14 ms·

Apple Has Nothing To Say

51 points by samsolomon 13y ago

ghshephard 13y ago
I saw at least eight products being used in as many different settings. Seems to be a product ad to me. Here's a better example of a "Brand" ad. http://www.apple.com/designed-by-apple/ http://www.apple.com/designed-by-apple/ (though some pundits have suggested that what we're really seeing are "mission" ads targeted to Apple employees, and being shared with the general populace) For a truly strange approach to advertising, we need to look at the Samsung Goat/Ninja/Crunk/Windows-Surface Homage ad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhM-DuM2WgE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhM-DuM2WgE I really don't know what the message there was.
- callahad 13y ago
  I'm not sure that's as strange... The text at 0:22 basically says "The Galaxy S4 understands Icelandic," which, presumably, iOS doesn't. Looks like a straight up ad playing toward better localization for the Icelandic market.
  - tater 13y ago
    FWIW, that's a market of only 300k people, who all learn norwegian and english fluently in school.
- whiddershins 13y ago
  The brand ad is again, in my opinion, terrible. It reminds me of when MTV jumped the shark, it has become totally self referential. It feels to me like an internal communication, a mission statement, or a guidance video for people who work at Apple. It doesn't seem to address what actual people thinking about buying and using stuff would actually respond to or care about. Or possibly I am really, really, out of touch.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Brand ads are supposed to be mission statements and the whole point of them is not to talk about product selling points. And you are out of touch in the sense that people are influenced by a brand and what it says about them. After all many items including clothing and shoes roughly cost the same to make regardless of the brand yet the prices and demand vary wildly.
stock_toaster 13y ago
This peice, and the comments there, seem really out there to me. "[apple] haven't produced anything of major interest to consumers in a long time." "Apple has been taking a beating from Samsung who have come at them aggressively." Weird. Does "taking a beating" refer to market share? Certainly not mobile net-profits. head scratching
- rodgerd 13y ago
  Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing. Because fat margins are the only important thing.
  - stock_toaster 13y ago
    > Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing. Because fat margins are the only important thing. Fat margins implies you have room to bring your price down and pick up additional market _if desired_. Your example of retail vs e-store is also odd, because retail space has its own costs (floor space/power/personnel/supply-chain/shipping/stock costs/etc), and thus margins are usually thinner. Also, someone selling 100 widgets for $1 each, has to support customers/returns/fix for 100 customers. Someone selling 5 widgets at $20 each only has to support 5 customers. It would generally cost less to do so (fewer customers). So.. Not sure what point you are trying to make, but maybe it was lost in the snark?
    - nemothekid 13y ago
      The other poster was trying to say "mobile net-profits" don't really mean anything. He used amazon because they are perfectly happy with little to none net profits.
  - melling 13y ago
    I think Amazon wanted to get big first and capture the market then slowly raise prices. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wa... You thought they were different and just wanted to give you cheap stuff because they're nice and they like you?
jeffreyrusso 13y ago
There are a lot of pointless contrarian comments on the post, and I don't agree with everything in the actual article, but I do see the point being raised and the shift in Apple's ads. Layered on top of the details of the product that used to make up 100% of their advertising are more explicit points about the company, their philosophies, and their process. I don't think that's necessarily wrong - it certainly isn't out of the ordinary in advertising - but its a tactile shift. That being said, they are still a long way from "jumping the shark" with this strategy, and I'd disagree with the writer's point of view that this indicates they have nothing on the product front to talk about.
whiddershins 13y ago
IMHO, the copy is terrible. For example "The experience of a product" would be more effective if it were just "the experience" ... people don't think of the word PRODUCT, they don't buy a PRODUCT, that is a word you use internally. People buy things, iPads, iPhones ... not ... PRODUCTS. "Until every idea we touch, enhances each life it touches." is an awkward sentence to hear spoken. It is stupid because you don't touch ideas, but aside from that, would probably be more effective as "Until every idea we touch, enhances our lives" ... I'm sorry but it makes me think that this company is really suffering without an obsessive dictator micromanaging the product/marketing message.
tommaxwell 13y ago
I tend to agree with most of the comments in this thread. What I think will be most interesting is seeing the next iPhone iteration, and the one after that. If the ads are still spending a lot of time talking about brand, then I think the problem will be more apparent.
bane 13y ago
This is going through the ceremony of a Jobs era ad (emotional connection, experience etc.) without understanding why those ads worked.
parfe 13y ago
The Apple ad reminded me a lot of the Google Dear Sophie ad. Both were trying to tell the viewer "Hey, we are a part of your life and making it better." Except the Apple ad had to say it, while the Google ad showed it. Show v Tell; show wins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk
- cheald 13y ago
  "Dear Sophie" legitimately makes me cry. The linked Apple ad makes me yawn. It's an extremely odd reversal, because a few years ago I would have unquestionably told you that Apple was the king of technology advertising. They got "Hey, what's important is how this makes your life better". The iPod ads, with the dancing silouhettes, were a perfect example of this - it wasn't about the gigabytes or the interface or the price - it was about this product that was great because it made you want to dance. It facilitated your happiness. Now, we have an ad from Google which absolutely nails "this is how our product will make your life better", while we have an ad from Apple that says "We think a lot of ourselves and think you should too." I wouldn't have expected that, at all.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Alternatively, it may be that Apple has done its homework, nailed its target audience, and you're just not an Apple consumer. I would argue that these ads are doing two different things. That being part of the tribe - loving Apple and thinking it's just better - is not incidental to Apple, it's central to their brand strategy. They can just keep expanding the circle of people who drink the kool-aid. Google isn't cultivating a tribe, probably couldn't.
    - salk 13y ago
      I'm an Apple guy, don't use any of Google's products, excluding YouTube on occasion, and Dear Sophie is a much better advertisement than Designed by Apple in California. Apple's ad comes off as forced and non-genuine to me.
      - 13y ago
programminggeek 13y ago
It's funny how people seem to want Apple to both stand still and invent the future at the same time.
etchalon 13y ago
This post is simply factually incorrect. The Apple brand was built by products, but the "Designed by Apple" ad is just another version of "Think Different." Apple continues to make products, and product ads. This is in addition to it. So "brandism" hasn't crept in, anymore so than when Steve Jobs was there. The OP's entire point is complete bullshit and a silly, juvenile metric of the companies health.
- keammo1 13y ago
  if you read more of the OP's blog posts, he continually points to "Think Different" as a notable exception in Apple's history of avoiding brandism in its advertising during the Jobs era
  - etchalon 13y ago
    So, Jobs gets a free pass, but Cook doesn't? Double standards and ridiculousness. If they KEEP doing it, he has a point. Until then, he doesn't.
mahgnous 13y ago
I didn't want to believe that Jobs was the only thing holding that company together. Apple's soul died with him.

