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.
As far as "bothering me", I'm just interested in how messatos 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 come to be seen as "gay" is pretty pathetic.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
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.
[...]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Which is?
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.........
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'!
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Which is?
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
But none of those things are actually points of differentiation. The point of differentiation is what we're talking about.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
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.
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
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...
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
But none of those things are actually points of differentiation. The point of differentiation is what we're talking about.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.........
Comments
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.
[?]
Excellent post.
As far as "bothering me", I'm just interested in how messatos 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 come to be seen as "gay" is pretty pathetic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[...]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You really don't have any idea, do you?
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.
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.
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.
That's...... insane.
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.
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?
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.........
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
But none of those things are actually points of differentiation. The point of differentiation is what we're talking about.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
But none of those things are actually points of differentiation. The point of differentiation is what we're talking about.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.........