or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple skips pricey Super Bowl ad, pays homage to 30 years of Mac via online movie shot using iPhones [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple skips pricey Super Bowl ad, pays homage to 30 years of Mac via online movie shot using... - Page 2

post #41 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post
 

Spending money on a super bowl ad is not forward thinking and is a waste of money.  More people will eventually see this ad on-line (and hear the great story behind the making of it).  TV ads will soon go the way of the CD, DVD, etc... 

Well until TV does go away they would have had over 110 million viewers who were not DVD skipping their ad last night.  They spend more per person on their regular tv ads considering the smaller audience and the fact that during regular tv shows most people dvr skip.  So in reality it would have been a great use of money which they have plenty of.  They waste more money than a few million in super bowl ads every day on things that bear no fruit.  

 

Did you know that every year they lose money on the 160 billion in the bank?  It's sad but true.  That money is invested at rates lower than annual inflation. Each year the cash in the bank loses buying power.  Alot more than what the super bowl ad would have cost them.  Assume they are netting 2% on short term investments and cash right now which is close. Inflation rate is about 3%. That is net loss per year of 1% on 160 billion dollars.  Folks, for those who may not be good at math, that is 1.6B lost annually to inflation.  5 to 10 mil for an ad is chump change and not alot of incremental business or brand awareness is needed at apple margins to justify the spend.

post #42 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 

Well until TV does go away they would have had over 110 million viewers who were not DVD skipping their ad last night.  

The great and unique thing about this ad was the way it was conceived and executed (information which can really only be communicated how Apple is doing with the story following the ad on the website.).  I agree with you about the captive number of people at home watching the Super Bowl, but in this case I feel Apple did a smart thing by not following the norm.

post #43 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

Another Apple marketing blunder. For 3 or 4 million you get in front of 110 million people plus all the follow through on the rollup pages that contain all the videos for super bowl ads. Even if it was 8 million for a minute spot to run this. They spend more than that on patent attorneys every single week. Wouldn't this add do more for them than the wasted billions on patent attorneys which have done nothing for them?

Apple would rather let 160 billion sit in the bank doing nothing year after year. Growing and growing.

Super Bowl makes a statement. It's a chance to show what apple is all about. That they are still cool. This spot touches that chord but won't get the viewership because apple could not spend a few million to air it.

Tim Cook and the marketing team made a great ad. Too bad it won't get the viewership and recognition it deserves. Sure 8 million is alot to us but Apple just made that much in the time it took you to read my post here.

Or they can target specific shows for a fraction of the cost. Plus the Olympics are coming and ad space is cheaper there as well. Sure it would have been neat but Apple is every where.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Apple was smart as they could never top that iconic commercial. A true classic.
Besides Apple is now Big Brother- but it would be clever to show a role reversal with some humor.
However this was just boring.

How is Apple Big Brother?
post #44 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 
Did you know that every year they lose money on the 160 billion in the bank?  It's sad but true.  That money is invested at rates lower than annual inflation. Each year the cash in the bank loses buying power.  Alot more than what the super bowl ad would have cost them.  Assume they are netting 2% on short term investments and cash right now which is close. Inflation rate is about 3%. That is net loss per year of 1% on 160 billion dollars.  Folks, for those who may not be good at math, that is 1.6B lost annually to inflation.  5 to 10 mil for an ad is chump change and not alot of incremental business or brand awareness is needed at apple margins to justify the spend.

