Apple Has Nothing To Say | Hacker News Reader

Apple Has Nothing To Say

adcontrarian.blogspot.com

51 pointssamsolomon28 comments

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

"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.

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.

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.

I think the ad is boring and crap and dear sophie was great, but apple has done dear sophie type ads too. Did you see the video (not an ad) Apple did of the uses ios devices are being put to that didn't make WWDC? People adjusting their own prosthetic limbs, doctors in the third world saving children. That was some stirring shit.

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/12/apple-posts-ten-minute-m...

I have no idea what the heck Apple was trying to achieve text and black balls. I nearly nodded off when this got shown at the WWDC keynote (it was up there with the obligatory jony ive video — seriously who cares what he says, we can look at the product).

Apple should have aired a shorter version of something like that video, not Designed by Apple in California. I think it's a little telling of the state of things in the company that they didn't choose to go that route.

This ad in combination with terrible graphic design decisions in iOS 7 has really got me down on Apple lately, to be honest.

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 ?

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.

I've got to wonder: How many people created dear.my.child@gmial accounts after watching this? Will Google eventually shut them down without (or with little) warning due to account inactivity?

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

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

    > 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?

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.

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-wa...

You thought they were different and just wanted to give you cheap stuff because they're nice and they like you?

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/

(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

I really don't know what the message there was.

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.

FWIW, that's a market of only 300k people, who all learn norwegian and english fluently in school.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com