On Apple's new ads
frank.is
frank.is
1) Why was the first guy having so many issues?
2) To the average user, WTF is a keynote?
3) I thought that Macs were easy to use? Why do we need
a "genius" to help use them?
This is in stark contrast to Apple ads of the past:
* Rainbow colored people dancing around with iPods.
Music + simple + fun = iPod. Got it.
* I'm a Mac. Funny, non-threatening, laid-back hipster versus clumsy,
goofy, sweaty guy. Macs are simple, smart, cool. Got it.
* Old iPhone ads. Lots of swiping, cool effects, plenty of brands, easy to use.
Pick up an iPhone, noodle with it and I'll get it. Got it.Kind of depressing, actually.
I'm half expecting a Samsung ad featuring a quasi-Nordic Olympian person with a hammer. And a large screen.
To the target audience (and especially those who do laptop work on planes), that means 'keynote' as in "prestigious headlining speech at a conference", not "Apple Keynote presentation software".
It's what I saw. Why associate your product with negativity? It's insanely dumb.
Most people will see Apple -> no special skills & ambitious projects -> panic -> friendly Genius, nothing like tech support -> win
What you remember is that "If you are having problems with your Mac (no matter how dumb) then an Apple genius is available who is willing to do anything to help you."
Sounds to me like Apple achieved the purpose of the ads.
Negative. I remembered that "I should expect to have problems with my Mac". I'm more concerned about that than I am about having help nearby. AFAIKnew, Macs were supposed to be easy to use. My wife, non-technical, was left with the same impression.
Compare: What if the problem the man on the airplane had was not creative? What if his computer wouldn't start, or he saved over a file accidentally? Then I would probably expect to have problems with my Mac, and no amount of t-shirted genius would save that message.
There are different kinds of problem, and different kinds of support. Apple are not pushing Genius as a backup plan or insurance when things go wrong; they're saying you can get help to learn to do things you would never do before.
Apple are trying to sell Macs to people who are afraid of clicking unfamiliar icons, people who don't read dialogue boxes.
The Mac users in their commercials are full of energy, and although (as we can see from the Genius' reaction) they don't know much, they're pushing forward without fear of failure.
That means they want an easy experience, no?
I think the ad is effective because the Genius doesn't help them with things that are "supposed to be easy." It shows that with just a little help from the Genius Bar, the novice users can do things they'd never dream of figuring out on their own. This ad targets people who would never expect even the "easiest" computer to let them make home movies or do their own presentations.
Is anyone else bothered by usage of "we" here? I suppose it's not unlike a sports fan referring to their team as "we". There's just something disturbing about someone saying "we're in trouble" because a corporation they are a fan of produced a slightly less than stellar advertisement.
It's not that they're turning OSX into a consumer platform. It's that they're doing it so clumsily, with such garish hubris and lack of focus or reality, that it's worrisome.
Really, I think it's hard to dumb down an operating system enough to make it impossible to be productive with it. However, one can try. To my terms a consumer is the exact opposite of a producer. Therefore a consumer platform is obviously a platform for people who consume products, like software, and whatever they've got on iTunes, rather than for those who make it.
Now this is a bit awkward, cause you provably can still do productive work on OSX - lots of people do that rather successfully. So it's really hard to put your finger on what exactly is "consumer" about it and since I haven't used OSX more than a couple of hours (didn't like it), I frankly don't really know. Maybe somebody else can elaborate on that?
So not sure what you mean ?
I will concede that I forgot how long ago Apple started going consumer centric. Maybe I just felt iMacs were geared towards young artists.
Young artists become older artists who continue buying hardware and software.
Not much weirder than the number of people who referred to "Steve" as if Jobs were a personal friend.
I was, many years ago, an Apple retail employee. After that, I worked as an Apple Certified Technical Consultant. Referring to Apple as "we" is a old habit that manifested itself in a moment of surprise.
People who buy Apple products need, on some level, for Apple to continue making great products. I have a self-interest in the iPhone and the Mac continuing in their tradition, and not deviating along a path I find less than promising.
Samsung buyers are maybe not in the same exact position, since you could buy a very similar phone from .e.g., HTC.
Don't construe this as a defense of fanboy-ism though. Buying a Mac or an iPhone is, for me, a decision that accommodates my preferences as a user. It's not an afront to me if someone thinks that Apple sucks as a company, I don't take that to mean my preferences are dumb.
