1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).
2) Apple's customers have a bond with the company like few others do. They don't need paid shills in forums like AI.
3) Dozens of sites like AI abound with hundreds of unpaid people (like me) who are not shy about singing its praises (when due), providing it unparalleled free advertising.
4) Being found out doing something so chintzy would not pass an elementary cost-benefit test for Apple.
You have absolutely no clue about the company or how it positions itself, do you?
1) Nice job Apple did there - if you are unable to notice the subtle marketing they are doing.
At least in Germany they are as present in this marketing area, as every other company is.
2) + 3)
That may hold true for those already loyal to Apple, but as you mentioned in 3) Apple has their fanbase doing the marketing for this group already, so they just have to help keep the ball rolling.
On the other hand, for those who are not yet bound to Apple, the opinion of the loyal fanbase values less than the opinion of a seemingly indepent source. I'm also quite confident that Apple's marketing has their influence on - at least some - of those.
I'd go as far as to say, that Apple - on purpose - aims to get some negative critics/reviews on it's product, exactly to acquire more costumers (sounds illogical at first, but it raises sympathy in the non-loyals)
They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.
I'm curious to know what the credits on Fringe actually say. AFAIK, Apple typically doesn't pay for product placement-- they don't have to, since art directors and production designers like Apple's stuff and chose it for aesthetic rather than paid promotional reasons.
1) Nice job Apple did there - if you are unable to notice the subtle marketing they are doing.
At least in Germany they are as present in this marketing area, as every other company is.
2) + 3)
That may hold true for those already loyal to Apple, but as you mentioned in 3) Apple has their fanbase doing the marketing for this group already, so they just have to help keep the ball rolling.
On the other hand, for those who are not yet bound to Apple, the opinion of the loyal fanbase values less than the opinion of a seemingly indepent source. I'm also quite confident that Apple's marketing has their influence on - at least some - of those.
I'd go as far as to say, that Apple - on purpose - aims to get some negative critics/reviews on it's product, exactly to acquire more costumers (sounds illogical at first, but it raises sympathy in the non-loyals)
The original contention was about whether or not Apple pays shills to post on internet forums, so I'm not sure what you're saying here. Disregarding the opinions of the loyal fan base doesn't really enter into it, since it's hard to know how a paid shill would say nice stuff about Apple while establishing that they aren't fans.
At any rate, I think it's reasonable to assume that Apple doesn't pay shills, partly because it just doesn't seem like Apple's style, and partly because they really don't have to.
As far as deliberately planting negative reviews, to get "sympathy": really? That's pretty bizarre.
Probably about as much as anyone would believe you
No.
Sorry, your post doesn't have anything to do with anything and you have absolutely no argument in the first place.
You can't say "I don't think they're infringing on anything" and then not explain why you think this, particularly since it's a huge court case that has yet to be decided and Apple obviously believes there's infringing going on.
Don't expect anyone to take you seriously from now on.
I'm curious to know what the credits on Fringe actually say. AFAIK, Apple typically doesn't pay for product placement-- they don't have to, since art directors and production designers like Apple's stuff and chose it for aesthetic rather than paid promotional reasons.
Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.
Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.
It looks like Apple is particularly fond of House and 30 Rock.
Apple wouldn't get paid to have products in the shows, they would've supplied products for free in return for free advertisement. Though in quite a lot of shows the Apple logo/product name is covered by some kind of sticker (usually with a fake company logo on it) because they wont have permission from Apple. I see those stickers all the time in television advertisements.
Apple wouldn't get paid to have products in the shows, they would've supplied products for free in return for free advertisement. Though in quite a lot of shows the Apple logo/product name is covered by some kind of sticker (usually with a fake company logo on it) because they wont have permission from Apple. I see those stickers all the time in television advertisements.
You're quite correct. Apple claims not to pay in real money for product placement, and there's no reason to doubt it. But when the credits show "Promotional Consideration Furnished by" it means that something of value was provided in exchange for the placement. Could be a few iPads, a half dozen Airs, hotel rooms for the production crew, or a 10 oz. gold bar.
You're quite correct. Apple claims not to pay in real money for product placement, and there's no reason to doubt it. But when the credits show "Promotional Consideration Furnished by" it means that something of value was provided in exchange for the placement. Could be a few iPads, a half dozen Airs, hotel rooms for the production crew, or a 10 oz. gold bar.
For Apple that's a trade secret.
A secret protected by rocket launching, genetically modified T-Rex's like everything else in Apple's catalogue.
With quite a lot of things relating to props, Apple might want them back once they have been used. Furnishing, not charity.
With quite a lot of things relating to props, Apple might want them back once they have been used. Furnishing, not charity.
