Welcome to My Blog

Having grown up in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, I can say with confidence that April is one of the months with which I most fondly remember the region.

The cherry blossoms are in full bloom. And when I was a wee lass, before the Washington Nationals came to fruition, April also meant that the Baltimore Orioles were kicking off the baseball season at Camden Park.

This week marked one of my first visits back to D.C. during the month of April since I was an undergrad. Things felt different. My parents live in Florida now. Penn Quarter has completely transformed, as has its neighboring Capitol Hill, where my work brought me for the week. The city has become very expensive.

And despite spending my days in the trenches of the tech industry and the businesses that comprise it, somehow, visiting Washington, D.C. as Congress played host to one of Silicon Valley’s highest-profile CEOs felt, in a word, odd.

Over the course of two days, my colleague, HubSpot’s Social Campaign Strategy Associate Henry Franco, and I spent no fewer than ten hours sitting in on Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional hearings, as he answered questions from Senators on Tuesday and Representatives on Wednesday.

There was a mixed response to these questions and Zuckerberg’s answers alike. Were the lawmakers properly prepared for and informed about these events? Was Zuckerberg? And was 10 hours really enough to get to the bottom of the data privacy and other issues the Facebook CEO was invited to Capitol Hill to speak on?

What makes this situation — Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional testimony and the events leading up to it — so complex is that it cannot be boiled down to a single issue. Instead, it’s comprised of many issues, each of which have many sides. Should Facebook be regulated? Should it stand alone in this regulation? What would that regulation look like? And for all its talk: How likely is it that such federal regulation will actually come into force in the U.S.?

And those are only a few of the questions I have. The irony, of course, is not lost on me that a week of hearings intended to respond to lawmaker inquiry — as well as the public it represents — has only led to more questions.

Here’s a deeper look at some of the more crucial of them.

Will there be regulation?

As I noted in yesterday’s recap of Zuckerberg’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, the topic of regulation drew a stark party line on which Representatives fell staunchly one side or the other. Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois firmly stated that Facebook’s “self-regulation simply does not work.” Representative Chris Collins of New York called her remarks “aggressive” and “out of bounds,” adding that when he was asked if he agreed with the idea of regulating Facebook, “I said no.”

Regulation seems a point of contention among lawmakers, and not just when it comes to Facebook, especially in the context of the European Union’s General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR) coming into force next month. It reflects an era in which consumer demands for data protection are growing, with the latest turn of events concerning Facebook being only one of the more recent examples.

Throughout the hearings — and in the weeks leading up to them — Zuckerberg was asked numerous times for his stance on the GDPR, though he hasn’t fully spoken to his complete stance on it. In an interview with Reuters, he said he agrees with it “in spirit.” In a call with members of the press last week, he remarked, “if we are planning on running the controls for GDPR across the world … my answer [is] yes.” And on Tuesday’s Senate hearing, he noted that he believes it “get[s] some things right.”

Sen. Graham: “Why should we let you self-regulate?”
ZUCK: Senator, I’m not opposed to regulation.
Graham: Do you think the Europeans got it right?
ZUCK: I think … they … get things right …

— Amanda Zantal-Wiener (@Amanda_ZW)
April 10, 2018

But when it comes to Facebook extending GDPR-like protections to global Facebook users, including those in the U.S., Zuckerberg has given wavering and at times contradictory answers. Rep. Schakowsky pressed him on this yesterday, noting that it sounded as though Zuckerberg’s version would be far from “an exact replica” of European regulations. 

It reflects a historical corporate resistance to regulation in the U.S., with many consumers long holding that it lags behind the E.U. in terms of transparency and what is disclosed to consumers. (As a non-tech example, throughout most of Europe, food companies are required to label genetically modified products, whereas in the U.S., similar legislation has struggled to pass.) 

Which raises the initial question here: Will there be regulation? With the public, along with some lawmakers, calling for increased data protection globally, it leaves us at a watershed moment in the relationship between consumers and the businesses they use. 

“This is proof to me that self-regulation simply does not work,” she says, pointing to the Secure and Protect Americans’ Data Act: https://t.co/7nzQGcIhQ9

— Amanda Zantal-Wiener (@Amanda_ZW)
April 11, 2018

But there’s also the ongoing discussion of how well-equipped lawmakers are to regulate a company with the reach and breadth of Facebook’s. (At certain points in the hearings, for instance, Zuckerberg was questioned about Facebook’s possible monopoly.) As I noted earlier, questions from committee members left the impression that they were either ill-prepared for Zuckerberg’s testimony, or simply uninformed about the tech industry as it currently stands.

