or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Ad firm TBWA\Chiat\Day reportedly at odds with style of Apple's Phil Schiller
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ad firm TBWA\Chiat\Day reportedly at odds with style of Apple's Phil Schiller - Page 2

post #41 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Johnny is a genius, but since Job's departure he has been harping on about protecting "fragile ideas" and too much philosophy about design bullshit... you can see this reflected in the recent advertising (above) and it's bordering on pretentiousness.  Jobs was a great match for Johnny as he kicked him in the ass and brought out the best in him, not letting him get too far into his own head.  I worry about Apple now for the simple fact that there is no more fly in the ointment.  You need the rough with the smooth as too much smooth gets boring as hell.

I tend to agree. The reason JI shouldn't do (control) the ads is that he gets too introspective and philosophical. Nothing wrong with that but he is not a great communicator, which is why he doesn't present on stage. I am not sure there will be the kind of dynamic balance within Apple there was in SJ's days. Much of that was probably dysfunctional but it worked through sheer force of character. The fact that SJ was a multifaceted genius made it all work. For someone to take the Steve role in terms of Jony Ive, he'd need to have the intelligence and creative insight to earn the full respect of Ive. I can't see that happening. 

 

But that is not to say Apple will become a bad or lost company. I just hope they can stay as focussed, but I have my doubts. It is difficult to tell when so much is in flux, with so many changes. And even if Apple starts to meander creatively, and in terms of marketing, its not as if Samsung, Google or Microsoft will have them beat in those departments. Apple will just become a little more like them.

post #42 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

 

I didn't sense any aggression. Also, lame Star Wars reference. If you were gonna do it, at least say "young Skywalker" and not reference the PT.

you're right... it's been a while since I've seen Star Wars.  I guess the primary purpose of boards like these and the millions of others that exist on the internet is for people to argue anonymously, to unload their anger through discourse with strangers.  It's like the "argument clinic" skit on the Monty Python series.  There is no purpose served, nothing solved.. just time wasted that could be spent on better things.

post #43 of 88
And somewhere on a remote Pacific island there are Japanese WW2 veterans who are still holding out.
post #44 of 88
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post
ha ha - you so funny anantksundaram!!... you've posted 10,887 times on Apple Insider...

 

Do not make another post insulting another user, much less based on their post count. 


Or, rather, you can do that, but instead of saying anything like you have in the past, just say, "I'm an idiot and I don't have an argument in the first place." We'll know what you mean.


Originally Posted by msimpson View Post
And somewhere on a remote Pacific island there are Japanese WW2 veterans who are still holding out.

 

You know, I wouldn't be surprised. I honestly wouldn't. In the mid '70s, they found some holding out in the Philippines. And right now all that would be required is a small band of them having captured some women from somewhere. 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #45 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I didn't sense any aggression. Also, lame Star Wars reference. If you were gonna do it, at least say "young Skywalker" and not reference the PT.
you're right... it's been a while since I've seen Star Wars.  I guess the primary purpose of boards like these and the millions of others that exist on the internet is for people to argue anonymously, to unload their anger through discourse with strangers.  It's like the "argument clinic" skit on the Monty Python series.  There is no purpose served, nothing solved.. just time wasted that could be spent on better things.

Does it occur to you that your post actually made no sense -- to me? What evidence do you have for Steve "kicking Jony's ass"? Or not letting him "get too far in his own head"? Granted, Ive's sayings may come through as pretentious to you, but do you know he's not being honest or genuine in expressing what he feels? (Btw, when Jobs makes a sweeping statement -- I am paraphrasing -- like 'dont live someone else's life,' was that pretentious? If not, why not?). How do you know that there is no 'fly in the ointment' at Apple any more? Do you really think there is no 'rough' but only 'smooth' at Apple now? How/why do you think Forstall got fired?

You get the idea......
post #46 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Do not make another post insulting another user, much less based on their post count. 


Or, rather, you can do that, but instead of saying anything like you have in the past, just say, "I'm an idiot and I don't have an argument in the first place." We'll know what you mean.

