Apple said to double advertising and marketing team
A new report paints Apple as preparing to double the size of its advertising and marketing team as the Cupertino giant continues to move more of its marketing work in-house.
Sources familiar with Apple's plans say that the iPhone maker will expand its in-house design and marketing group from its current level of about 300 to between 500 and 600 staffers, reports AdAge. Until recently, Apple had been content to keep its marketing team around 300, because co-founder Steve Jobs wanted the firm to be known, according to one executive, "as a products company, not a marketing company."
Now, though, Apple is reportedly more interested in keeping intellectual property within its own operations and keeping more ownership of its creative work. To that end, Apple has been bringing on personnel to work on its own brand, including a number of senior creatives, high-level creative directors, and heads of innovation.
Apple has also been hiring on ad execs with experience in guiding brands and agencies. Those hires are meant in part to help create better ads for Apple's iAd network.
Normally one of the company's more celebrated aspects, Apple's ad operations have experienced some hiccups of late. A high-energy "Genius campaign rolled out earlier this year to considerable disdain. Apple pulled the campaign shortly after its debut.
Later campaigns featured similarly high-energy spots for the iPad, with a focus on the device's wide-ranging capabilities enabled by its App Store catalog. Those spots soon gave way to ads like the quieter "Photos Every Day," and "Designed by Apple in California," which have received mixed reviews.
Earlier this year, reports emerged that there was dissent in Apple's camp, with its advertising teams chafing under the leadership of marketing head Phillip Schiller. How exactly the reported marketing team expansion could relate to that in-house dissension is uncertain.
Sources familiar with Apple's plans say that the iPhone maker will expand its in-house design and marketing group from its current level of about 300 to between 500 and 600 staffers, reports AdAge. Until recently, Apple had been content to keep its marketing team around 300, because co-founder Steve Jobs wanted the firm to be known, according to one executive, "as a products company, not a marketing company."
Now, though, Apple is reportedly more interested in keeping intellectual property within its own operations and keeping more ownership of its creative work. To that end, Apple has been bringing on personnel to work on its own brand, including a number of senior creatives, high-level creative directors, and heads of innovation.
Apple has also been hiring on ad execs with experience in guiding brands and agencies. Those hires are meant in part to help create better ads for Apple's iAd network.
Normally one of the company's more celebrated aspects, Apple's ad operations have experienced some hiccups of late. A high-energy "Genius campaign rolled out earlier this year to considerable disdain. Apple pulled the campaign shortly after its debut.
Later campaigns featured similarly high-energy spots for the iPad, with a focus on the device's wide-ranging capabilities enabled by its App Store catalog. Those spots soon gave way to ads like the quieter "Photos Every Day," and "Designed by Apple in California," which have received mixed reviews.
Earlier this year, reports emerged that there was dissent in Apple's camp, with its advertising teams chafing under the leadership of marketing head Phillip Schiller. How exactly the reported marketing team expansion could relate to that in-house dissension is uncertain.
Comments
If you go out and get the order, you were doing "sales." If you don't get the sale, you were "marketing."
Phil Schiller's handling of Apple's advertising has been shoddy. I've noticed some of their billboards are nonsensical, and most of the tv ads have been awful.
No, they still only want a big piece of mobile ads for the most part. Having a mobile OS that helps ensure they're a big player in mobile ads is just a piece of their puzzle. Google never intended to compete with their own hardware which is why the OS is so widely licensed.
I suppose if push comes to shove and there's too much intrusion on their core revenue stream they might be forced to go the hardware route.
Here's something rarely mentioned. It was Apple who first signaled an intent to compete directly with Google by bidding on AdMob. If Apple had no intention of eventually pushing Google off of their platform as the ad provider why would Apple have gone after AdMob in the middle of 2009? That was long before Steve Jobs showed his displeasure and threatened to go thermonuclear. If you were Google how would you have read it?
IMO it was obviously Apple throwing down the first gauntlet, not Google. You expected Google wouldn't react to an unexpected competitor they thought was a partner? While even DED will agree that Microsoft was the original target of Android, this little move from Apple no doubt got Google's attention and may have been the impetus behind today's cooler relationship.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/104782/apple-met-with-admob-weeks-before-acquisition-by-google
Apple's commercials shouldn't acknowledge the existence of any products made by any companies except Apple.