That was particularly true at Tuesday’s hearing, where much of the discourse from Senators suggested a broad lack of understanding of online platforms and where data becomes involved with them.

If that misunderstanding is as widespread throughout Congress as some have suggested, the timing of regulation and the swiftness with which it could be passed comes into question. And it may require further information and testimony — not just from Zuckerberg and Facebook.

That brings me to another key point.

Why Facebook?

On my way back to Boston after the hearings, a friend texted me to ask how my visit went and what the hearings were like. And then, he made a joke about it.

“I wish there had been this much congressional outrage when Equifax was hacked,” he said. “Although, in fairness, Facebook allowed strangers to see my vacation photos and the bands that I like, while Equifax only lost highly sensitive financial information that could ruin people’s lives.”

Even if my friend’s comments were meant to be funny, they did bring up an interesting question: Why Facebook?

Of course, there are some ways to answer that question that are more obvious than others. Facebook experienced the highest-profile weaponization of its platform, after all, for several purposes: alleged election interference, the spread if misinformation and divisive content, and — as was raised numerous times by Representatives on Wednesday — ads for opioids and other controlled substances.

Zuckerberg says that if people flag these ads, Facebook will “look at them as fast as we can” and “take [them] down if they violate our policies.”

— Amanda Zantal-Wiener (@Amanda_ZW)
April 11, 2018

It brings up Facebook’s (and, by default, Zuckerberg’s) siloed spotlight in the wake of user privacy and data collection, and how it could possibly be abused. Here’s what we do know: Zuckerberg confirmed that app developer Aleksandr Kogan sold the user data he obtained to outlets beyond Cambridge Analytica (one being a firm called Eunoia Technologies), and that Zuckerberg’s own data was one the 87 million accounts jeopardized.

But we also have reason to believe that Facebook isn’t alone in the volume and breadth of user data it possesses.

To start, have a look at this lengthy but comprehensive Twitter thread from self-described privacy consultant Dylan Curran, who goes into detail about the depth of information that Google possesses on users.

Want to freak yourself out? I’m gonna show just how much of your information the likes of Facebook and Google store about you without you even realising it

— Dylan Curran (@iamdylancurran)
March 24, 2018

We also know that this isn’t just about data privacy, including where Facebook and the week’s hearing are concerned. It’s also about the weaponization of online platforms, which are not limited to Facebook, to spread misinformation and divisive content.

Other tech giants have come under fire for falling victim to that. Twitter, for its part, has even submitted a request for proposals to measure the health of its network and how to fix its many problems. And on more than one occasion, Google and YouTube have both been accused of failing to quickly remove false news content during major events.

So, I’ll pose the question again: Why Facebook, and Facebook alone?

Zuckerberg listens to opening remarks from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden on April 11, 2018. | Amanda Zantal-Wiener

There may not ever be an answer to the question that satisfies everyone. But as I noted in yesterday’s recap, before any firm, sustainable outcomes can result from these ongoing issues, I suspect more hearings will take place. After all, before this week’s events, some lawmakers also wanted to include the CEOs of Google and Twitter in the questioning.

“I realize the issues we’re discussing today aren’t just issues for Facebook,” says Zuckerberg. “I’m ready to take your questions.”

— Amanda Zantal-Wiener (@Amanda_ZW)
April 10, 2018

On top of that, time constraints played a major role in this week’s hearings, with Senators being limited to five minutes of questioning each on Tuesday, and Representatives to four minutes each on Wednesday. For that reason, it may not come as a surprise if Zuckerberg is also asked to appear for an additional round of questioning — perhaps involuntarily on future occasions.

Furthermore, an FBI investigation into overall election interference is still underway, for which Zuckerberg said in Tuesday’s hearing someone from Facebook was questioned. It seems that I’m not the only one who still has questions, and as I wrote yesterday: The testimony, it seems, is far from over.

If Facebook truly puts community before advertising revenue, what will happen?

In his full written testimony for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Zuckerberg concluded with a sentiment and promise that would be alluded to throughout the hearings:

“My top priority has always been our social mission of connecting people, building community and bringing the world closer together. Advertisers and developers will never take priority over that as long as I’m running Facebook.”