 

You know, I wouldn't be surprised. I honestly wouldn't. In the mid '70s, they found some holding out in the Philippines. And right now all that would be required is a small band of them having captured some women from somewhere. 

Thank you Tallest Skill.  Your wise words are a comfort to those of us who are young and inexperienced in the ways of the Apple Insider message boards.  It's such a beautiful feeling to be enlightened by your wisdom.  If I can provide a small token of gratitude, please enjoy the following link:

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/u7d

post #47 of 88

If I were Cook, I'd pop into the offices of TBWA/Chiat/Day and say "I hear tell that some of your guys are having a problem with Phil.  Fix it or we'll find another shop."

 

Apple is paying these guys millions.  Whining to the press is shockingly unprofessional, and anyone doing so doesn't deserve the job.

 

That is, of course, if any of this is even true.  "Bad stuff about Apple" is now such a cottage industry that every rumor must be taken with a grain of salt.

post #48 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Do not make another post insulting another user, much less based on their post count. 


Or, rather, you can do that, but instead of saying anything like you have in the past, just say, "I'm an idiot and I don't have an argument in the first place." We'll know what you mean.

 

Hmmm... your post sounds much more insulting than the one by Bennettvista. Goose... gander etc.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #49 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

In this day and age, good creative talent is dime a dozen, and available in multiple media formats in droves globally. I don't understand why companies like Apple even bother with ad agencies any more (except perhaps for just the sheer convenience of it).

My advice to those guys, assuming this report is true: take a deep breath, or be prepared to take a hike.

Add: Phil S. and Craig F (along with Jony I.) are the real standouts at Apple.
Your comment is total bullshit! Finding great creative minds is as difficult today is as it ever was. You obviously have no understanding of what great creative is, or how difficult it is to develop effective and memorable brand marketing. Based on the amount of media clutter and overload in our lives, the creative process has actually become even more difficult for creating great advertising that helps your brand standout above the rest.
Edited by FreeRange - 6/11/13 at 4:05pm
post #50 of 88
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
Or you could start following your own advice.

 

… Or he could have had an argument. We're not going to continue this, are we? How can you defend not having an argument?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #51 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Oh man, I couldn't disagree more. In this and age upstarts, 'know it alls' and 'media experts' are a dime a dozen. Creatives with clarity of vision, deep understanding of the message and the audience, and clear leadership, are very very hard to find. To get the marketing strategy right for a company like Apple is impossibly difficult, made more so by the fact that 'creative talent' and 'marketing nous' is something that seemingly every Tom Dick and Harriet has aplenty.

Marketing is difficult and always involves much doubt and soul-searching, and to be able o think clearly and have a clear vision in the cacophony of opinions, takes very special people.


I agree with you.

 

It's a different day than 1984. Attention spans are miniscule. People tuning out faster than clothing changes by Lady Gaga.

 

It takes a special person to get people to listen... to make them buy.

 

Otherwise we'd all be agreeing that Apple's ads are no better than Samsung's ads.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #52 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

… Or he could have had an argument. We're not going to continue this, are we? How can you defend not having an argument?


It has worked for you and a lot of people on here for a long time. You tell me.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #53 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by LLIBSETAG View Post

I like the "Signature Ad" that's the black & white graphics only piece that started the WWDC 2013 Keynote... Pure Genius. Run That one as an Apple Brand Commercial too!


Agreed

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #54 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Does it occur to you that your post actually made no sense -- to me? What evidence do you have for Steve "kicking Jony's ass"? Or not letting him "get too far in his own head"? Granted, Ive's sayings may come through as pretentious to you, but do you know he's not being honest or genuine in expressing what he feels? (Btw, when Jobs makes a sweeping statement -- I am paraphrasing -- like 'dont live someone else's life,' was that pretentious? If not, why not?). How do you know that there is no 'fly in the ointment' at Apple any more? Do you really think there is no 'rough' but only 'smooth' at Apple now? How/why do you think Forstall got fired?

You get the idea......