Words cannot express how terrifying that sentence is to me. At the end of the day, we're talking about stuff. Physical things. Things that you buy. If you're investing in a brand, what is the return on that? If you're being loyal to a brand, does that mean that the brand owns you?
Before people invest in brands, they should invest in themselves and in each other.
Jeez. Hyperbolic much? Turn the knob down a bit, you might some day have to talk about the time the doctor found a black mark on your chest scan, or when you were robbed at gunpoint.
At the end of the day, we're talking about stuff. Physical things.
You're talking about stuff. I'm talking about getting stuff done and being productive by having my preferred tools continue to exist, continue to be improved, and continue to be preferable (to me.)
If you're being loyal to a brand, does that mean that the brand owns you?
No. It means I'm invested in the brand. Similar to the case if I had bought stock in the company -- my return is productivity and user comfort.
...they should invest in themselves and in each other.
Presumably by doing real work, with actual impact? And with the help of the tools which make one productive.
I hope you won't mind if I have a continued investment in doing work and creating value for myself and others. Sorry that it involves caring about having good tools.
For an extreme example, if you are a long time Mac user and suddenly Apple came out and said "sorry guys, we've changed our mind. There will be no new Macs or versions of OS X after Mountain Lion. We will also be ending all support for current versions of OS X by 2013". That's going to be anything from a minor inconvenience to a serious nightmare for you.
I might imagine that long time Mac users are particularly sensitive around this because there was a time when this might have been a real possibility because Apple seemed to be on the road to going bust.
I think this concept of investment is perhaps an American or Silicon Valley-specific thing. To me, the concept of investment implies that you should get a return. If you're not getting a financial return, it's not an investment, it's a purchase. You can get other types of return from a purchase, but you can't necessarily exchange those types of return directly for goods and services.
The idea of an investment in a brand is something I find horrific. To me it sounds like a nice way of saying that a brand has you by the balls and can extract money from you as and when they want knowing they don't have to try. If people 'invest in coca cola' it means they won't buy pepsi or sprite to me. It means that they no longer even consider what's best for them, instead slavishly sticking to a brand that they self justify by claiming a false return.
Apple has my purchasing balls in a vice as far as the iPhone is concerned, it'd take me a lot to move to Android as I've spent a small fortune over the years on various apps. That isn't an investment, that's being owned. If I was able to take the apps I've bought on iPhone and run them (or reacquire them) on Android, they wouldn't have that hold over me.
Thankfully I have an iPad so switching phones is feasible for me (although I'd have to buy a whole new set of apps for the things I use on my current phone), but switching phones and tablets means I no longer get any value from the purchases I've made and that's where they have my balls in a vice.
From now on, when someone says they're invested in a brand, I think I'm going to use the term 'balls in a vice'.
Chuck Palahniuk wrote it best in Fight Club:
"The things you own end up owning you".
This is especially true of computers where platform lock-in is rife and there are high opportunity costs to adopting a particular platform, especially if you plan to develop for it.
Buying coca-cola is not really an investment (unless you buy stock in the company of course) since you're spending a small amount of money for a short term good. You buy a computer with the intention of using it for a few years at least and you learn a development stack usually with the intention of using it for even more years.
I'm not trying to assert any of this as being the case for the author, but when I was in my teens during the early days of the web, entranced by that heady feeling of being on the vanguard of something truly special, with a little fiefdom at my fingertips simply by being there, I too felt an emboldening, a sense of purpose and grandeur and the emotional vitality and certitude to make sweeping statements, to talk of The Community and be a bold spokesperson. To be figuring out the world, positing ideas and learning about where they take you and how to communicate and convince and argue and wax and eulogize, these are valuable things to learn at any age. Let Apple and Samsung tremble before a critique written with passion and determination long before any such fire is quenched, we are always free to be our own filters for taste.
The task in the commercial (creating a video from lots of raw footage) is something a non computer pro wouldn't expect to be easy. Being able to do that in "27 minutes" sounds impressive. And the fact that a Genius could show you how to do this in that short amount of time is appealing. This isn't portraying Macs as having lots of problems--it's showing that mere mortals can do impressive things with them.