Which poses the question: If that’s true, and Facebook continues to move away from the “platform before participants” mentality, as HubSpot VP of Marketing Jon Dick put it — what happens to the businesses who have come to rely on it?

After all, it was something that Zuckerberg repeated throughout the week: Facebook does not sell data. Rather, advertisers build targeted ads on the platform based on the data that Facebook possesses on user behavior and preferences.

That data, Zuckerberg was sure to remind lawmakers, was largely comprised of information that users had to opt-in to providing when they joined the network (such as Page and post Likes) and could not be personally identifiable when used properly.

There was also a time when Facebook partnered with other firms, such as Experian and Acxiom, to provide advertisers with supplemental data that could be synthesized in tandem with Facebook’s own aforementioned data, helping to match (or target) promoted content to the most relevant audiences. But in the weeks leading up to the hearings, Facebook shuttered that program.

Source: Facebook

For its own part, Zuckerberg has suggested that were it not for this model, Facebook’s livelihood could certainly become compromised. In 2017, for instance, advertiser-related income made up 98% of its global revenue — which many expect to take a hit if the network truly makes good on its promise to de-prioritize advertiser content, or if it continues to limit targeted ad capabilities.

Rep. Loebsack asks if it’s possible for Facebook to exist without collecting and using personal data. Zuckerberg: WE DON’T SELL DATA. But Loebsack pushes back and asks if it would exist without *sharing* data. Zuckerberg implies that it might not.

— Amanda Zantal-Wiener (@Amanda_ZW)
April 11, 2018

But what didn’t come up nearly as much throughout the hearings was the impact that these changes could have on the advertisers themselves — the good actors who don’t weaponize Facebook, but have come to depend on it to build and reach an optimized audience.

That concept actually revisits the topic of regulation, and what it could look like when applied to Facebook. As I already covered, if such regulation does come to fruition, there’s a fair chance that it won’t only apply to Facebook, but could also extend to the tech industry in general. That could cause a major ripple effect in the way all online companies conduct business, and the way consumers and advertisers alike can use them.

Even if the implications of regulation are massively widespread, it might not be an entirely negative thing. As Zuckerberg and lawmakers were both sure to remind us this week, the issues at-hand are fundamentally about trust. And further restrictions — or at least rules around how Facebook can manage and allow advertising — could potentially lead to a larger degree of consumer trust on how, exactly, advertisers reach them.

In other words — Facebook moving away from the “platform before participants” mentality might not be entirely bad for advertisers, many of whom are all too familiar with pressure to grow which leads to equal pressure and temptation to use short-cuts or overly aggressive tactics for reaching customers.

The better alternative, perhaps, comes in the form of promoted content that is at least more personalized, which Zuckerberg spoke to this week. Facebook users would prefer an ad that’s relevant, he maintained throughout the hearings, than non-ad content that isn’t relevant at all.

Zuckerberg adds: “It would impact our revenue somewhat, too,” but he doesn’t seem to want to dwell on that

— Amanda Zantal-Wiener (@Amanda_ZW)
April 11, 2018

“This is still all due to the misalignment in economic incentives,” said HubSpot Marketing Fellow Sam Mallikarjunan — adding that Facebook’s recently-announced data abuse bounty could help, “since even if firms like Cambridge Analytica still abuse openings like that, individual potentially malicious actors may find it more profitable to report privacy vulnerabilities rather than exploit them.”

That profitability aspect, Mallikarjunan said, will always be core to the degree of Facebook’s self-regulation. “Until Facebook designs a system where spamming is less profitable than creating a good experience for users — what search engines and e-mail inboxes have done — this will continue to be an issue.”

But, at this point, much of this is a hypothesis. We still don’t know what regulation would look like, if it even came to be, and we don’t know how many additional changes Facebook is going to make to the way it collects, uses, or retains this data — or to the way advertisers can best leverage the platform.

And, we don’t know if this visit was his last to Capitol Hill — though I think not.

We still don’t know what leaders at Google, YouTube, and Twitter have to say — or if they’ll be asked by lawmakers for their input.

And we still don’t know who else will be held accountable, and to what degree, as these issues continue to be discussed — like Kogan, Cambridge Analytica, or Eunoia, to name a few.

Most of all — we don’t know if we will ever come to learn more about these lingering questions.

But if we do — I’ll let you know.

