Samsung pokes fun at Apple lawsuits in Super Bowl teaser ad - Page 4

Sh!...

If Samsung offered me $100k to be in a Superbowl ad I would say yes.

Not offensive, but not really that funny either

No, but then the 1984 ad clearly revolutionized advertising and is STILL being talked about as one of the best ads of all time - almost 30 years later.

Do you REALLY believe the same will be said of this silly ad?

But we already don't have respect for anyone on this forum so it wouldn't change anything.

It's well known who was behind the whole Milli Vanilli debacle.

I can't name a single person except for Rob and Fab.

The difference being that the Samsung ad won't be discussed 30 secs after it airs meanwhile the Apple ad is being mentioned some 30 years after it aired. See the difference?

Frank Farian was the mastermind.

There I fixed it for you

That's not the original argument, though.

 

... and if it was the argument then when they showed it, did Apple know it would be discussed 30 years in the future (by the way... my 23 year old niece and her friends don't know about the 1984 ad).

 

... and I still haven't been shown in that ad where it mentioned the capabilities of the Mac.

 

See the difference?

 

I agree with you, except the way the exec says "We could get sued" seems suggestive. But yes, this ad by itself could not be aimed at Apple. If it doesn't even mention them, then they're depending way too much on viewer knowledge, which would be foolish, to say the least.

The whole purpose of a ad is to get a product or company in the minds of people. While the 1984 ad didn't show what the Mac could do it most certainly made Apple the most discussed company that year. This ad neither shows off a product nor does it wow us with it's ingenuity. That's why I say it was a squandered opportunity.

Now you are changing your argument altogether. Not once did you mention part 2 of your argument. You never mentioned anything about the ads ingenuity... and, again, did Apple know at the time that it would have that effect?

 

By the way... just as a refresher with your comprehension problem... here is my original reply to you:

____________

 

"Not that I would compare this Samsung ad with the 1984 Apple ad in any other way except to say that ad also didn't show what the Macintosh could do.

 

Sadly for them, though, this teaser doesn't make me think of Samsung after seeing it. I'll have to wait to see the entire ad to know if that changes."

____________

 

Upon reading my original reply don't you think that your reply to me was just redundancy? Really. You were just repeating everything I said. Like you weren't really making me see a difference. You were just trying really hard to show how brilliant you think you are.

You're absolutely correct I didn't mention the ingenuity part originally because frankly it's an almost impossible thing to do. It's kinda like Daffy Duck's trick, it's terrific but it could only be done once.

 

Which is true.

 

Although sales were higher than expected for the first 3 or 4 months after the airing of the 1984 commercial, Mac sales sank drastically for the rest of the year. Trying to increase sales Apple aired Lemmings at the next Super Bowl and it was a stinker. Apple changed ad agencies at that point.

If you knew that off the top of your head and know that name and his face better than Rob And Fab then perhaps it's just me but I don't recall anyone ever mentioning Milli Vanilli in the past 2 decades that then mentioned Frank Farian.

Wow, and I thought the Cantabs were one eyed

I knew the story well but will confess that I had to look up his name to refresh my memory.

This has nothing to do with Apple.

They are poking fun at pro sports teams etc that sue when their name is used without proper licensing.

That's the usual analysis of advertising but a lot of the time, it's nothing to do with the association of brand to content. It's just brand awareness. Take the following ad for example, the audience is people who drink beer, the message appears to be don't mix candles and horses, the purpose is to appeal to people with a sense of humour, nothing more:



All the advertiser needs is that you remember the ad and the brand that made it. Apple used to make funny ads years ago.



When I see the bouncing iPod ads now:



they're cool enough but they have no soul. They still have inspirational ads I like and the Genius ads I suppose were an example of injecting humor but they fell a little flat.

They could do so many things like have a family walk into a store and be confused that all the tablets and phones look the same or make fun about them being too big or that the salesman is trying to push Android tablets because they have plenty in the back - have them all under a banner that says The Next Best Thing. They should give as good as they get.

I agree. How did you manage to interpret this as a jab against Apple?

I agree with your premise but not the Apple Mac ad you choose. The clearly purpose was the Power Mac G3 was faster than the Pentium II. I think a better example would be the I'm a Mac campaign that also did compare Macs to WinPCs, but in an indirect way.

That was hilarious. It makes me wonder tho - if Samsung keeps going down this road if Apple will get pissed and open a big can of "I'm an iPhone, I'm Android" ads like they did to Microsoft. Apple has a knack for attacking with humor while highlighting it's products.

I think all three of the Superbowl viewers that "get it", will think it's funny.