Perhaps you've heard of the the world's biggest hedge fund? Braeburn Capital. They have over 100 billion invested for Apple. the cash is not sitting in the bank. Also a lot of Apple's cash is overseas so it is difficult to speculate how much it earns. Clearly, their decision not to participate in the super bowl was not a question of how or how much to invest but rather how to best protect and promote Apple's brand and image.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #45 of 92

My goodness, it's almost as if $1000s in lighting, support equipment, and full access to amazing scenes and professional cinematographers and photographers is more valuable than professional equipment, in some situations. Just showing what's "possible," I suppose.

post #46 of 92
This reminds me of a follow up to the Knowledge Navigator videos. Except in this case, it's the realization and not the promise. There is a lot of hinting in this video about where Apple is going next. Medical, robotics, 3D fabrication just to name a few. One could also say this the logical follow up to the 1984 commercial in that it shows an open non-comformed world free to explore and communicate with tools that are flexible and personal instead of mindless subjects chained to a desk staring at C:\ all day long. Basically the era of peace after the war.
post #47 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Perhaps you've heard of the the world's biggest hedge fund? Braeburn Capital. They have over 100 billion invested for Apple. the cash is not sitting in the bank. Also a lot of Apple's cash is overseas so it is difficult to speculate how much it earns. Clearly, their decision not to participate in the super bowl was not a question of how or how much to invest but rather how to best protect and promote Apple's brand and image.

 

 

Sorry wrong on all accounts. Go read apple's 10k's.  They tell you what they are invested in and where all that money is and what it makes. Cash and short term marketable securities. You can see what they earn. It's all there.  Learn how to read the 10k then post. Ever heard of a 10k?  

post #48 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

My goodness, it's almost as if $1000s in lighting, support equipment, and full access to amazing scenes and professional cinematographers and photographers is more valuable than professional equipment, in some situations. Just showing what's "possible," I suppose.

Yes... the above bolded statement is most definitly true. An artist and/or pro in any creative discipline can do far more with much less than the average Joe. 1smoking.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #49 of 92
The Apple of today is different than 30 years ago. The Apple brand of today is a household word, not a niche, and as such requires less advertising to support the brand.

The 1984 ad was in support of a product launch. Nothing launched on Super Bowl Sunday this year. The ad was followed-up with a 20 page supplement to major print publications explaining the Mac and it's approach to computing, the job which today is being done by thousands of Apple Store employees that didn't exist back then.

The stores are giving Apple products more visibility every day than any Super Bowl ad could ever dream of providing at any cost.

Remember, according to Steve Jobs himself, Tim Cook's job is not to ask "What would Steve do" but just to "do the right thing" for Apple. Let Tim honour that request.
Arguing with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around acting like he won.
Reply
Arguing with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around acting like he won.
Reply
post #50 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ration Al View Post

The Apple of today is different than 30 years ago. The Apple brand of today is a household word, not a niche, and as such requires less advertising to support the brand.

The 1984 ad was in support of a product launch. Nothing launched on Super Bowl Sunday this year. The ad was followed-up with a 20 page supplement to major print publications explaining the Mac and it's approach to computing, the job which today is being done by thousands of Apple Store employees that didn't exist back then.

The stores are giving Apple products more visibility every day than any Super Bowl ad could ever dream of providing at any cost.

Remember, according to Steve Jobs himself, Tim Cook's job is not to ask "What would Steve do" but just to "do the right thing" for Apple. Let Tim honour that request.

 

 

Good thing you are not in marketing.   Apple requires less advertising to support the brand?  Sure they do.  They are already doing a lot less to support their brand.  Samsung outspent them what 5 to 1 in 2013?

 

You know who else is a top brand but also spends in the top 10 for advertising?  Quite a few household names that could also spend a lot less but they know better.  Somehow they know you have to keep branding and advertising your product or service.   Apple doesn't even rank in the top 10.  I wonder if this could have anything to do with the lack of branding and now many thinking they just aren't as cool anymore?  Maybe the constant branding by competitors always in consumers faces gaining mind share.  Learning alternatives to apple.  

 

ATT,  Verizon, Chevrolet, Mcdonald's, Geico, Toyota, Ford, T-mobile, Macy's, Wal-mart

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-biggest-advertisers-in-america-ranked-by-dollars-spent-annually-2013-7?op=1

 

There are others that aren't in the top 10 that also brand and market despite being household words worldwide.  Coke, Pepsi

 

As far as the stores giving visibility are you kidding me? They have less than 500 worldwide.  Plus you have to go past one and then INTO one to gain any benefit from this.  Stores are not marketing tools.  There is a reason advertising is over a 1 trillion per year industry.  But then again apple doesn't really need to be part of this.  It's competitors are more than happy to let them outmarket and outbrand them.  

