Motorola suggests Apple's iPhone is feminine in latest TV spot - Page 8

Actually my gf now wife had that. It was huge with women. I remember seeing almost every women have that phone. It was a cool phone. I gig the MacBook silver one. Twice. Once. I kid you not. I was in a store. Then I coudnt find it so used my gf phone heard it ring one isle over then it stopped and started going right to voice mail.

I had that happpen twice and also lost one was so pissed i swore if I ever found a phone I was going to keep it. That's how fumed I was. But now I'm like hey you just droped a $50 even though I could use it. Pennance, patiences, perserverince, (spelling), persistence, faith, belief in your dreams and you will make it. Just neve, EVER give up believing in it no matter what anyone thinks, says, does, hurts, lies, distorts the truth, you will make it. Yay!!!

Believe, Beverly give up, never give in, dye trying if you must.

Such misogyny makes me want to dump my RaZr.

I seriously don't want people to think I'm some backwards 1960's prejudicial old-timer male because I have a Motorola phone. We've come a long way in 30 odd-years and this just sets us right back.

This requires some consideration. Considered - I'm dumping my moto.

(I'm not kidding)

Indeed.

Plus the blonde buys more phones and talks on them longer than the linux geek in his basement playing with robots.

The ad takes pot-shots at modern, progressive men, like you and me; it takes a shot at homosexuals, and it takes a shot at women.

In fact, the Reg got it quite right. it's worth a read.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12...disses_iphone/

Just like in politics, winning relies on exploiting the perceived weakness of your opponent. When your opponent has few weaknesses, it's easier to lie or make up a weakness and play it to the hilt. Of course, the iPhone's real known weakness is at&t and they're already playing that card.

But that's my point exactly: who "perceives" that a weakness of the iPhone is that it's dainty, or the phone of choice for homosexuals and fatuous celebrities, or that it's some kind of jewel encrusted bauble that can't do much? The criminally insane? Hillbillies? Angry shut-ins?

And if that isn't the general perception, then how effective, really, is claiming those things? Motorola could also run ads suggesting that the Droid doesn't burst into flame and melt your face, unlike certain Jesus phones they could name, but that would that be an effective campaign?

A campaign isn't effective just because it says bad stuff about the competitor, or implies that only bad people use the competitor's product. The claims have to resonate with something at least marginally connected to most people's reality.

Again, the idea that the Droid is a "robot" that destroys things which makes it the antidote for iPhone's Barbie Doll fecklessness is not an idea likely to resonate with most people's reality, for the simple reason that it's insultingly ridiculous on the face of it.

This often gets said about ad campaigns that stir debate, but I don't think it's actually true-- that there's "no such thing as bad publicity."

For instance, Motorola could next run ads showing the Droid intercut with scenes of women being brutalized. Or rapid images of fascist dictators. Or Elephants being slaughtered. That would certainly get people talking. A lot. Think it's the kind of attention Verizon would welcome?

Most adages arent true or to be taken literally. This is clearly one of them. Thats not even the full quote and Micheal Jacksons untimely death provided a clear example of that.

"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary ~Brendan Behan

Its a bitch phone. I use a sonim land rover S1 and when i put that thing on the table women know I'm hard bastard. All you guys out there who have a iphone you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at the thing, it says girlie all over. you guys are becoming more like women, losing your masculinity. little bitches with their iphones. look at me, look at me i've got an iphone. none of the boys serving overseas have an iphone.........

Not sure this is really the best approach for Motorola/Verizon. It seems to me men have a habit of projecting a female gender on possessions: boats, cars, guitars, etc. Perhaps most men only feel comfortable thinking of something as beautiful if it has a female gender attached to it. Or perhaps they are looking for socially acceptable ways to appreciate beauty that fits with the macho male image.

Either way it's a short sighted way to market a product. Too negative. If you look at the Apple PC/Mac ads they were very careful to make John Hodgman a likable character. So while the ads are manipulative they are not negative. The role of the PC is a mixture of an exploited customer who, by proxy, is repeating the status quo wisdom of computing. The Mac is the alternative.

