Entertainment may be built on performances, songs and stories, but audiences often meet a project through a screen first: a streaming-service page, a movie campaign, an artist’s website or a social post. That makes design software part of the industry’s everyday toolkit. Adobe’s planned acquisition of Figma promised to bring two major creative platforms under one roof. When the deal fell apart, it raised a bigger question for designers and entertainment businesses: what happens when the tools behind digital culture remain independent?
Why the Figma deal attracted attention
Adobe announced its agreement to acquire Figma in 2022, in a transaction valued at about $20 billion. Figma had become a prominent browser-based platform for interface design and collaboration, while Adobe offered a broad collection of established creative applications. The proposed combination appeared to connect two different strengths: Figma’s shared, real-time design environment and Adobe’s long-standing presence in image editing, illustration, video and other creative work.
For entertainment companies, that potential overlap was easy to imagine. A campaign for a new film might involve a studio’s design team, an outside agency, social-media specialists and web developers. Collaborative tools can help those groups review layouts and prototypes without passing files back and forth. Meanwhile, Adobe’s applications are used across many creative disciplines, from promotional artwork to video production. A single company controlling both platforms could have offered a more connected workflow, though the details and benefits would have depended on how the products developed.
Why the acquisition did not happen
The agreement encountered resistance from competition authorities in several regions. Regulators examined whether Adobe’s ownership of Figma could reduce competition in design software and limit the choices available to customers. The companies argued that the products served different needs and that joining forces could support innovation. But regulatory reviews continued, and Adobe and Figma ended the agreement in December 2023 rather than pursue a lengthy legal fight.
The decision did not mean that either company’s products disappeared. Figma remained independent, and Adobe continued to operate its own creative software business. The broader impact was on expectations: customers who had anticipated a unified product family instead faced a market where the two companies would keep competing, developing features and responding to users on their own.
For a closer look at the deal’s background and what could follow, read this analysis of Adobe and Figma after the failed acquisition.
What independence means for creative teams
Competition can be useful to the people who rely on creative tools. When companies must win and retain users, they have an incentive to improve collaboration, performance, accessibility and compatibility. Designers can compare products based on the work they need to do rather than assume that one owner will eventually combine everything into a single system.
That also means teams should make practical choices instead of waiting for a future merger to simplify their workflow. A film distributor may need fast approvals for a campaign; a musician’s team may prioritize editable graphics for tour dates and releases; a production company may care more about how designers hand finished layouts to developers. In each case, the right setup depends on file formats, team habits, budgets and the skills already available.
Tools are only one part of the process. A polished streaming thumbnail or artist page still needs a clear message, useful information and thoughtful visual choices. Small entertainment companies and independent creators often work with limited staff, so choosing tools that collaborators can use comfortably may matter more than selecting the most extensive software package.
From design files to a public-facing website
Once a team has approved its visuals, the next challenge can be putting them online. A venue, production outfit or independent performer may need a site that presents upcoming work, contact details and media in a coherent way. The schedule depends on scope: a straightforward site with prepared copy and images is different from a custom build with booking features, ticketing connections or frequent updates.
Osdire’s guide to how long it takes to build a business website outlines the factors that affect timing. For an entertainment project, useful planning questions include who will supply text and images, how many pages are needed, whether the site must work with existing services, and who will review drafts. Settling those details early helps prevent late changes from delaying a launch.
A changing market, not a settled story
The failed acquisition left Adobe and Figma as separate competitors, and it did not settle the future of creative software. Their choices will continue to shape how designers collaborate and how entertainment brands prepare digital campaigns. For creators, the practical takeaway is to stay attentive to product changes while keeping workflows flexible. No single deal can replace clear planning, strong creative judgment and a team that knows how to turn an idea into something audiences can see and use.