 

So apple's iphone sales growth rate is slowing dramatically now.  We can blame the product or the marketing.  Plenty of phones being sold that are not apple still.  Maybe it's both?

post #51 of 92
Hint: your movies will look NOTHING like this unless your phone is mounted on a 30k floating rig, shot by a professional DP, and then edited on a high end rig by a professional editor.

Nice ad though.
post #52 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

Spending money on a super bowl ad is not forward thinking and is a waste of money.  More people will eventually see this ad on-line (and hear the great story behind the making of it).  TV ads will soon go the way of the CD, DVD, etc... 

Again, does anyone think Apple's 1984 Super Bowl ad was a waste of money?
post #53 of 92

I liked it. I like ads where they show people actually using their products to do real things. And if you read the Apple page about the making of it, it's logistically impressive too.

post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

How is Apple Big Brother?

 

Generally speaking, I agree with the sentiments behind your question (please actually read the last sentence before you attack me!), but I can imagine some arguments:

 

Apple has by far the largest population of users using identical devices (remember all those arguments about Android fragmentation?).

 

Apple devices are not cheaper (though they may bring more power to users per dollar). 

 

Apple users accept the "ideology" of the company more than users of other company's products ("hipster conformists").

 

Apple's "walled garden" aims to maintain extensive control over users' use of their devices.

 

Punchline: That said, Google's information-gathering, hoarding, and use make it a better candidate for today's Big Brother. 

post #55 of 92
Here is the 1984 commercial 30 year update for 2014. Unreleased Super Bowl ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENC6yvIOyJc
post #56 of 92

For all those that claim Steve would have run an ad, they weren't paying enough attention. Steve was the first one to always say, look to the future, not the past. I think everything Apple has done in celebration of the 30 years has been tasteful. From the 30 year page with various users throughout the years, the custom font with various Macs, and this ad. 

 

As far as running a Super Bowl ad...so many companies do them that things get lost in the noise. This year and I think last year as well, most, if not all, the ads were posted in their entirety before the Super Bowl. The one exception being the teaser trailer for 24. Apple wasn't caught up with the noise of the ads before the game or during the game. They released theirs afterwards and will clearly stand out. If anything, it's much better marketing. For those that think Apple can't reach 110 million people, they are crazy.

post #57 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 

Sorry wrong on all accounts. Go read apple's 10k's.  They tell you what they are invested in and where all that money is and what it makes. Cash and short term marketable securities. You can see what they earn. It's all there.  Learn how to read the 10k then post. Ever heard of a 10k?  

Is this the 10k data you were referring to? I only see 8.7 billion in actual cash. The rest of the 147 billion appears to be in various investments. Since you are the expert, please explain how you came up with 160 billion in cash.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #58 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post


Good thing you are not in marketing.   Apple requires less advertising to support the brand?  Sure they do.  They are already doing a lot less to support their brand.  Samsung outspent them what 5 to 1 in 2013?

You know who else is a top brand but also spends in the top 10 for advertising?  Quite a few household names that could also spend a lot less but they know better.  Somehow they know you have to keep branding and advertising your product or service.   Apple doesn't even rank in the top 10.  I wonder if this could have anything to do with the lack of branding and now many thinking they just aren't as cool anymore?  Maybe the constant branding by competitors always in consumers faces gaining mind share.  Learning alternatives to apple.  

ATT,  Verizon, Chevrolet, Mcdonald's, Geico, Toyota, Ford, T-mobile, Macy's, Wal-mart

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-biggest-advertisers-in-america-ranked-by-dollars-spent-annually-2013-7?op=1

There are others that aren't in the top 10 that also brand and market despite being household words worldwide.  Coke, Pepsi

As far as the stores giving visibility are you kidding me? They have less than 500 worldwide.  Plus you have to go past one and then INTO one to gain any benefit from this.  Stores are not marketing tools.  There is a reason advertising is over a 1 trillion per year industry.  But then again apple doesn't really need to be part of this.  It's competitors are more than happy to let them outmarket and outbrand them.  