A better campaign for Motorola/Verizon would be a "man on the street" ad. Two people sitting at a table using their phones. The ad would show the practical advantages of an Android phone and a frustrated iPhone user saying "oh... mine doesn't do that"

But this is Motorola -- no matter how much Verizon is involved you can't escape the fact Motorola is clueless about advertising and good design. The fact that their best response is "well you're a homo if you like the iPhone" -- and let's be honest that's EXACTLY what this is, shows how incapable they are at marketing.

... perhaps modern men and women who bathe are pathetic losers? Maybe a Motorola phone could fix this?

Eh. I ride my bike in the rain with my otterbox'd iPhone.
I text while I'm at it.

No other phone can do that. No woman in their right mind does that. Case closed

Of course there is a limit to what is too far. But I don't think Verizon did anything that went past the line. Did Verizon do any of those things that you list later in your post? No. They know better.

Verizon poked fun of the iPhone with their iDon't ad, which was a real success in getting people talking about what the Droid was. Now Motorola did the same thing with this commercial. It's poking a bit of fun at a phone that suggested to be the iPhone.

Now you see lots and lots of commercials of Ford or Nissan Chevy trucks that use all kinds of manly images and words. Some of the earlier ones also picked on their competitor's trucks being sissy and not as powerful as their models. I don't see anyone complaining about those ads segregating the population. So why is Motorola getting such flak for making a similar ad?


But want to know the most ironic part of your post? The act of you posting is causing a debate. Like it or not, Motorola's ad had the intended effect. You're spreading the name of the Droid on an Apple fan website.

I agree with you! Why don't phone makers focus on their own products instead of comparing with iPhone. Except for PC vs Mac, Apple didn't have to do iPhone v/s Nokia/Windows Mobile comparison. The problem with Motorola is that they have lost the market share and now they are put all eggs in one basket - Droid. It is make or break situation for them. I think Droid is a sad comparison - Even among Android phones. I think HTC makes a better Android phone.

Of course they didn't do any of the things that Addabox used as bad analogies in his post.

The iPhone is weak in several ways and strong in several ways. The fact it is all one piece makes it feel very solid. However Moto is trying to show how simple to use can also mean simpleminded using it. Form verus function is a legitimate discussion point and this ad raises it. Whether it will resonate with consumers is a point of contention but then everyone is picking at straws nowadays. Apple is stuck highlighting the very limited form of multitasking they support as a reverse example.

The Apple had has to be one of the first times I've seen them respond to a competitor. I think a lot of folks are worried about Android hurting Apple. I don't just mean Droid and Motorola. I mean the possibility of death by a thousand cuts via Android phones.

My point being that simply getting people to talk about your product isn't an automatic win. Talking about the Droid on this forum isn't a win. Anyone here who wasn't particularly interested in the Droid is unlikely to be won over by this conversation. And surely you don't imagine that there many people here were unaware of the Droid, who are now intrigued?

"Tongues are wagging, they're playing right into their hands" is an easy thing to say, I just don't happen to think it's true, as can be demonstrated by any number of episodes of negative press that got everybody talking about this or that product.

As far as pickup truck ad campaign go: pickup trucks are not cell phones, which is part of what I'm saying. I have no idea if truck ads that make out the competitors as being wimpy are effective or not; I will say that such ads have always struck me as dumbfoundingly stupid, even by the very low standards of advertising. I shudder to think what kind of buyer is actually swayed by the idea that one truck has a bigger dick than the next.

But be that as it may, since when does anyone think of a cellphone as having any of the cultural positioning of a pickup truck? It's just tone deaf, the idea of selling your phone as some kind of testosterone fueled penis monster accessory. It's beyond stupid, it's insane.

I'm sure there are a certain number of deeply insecure young men that will be sadly aroused by this nonsense, but how many of them will actually go out and buy a Droid? Against how many potential buyers that now consider the Droid a bad dick joke?