51 points by samsolomon 13y ago

I saw at least eight products being used in as many different settings. Seems to be a product ad to me. Here's a better example of a "Brand" ad. http://www.apple.com/designed-by-apple/ http://www.apple.com/designed-by-apple/ (though some pundits have suggested that what we're really seeing are "mission" ads targeted to Apple employees, and being shared with the general populace) For a truly strange approach to advertising, we need to look at the Samsung Goat/Ninja/Crunk/Windows-Surface Homage ad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhM-DuM2WgE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhM-DuM2WgE I really don't know what the message there was.

callahad 13y ago
I'm not sure that's as strange... The text at 0:22 basically says "The Galaxy S4 understands Icelandic," which, presumably, iOS doesn't. Looks like a straight up ad playing toward better localization for the Icelandic market.
- tater 13y ago
  FWIW, that's a market of only 300k people, who all learn norwegian and english fluently in school.
whiddershins 13y ago
The brand ad is again, in my opinion, terrible. It reminds me of when MTV jumped the shark, it has become totally self referential. It feels to me like an internal communication, a mission statement, or a guidance video for people who work at Apple. It doesn't seem to address what actual people thinking about buying and using stuff would actually respond to or care about. Or possibly I am really, really, out of touch.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Brand ads are supposed to be mission statements and the whole point of them is not to talk about product selling points. And you are out of touch in the sense that people are influenced by a brand and what it says about them. After all many items including clothing and shoes roughly cost the same to make regardless of the brand yet the prices and demand vary wildly.

stock_toaster 13y ago

This peice, and the comments there, seem really out there to me. "[apple] haven't produced anything of major interest to consumers in a long time." "Apple has been taking a beating from Samsung who have come at them aggressively." Weird. Does "taking a beating" refer to market share? Certainly not mobile net-profits. head scratching

rodgerd 13y ago
Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing. Because fat margins are the only important thing.
- stock_toaster 13y ago
  > Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing. Because fat margins are the only important thing. Fat margins implies you have room to bring your price down and pick up additional market _if desired_. Your example of retail vs e-store is also odd, because retail space has its own costs (floor space/power/personnel/supply-chain/shipping/stock costs/etc), and thus margins are usually thinner. Also, someone selling 100 widgets for $1 each, has to support customers/returns/fix for 100 customers. Someone selling 5 widgets at $20 each only has to support 5 customers. It would generally cost less to do so (fewer customers). So.. Not sure what point you are trying to make, but maybe it was lost in the snark?
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    The other poster was trying to say "mobile net-profits" don't really mean anything. He used amazon because they are perfectly happy with little to none net profits.
- melling 13y ago
  I think Amazon wanted to get big first and capture the market then slowly raise prices. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wa... You thought they were different and just wanted to give you cheap stuff because they're nice and they like you?