So apple's iphone sales growth rate is slowing dramatically now.  We can blame the product or the marketing.  Plenty of phones being sold that are not apple still.  Maybe it's both?

Thankfully I am not in marketing, but that doesn't mean I can't put together a reasoned argument.

Apple spends just enough on media ads to get people into the stores. Apple stores have been averaging over 90 million visits per quarter for the last year as a constant year-round advertisement.. Many of those in countries with little to no interest in American football. See this link here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/traffic-to-apple-stores-2013-10

It don't believe the size of a companies' advertising budget is an indication of its marketing effectiveness. For a complex product like a Mac or an iPhone and it's related ecosystem, the stores are more effective/efficient and provide local after sales support as well. Samsung's marketing is going this way more and more. I don't want Apple to win the ad budget prize.

Marketing must be custom tailored to the product and the company's position in the market. The core business for AT&T, Verizon, Geico and T-Mob is selling services, not products. Switching loyalties costs their customers little or nothing at renewal time. Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford, McDonald's, Macy's, Walmart Pepsi and Coke sell commodity products with many more direct and indirect competitors than Apple. They have to fight to retain customer loyalty.

Apple's goals are not total market domination, driven by carpet-bombing ad campaigns. Their only after the people with money to spend on digital assets to support the ecosystem. The market for high-end computers and smartphones is slowing but not dead. Would more ads change that? One thing is certain, there will be other products from Apple to skim the cream off the top of the next market they enter/re-invent.
Arguing with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around acting like he won.
Reply
Arguing with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around acting like he won.
Reply
post #59 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Perhaps you've heard of the the world's biggest hedge fund? Braeburn Capital. They have over 100 billion invested for Apple. the cash is not sitting in the bank. Also a lot of Apple's cash is overseas so it is difficult to speculate how much it earns. Clearly, their decision not to participate in the super bowl was not a question of how or how much to invest but rather how to best protect and promote Apple's brand and image.

 

they are earning about 1% on the $160B cash/long term investments

post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 

 

 

Good thing you are not in marketing.   Apple requires less advertising to support the brand?  Sure they do.  They are already doing a lot less to support their brand.  Samsung outspent them what 5 to 1 in 2013?

 

You know who else is a top brand but also spends in the top 10 for advertising?  Quite a few household names that could also spend a lot less but they know better.  Somehow they know you have to keep branding and advertising your product or service.   Apple doesn't even rank in the top 10.  I wonder if this could have anything to do with the lack of branding and now many thinking they just aren't as cool anymore?  Maybe the constant branding by competitors always in consumers faces gaining mind share.  Learning alternatives to apple.  

 

ATT,  Verizon, Chevrolet, Mcdonald's, Geico, Toyota, Ford, T-mobile, Macy's, Wal-mart

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-biggest-advertisers-in-america-ranked-by-dollars-spent-annually-2013-7?op=1

 

There are others that aren't in the top 10 that also brand and market despite being household words worldwide.  Coke, Pepsi

 

As far as the stores giving visibility are you kidding me? They have less than 500 worldwide.  Plus you have to go past one and then INTO one to gain any benefit from this.  Stores are not marketing tools.  There is a reason advertising is over a 1 trillion per year industry.  But then again apple doesn't really need to be part of this.  It's competitors are more than happy to let them outmarket and outbrand them.  

 

So apple's iphone sales growth rate is slowing dramatically now.  We can blame the product or the marketing.  Plenty of phones being sold that are not apple still.  Maybe it's both?

 

apple products sell itself.

No reason to waste money on a Superbowl commercial unless they were advertising a NEW product

post #61 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Is this the 10k data you were referring to? I only see 8.7 billion in actual cash. The rest of the 147 billion appears to be in various investments. Since you are the expert, please explain how you came up with 160 billion in cash.