My point was that AI is only one of many media outlets that are reporting on the Motorola ad. Everything from CNNMoney to The Wall Street Journal. While you're probably right that no one here would be swayed to get a Droid (it is an Apple fan site, after all), you can't say that no one would be swayed be reading any of those other articles.

As for my trucks comparison, you're right that cellphones are different from trucks . But they are still products being marketed. It's the commercials I was talking about.

I would agree that getting a truck solely on the reason that it "has a bigger dick" than the next one is stupid. But having more of something is still a valid reason to buy something...

But I really think you're reading way too much into the commercial. Motorola made an amusing commercial that advertised their product over a competitor's product by insulting it a little. Nothing that hasn't been done in the past. I'm looking at you Apple "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC ads".

Well, I guess we're just going to disagree on this, but:

1) Reading about a controversial ad campaign doesn't strike me as a likely way to drive adoption.

2) "Products being marketed" as a point of comparison between campaigns is so broad as to be meaningless. Different products are marketed in different ways because they have differing types of appeal to different groups. Just as you're never going to see burgers marketed with the sex appeal angle of liquor or cars, I think marketing a cell phone with pickup style machismo is a mistake. As far as having "more of something" what is it that Motorola is saying the Droid has more of, than the iPhone? Dick? And you're saying that's a valid point? Really?

3) I have no problem with an advertising tweaking a product humorously, or pointedly. What I'm saying is that the Droid commercials are neither. The tone is clearly intended as edgy and aggressive, not funny. And, again, the "points" being scored against the iPhone are incoherent.

Can you tell me what, exactly, is princess like or beauty queen like about the iPhone? How it's a delicate porcelain thing? Do you know anyone that has that impression? If anything, the iPhone is more utilitarian than the various flavors of Android and WinMo that have surfaced lately, which tend to be far more ornate.

At heart, the entire campaign hinges on the innate presumption that "Apple stuff is for fags", which apparently you think is cute and funny and kinda true. I guess there a few Beavis and Butthead types that agree. But good luck to Motorola building a customer base on that demographic.

Man do I ever agree with this.

My iPhone has just survived a weekend of scaffolding in my back pocket of my shorts. It's been dropped, it has fallen into puddles, it has a handful of minor scratches, on the screen and tons on the plastic and yet I don't care. In fact I kind of like the scratches because it shows it actually gets used a lot not just sit in a case all the time.

I'm the sort of person that you should give your products to to field test your gear. If it can survive a week with me then you're on to a winner. The iPhone has survived a year and a half with me and it's still going strong with a daily use. It's the phone I've waited 10 years for and it's the phone that has been the strongest for me. Definitely upgrading next year when my contract expires.

That may be true, but 7 pages later it still seems to be bothering many of you.

What I would be more concerned with is given the reaction across all the forums is if other Mobile & Telco's don't pick up on it and run with it.

It may be sophomoric advertising but if others pick up on it and start portraying the iPhone in the same manner it may change the perception of the iPhone to a negative connotation.

Does it mean that being gay is a negative or wrong in any way? No.

But if the iPhone is perceived this way it will matter. Better hope other Vendors don’t take the ball and run with it.

10% of the population is speculated to be Gay. That leaves a large percentage that may not want to be perceived in this manner. Many don’t care but far too many more do.

Except advertising can't actually make stuff up out of whole cloth, it can only work off of existing currents. If there were something dainty about the iPhone, or it came encrusted with jewels, or it was much more expensive than the competition yet did far less, or it was famously delicate, then I guess there might be something to run with.

But this is the phone that a lot of people seem to be convinced is defined by its fart apps. It's pretty well known for being robust. It's a plain little slab of tech without any decorative touches whatsoever, and its dominant visual is its home page of app icons. It's an iPod. It's a browser.