Direct-to-consumer companies cater to people’s desire for simplicity. They eliminate the hassle of researching brands and choosing from hundreds of options, making shopping practically effortless. D2C brands manufacture, market, and distribute their own products without using middlemen, which enables them to reduce costs, interact directly with consumers, and provide a seamless start-to-finish buyer’s experience.

For consumers, the easy buying process is typically the distinguishing factor when choosing D2C over a traditional shop.

Take a look at this customer review for D2C mattress company, Casper. Despite this customer’s dissatisfaction with his mattress, he still gave the company five stars:

Ultimately, Casper’s efficient delivery process and adept customer service impressed the consumer so much that he gave the company five stars — even though the product didn’t work out for him. This “painless experience” he describes, which is especially attainable for D2C businesses, is ultimately what makes these companies so popular in 2018.

What is direct-to-consumer marketing?

Direct-to-consumer marketing is the act of a company marketing directly to their consumer. This direct relationship can occur through methods like social media, YouTube, or podcasts, but not through TV, billboards, or magazine advertisements.

Creating innovative marketing campaigns is a necessity for D2C companies, many of which are up against some big-name competitors: Dollar Shave Club, for example, is up against Gillette razors, and Warby Parker’s eyeglasses compete with brands like Luxottica.

The benefits of D2C marketing are clear: through this direct relationship, these companies are creating strong relationships between consumers and their brand, understanding their consumers better, and reaching a more specific, appropriate audience.

We’ve examined six D2C companies to see how they’ve executed one-of-a-kind marketing campaigns. Whether you work for a D2C company or not, there are plenty of tangible marketing practices you can still try out for yourself.

Direct-to-consumer examples in action:

1. Casper

Shopping for mattresses is an overwhelming experience: besides feeling like goldilocks with the “soft, plush, semi-firm, firm” options, you’re also forced to contemplate price, size, and whether you want memory foam, gel, or hybrid.

Casper, a mattress company founded in 2014, prevents this frustrating process by providing one, perfect-for-anyone mattress. Since Casper’s primary goal is to differentiate themselves from traditional mattress companies, they opt to use non-traditional marketing methods.

Casper focuses their marketing efforts in two places: New York City and Los Angeles. In New York, they’ve used MTA stations to post cheerful advertisements. They set up a satellite office in L.A., and have leveraged Hollywood connections and social media influencers. Kylie Jenner, for instance, posted a picture of herself on a Casper mattress and doubled Casper’s net sales.

Casper didn’t fight to stand out in the traditional mattress industry. Instead, they used urban spaces to reach their target, millennial audience, and social media influencers to display their brand as trendy and unique.

2. Warby Parker

Warby Parker eliminates the hassle of shopping for eyeglasses by sending you multiple pairs and letting consumers return the ones they don’t like. The convenience of choosing eyeglasses in your own home is Warby Parker’s biggest selling point.

Warby Parker knew their customers were already taking pictures and videos of their glasses to send to friends for advice, so they started asking customers to post their images on social media with the hashtag #warbyhometryon … as a reward for posting, Warby Parker pairs those customers with one of their online personal stylists. Today, 22,630 people use the Warby Parker hashtag on Instagram.

The company also pays YouTube influencers to post videos of themselves trying different Warby Parker glasses on. The tactic is popular — there are currently 58,800 results on YouTube for “warby parker try on.” More importantly, encouraging people to share their home try-on experiences on social media also makes consumers more likely to buy. Warby Parker found that customers who shared content online were 50% more likely to make the purchase.

The #Warbyhometryon marketing campaign succeeded by encouraging customers to promote something they were already doing — taking photos and videos of themselves trying on eyeglasses — on social media, a platform Warby knew could reach their millennial audience.

3. Dollar Shave Club

No one can guarantee that a video will go viral. But it doesn’t hurt to have a strategy in place.

Dollar Shave Club, which sells — you guessed it — razors (among other bathroom essentials), launched their ecommerce company with a 1:33 minute video. Their video is wacky and memorable, with dance numbers, shaving babies, and a guy named Mike traipsing around a warehouse and making proclamations like, “Are the blades any good? No … Our blades are f**ing great.”

The video was a huge success: in the first three months it received 4.75 million views, and within the first two days of the company’s launch, 12,000 people had already signed up for Dollar Shave Club razors.

The video doesn’t come across like an advertisement, it seems like a funny video your brother’s goofy friend made in his garage, which probably explains why so many people sent it to friends and shared it on social media. But Dollar Shave Club didn’t rely on organic reach alone to promote their launch video.