Well just take the latest campaign. For starters, its backwards-looking, a celebration of past success. Definitely not something Apple should be conveying at this time. Secondly, it's an awful ad, full of heavy-handed self-aggrandizement. Its one big sentimental pat on the back. As for their billboards, I recall their hideous giant iPad Mini board, which shows an iPad Mini on a completely white background. It's placed on the ride side of the frame, and there is an enormous amount of useless white space. No context, no interest.
More dumb ads: crappy unfunny Santa/Siri thing, crappy unfunny Genius campaign, crappy and patronizing celebrity Siri ads, hideously patronizing iPhone 5 thumb-size ad, nonsensical William sister impersonators iPhone 5 ads. Those uncomfortably long and sleepy photography and music ads playing right now... Aside from those adjectives, they're all just non-creative.
For those of you who read this article and are wondering, "What's the difference between sales and marketing??"
If you go out and get the order, you were doing "sales." If you don't get the sale, you were "marketing."
LOL - an oldie but goodie, with more than a smack of truth about it.
MacRumors says: "Apple doubles In-House Creative Design Team"
AI The post heading says: Advertising and Marketing Team.
The post says:
Thanks for highlighting the modern thought that having principles is too "mushy". It'll never be the case, but…
Here's something rarely mentioned. It was Apple who first signaled an intent to compete directly with Google by bidding on AdMob. If Apple had no intention of eventually pushing Google off of their platform as the ad provider why would Apple have gone after AdMob in the middle of 2009? That was long before Steve Jobs showed his displeasure and threatened to go thermonuclear. If you were Google how would you have read it?
IMO it was obviously Apple throwing down the first gauntlet, not Google.
It's "rarely mentioned" because you're wrong. Google began copying the iPhone OS in 2007, more than 2 years before the AdMob bidding, with the first Android OS phone sold in late 2008. Apple then began bidding for AdMob. So, 'twas Google that threw down the first gauntlet because, although they relished the new source of revenue from Apple, they couldn't live with not controlling the platform.
The only context in which Apple would be considered to have "thrown down the first gauntlet" would be the introduction of the revolutionary iPhone--not just some Blackberry clone like Android originally was--which threatens Google's desktop ad revenue. It's hard to blame Apple for instigating such wonderful change!
http://www.apple.com/jobs/us/corporate.html#design
It was clear to everyone else in 2007 that Google was partnering with Apple against Microsoft. Android was part of that strategy as even DED rightfully recognized and still acknowledges. As a matter of fact Schmidt was perhaps still on Apple's board when Apple management first reportedly approached AdMob. He didn't resign until August of that year.
It wasn't until early 2010, and after Apple's competing effort to acquire AdMob several months earlier, that the Google/Apple partnership began to publicly develop cracks. There's no proof that one led to the other of course but Google would have been foolish to ignore Apple's apparent plans to enter the ad business, don't you think? Apple may not have chosen to enter the search business but they certainly decided to enter the ad business.
Nothing wrong with having principles, there may be something wrong with a person who gets mushy when espousing his principles though. Apple is hideously sappy and self-congratulatory with this new campaign.
don't think that the new phone(s) and new operating systems (7 and mavericks) will sit on the the shelves sans advertising. new ads are imminent.
So you're saying the wildly successful "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads were a bad idea, then?
Ok.
No, and you know better. Now shut it.
They're the only company in the industry with principles. You're just not used to seeing them presented.
Who says they're not? And what's wrong with their philosophy, particularly since it's best for customers?
I disagree. I've seen them presented beautifully in the think different campaign, and then again in that video that opened WWDC. The video that closed the show, the one used as the ad, is a complete bummer, pure sap.
http://allthingsd.com/20121206/creativity-and-innovation/
"A lot of companies have innovation departments, and this is always a sign that something is wrong when you have a VP of innovation or something. You know, put a for-sale sign on the door."
- Apple CEO Tim Cook, in an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek’s Josh Tyrangiel
It sounds good to have so many creative people on board because it's more options to filter through but 500-600 seems like a lot of people to manage to deliver a cohesive message.
They could look back to what were their most successful ad campaigns (not in terms of sales conversions but in delivering the message) and least successful and summarize the messages they conveyed. Then build up a short list of messages they want to convey about the brand and build campaigns around those with a coherent style. They shouldn't spell out the message either because all the execs at other companies start to use the same terminology.
- people-focused, philosophical, inspirational ads. No stock footage.
- product-focused ads. Upbeat, fun, straight to the point.
- competition focused, negative marketing, humorous.
- service focused, empathise with customers, humorous.