Finally, the guy the Genius helps first actually gets up with the Genius to go help the guy in 21F. The commercial ends with him saying, "Let's do this." The Genius gave someone such confidence in their Mac skills that he feels ready to become a Genius-like helper himself.
The other two suck though.
An older man in a business suit walks in with a visibly old Apple laptop -- say, a G4 iBook or similar vintage. He explains to the tech that it's a great computer, but it can't go very long without being plugged in any more. The tech checks it out for a moment, comes back with a new battery, installs it, "all set sir, anything else I can help with ... (etc)". Cut to the customer on a plane the next day, smiling as he uses it for something.
A young woman walks in to an Apple store holding an iPhone. She bought it a few months ago, and this morning, it wouldn't turn on. The tech checks it out for a moment, apologizes for the problem, copies everything over to a new iPhone, and hands it to the customer, "anything else ...". Cut to her using some personalized feature, like browsing photos, which people are often afraid of losing during computer upgrades.
Swap in genders and ethnicities as desired. The point is to have something that happens to real people ("my computer doesn't work as well as it used to", "my phone isn't working"), and then demonstrate how the product solves their problem.
I'm thinking Samsung has exclusive rights to advertise for consumer electronics (or something like that) during the Olympics. (Keep in mind these ads debuted for the Olympics' opening ceremony.)
Therefore Apple has to advertise in a way that gets around these exclusivity deals. Therefore products are a no show.
Do you have a link explaining the situation?
But there's a term for it, Ambush marketing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing
This line was part of a classic critique of Microsoft's packaging design.
Besides, why do we need to see the product in use? Recall the "I'm a Mac" campaign. This strikes me as the same thing; it's about the people who use these computers, not about the computers themselves. iPod and iPhone ads usually show the product in use, but the Mac ads don't.
Additionally, I don't think that younger target costumers will be engaged by a spastic know-it-all with the job title "Genius".
* I saw the commercials last night and don't recall them that well, but was left with this impression. And my wife and I turned to each other and mouthed "WTF?" after the commercials ended.
I don't know, but I think it's a cheap excuse to say that you, personally, can't think of anything better.
"I want to back up my hard drive every day."
"It's simple - one command and it's in your crontab!"
"Wow. And ... I'm looking for a file I was working on. I can't remember the name, all I know is it's got a phone number somewhere near the top."
"OK, what format was the phone number in? I can grep that in no time!"
"Wait, it's on my home competer! I'll never be able to access it"
"HA! That's what you think. Let's see if your SSH is up ..."
Apple is popular because it's user friendly, not because it has features. Advertising features isn't going to wow people.
Demonstrating how user-friendly features are (even if you fake it a bit with expert users, and cherry-picking use cases) works, not simply telling the users that the features are there (and worse, arrogantly saying they are easy to use).
How would you do it with spotlight?
There is a large segment of the market that isn't tech savvy. Computers scare them, they know they're not very good with machines, and they know they'll need help. Now imagine this consumer presented with two potential options; 1) A laptop with paid phone support. 2) A laptop with face to face human support.
Apple is attempting to communicate the human support they offer with their products.
These ads look bad to you and I because they're not marketed to you and I. We don't need a 'Genius', we don't need to be condescended, we know how a Macbook works. We will make purchase decisions completely outside of what these new ads communicate. There will be and are other marketing techniques used to appeal to our market.
The Apple Store is clearly an awesome value add (I even hesitate to reduce it to merely that), but I don't think these ads do a great job communicating that.
They're simply not focused: the schtick muddles their message, and dropping the names of various pieces of Apple-specific software (Keynote, iMovie, Garageband) makes them even harder to follow for folks who don't use Macs already (and probably for some who do).
Add in the (according to some people, though I don't see it myself) subtly condescending Genius, and I think you've lost both the audience you're looking to reach in addition to the one you already have.
It kind of makes things feel like a dream.
The reality of life in the US is a hilarious smack in the face compared to the Hollywood advertised US we see on TV/Movies
Here is everybody analyzing these ads like they are a long-lost Kubrick reel so I guess it still works on some level among the Apple faithful.
1) There was zero indication the commercials were for Apple except for the genius and sparse product placement. Compare and contrast this to the obvious visual feel and genre that previous ad campaigns ad: the white silhouettes for iPods, the Apple vs. PC guy, etc. You knew these were Apple ads.