It is, in a word, neutral, insofar as Apple could make it so. The phone itself endeavors to disappear, being characterized by whatever app is running. Anyone trying to characterize that as "gay" is just drawing attention to their own anxiety-- or their desire to prey on the anxiety of adolescent boys. Then again, it doesn't take much to convince adolescent boys that, say, coffee pots and lawnmowers are gay, since calling things gay is a reflexive effort to establish sexual identity.

As far as "bothering me", I'm just interested in how messages are formed. This particular message particularly interests me because it's so overt, and so very insane. There's all kind of bad advertising, but rarely do you get something that seems to have been actually made by gender anxious adolescents.

By the way, the concern trolling about how dreadful it would be if the iPhone were to come to be seen as "gay" is pretty pathetic.

Excellent post.

What I find more amusing is that by one posting in this particular posting on this subject that you've postulated that I'm Insane.

I'm merely pointing out the fact that the majority of the US and the World does not see being Gay as a positive lifestyle that they want to be associated with.

Is it wrong, absolutely!

Is it effective advertising? Yes.

If other Vendors jump on the wagon and insinuate that the iPhone is a Gay phone then it can change perception of a phone as quickly as the RAZOR went out of favor.

You sir, are really reading too much into my posts. But I'll answer your points neither the less.

1. Controversy isn't a direct way of getting more customers. But it will still generate sales because of getting something more exposed to the public. Look at all the magazine we have, for example. Celebrities are full of controversy and drama. The magazine companies use that to sell and sell well they do. America, in general, is built on using this method as a selling point.

2. Actually, burgers have been marketed in the way of sex appeal. Ever heard of the Paris Hilton Carl's Jr. burger ad? Controversy via using Paris Hilton in a non-traditional, sexual way of marketing a burger. I'm willing to bet that produced a spike in sales. I rest my case there. We'll have to disagree on the "machismo" part. I think that Motorola's ad is a nice change to all the typical commercials out there. A disruptive force, if you will. In certain ways, yes, the Droid does have strengths over the iPhone. Using the "dick" terminology to degrade the point of my post was your saying.

3. Then you and I have a different sense of the word funny. It's the whole edginess and far-fetched ridiculousness of what they say and how they say it that makes it funny. Incoherent to you, sure. But I'm willing to bet that the majority of the people who the Droid is being marketed to understand the whole point of the ad.

Don't go putting words in my mouth there, buddy. I in no way think that the iPhone is for fags, as you say. You labeling me as such just because I find a bit of humor in a competitor's commercial is offensive. I respect the iPhone for exactly what it is and what it has accomplished. Without it, we might have not seen such a boom in the smartphone market for the everyday user. They would have still be things limited to businessmen and power-users and the price of owning one would still be ridiculous.

I actually do know of quite a few people that think the iPhone is "princess or beauty queen like". To me, this is purely a subjective point. Each person likes different looks. And I do see where they get the idea. I know quite a few friends that own iPhones whom you might place in the "princess" and "beauty queen" category. This is a legitimate group of people who own iPhones and I don't blame Motorola for poking fun at them.

At the end of the day, it boils down to Motorola finally taking a more aggressive stance in the smartphone marketing world. Instead of just meekly posting fliers, they've opted to use a megaphone to stand out more.



While for technical specifications, this is very true. An ad can't lie about a competitor's product specs, as people can look that up. However, ads can play on the perception of a product, as there's nothing white paper to define perception. The whole point of Motorola's ad is to play on the perception people have of the iPhone. Are there people that think it's a "girly" and "princess" phone? Absolutely. As stupid of a tool as it is, ads playing on perception of an item is as powerful as a straight-up ad.

Take the latest 'I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" ads. I'm sure you can find the reviews for yourself for how Windows 7 is the best Windows yet and its continued success. Apple, in its ads, has chosen to attack what we still perceive Windows to be. There's no point-by-point comparison between Snow Leopard or Windows 7. Just attacks using what someone might perceive as a negative of going to Windows 7.

It's not pathetic at all. If you're gay then you won't be concerned with the insinuation. If you're gay and you are then you're as homophobic as the rest of the world and likely in the closet.

