
Apple Has Nothing To Say - samsolomon
http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2013/06/apple-has-nothing-to-say.html
======
parfe
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
"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.

~~~
threeseed
Apple's Designed in California is a BRAND ad. Google's Dear Sophie is a
PRODUCT ad.

They have different goals, different approaches and different audiences. Apple
has had product ads recently as well you know, maybe compare like with like ?

~~~
cheald
Dear Sophie is ostensibly a product ad for Chrome (in that the logo and name
appear at the end), but it doesn't actually talk about Chrome. The ad would
work just as well in Internet Explorer - it's about how Google The Company is
making your life better (through email, Youtube, picture storage and sharing,
etc). It's a very brand-flavored product ad.

------
stock_toaster
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
Yes, that's why Amazon had no effect on the retail market before disappearing.
Because fat margins are the only important thing.

~~~
stock_toaster

        > 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
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.

------
ghshephard
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.

~~~
whiddershins
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
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.

------
whiddershins
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
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.

------
etchalon
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
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
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.

------
jeffreyrusso
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.

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

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

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