Before promoting their video, Dollar Shave Club reached out to tech publications to let them know when it was going live, sent publications early access to the video, edited a shorter version to run on late-night TV, and spent $10,000 promoting it on social media, among other things. They didn’t just reach out to any tech publications, either — they focused on media properties already reaching the male demographic they wanted to target, like Thrillist and Uncrate.

Maybe it’s not feasible to aim for a viral video, but it is possible to create great content and use your money and efforts to market it to the right demographic. Hopefully, your audience will do the hard work from there.

4. Julep

Julep, a monthly customizable subscription beauty box, released a female empowerment video called, “Throw Anything at Me.” The video features a woman putting on Julep makeup and then tackling issues related to women’s rights. On Julep’s website, the ad is described as a “celebration, a rallying cry, championing every woman’s innate power.”

Along with the ad, Julep made a related video game, called “Throw Anything at Me,” so consumers could act like the female in the video and release their frustrations while having fun.

There are plenty of subscription beauty boxes out there. To differentiate themselves, Julep didn’t advertise what they were — they advertised what they stood for.

5. Cards Against Humanity

Cards Against Humanity, a sarcastic and offensive card game founded in 2011 by high school friends and geared towards millennials, understands their audience well. And, if you know your audience well, you can break the rules.

For instance, in 2013, Cards Against Humanity sold their product for $5 more on Black Friday, and sales went up. In 2015, they sold nothing for $5 … and received $71,000 from consumers. In 2016, they dug a hole in the ground and filled it back up, for $100,000.

I don’t know about you, but selling nothing sure seems like breaking the rules to me.

This strategy wouldn’t work for most companies, but it worked for Cards Against Humanity. The company knew their audience would appreciate their sense of humor, and, more than just appreciating it, they’d pay for it.

I’m not saying it’s a good idea to sell nothing. I’m saying it’s good to remember it’s okay to employ some ridiculous stunts if you trust your audience will get it.

6. Blue Apron

Blue Apron sources healthy, local food, and ships that food with ready-to-use recipes straight to consumer’s doors, so they can make healthy meals easily.

The company deals with a lot of competition nowadays from other subscription meal services, including Amazon, HelloFresh, Green Chef, and Plated.

As a result of this competition, Blue Apron’s biggest challenge has been explaining how their product stands out from the rest.

In 2015, Blue Apron reached out to popular food bloggers like Naomi of Love Taza and Anne of Fannetastic Food, as well as social media influencers, and asked these industry leaders to explain in-depth what Blue Apron was. This is generally an effective strategy, as food bloggers and social media influencers have already gained the trust of their audience.

Blue Apron then took it a step further, sponsoring their content on podcasts like Gimlet Media and The No Sleep Podcast. The company recognized podcasts as a worthwhile investment: almost 50 million people ages 13 and up listen to podcasts, but more than a third of the top 100 iTunes podcasts have no ads at all. With plenty of supply and little demand, Blue Apron’s sponsored content could stand out from the rest.

Employing social media influencers and bloggers to promote their brand, and sponsoring ads on podcasts, paid off: In 2015, Blue Apron sales increased 500%.

Blue Apron separated themselves from the competition by using industry influencers to reach an engaged audience, and promoting their content on appropriate (and less-crowded) platforms like podcasts.

If you regularly send PDF files over the internet, the guide below will make your life a lot easier.

PDF, short for portable document format, is a type of digital file that allows you to send content that is readable by other users regardless of what software they use to view the file. And in order for PDFs to adapt to various viewing platforms, the file’s text and images can’t easily be modified once packaged into a PDF.

But it’s not impossible.

Whether you use a Mac or Windows computer, there are tools available to you for editing the text and graphics within a document that has already been converted into a PDF. You can even do this online, as well as convert PDFs back into Microsoft Word documents to edit your content in its original, editable format.

Here are five ways to edit a PDF using Adobe Acrobat, or one of several online editing tools available to you today, on a Mac or Windows computer.

Note: These instructions apply to Acrobat X and Acrobat XI, Adobe’s 10th and 11th editions. Earlier Acrobat products require you to select “Edit Text & Images” under the “Tools” option on the far right of your top navigation. See Acrobat’s current editing pane below, with “Edit PDF” on the right:

Image via Adobe

As you can see from the instructions above, you need to install the program, Adobe Acrobat. Don’t worry, it’s compatible with both Mac and Windows computers. However, not every version of Acrobat allows you to edit existing text once you open your document in this program.

