4 ms·

"Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you don't h

"Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you don't have anything revolutionary." I used to agree with this thinking, however, Apple's very successful marketing campaigns (Mac guy vs PC guy) are entirely based upon this. Regarding some of the other things you brought up, I've been seeing some real [anecdotal] evidence of cracks in the iPhone love from people with it. This may be ATT's fault in some ways but I've been hearing some outright dissatisfaction, which has been surprising. These people (not all developers!) may not be ready to jump ship any time soon but I've been hearing a lot of "meh" coming from them, mostly unprompted by myself - just from hearing iPhone users talking to each other. There's some opportunity there for someone to compete seriously with Apple.

unalone 17y ago
There's a difference in attitude. Actually, the best way to look at attitude is to look at Apple's ads and then to look at Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter" counterads. Apple's ads are very friendly. I mean, yes, they relentlessly diss PCs at every turn, but the attitude's very happy. The white background is very warm, the music is quiet and cheery, and John and Justin have a nice chemistry going. It's two friends, one of whom is dorkier and a little more competitive than the other friend. It comes across as being friendly towards Microsoft, while criticizing its products. The attitude isn't "Look at Microsoft and how it sucks", it's "We can do these things better, but you're pretty cool too." It's lighthearted; it takes potshots like John Hodgman freezing in place and "crashing". It's all in fun, even when it's not. Then Microsoft decided it would be a good idea to target ads against Apple, because CP+B, their ad agency, thinks Microsoft can't possibly beat Apple unless they take huge risks (and, sadly, they're probably right). So we get the Laptop Hunter, which pretends its message is "Look at how cheap our computers are", while really the message is "Apple overprices". So you get people, real-life people, going "I can't afford that" and "I guess I'm not cool enough to be a Mac user". It's like they're trying to present it as a real-life situation, where we identify with the shoppers. Two problems. Problem One, the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really dealing with real-life situations. They're just pretending. If I buy a Mac, it won't be because it's cheap, it'll be because of iLife, or because it's virus-free, or doesn't crash. You can see Apple's selling points at http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/ http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/. Microsoft can't refute any of those in an ad. Their only option is to ignore Apple's advertising and deal with the constant bashing, or attempt a counterattack that uses irrelevancies. When I buy a phone, I'm not worried about open development or 5 megapixel cameras. In fact, the genius of Apple's advertising is that they're very good at not focusing on irrelevancy: They figure out what people want and they offer it. Right now their web site advertises, in order, the complex/beautiful applications they offer, their video camera/built-in video editing, their new compass edition to their GPS, and then a few things that probably aren't as urgent to the consumer. If I'm looking for a new phone, then seeing an ad that shows how I can plan out my wardrobe via phone, or figure out trains and flights, or any of the hundreds of things the App Store can offer, that's a strong selling point. Knowing I can use my phone to find where I am, that's a strong selling point. 5 megapixel camera versus video camera/editor? That's a weak sell. Problem Two is those latter ads are very negative. Microsoft sounds snippy; Verizon just sounds deluded. It's all about being badass: Look at those fractured images at the end, so much better than Apple's gloss. Problem is, Apple doesn't overgloss like that, so it's a caricature rather than it is an honest depiction, and its actual iPhone ads, which are very warm and friendly, come across much better than Verizon, which didn't get the memo that "aloof and cool" isn't cool anymore. So instead of being effective, the ads just seem mean and deluded. It's like the kid in debate class whose solution to every topic is "Let's settle this outside". Verizon's not able to sell their own product, so instead they attempt to knock in teeth. The Get A Mac ads aren't teeth knocking. They're poking fun at Microsoft. Microsoft's counterads backfired for the same reason these Droid ads will fail: Mean doesn't sell unless you've already got the upper hand.
- DenisM 17y ago
  >> the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really dealing with real-life situations So you think that being able to make calls on the phone is irrelevant to the typical user of the mobile phone? Biased much?
  - unalone 17y ago
    The Droid ad don't mention making phone calls. Not once. Way to RTFA. I'd argue, actually, that most users don't care much about their phone calls. Phones aren't used for talking nearly as much as they're used for other things. But either way, neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever.
    - DenisM 17y ago
      >>neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU
      - unalone 17y ago
        I have. It's not a Droid ad.
        DenisM 17y ago
        Let's try this again. You have said, and I quote "neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever". This clip proves you wrong, yet you can't bring yourself to admit it.
        unalone 17y ago
        You're a smarmy little fucker, Denis. I said that in regard to your original post, which accused me of bias because I didn't mention phone calls. I said that you hadn't seen the Droid ad, which doesn't mention phone calls. Then you brought up a separate Verizon ad which has nothing to do with the original argument. I liked that other Verizon ad. If they argued that at all in the Droid campaign, I'd think it an effective ad. That's what marketing should be. Instead, Droid doesn't mention Verizon at all, and brings up a whole bunch of things that don't matter. The name Verizon isn't mentioned once. So my point still stands. Now, you come in ready to argue against me, ready to point out a week-old advertisement that's got nothing to do with the argument. When I say your argument has nothing to do with what I said, I make the mistake of saying "Apple and Verizon" rather than "iPhone and Droid", which is what matters here. Now you're nitpicking that choice of language, pointing out that technically I was wrong, ignoring that the argument I was making was and is entirely correct. Now you're being a bit of a cunt because you'd rather win the argument than admit that your counterpoint had nothing to do with the point. You're doing what the Drone ad is doing. You're pointing out a slight misstep on my part and pushing it forward with negativity, with your "Let's try this again" and "yet you can't bring yourself" smarminess. It doesn't work on Internet arguments either. If you're going to be an ass, then be an honest ass rather than a snide one.