jeffreyrusso 13y ago

There are a lot of pointless contrarian comments on the post, and I don't agree with everything in the actual article, but I do see the point being raised and the shift in Apple's ads. Layered on top of the details of the product that used to make up 100% of their advertising are more explicit points about the company, their philosophies, and their process. I don't think that's necessarily wrong - it certainly isn't out of the ordinary in advertising - but its a tactile shift. That being said, they are still a long way from "jumping the shark" with this strategy, and I'd disagree with the writer's point of view that this indicates they have nothing on the product front to talk about.

whiddershins 13y ago

IMHO, the copy is terrible. For example "The experience of a product" would be more effective if it were just "the experience" ... people don't think of the word PRODUCT, they don't buy a PRODUCT, that is a word you use internally. People buy things, iPads, iPhones ... not ... PRODUCTS. "Until every idea we touch, enhances each life it touches." is an awkward sentence to hear spoken. It is stupid because you don't touch ideas, but aside from that, would probably be more effective as "Until every idea we touch, enhances our lives" ... I'm sorry but it makes me think that this company is really suffering without an obsessive dictator micromanaging the product/marketing message.

tommaxwell 13y ago

I tend to agree with most of the comments in this thread. What I think will be most interesting is seeing the next iPhone iteration, and the one after that. If the ads are still spending a lot of time talking about brand, then I think the problem will be more apparent.

bane 13y ago

This is going through the ceremony of a Jobs era ad (emotional connection, experience etc.) without understanding why those ads worked.

parfe 13y ago

The Apple ad reminded me a lot of the Google Dear Sophie ad. Both were trying to tell the viewer "Hey, we are a part of your life and making it better." Except the Apple ad had to say it, while the Google ad showed it. Show v Tell; show wins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk

cheald 13y ago
"Dear Sophie" legitimately makes me cry. The linked Apple ad makes me yawn. It's an extremely odd reversal, because a few years ago I would have unquestionably told you that Apple was the king of technology advertising. They got "Hey, what's important is how this makes your life better". The iPod ads, with the dancing silouhettes, were a perfect example of this - it wasn't about the gigabytes or the interface or the price - it was about this product that was great because it made you want to dance. It facilitated your happiness. Now, we have an ad from Google which absolutely nails "this is how our product will make your life better", while we have an ad from Apple that says "We think a lot of ourselves and think you should too." I wouldn't have expected that, at all.
- pekk 13y ago
  Alternatively, it may be that Apple has done its homework, nailed its target audience, and you're just not an Apple consumer. I would argue that these ads are doing two different things. That being part of the tribe - loving Apple and thinking it's just better - is not incidental to Apple, it's central to their brand strategy. They can just keep expanding the circle of people who drink the kool-aid. Google isn't cultivating a tribe, probably couldn't.
  - salk 13y ago
    I'm an Apple guy, don't use any of Google's products, excluding YouTube on occasion, and Dear Sophie is a much better advertisement than Designed by Apple in California. Apple's ad comes off as forced and non-genuine to me.
    - 13y ago

programminggeek 13y ago

It's funny how people seem to want Apple to both stand still and invent the future at the same time.

etchalon 13y ago

This post is simply factually incorrect. The Apple brand was built by products, but the "Designed by Apple" ad is just another version of "Think Different." Apple continues to make products, and product ads. This is in addition to it. So "brandism" hasn't crept in, anymore so than when Steve Jobs was there. The OP's entire point is complete bullshit and a silly, juvenile metric of the companies health.

keammo1 13y ago
if you read more of the OP's blog posts, he continually points to "Think Different" as a notable exception in Apple's history of avoiding brandism in its advertising during the Jobs era
- etchalon 13y ago
  So, Jobs gets a free pass, but Cook doesn't? Double standards and ridiculousness. If they KEEP doing it, he has a point. Until then, he doesn't.

mahgnous 13y ago

I didn't want to believe that Jobs was the only thing holding that company together. Apple's soul died with him.