 

Now I'm educating people who don't know how investments are noted.  When people speak of cash it means cash and liquid investments and short term marketable securities.  Here you go. read this

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-28/apple-s-160-billion-mystery.html

post #62 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Is this the 10k data you were referring to? I only see 8.7 billion in actual cash. The rest of the 147 billion appears to be in various investments. Since you are the expert, please explain how you came up with 160 billion in cash.


Thats the old report for period ending 9/30/13

 

here is the 12/31/13

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=9731522-13565-15993&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-14-024487

 

cash 14.1 billon

short term investments 26.6

long term 118.1

total = $159B

post #63 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ration Al View Post


Thankfully I am not in marketing, but that doesn't mean I can't put together a reasoned argument.

Apple spends just enough on media ads to get people into the stores. Apple stores have been averaging over 90 million visits per quarter for the last year as a constant year-round advertisement.. Many of those in countries with little to no interest in American football. See this link here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/traffic-to-apple-stores-2013-10

It don't believe the size of a companies' advertising budget is an indication of its marketing effectiveness. For a complex product like a Mac or an iPhone and it's related ecosystem, the stores are more effective/efficient and provide local after sales support as well. Samsung's marketing is going this way more and more. I don't want Apple to win the ad budget prize.

Marketing must be custom tailored to the product and the company's position in the market. The core business for AT&T, Verizon, Geico and T-Mob is selling services, not products. Switching loyalties costs their customers little or nothing at renewal time. Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford, McDonald's, Macy's, Walmart Pepsi and Coke sell commodity products with many more direct and indirect competitors than Apple. They have to fight to retain customer loyalty.

Apple's goals are not total market domination, driven by carpet-bombing ad campaigns. Their only after the people with money to spend on digital assets to support the ecosystem. The market for high-end computers and smartphones is slowing but not dead. Would more ads change that? One thing is certain, there will be other products from Apple to skim the cream off the top of the next market they enter/re-invent.

 

 

Quite a reasonable response.  I do believe and I could be wrong, that Apple could stand to spend more on ads and be more effective.  Sometimes mind share comes down to frequency and effectiveness of ads.  It's extremely powerful and even apple is not immune to it.

post #64 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 

 

 

Quite a reasonable response.  I do believe and I could be wrong, that Apple could stand to spend more on ads and be more effective.  Sometimes mind share comes down to frequency and effectiveness of ads.  It's extremely powerful and even apple is not immune to it.

 

I think Apple is saving the marketing blitz for new product lines this year.  Everyone watching the Superbowl already knows what an iPad and an iPhone are.

post #65 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


Again, does anyone think Apple's 1984 Super Bowl ad was a waste of money?

 

No, because it was to launch something totally and completely different that would change the world and they knew it would. It was also a different world back then as well. Today, Apple has no reason to run an ad and waste money on it. It can run on their website for virtually free and have millions see it over and over again at little to no cost. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #66 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 
 

they are earning about 1% on the $160B cash/long term investments

How do you know  they are earning 1%?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

 

Now I'm educating people who don't know how investments are noted.  When people speak of cash it means cash and liquid investments and short term marketable securities.  Here you go. read this

 

Oh I understand the reference to cash as meaning liquid investments but how do you know they are earning 2% on 160 billion as you claimed when a lot of it is in unspecified investments. The interest earned is only on the cash portion right?

 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

Thats the old report for period ending 9/30/13

 

here is the 12/31/13

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=9731522-13565-15993&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-14-024487

 

cash 14.1 billon

short term investments 26.6

long term 118.1

total = $159B

Thanks for the info. mvigod directed me to Apple's web site to read the 10k which is where I got the chart.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

 

No, because it was to launch something totally and completely different that would change the world and they knew it would. It was also a different world back then as well. Today, Apple has no reason to run an ad and waste money on it. It can run on their website for virtually free and have millions see it over and over again at little to no cost. 