Sure, that wasn't meant as an example of indirect humour, just humour. Indirect for Apple would be this one:



Not actually made by them. The old ones are the best though:

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but I can't believe Apple would be so undignified and sexist as to use a blonde joke in an ad.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/1/13 at 4:48pm

 

Well that is the culture war. I hope it backfires. I don't think so many things should be copyrighted and patented -- but making something such a clone of another companies stifles innovation and penalizes those who invested the time and effort to make it. They thrive in the market while other companies that DIDN'T copy Apple did not -- so obviously, the chose the right path from a business standpoint. I'm guessing they also spent well on PR to poison the well on Apple -- because NOBODY else uses sweat shops in China or conducts lawsuits. Forbes has been in someone's pocket for a while and they consistently single out Apple without noting that they were the ones pushing for improvements or the other companies doing the same thing (not that I justify behavior that way -- it's just curious they'd be so myopic. Here's a US company that is innovating, and Samsung, the sweat shop king is cloning their stuff and then making fun of it on commercials. That's pretty low class. I can only imagine that more companies will find that manipulating public perception is a cost effective way to compete.

 

That "ugly copy" ad springs to mind. I vaguely remember them doing one with "it's just as good" and it was some hairy dude dressed up exactly as a super model. I'd like to see some takeoff of the "stalker roommate" who wears everything that the person she obsesses over wears. Stalker is bickering at Apple as it gets on a train; "I'm not copying you. I'm not following you. Where do you get off?" Then you see them staring at another train where the super model gave them the slip. A text message reads; "I got off at the last exit." The Samsung stalker was following another of it's clones --- "Yeah, hey, I'm your last years model which you've already forgotten about, I've given up following and now I just slum it. You want some of my Deep fried Twinkie?"

Why would Skamscum want to make fun of the litigious like this. Seeing as they are one of them too.

Sorry for responding so late.  It actually holds plenty of water.  If the sample size is greater than 30, the chance that the sample mean (the average value of a sample) differs significantly from the population mean (the average value of the population) rapidly approaches 0 no matter how large the population.  In the case of this video with several thousand ratings, it's quite safe to assume that the opinion of the population (in this case all those who viewed the video) on average is within tenths if not hundredths of a percent of the average rating you see below the video.

1984,1984... 1984. Jesus, wasn't that almost 3 decades ago ?? I bet this site has readers that weren't even born back then!!!!

And that's the point. People are still talking about that Apple ad 3 decades later. How many of today's ads will be remembered in 30 days, much less 30 years?

I would suggest that you get a book on statistics and learn something before embarrassing yourself further.

Your statement applies ONLY IF the sample is random and representative. If a sample is random and representative, then increasing the sample size increases the probability that the observed result is the same as the population as a whole. The numbers are controlled purely by mathematics and can easily be looked up. Just from memory, but the order of magnitude will be right: If you have a sample size of 1,000, there will be a roughly 95% probability that the result will be within +/- 3% of the result for the entire population.

That does NOT apply if the sample is not representative (as, for example, in this case where you have a self-selected sample). Example: let's say that I want to know what percentage of the world's population speaks Mandarin or Cantonese. If I sample 1,000 people in Beijing, the result will be close to 100%. If I sample 1,000 people in Little Rock, Arkansas, the result will be a few percent, at most. The problem is that neither sample is representative of the world's population.

As I've pointed out repeatedly in the survey numbers presented here on various topics, the numbers are often worthless, not because of sample size (since, properly done, a sample of even a thousand can give you useful results) but because samples are not representative of the population as a whole.

Its neither funny nor offensive  

Most Apple users are not on this thread. They've never even heard of this website.

These ads make a larger difference than what you may expect. Example: 1984 great ad but in 1985 not so much...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2012/02/02/the-super-bowl-ad-that-almost-killed-apple/

This is the world we live in. People/consumers are fickle. Today you are on top of the world tomorrow you are underneath it!!!

Supreme humour comes from being willing and able to make fun of oneself, not others.

 

Until an element of self-deprecation comes into Samsung (and come to think of it, most SouthEast Asian companies') adverts (and don't tell me it's a face thing; several Japanese gameshow programs are insanely self-satirising) I can't even crack a smile at these snarky spiteful ads.

 

So he's damned for making the apology just he would have been for not making it and folks ripping the company to shreds over 'pretending the problem doesn't exist'

 

I still don't get the whining about Apple Maps. Bing Maps has roughly ten roads in Seoul. This is just passed over because… I mean, it's not like Microsoft is a big company or anything.

 

But those other ads actually showed the product. Or at least a logo of it. 

 

If this teaser is any sign of what the ad will be like, it won't do either. Which is not effective advertising anymore than spending more time talking about the other boys than yourself is not either.

 

add to this various blogs trying to paint this as a jab on Apple suing the company when any idiot with one ear can tell no it isn't, its about the NFL's trademark use terms, is annoying.