each plan has the exact price. It's the same as the price on the previous page. No footnotes, asterisks, or anything else. There is an asterisk next to the free month of stock photo access, which implies that they do use footnotes where necessary. Again the price is not "from $X", it's just $X. Click "Buy Now" and you're in the checkout flow. The call-to-action is entering your email address. The summary shows the total as being the exact price. No footnotes, no asterisks, no fine print. However, the price is only now listed as not a per-month price (as it has been on the previous 2 pages), but as an annual price paid monthly. You can change this to monthly price, but it's 50% more expensive, proving that the "$X per month" advertisement is incorrect. In the UK I think this would probably be classed as false advertising, and I think any refund complaint would be upheld in court or by the trading standards authority, which is probably why they gave me a refund when I pushed them.

gervwyk 6y ago

And here I was thinking how did I miss this on the signup process. Incredibly concerning that their marketing seems to deliberately apply this practise.

danpalmer 6y ago
On the Photoshop marketing page it's advertised as a monthly fee (no *, no †, no footnote). Not even a "from $X", it just says the price. Clicking "Buy now" takes you to the product selection page. On this page each plan has the exact price. It's the same as the price on the previous page. No footnotes, asterisks, or anything else. There is an asterisk next to the free month of stock photo access, which implies that they do use footnotes where necessary. Again the price is not "from $X", it's just $X. Click "Buy Now" and you're in the checkout flow. The call-to-action is entering your email address. The summary shows the total as being the exact price. No footnotes, no asterisks, no fine print. However, the price is only now listed as not a per-month price (as it has been on the previous 2 pages), but as an annual price paid monthly. You can change this to monthly price, but it's 50% more expensive, proving that the "$X per month" advertisement is incorrect. In the UK I think this would probably be classed as false advertising, and I think any refund complaint would be upheld in court or by the trading standards authority, which is probably why they gave me a refund when I pushed them.