 

Well you think it is alot of money but you have to get perspective.  It's not to apple.  They have 160B in cash and marketable securities and are generating on average 3.3B per month in free cash flow on top of that.  

 

So if the spot was 60 seconds it cost them $8 million for that.  That would be .005% of the 160 billion.   It is just .24% of a single month's cash flow.  

 

How many incremental iphones and tablets would they have to sell as a result of the ad?  Assume an average selling price of $500 blended for tablets/iphones.  That is just 16,000 additional iphones to pay for the ad spot.  Pretty sure out of 110M viewers and the extra views on the web they could justify the ROI here.

post #68 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 

 

Well you think it is alot of money but you have to get perspective.  It's not to apple.  They have 160B in cash and marketable securities and are generating on average 3.3B per month in free cash flow on top of that.  

 

So if the spot was 60 seconds it cost them $8 million for that.  That would be .005% of the 160 billion.   It is just .24% of a single month's cash flow.  

 

How many incremental iphones and tablets would they have to sell as a result of the ad?  Assume an average selling price of $500 blended for tablets/iphones.  That is just 16,000 additional iphones to pay for the ad spot.  Pretty sure out of 110M viewers and the extra views on the web they could justify the ROI here.

 

But what benefit would it be to run an ad? Its already been said there isn't any benefit to running a SuperBowl Ad. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #69 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

How do you know  they are earning 1%?

Oh I understand the reference to cash as meaning liquid investments but how do you know they are earning 2% on 160 billion as you claimed when a lot of it is in unspecified investments. The interest earned is only on the cash portion right?

Thanks for the info. mvigod directed me to Apple's web site to read the 10k which is where I got the chart.

Other income was about $200 million last quarter which is less than 1% annualized
post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

How do you know  they are earning 1%?

 

Oh I understand the reference to cash as meaning liquid investments but how do you know they are earning 2% on 160 billion as you claimed when a lot of it is in unspecified investments. The interest earned is only on the cash portion right?

 

Thanks for the info. mvigod directed me to Apple's web site to read the 10k which is where I got the chart.

 

 

Here this should help you see what they are earning and how to understand this part of apple's balance sheet.

 

http://beta.fool.com/robertbaillieul/2013/05/04/what-is-apple-doing-with-its-cash/33361/

 

You will see that apple generally invests in short term low yield paper.  some really sub low yield like money markets.  6 month to 2 year notes yielding very little.  CD's which yield close to zip still.   More recently they are trying to stretch for a little more yield by going out on the curve.  This leaves them exposed to and has made returns lower due to interest rate and credit risk.  They are, like everyone else, living in a low yield environment so unless they put the money in riskier assets and in harms way they must settle for very low returns.   Also when I say 1% that is net. They can earn 2% but they lose 3% to inflation each year.  That is a 1% net loss each year.  You always must compare returns to inflation rate as buying power erodes over time.

 

It's a great article explaining it.  Enjoy 

post #71 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 
 
Other income was about $200 million last quarter which is less than 1% annualized

I admit I'm not a finance guy but it was my understanding that many investments can increase in value but you don't earn any income from them unless you sell them. So you are saying that 100% of the cash and cash equivalent, long and short term investments are earning some stated income?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

 

But what benefit would it be to run an ad? Its already been said there isn't any benefit to running a SuperBowl Ad. 

 

 

Who said there would be no benefit?  I didn't.

post #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 

 

 

Who said there would be no benefit?  I didn't.

 

I didn't say you did. I said what benefit would there be for Apple to run an ad? There are studies out there that suggest that SuperBowl Ads have little to no benefit except for a few select companies. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #74 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

I think Apple is saving the marketing blitz for new product lines this year.  Everyone watching the Superbowl already knows what an iPad and an iPhone are.

 

My point exactly! There's no reason for Apple to run an ad, and every if there was, unless its a major product announcement it would have little to no benefit. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #75 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Again, does anyone think Apple's 1984 Super Bowl ad was a waste of money?