Is the iPhone a Gay phone?

I don't think so. But if it is perceived that it is then it will have a very bad impact on sales.

Hate to say it, as wrong as it is, it's 2009 almost 2010 and being Gay is still perceived in a negative manner. If this is pursued by other Vendors then it will have a negative impact on sales for the iPhone and likely Apple.

Products aren't celebrities. Magazines and TV shows can sell voyeurism into the lives of troubled famous people, that doesn't mean anyone wants them to come live at their house.


Fine, you can think of a "sexy" burger ad (although I would argue that particular ad was more of a burlesque of the idea of a sexy ad, and mostly just an excuse to use Paris Hilton), but the point stands: phones aren't pickup trucks, and the techniques used to sell some things aren't effective for others. You don't use jump cuts and pounding club tracks to sell diamond rings, you don't use harried housewives to sell video game consoles, you don't use kids and dogs to sell vodka. I can go on listing examples, but surely you see my point.


What strengths, beyond "more scary", does the Droid commercial in question point to? The fact that the Droid might have some features you value over the iPhone is beside the point, we're talking about this particular ad. The "dick" reference is about the ad, if you have a point external to that it's for another thread.


Which is?


As I've been saying, "humor" derives from truth. To the extent that you think an ad that fairly explicitly suggests that the iPhone is effeminate, and that features a highly effeminate male mannequin being shot by paint balls by masked thugs, is funny and on point, that suggests to me that you believe these characterizations to be somewhat true.


And there's the point of contention, I guess, because I think that attitude requires a preexisting presumption of what kind of people use Apple gear. Otherwise the fact that out of a very large group of people using a product a few of them might be characterized as anything in particular would strike you as what it is: statistical noise. For instance, out of my group of friends and acquaintances, a number of them own Samsung TVs. Of those Samsung owners, some might be characterized as given to being over dramatic. Would you say that it follows that Sony would do well to run an ad suggesting their TVs don't suffer from hysteria, like those other guys?

No, you would think that wouldn't make any sense. It's only this tacit notion about Apple stuff that keeps you from wondering what the hell is wrong with Motorola.


There's nothing wrong with taking an aggressive stance in the market. Generally that's done by talking up the virtues of same. Shooting paintballs at mannequins is just creepy.

But, we'll see. I think there might be a bit of a backlash, or maybe the Droid will become the phone of choice for mouth breathing cretins who are terrified of women.

Uh huh. And if HP starts insinuating that Epson printers are gay, that'll be terrible for Epson, because the buying public will be all like "Oh noes, Epson is teh gay? Run! Run!"

Also, look for Gordon's fish stick people to start a whisper campaign that Mrs. Paul is a radical feminist and the hard hitting Coke ads suggesting that Pepsi is the de facto national drink of Iran.

I'm not saying those things are true, necessarily, just that Epson, Mrs. Paul and Pepsi would be in a world of hurt if they came to be perceived that way, which obviously they would be if a competitor just kind of threw it out there.

Tell me when does Virtues come into play in advertising? Shooting at paintballs may be "Creepy" to you but may be just what the advertiser was look for.

Art & Advertising is subjective. If you can't see that then you are either a teen ager or a very niave person.

You "hope" there may be a backlash to the current Advertising campaign for the Droid.

You may be right...
You are likely wrong...

If Motorola has made an advertising campaign that puts Apple into a negative Gay perception then they have hit the 90% of the population that isn't Gay.

Are they all going to be receptive? No.

But the majority will. Again, I'll say as sad as it is, in this era, being Gay or having products that brand you in such a manner are not a positive perception that most will want to be affiliated with.

All of the above may be true but Apple has grown a reputation for being pretentious and those that use Apple products can be perceived in the same manner.

Does pretentious mean gay?

Not to me, but it may to a vast majority of the current consumer base.