Adobe categorizes its software under Acrobat Standard and Acrobat Pro. The company offers the following three editions in both product lines: Acrobat X, Acrobat XI, and Acrobat DC.

According to Adobe, the editions below allow for basic text and content editing, as well as the ability to export your document into Microsoft Word:

• Acrobat XI Standard
• Acrobat Standard DC
• Acrobat XI Pro
• Acrobat Pro DC

Acrobat Pro DC and Acrobat Standard DC offer a host of other editing capabilities that Acrobat XI does not offer — such as automatic spell-check, advanced photo editing, and editing from an iPad.

Although Acrobat is one of the most popular ways to edit PDF files, it’s not the only method. Read on to learn how to edit PDFs using other hardware and software beyond Adobe’s suite of products.

The hassle of needing an expensive program like Adobe to edit such a common file type hasn’t gone unnoticed, and there are numerous online tools you can now use for free to edit your PDF. But that also means there isn’t one universal set of directions to edit on each website available to you.

Step 6 in the above instructions is literally based on a tool called Sejda, one of the few free websites out there that lets you edit existing text — as well as add new content on top of the original.

The image above shows you Sejda’s home page, where you can upload your PDF for editing. The image below shows you Sejda’s editing toolbar, and you’ll see a similar menu of options in many online PDF editors you try.

Most other PDF editing websites equip you with just a manual content eraser and new text/image boxes you can drag and drop anywhere on the page.

Here are a few other online editing tools:

• FormSwift: Add new content and even an e-signature.
• PDFescape: Add new content and start a new PDF from scratch.
• Smallpdf: Add new content, as well as save PDFs to platforms like Google Drive, Dropbox, and even Microsoft Word (more on this feature in a minute).

The tool that suits your PDF will depend on what specifically you’re looking to edit and the file size of your document. For example, because Sejda can’t accept PDFs larger than 50 megabytes (MB), check the size of your document and identify an editing tool that is compatible with your PDF.

You might also compress your PDF to under 50 MB so it works with Sejda (true to its name, Smallpdf can shrink your PDF’s file size for you).

If you want to edit a PDF using just the features that come natively on a Mac computer, follow the steps above. Just be sure to repeat Steps 3 and 4 for each image you want to extract from your original PDF — this is a unique function to Mac computers, and each extraction will take a screenshot of your image, saved to your desktop.

Do you plan on editing PDFs regularly? The above steps might be a bit time-consuming. Behold, PDF Expert:

PDF Expert is a free downloadable program built for Macs that allows you to open and edit PDF content right from the original PDF. You don’t have to migrate your text to a new document and take image screenshots the way you would in the 10 steps above.

As with editing PDFs online, the option that’s best for you depends on how much editing you plan on doing.

How to Edit a PDF With Windows

Windows computers can’t extract images as easily as Mac computers can, so you might be more dependent on third-party software to edit PDFs with Windows.

Keep in mind Acrobat — as well as the online tools mentioned earlier — all work for Windows, so by now, you’ve already learned how to edit PDFs on a Windows operating system.

Want a free tool tailored specifically to Windows? May your thirst for exclusivity be quenched: You can also download PDF Viewer Plus, a program offered only in the Microsoft store. The app is free to download and works just as easily as PDF Expert does on Macs.

Based on the various approaches to editing a PDF throughout this guide, you can predict by now that there’s probably more than one way to edit your PDF in Microsoft Word. And you’re right.

The first way brings you back into Adobe Acrobat, where instead of editing your PDF within Acrobat, you’ll export the file into Word (make sure you have Word installed on your computer). Remember, as stated earlier in this article, you can only do this in Acrobat XI and Acrobat DC — using either Adobe’s Standard or Pro edition.

Another way is to explore an online PDF editor. One editor that also allows you to edit in Word we already mentioned: Smallpdf. In this version of Smallpdf, you’ll upload your document and follow the prompts on the website to convert into and save your PDF as a Word document. See an image of this process below:

Then, you can open your file in Microsoft Word, make your desired edits, and save as a new PDF the same way you would in Steps 7 and 8 outlined above.

Who knew there were so many options for editing everyone’s favorite portable file? Go now, and amend your PDF, no matter what your platform and editing needs might be.