No. Costs were cheaper back then and the 1984 ad introduced the Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

Generally speaking, I agree with the sentiments behind your question (please actually read the last sentence before you attack me!), but I can imagine some arguments:

Apple has by far the largest population of users using identical devices (remember all those arguments about Android fragmentation?).

Apple devices are not cheaper (though they may bring more power to users per dollar). 

Apple users accept the "ideology" of the company more than users of other company's products ("hipster conformists").

Apple's "walled garden" aims to maintain extensive control over users' use of their devices.

Punchline: That said, Google's information-gathering, hoarding, and use make it a better candidate for today's Big Brother. 
I'll attack anyway. J/k.
post #76 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

 

I didn't say you did. I said what benefit would there be for Apple to run an ad? There are studies out there that suggest that SuperBowl Ads have little to no benefit except for a few select companies. 

 

I'm sure some co's see little benefit and others tremendous benefit.  Apple I say would yield the most.  Highest net margin products. A product most people viewing are capable of purchasing.  Apple is no low margin player and their products are expensive.  It would take just 16,000 units to at minimum break even.  16,000 units out of 110 million viewers?  Seems like a pretty low hurdle to me.  Also this doesn't count future purchases from customers.  What about the Android guy who changes to iphone and his next 5 phones and tablets are all apple?

 

I'd argue advertising on the Super Bowl would work better than their other ads which run during sitcoms, crime shows and regular tv as those are mostly skipped by DVR.  Bowl ads are not skipped and instead gain focus.  A rarity on tv

post #77 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 
They are, like everyone else, living in a low yield environment so unless they put the money in riskier assets and in harms way they must settle for very low returns.   

Ok but it still has nothing to do with their decision to run an ad in the super bowl or not. Clearly they have plenty of money to do so if they wanted to. I am still arguing that they probably thought the event was beneath them regardless of how many viewers were there. If that was their reasoning, I fully agree. This year's super bowl ads were largely ineffective bordering on stupidity, at least in my opinion. I'm glad Apple was not compared in that mix. Some ads were worse than others but none of them were very classy.

 

I was surprised to see a Maserati ad. That was probably the biggest waste of money because the message was really unbelievable. They were trying to be dramatic when they probably should have focused more on the car since they are not really a household brand and the actual car was only on the screen for a second or two. I think a lot of the ads were a waste of money because they were just trying to be clever at the expense of actually promoting the product, a classic marketing mistake.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #78 of 92

Just leave it to Tim and co.

 

They seem to be the only ones who know wtf they're doing in this age of changing market dynamics. Apple has *the* best mix of market share + profit. Bar none. Under Tim, now, Apple enjoyed RECORD PROFITS and RECORD SALES of everything that matters in today's market. 

 

If Apple believes they don't need to run a Super Bowl ad, you can bet your donuts to their DOLLARS that they probably have a good reason. 

 

Besides, what ads? The Apple brand is iconic. This stuff sells itself. Drop a smidgen of a rumour and you've already got folks reaching for their wallets. 

post #79 of 92
I am amused by calls of "DOOMED" because Apple didn't throw a bunch of money at FOX to run a Super Bowl ad, or that somehow, Steve would have done it.

Both I think are wildly inaccurate characterizations.

Apple doesn't need nor rely on "event advertising" to get its message across.
The company also has an enviable position of being able to create its own events and devote 60 minutes instead of 60 seconds on demonstrating whatever it wants, and writers and bloggers faithfully report it to millions of people. It doesn't need a Supoer Bowl spot. And not having one this year does not tarnish the brand one damn bit.

"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 #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post


Good thing you are not in marketing.   Apple requires less advertising to support the brand?  Sure they do.  They are already doing a lot less to support their brand.  Samsung outspent them what 5 to 1 in 2013?

Which therefore must have resulted in 5 times more profit than Apple for Samsung, surely. Or, at least 3 times then ... 1cool.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple skips pricey Super Bowl ad, pays homage to 30 years of Mac via online movie shot using iPhones [u]