Steve was Johnny's boss.  Forstall was fired precisely because he was a fly in the ointment and things are probably much happier around there now.  From my experience the best creativity has arisen from conflict/chaos.  All things move towards their opposites.  

post #55 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Your comment is total bullshit! Finding great creative minds is as difficult today is as it ever was. You obviously have no understanding of what great creative is, or how difficult it is to develop effective and memorable brand marketing. Based on the amount of media clutter and overload in our lives, the creative process has actually become even more difficult for creating great advertising that helps your brand standout above the rest.

You must either work in brand marketing, or you haven't looked hard enough for creative talent.

Whether you like it or want it or not, a lot of it is getting disintermediated today, just as stockbrokers, bankers, consultants, retail stores, etc. are.

Perhaps you can actually aspire to an argument if you can educate us on your "understanding of what great creative" is and why that can be only found in ad agencies and brand management consultants?
post #56 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I tend to agree. The reason JI shouldn't do (control) the ads is that he gets too introspective and philosophical. Nothing wrong with that but he is not a great communicator, which is why he doesn't present on stage. I am not sure there will be the kind of dynamic balance within Apple there was in SJ's days. Much of that was probably dysfunctional but it worked through sheer force of character. The fact that SJ was a multifaceted genius made it all work. For someone to take the Steve role in terms of Jony Ive, he'd need to have the intelligence and creative insight to earn the full respect of Ive. I can't see that happening. 

But that is not to say Apple will become a bad or lost company. I just hope they can stay as focussed, but I have my doubts. It is difficult to tell when so much is in flux, with so many changes. And even if Apple starts to meander creatively, and in terms of marketing, its not as if Samsung, Google or Microsoft will have them beat in those departments. Apple will just become a little more like them.

They are focused. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Steve was Johnny's boss.  Forstall was fired precisely because he was a fly in the ointment and things are probably much happier around there now.  From my experience the best creativity has arisen from conflict/chaos.  All things move towards their opposites.  

Forstall was fired because he refused to accept blame for Maps. Microsoft is in constant chaos, tell me what creative idea came from Redmond?
post #57 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Steve was Johnny's boss.  Forstall was fired precisely because he was a fly in the ointment and things are probably much happier around there now.  From my experience the best creativity has arisen from conflict/chaos.  All things move towards their opposites.  

I notice you avoided answering every one of my questions. (Btw, Cook was Forstall's boss, so why isn't he Apple's resident 'fly in the ointment' per your earlier argument about Jobs? And while we're at it, can we names right? It's Jony).

All you've done so far is make a bunch of sweeping statements.

Do you want to know what I find completely pretentious? Your last sentence.
post #58 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


I notice you avoided answering every one of my questions. (Btw, Cook was Forstall's boss, so why isn't he Apple's resident 'fly in the ointment' per your earlier argument about Jobs? And while we're at it, can we names right? It's Jony).

All you've done so far is make a bunch of sweeping statements.

Do you want to know what I find completely pretentious? Your last sentence.

Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself...  (per his daughter Lisa's story)  He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.

post #59 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Steve was likely much harder to work for than Phil.

Steve knew more of what he wanted and he probably worked well with that Ad agency as they've worked with Steve for decades.  They are among the best in the industry.   Ad Agency take some degree of ownership of the entire process and they manage the team, it's a much easier way of doing it.  To do it in house isn't so easy.  Ad agencies can pull people off one account and move them into another very easily, can't do that if it's done in house.   I'm actually surprised they don't use Jony Ives a little more in his new role.    Craig did a great job. He needs to relax a little more and not have so much canned responses.  He reminds me of someone that learned the text book ways of doing a presentation, but he just needs to relax a little more.  I do think they have a lot of personality compared to most of the other high tech companies in terms of presentations.  In comparison, the guys are Google are too amateur and look like they don't know what they are doing.  Almost like they are still in college still taking communication courses in public speaking and they haven't passed the course yet.

post #60 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself...  (per his daughter Lisa's story)  He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.

Forstall isn't Jobs.
post #61 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Forstall isn't Jobs.

Can't argue with that.  Nor did I ever infer that he was....

post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself...  (per his daughter Lisa's story)  He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.

I must have trouble with my eyesight, but I am missing your "All things move towards their opposites " above. Can you perhaps highlight or bold it in your response?