unalone 17y ago

There's a difference in attitude. Actually, the best way to look at attitude is to look at Apple's ads and then to look at Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter" counterads. Apple's ads are very friendly. I mean, yes, they relentlessly diss PCs at every turn, but the attitude's very happy. The white background is very warm, the music is quiet and cheery, and John and Justin have a nice chemistry going. It's two friends, one of whom is dorkier and a little more competitive than the other friend. It comes across as being friendly towards Microsoft, while criticizing its products. The attitude isn't "Look at Microsoft and how it sucks", it's "We can do these things better, but you're pretty cool too." It's lighthearted; it takes potshots like John Hodgman freezing in place and "crashing". It's all in fun, even when it's not. Then Microsoft decided it would be a good idea to target ads against Apple, because CP+B, their ad agency, thinks Microsoft can't possibly beat Apple unless they take huge risks (and, sadly, they're probably right). So we get the Laptop Hunter, which pretends its message is "Look at how cheap our computers are", while really the message is "Apple overprices". So you get people, real-life people, going "I can't afford that" and "I guess I'm not cool enough to be a Mac user". It's like they're trying to present it as a real-life situation, where we identify with the shoppers. Two problems. Problem One, the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really dealing with real-life situations. They're just pretending. If I buy a Mac, it won't be because it's cheap, it'll be because of iLife, or because it's virus-free, or doesn't crash. You can see Apple's selling points at http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/ http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/. Microsoft can't refute any of those in an ad. Their only option is to ignore Apple's advertising and deal with the constant bashing, or attempt a counterattack that uses irrelevancies. When I buy a phone, I'm not worried about open development or 5 megapixel cameras. In fact, the genius of Apple's advertising is that they're very good at not focusing on irrelevancy: They figure out what people want and they offer it. Right now their web site advertises, in order, the complex/beautiful applications they offer, their video camera/built-in video editing, their new compass edition to their GPS, and then a few things that probably aren't as urgent to the consumer. If I'm looking for a new phone, then seeing an ad that shows how I can plan out my wardrobe via phone, or figure out trains and flights, or any of the hundreds of things the App Store can offer, that's a strong selling point. Knowing I can use my phone to find where I am, that's a strong selling point. 5 megapixel camera versus video camera/editor? That's a weak sell. Problem Two is those latter ads are very negative. Microsoft sounds snippy; Verizon just sounds deluded. It's all about being badass: Look at those fractured images at the end, so much better than Apple's gloss. Problem is, Apple doesn't overgloss like that, so it's a caricature rather than it is an honest depiction, and its actual iPhone ads, which are very warm and friendly, come across much better than Verizon, which didn't get the memo that "aloof and cool" isn't cool anymore. So instead of being effective, the ads just seem mean and deluded. It's like the kid in debate class whose solution to every topic is "Let's settle this outside". Verizon's not able to sell their own product, so instead they attempt to knock in teeth. The Get A Mac ads aren't teeth knocking. They're poking fun at Microsoft. Microsoft's counterads backfired for the same reason these Droid ads will fail: Mean doesn't sell unless you've already got the upper hand.

DenisM 17y ago
>> the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really dealing with real-life situations So you think that being able to make calls on the phone is irrelevant to the typical user of the mobile phone? Biased much?
- unalone 17y ago
  The Droid ad don't mention making phone calls. Not once. Way to RTFA. I'd argue, actually, that most users don't care much about their phone calls. Phones aren't used for talking nearly as much as they're used for other things. But either way, neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever.
  - DenisM 17y ago
    >>neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU
    - unalone 17y ago
      I have. It's not a Droid ad.
      - DenisM 17y ago
        Let's try this again. You have said, and I quote "neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever". This clip proves you wrong, yet you can't bring yourself to admit it.
        unalone 17y ago
        You're a smarmy little fucker, Denis. I said that in regard to your original post, which accused me of bias because I didn't mention phone calls. I said that you hadn't seen the Droid ad, which doesn't mention phone calls. Then you brought up a separate Verizon ad which has nothing to do with the original argument. I liked that other Verizon ad. If they argued that at all in the Droid campaign, I'd think it an effective ad. That's what marketing should be. Instead, Droid doesn't mention Verizon at all, and brings up a whole bunch of things that don't matter. The name Verizon isn't mentioned once. So my point still stands. Now, you come in ready to argue against me, ready to point out a week-old advertisement that's got nothing to do with the argument. When I say your argument has nothing to do with what I said, I make the mistake of saying "Apple and Verizon" rather than "iPhone and Droid", which is what matters here. Now you're nitpicking that choice of language, pointing out that technically I was wrong, ignoring that the argument I was making was and is entirely correct. Now you're being a bit of a cunt because you'd rather win the argument than admit that your counterpoint had nothing to do with the point. You're doing what the Drone ad is doing. You're pointing out a slight misstep on my part and pushing it forward with negativity, with your "Let's try this again" and "yet you can't bring yourself" smarminess. It doesn't work on Internet arguments either. If you're going to be an ass, then be an honest ass rather than a snide one.