Palm Pixi
Motorola Karma
Nokia Surge
Pantech Breeze
Nokia Mural
BlackBerry Pearl
Pantech Reveal
HTC PURE
Samsung Sway
LG Glance
Nokia Intrigue with Pink Keypad
Verizon Razzle
LG Chocolate
Verizon Escapade
T-mobile myTouch
Motorola W490 - Heather Grape
Samsung Cumback
Motorola CLIQ



You really don't have any idea, do you?

And have you stopped for one second to ask why that is?

I don't know what's worse, society's intractable problem with gays, or advertising that exploits it. For anyone who STILL thinks that our discussion is somehow a win for Motorola because it's gone on for eight pages, you're completely missing the point. A discussion like this persists because there are those who think exploiting others is wrong and want to make that point clear, NOT because of any interest in the product itself. Hint: Eight pages talking about the ad itself, and not a single post discussing the Droid handset's capability or technical merits. Motorola's ad has failed.

That's...... insane.

Oh for God's sake. This is just a litany of exhausted Apple bashing tropes that were stupid when they were first bandied about 20 years ago, are now stupid and hopelessly out of date, and gussied up as "I don't think these things, but most people do."

Most people don't give a shit about some bizarre Apple hatred based on sexual anxiety. Most people do not think the iPhone is "pretentious."

How is it the cult of Apple haters always think that their disorder is normal and broadly shared? Are there special bars where they hang out?

Now THAT's the proper way to do parody.

With something that over-the-top there's no question that 'Jack The Mac' signed up for a new account with the express purpose of telling the world that he's really a soft old pussycat who has no problem mocking the testosterone-laden nutheads that need to affirm their masculinity by swallowing whatever some cynical marketing company tells them.

I mean look - that phone is 'ribbed for pleasure'!

http://www.uberphones.com/photos/200...d-rover-s1.jpg

Oh the opposite is quite true, my friend. The iPhone itself can be considered a celebrity. It is something that stands out and was made popular by the media. People follow the iPhone via magazines and blogs and forums just like this one to get the latest on what's happening in its life. No different than people picking up People to read about Angelina Jolie's latest drama.


Of course what you're saying is true. Ads aren't an all-size-fits-one deal. In the case of this Droid ad, it's exactly what you're saying it shouldn't be that makes it so damned effective. This is why the marketing world is so subjective. But in this case, neither of us truly have a way of measuring this ad's success. You can argue that continued sales of the Droid is an indication of the effectiveness of this ad. But then you can also say that Droid sales were going to be strong regardless or because of different ads.


The commercial says that the Droid is fast, browses the web fast, looks great (again, subjective) and at the very end shows a bit of the Google Navigation in a stylized use. Again, this commercial is mainly meant to poke some fun at what is implied to be the iPhone (it never once says "iPhone") and get the name out there. Now if this was the only Droid ad, you'd have a point. But it's just one in a series of Droid ads. This particular one just happens to cater towards the younger crowd.


That the iPhone isn't the only awesome phone out there. That there's this thing called a Droid. And it's fast and powerful. That is the function of this ad.


That may be true, but it's not 100% true. Take stereotypes. It's funny because it's derived from the truths of certain individuals. But it doesn't necessarily apply to all those individuals. I said it was funny, but not once did I say the whole shooting of a effeminate mannequin being shot was on point to what I think the iPhone is. Finding something humorous does not mean that I automatically have to agree with what it says. But then again, you apparently know me better than I know me.

But if it really helps then for the record, I DO NOT THINK THE iPHONE IS GAY.


In the commercial, it points to something that is very broad and general. Yes, there is a bit of pre-conceived notion of what an Apple user is like. Again, this is stereotyping the Apple user. Making fun of the stereotype can be funny, even if the stereotype doesn't cover everyone. In some ways, the stereotype of the Apple (in this case the iPhone) user is brought on by themselves.


Again, this is just a single ad in a series for the Droid. There are other Droid ads that do talk up the virtues of the phone. *sigh* Again with the mannequins... I'm beginning to think that you might have some deep-down fascination with them... I don't see how that's creepy at all. A little oddball, sure, but the whole commercial is filled with oddball images meant to stick in your mind and then recall that it was from a Droid commercial.