Is that the same as "things led to their opposites"? And did Jobs say that, or his daughter?

I notice that, again, you've avoided answering my questions.

If you can't/won't, this is perhaps a good time to stop your incoherent ramblings.
post #63 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Forstall was fired because he refused to accept blame for Maps.

 

Really?

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #64 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


I must have trouble with my eyesight, but I am missing your "All things move towards their opposites " above. Can you perhaps highlight or bold it in your response?

Is that the same as "things led to their opposites"? And did Jobs say that, or his daughter?

I notice that, again, you've avoided answering my questions.

If you can't/won't, this is perhaps a good time to stop your incoherent ramblings.

 I was paraphrasing... "things led toward their opposites", "things move toward their opposites" - is there that much of a difference?  Or are you just here for an argument?  In that case it will be £1 for 15 minutes....

post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

 I was paraphrasing... "things led toward their opposites", "things move toward their opposites" - is there that much of a difference?  Or are you just here for an argument?  In that case it will be £1 for 15 minutes....

Take those quids and start saving for a course on reading comprehension.
post #66 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Take those quids and start saving for a course on reading comprehension.

£1 = one quid, singular not plural my good man.... and your 15 minutes are now up.

post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Jobs was a great match for Johnny as he kicked him in the ass and brought out the best in him, not letting him get too far into his own head. 

Yes.  Like the time Steve made Jony design the desk lamp iMac after being "inspired" by sunflowers in the garden.

post #68 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Oh man, I couldn't disagree more. In this and age upstarts, 'know it alls' and 'media experts' are a dime a dozen. Creatives with clarity of vision, deep understanding of the message and the audience, and clear leadership, are very very hard to find. To get the marketing strategy right for a company like Apple is impossibly difficult, made more so by the fact that 'creative talent' and 'marketing nous' is something that seemingly every Tom Dick and Harriet has aplenty.

Marketing is difficult and always involves much doubt and soul-searching, and to be able o think clearly and have a clear vision in the cacophony of opinions, takes very special people.

Man you got that right.  Really excellent marketing and advertising are hard to find.  Bad advertising is everywhere.

 

Some have suggested giving part of the Apple business to another "hungry" agency.  That does work sometimes.  However, doing business with Apple is very difficult and very expensive.  The Media lab at TWBA/Chiat/Day is an example.  They are in a separate building with Apple style security.  The people there are held to the same security standards as Apple employees.  I would expect that there are probably Apple security people in the lab building at all times.  Not every agency can afford to deal with those requirements.  It is not unheard of for agencies to resign business because certain clients are too much trouble and not profitable.  This happened to GSD&M with BMW.  BMW is a difficult client, particularly in the U.S. because most of the shots are called from Germany.  GSD&M had the account and did some nice work, but it was burning their people out.  Producers and creatives would sometimes be out of the country more days a year than they were in.  Nonetheless, GSD&M was hanging in there, determined to hold on to their major car account.  Then something tragic happened.  Jack Pitney, the BMW marketing chief in the U.S. was killed in a tractor accident.  People loved this guy and he was the main reason GSD&M was holding on to the account.  He ran interference for them, he would stand up for them and made things work more smoothly.  When he was gone things just got worse and GSD&M ultimately resigned the account.  Not many agencies would do that.  Unless the client was draining resources and not making them much profit, which of course was exactly what happened.  I can see this same scenario play out for any agency lucky/unfortunate enough to get part of the Apple business.  Guess you just have to be careful what you wish for.  I predict TBWA will hold on to the Apple business.

post #69 of 88
What's\With\Backslashes?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #70 of 88

This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.

 

I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.

 

Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.

post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself...  (per his daughter Lisa's story)  He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.

I don't care who wrote that or of it was Jobs himself, it's still pretentious and a whole bunch of philosophical nothing. Sounds like something a first year "wise" college student might say. Actually, sounds like something I might have wrote back when I thought I could be a writer. Lol.
post #72 of 88
http://www.lisabrennanjobs.net/2009/09/confessions-of-lapsed-vegetarian.html

I think his daughter wrote a fine essay and an enjoyable read. Nice insight on her relationship with her Dad.
http://www.lisabrennanjobs.net/2009/09/confessions-of-lapsed-vegetarian.html
post #73 of 88

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott View Post

This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.