2) Gone are the broad, crisp, clear claims, gone are the simple stories. The 2 examples I have above tell two pretty distinct stories: 1) Apple is really into music, and 2) Apple computers are just so much better than PCs it's a joke, respectively. What is the new story being told? That iMovie will save you time? That the geniuses are really good at tech support? That celebrities use Macs? I didn't hear one "this is the best X ever." The ads have every bold edge smoothed off them until they are unrecognizable and meaningless (see: Orwell's Politics and the English Language).
3) Finally, simply put these just aren't entertaining. They aren't aesthetically pleasing. They aren't distinctive in anyway. I don't expect to like advertising, and while I don't think Jobs was a god, one thing he definitely had was good taste. He wanted each ad to be a cultural piece in and of itself. This is just bland crap that makes me feel like they are just trying to reinforce a brand perception (which is exactly what they are trying to do, which is exactly why it feels like bland crap: they have no legitimate reason to be talking to me right now.)
I agree they aren't train wrecks, they are just the subway: the shit you take every day. It mostly works but it sure as hell isn't exciting.
New ads imply stupidity on the part of users. I do not remember that happening in any other apple ad.
Imagine if the product being sold were math courses on DVD, instead of computers.
Apple has made mistakes while Steve Jobs was there too. Think of the cube, of antennagate, of all the cracks and discoloring and recalls of early MacBooks. Think of Ping, and MobileMe.
Not every misstep is a signal that Apple is in decline without Steve Jobs; I'm not even convinced that these ads wouldn't have come out with if Jobs was still with us.
They're gently absurd situations. The genius is helpful above-and-beyond what would be reasonable, emphasizing an important Apple advantage. And, specific product benefits get worked into the dialogue.
I always thought the 'genius bar' naming was a bit pretentious, but clearly it's worked as a brand differentiator for Apple for years. And while I've got nothing against Justin Long, the Mac-vs-PC ads featuring him were far more elitist/patronizing/snooty. In these ads, the genius is more amiable.
Let's not forget the generation of 'Switcher' ads that had Ellen "beep, beep, beep" Feiss. Apple ads have varied in tone and focus from year-to-year: you can't feature archetypes against a white background forever, as any look will get dated over time.
(Maybe some of the future genius-helping-outside-the-store ads can feature cameos of previous ad actors... Feiss, Hodgeman, Dreyfuss getting direct genius help?)
Like it or not, even the Mac is a complex combination of hardware and software, and while much of this is obvious to those of us who spend 8+ hours in front of a computer, its not obvious those everyone else. While perhaps poorly executed, I think the ads do point out the difference between Apple and Everyone Else; When you buy a Mac, there is ALWAYS an expert standing by to help you solve your problems, someone who knows everything about your hardware and software, this is something the PC world does not have.
This was before Steve Jobs was (apparently) universally acknowledged as an infallible business leader. Think about what we might know about Tim Cook 7 years from now.
I think the ads are fine, but I can see how others might not like them. Either way I think it's a pretty big stretch to extrapolate these into a general decline for the company.
Buying a sleek computer without one who acts in the way depicted in the commercials might be seen as a feature.
These were Lifestyle-channel ads.
I couldn't watch after the first one.
Besides, last time I checked, Apple sources out their ads through an agency, specifically - TBWA Media Arts Labs http://www.mediaartslab.com. If anything, someone in marketing screwed up and approved a lame ad. Not a determining factor in their continued innovation or actual products.
1) You are not the target audience for this ad. Nobody cares whether you like it or not. We want to know what your parents and grandparents think of them. And AFAIK this is the first time Apple has deliberately targeted an older audience.
2) Steve Jobs personally said that he was involved in 2-3 years worth of products. So you can skip that whole "Steve Jobs is gone. Apple is going to die." rhetoric.
Did you read the post you're commenting on?
Disagree completely.
At some point or another Jobs' forecast won't matter.
Just because they think "that far ahead" doesn't mean that those "ideas" were concrete 2-3 years later.
Apple WILL change, but we can't predict what it will do.
Now, if the discussion is about these ads involving a decay on the quality of the end product, wait at least two years.
Right now, some people is pissed off because these ads "do not represent" them at all. Well, Apple marketing execs do not care. They already got you on the bandwagon.