Or maybe the Droid will just become the phone of choice for people who can see the ad for what it is, just an ad. And buy it because it fits their bill for what they want in a phone. Do you realize the irony in your last sentence?

Your new phone is fabulous, so butch it'd be divine in leather chaps.

Paris Hilton used a HipTop (remember the hacked phone book and pictures), I think she was seen brandishing a Nokia 5800 or maybe that was Britney or some equally vacuuous pop Princess, whatever Nokia paid for product placement.

One would tend to think that a more appropriate meme for the Droid marketing might be "Epic" as in fail.

Right. The iPhone has no utility value, it's simply a vapid media star. People who buy an iPhone are acting on the same impulse that drives them to check up on the doings of Brad Pitt. I bet they don't even use it, they just stare at it. I think I'm starting to get why the Droid campaign works for you


I'm not sure what you mean by "effective" here, I have to assume it just means "makes you happy" or something, since you agree we can't really know what effect it will have on sales. That's not really what I'm talking about though-- it's more a matter of cultural esthetics, if you will, which while subjective are not without ramifications. An ad can be, in fact, "effective" while still being toxic.


But none of those things are actually points of differentiation. The point of differentiation is what we're talking about.


No. The function of the ad is to imply that the iPhone is effeminate, possibly gay, delicate, and empty headed in the manner of a "beauty queen", while the Droid is a vaguely militaristic robot that is inclined to shoot the former.


I don't think that you think the iPhone is gay. But there's a lot of room between that and being kind of down with a certain drift. That's how a lot of stereotyping and prejudice works-- by insisting that everybody needs to get the joke or lighten up or whatever, while strenuously insisting that no real harm is intended. It's a kind of plausible deniability. I'm not talking about you, particularly, I'm talking about how this kind of thing works in the culture.


Stereotypes are funny to the people who hold them. They are rarely funny to the people being characterized. They are even less funny when the stereotype is based on hostilities that have nothing to do with those being stereotyped and everything to do with those that hold them. Ask the next African American you meet if they're amused by the idea that blacks are oversexed and stupid.

Having said that, "iPhone users" aren't remotely an identifiable group, beyond shared ownership of a product, and the fact that you think that they somehow are, and that this group has brought some kind of negative characterization upon themselves frankly says more about you then the disparate folks who happen to own a particular cell phone.


It's a very specific image: a male mannequin dressed effeminately, with one hand on an outthrust hip, shot with paintballs. It's pretty clearly a "safe" stand in for fag bashing. I think that's pretty fucked up, for about 400 different reasons. The fact that the iPhone is even in the picture is the least of them.


I don't think "irony" means what you think it means. At any rate, of course it's "just an ad", that doesn't magically preclude the ad from having objectionable content or using objectionable strategy.

If companies believe in their own products, shouldn't simply talking about and showing product features be enough to make customers want to buy them?

This ad is hilarious to me because one of the most common anti-apple arguments I read and hear is that people who use Apple products are simply sheep who are duped by the ads and have no clue about technology. And now the shoe is on the other foot pretty firmly with this type of ad. People who use Droids are now clearly just insecure about their masculinity. And if they're women they clearly only bought a Droid to avoid looking like a certain category of female. Makes just as much sense as the same argument about Apple's advertising having such influence over Apple users.

And like the who-has-the-most-apps argument, which used to be the constant mantra of PC users, it's suddenly no longer relevant to them when you're looking at smartphones because the iPhone has so many more apps available. Now it's about the quality of the available apps. Same thing mac users had to argue before. I love how partisans on both sides now have to argue the exact opposite positions from the ones they used to argue.

Tell me where I said that the iPhone is just a vapid media star. It's because of its functionality that makes it such a star in the smartphone world. And yes, some people do in fact buy the iPhone just because of its status. Name me the last time a teenager asked their parents to buy an iPhone for them because they compared all the technical specs and structured out exactly how much it would cost over the 2 years of owning it. They ask for it because their friends have it and it's popular.

