

Android Tablet Ads VS. iPad Ads: A Dissection - luigionline
http://www.i4u.com/46049/android-tablet-ads-vs-ipad-ads-dissection

======
Kylekramer
The problem I have with this "dissection" is it starts with a concept that
Apple has a perfect ad and everything that isn't like it is a flaw. For
example, why should the first frame make a strong brand play (after all, this
assumes the audience is paying rapt attention from the get go, which I find
rare for a TV setting)? Well, cause Apple does. Why do you have to focus on
the product and not people? Cause Apple does.

He makes some okay points and Apple does make excellent ads, but the author
approaches everything in such absolutist views with no backup but his
feelings.

~~~
tzs
> For example, why should the first frame make a strong brand play (after all,
> this assumes the audience is paying rapt attention from the get go, which I
> find rare for a TV setting)?

Because the first few frames are what I see while I'm reaching for the remote
to start hitting the +30 second skip to get through the ad block and back to
the show I'm trying to watch. The non-Apple tablet ads are for the most part
all pretty much indistinguishable from car ads and razor ads in their first
few seconds--they aren't going to stop me from hitting the skip button.

~~~
Kylekramer
Ad skippers are a minuscule minority, and by definition the last people you
are going to target.

~~~
Anechoic
> _Ad skippers are a minuscule minority, and by definition the last people you
> are going to target._

86% of [UK] TV Viewers Skip Ads:
[http://www.lightreading.com/blog.asp?blog_sectionid=423&...](http://www.lightreading.com/blog.asp?blog_sectionid=423&doc_id=196045&site=lr_cable)

"One study found that nearly 60 percent of male viewers skip commercials and
an even greater percentage of female viewers, nearly 70 percent, do the same.
[http://books.google.com/books?id=wUB9cczGxiAC&lpg=PA380&...](http://books.google.com/books?id=wUB9cczGxiAC&lpg=PA380&ots=sVLaB6dUU9&dq=percentage%20tv%20viewers%20skip%20ads&pg=PA380#v=onepage&q&f=false)

~~~
Kylekramer
86% of viewers with DVRs (and as your second link says only a quarter of
households have one) and that is only on timeshifted content which advertisers
have already given up on. Making ads for people timeshifting content is like
trying to advertise to people running ad blockers on their browser.

~~~
tzs
DVR households are going to tend to have higher income than non-DVR
households, and so are more likely to be able to buy a $500-800 tablet, so you
don't want to just write them off.

You are right that if someone were to make ads aimed specifically at time
shifters, it would probably be pointless. The Apple ads are not aimed
specifically at time shifters. They are simply intelligently done in a way
that makes them more likely to work with time shifters, without harming their
appeal to others.

------
roc
Is it an execution problem, or just a different set of goals?

It looks to me like the Android ads are focused on their target market (male,
18-35) rather than the product. And I would have little trouble believing that
market responds better to an emotional hook (dystopian sci-fi? cool!) than a
30 second product demo.

IME, that market approaches the 30 second product demo with the capability-
checklist attitude: "Browser? every tablet has a browser. Pandora? Every
tablet has Pandora. Games? Every tablet has games".

Given that, it seems perfectly valid --if that's your target market-- to
simply aim for a 'cool' commercial that gets your product into their field-of-
view before the inevitable internet research.