 

I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.

 

Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.

Very true. Jobs had clarity and vision... or so it seemed. Famously he used everyone around him to get to that point. He had 'something' that resulted in great results an unusual number of times, but I can very easily imagine that Jobs must have been a nightmare to work for for virtually every agency creative. Not all ads under Jobs were brilliant. The smug Jeff Goldblum voiced ads come to mind.

post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott View Post

 

This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.

 

I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.

 

Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.

 

I've been in marketing over 30 years and I agree totally.

 

There's often a huge disconnect between an "approved" storyboard and the final commercial. That storyboard is there only to give the cinematographer a basic suggestion, a rough roadmap, or a general flavor of what is to be conveyed by the commercial... then you get out of the way and let them do the job he or she was hired for. While there's always a responsible art director overseeing things, every step of the process should not rigidly constrain the individuals doing them.

 

Shiller is absolutely right in not approving a commercial from a storyboard. You're only going to know if it's right when it's done right... and you re-do it until it is right. Considering what's riding on it, it's not a sign of indecision or a waste of money.

 

As for the latest commercials, I think they're brilliant. When competitors simple parody your spots, belittle your features and exaggerate their own, and outright copy your style, you should advertise something they can't easily claim as their own... Apple quality and design, easy of use, and lifestyle benefits. These new ads are a bullseye!

post #75 of 88

The 1984 ad was definitely memorable but it totally blew it when conveying anything about computers. This new ad about things being designed in California is similar with less impact. The focus of the ads are on the people and not much on the devices. I can see people using computers of all types anywhere, even in ads not about computers or phones. If Apple wants to sell things then those items must be featured directly with people getting results from using the devices. Showing children in a classroom that happens to have tablets on the tables says nothing. The new Kindle ads with children talking about books is a really good ad that features the devices.

 

Advertisements are supposed to sell things. Messages about anything else but selling a product are a huge waste of money. The idea about generating a reputation or brand identity is worthless unless the products become known and wanted. Too many ad agencies earn millions of dollars telling their clients they must build their image above selling their products. Selling the products is what builds the brand image. Not the other way around. If Apple wants to waste its millions of dollars on such ads then it is up to them. I don't own Apple stock so it doesn't worry me.

post #76 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

The 1984 ad was definitely memorable but it totally blew it when conveying anything about computers. This new ad about things being designed in California is similar with less impact. The focus of the ads are on the people and not much on the devices. I can see people using computers of all types anywhere, even in ads not about computers or phones. If Apple wants to sell things then those items must be featured directly with people getting results from using the devices. Showing children in a classroom that happens to have tablets on the tables says nothing. The new Kindle ads with children talking about books is a really good ad that features the devices.

Advertisements are supposed to sell things. Messages about anything else but selling a product are a huge waste of money. The idea about generating a reputation or brand identity is worthless unless the products become known and wanted. Too many ad agencies earn millions of dollars telling their clients they must build their image above selling their products. Selling the products is what builds the brand image. Not the other way around. If Apple wants to waste its millions of dollars on such ads then it is up to them. I don't own Apple stock so it doesn't worry me.

That may be true when introducing new products but everyone knows what an iDevice is. These ads show you what they can do in everyday life without being pretentious.
post #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

...The idea about generating a reputation or brand identity is worthless unless the products become known and wanted...

 

Apple products are already very well known and very much wanted. You've proven my point.

post #78 of 88

If the brand is already known then puffing up the brand is a waste of time. Getting more products known and sold is the goal. The designed in California ad is just stupid.
 

post #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

If the brand is already known then puffing up the brand is a waste of time.

Do you honestly think that's what the ad is about? 1oyvey.gif

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

If the brand is already known then puffing up the brand is a waste of time. Getting more products known and sold is the goal. The designed in California ad is just stupid.

 

So they should stop advertising? What a genius you are.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Ad firm TBWA\Chiat\Day reportedly at odds with style of Apple's Phil Schiller