But let me ask you this. Do you not read the front page of this site (or any other Apple related website) for the latest blog on the happenings of the iPhone? Do you not cheer Apple when they do something to improve it? Do you not boo them a bit when gossip and speculation of additional features don't show up on the next version? The iPhone is a celebrity. Just in a completely different field.

It seems that you're kind of saying that functionality and celebrity status are mutally exclusive items. While in the case of people like Paris Hilton, that may hold true, they are the exception. The vast majority of human celebrities are celebrities because they have a function that they are good at that made them the focus. Unless you're telling me you block yourself off from all forms of TV, movie, audio, and video game entertainment...


By effective, I mean it comes from being out of the ordinary. The iPhone ads are generally all the same (well done, but all the same). It pretty much picks a choice apps and shows of their functionality. Their not really that attention grabbing to me anymore (personal opinion here). Whereas this Droid ad comes completely out of left field and grabs your attention.

And I agree with your point. It's those ramifications that this ad is playing on. It makes people go "they did not just do that!". This happens in our media culture all the time. TV shows and movies do it all the time (especially shows like SNL). Video games are full of it too (see the latest Modern Warfare 2 controversy). But you don't see that stopping their sales or causing a dramatic drop in viewers.


Actually, you asked about what "strengths" the commercial says about the Droid, not differentiations. See your post. Your own words. Don't go moving the goal posts here because I answered your question. The ad specifically points out what I mentioned as strengths of the Droid.


And while I don't completely agree with that as the method of carrying the Droid, it does still say the Droid is an awesome phone. Could they have done it using one of Apple's non-gender ad templates? Sure.


And both sides of the fence are guilty of doing that. Apple still stereotypes the PC user as nothing more than a bumbling businessman to this day, even though we all know that is not true at all. And this plausible deniability is what makes it so attractive for use in ads. Poke fun at the compitition without any real way for a legal backlash.


I'll have to disagree with the "rarely funny" part. I think that stereotypes have gotten to a point where some cultures do laugh at their own stereotypes. Especially in the Generation X and younger crowd. Africans have embraced the stereotype that they are well hung or constantly want chicken. They make fun of each other over it. Being Asian, I constantly joke about the whole "loves rice" or "must be a straight-A student", even though I find rice to be nothing special nor was I ever a straight-A student in my life.

And I still agree that they aren't clearly an identifiable group. Just out of my personal experience, this "beauty queen", "princess" group does still exist. Are they representative of all iPhone owners? No.

Don't tell me that there aren't Apple product owners that will go out of their way to rub their product in the faces of others. The ones that go "hey look what my [insert Apple product] can do! Bet yours can't!" Those are the ones that caused the negative characterizations of what the general population thinks are of all Apple users. If you ask most people about a negative Apple-owner characterization, you'll probably find "smug" to be a common. As mis-applied as it is, it's still out there.


Worded this way, I can agree with you and see what you mean. Just saying it's "creepy" was open to a bit of speculation to what you meant. The ad could have done without this 2 second clip. But saying that it's a blank check to go out and bash on gays in general is a bit reaching, in my opinion. I'd be highly surprised to see something in the news where a gay person had balls of paint thrown at them just because the Motorola ad did it.


By irony I meant that you used the same objectable labeling of a Droid owner that you're objecting to the Droid commercial using to label the iPhone.

And I never said it "magically" precludes this ad. My point was that I'm willing to give the majority of Americans the benefit of the doubt that they'll shave enough common sense to see this as just an ad and not as a blank check saying it's fine to go out throwing balls of paint at gay people.


I seriously think that you and I have digressed way beyond our original discussion. It turned from single sentence posts to massive point-by-point posts. You have objections over the content of the ad and don't like it. I get that. I find it funny because of the whole shock value of that content. If you think that makes me or people who chuckle at the ad a less cultured than you, then so be it. No amount of forum posts are ever going to change that.