Of course it wouldn't be charity. How valuable is a 5-10 second product placement on House? Or an entire movie built around Apple products (Gulliver's Travels w/Jack Black) or GM vehicles (Transformers)?
Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.
Which means the art director called Apple up and said "We want to use an iPhone/iPad/iMac on our show/movie, can you send us one?"
Which of course Apple will do, they'd be crazy not to. But that's different from paying people to stick their stuff on screen.
None of us "commoners" know what Apple will exchange in return for placement in video/TV/movies, particularly one as high profile as House. It's not something they're willing to discuss. Maybe the networks and movie studios make so much money they're happy to trade a few thousand in advertising for a borrowed iPhone.
Sorry, your post doesn't have anything to do with anything and you have absolutely no argument in the first place.
You can't say "I don't think they're infringing on anything" and then not explain why you think this, particularly since it's a huge court case that has yet to be decided and Apple obviously believes there's infringing going on.
Don't expect anyone to take you seriously from now on.
If you cant see whats wrong with what Apple is doing then you are just too much of a blinded fanboy to see it. You probably will just blow this off like the rest of the fanboys but you are interested in what your average Aussie thinks of this then read the comments from an article one of Australia's biggest newspaper http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...802-1i90c.html
Comments
1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).
2) Apple's customers have a bond with the company like few others do. They don't need paid shills in forums like AI.
3) Dozens of sites like AI abound with hundreds of unpaid people (like me) who are not shy about singing its praises (when due), providing it unparalleled free advertising.
4) Being found out doing something so chintzy would not pass an elementary cost-benefit test for Apple.
You have absolutely no clue about the company or how it positions itself, do you?
1) Nice job Apple did there - if you are unable to notice the subtle marketing they are doing.
At least in Germany they are as present in this marketing area, as every other company is.
2) + 3)
That may hold true for those already loyal to Apple, but as you mentioned in 3) Apple has their fanbase doing the marketing for this group already, so they just have to help keep the ball rolling.
On the other hand, for those who are not yet bound to Apple, the opinion of the loyal fanbase values less than the opinion of a seemingly indepent source. I'm also quite confident that Apple's marketing has their influence on - at least some - of those.
I'd go as far as to say, that Apple - on purpose - aims to get some negative critics/reviews on it's product, exactly to acquire more costumers (sounds illogical at first, but it raises sympathy in the non-loyals)
If you can't be bothered substantiating your opinion, don't expect anybody to believe that it has any substance.
Probably about as much as anyone would believe you
They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.
I'm curious to know what the credits on Fringe actually say. AFAIK, Apple typically doesn't pay for product placement-- they don't have to, since art directors and production designers like Apple's stuff and chose it for aesthetic rather than paid promotional reasons.
1) Nice job Apple did there - if you are unable to notice the subtle marketing they are doing.
At least in Germany they are as present in this marketing area, as every other company is.
2) + 3)
That may hold true for those already loyal to Apple, but as you mentioned in 3) Apple has their fanbase doing the marketing for this group already, so they just have to help keep the ball rolling.
On the other hand, for those who are not yet bound to Apple, the opinion of the loyal fanbase values less than the opinion of a seemingly indepent source. I'm also quite confident that Apple's marketing has their influence on - at least some - of those.
I'd go as far as to say, that Apple - on purpose - aims to get some negative critics/reviews on it's product, exactly to acquire more costumers (sounds illogical at first, but it raises sympathy in the non-loyals)
The original contention was about whether or not Apple pays shills to post on internet forums, so I'm not sure what you're saying here. Disregarding the opinions of the loyal fan base doesn't really enter into it, since it's hard to know how a paid shill would say nice stuff about Apple while establishing that they aren't fans.
At any rate, I think it's reasonable to assume that Apple doesn't pay shills, partly because it just doesn't seem like Apple's style, and partly because they really don't have to.
As far as deliberately planting negative reviews, to get "sympathy": really? That's pretty bizarre.
Probably about as much as anyone would believe you
No.
Sorry, your post doesn't have anything to do with anything and you have absolutely no argument in the first place.
You can't say "I don't think they're infringing on anything" and then not explain why you think this, particularly since it's a huge court case that has yet to be decided and Apple obviously believes there's infringing going on.
Don't expect anyone to take you seriously from now on.
I'm curious to know what the credits on Fringe actually say. AFAIK, Apple typically doesn't pay for product placement-- they don't have to, since art directors and production designers like Apple's stuff and chose it for aesthetic rather than paid promotional reasons.
Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0014547/
It looks like Apple is particularly fond of House and 30 Rock.
Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0014547/
It looks like Apple is particularly fond of House and 30 Rock.
Apple wouldn't get paid to have products in the shows, they would've supplied products for free in return for free advertisement. Though in quite a lot of shows the Apple logo/product name is covered by some kind of sticker (usually with a fake company logo on it) because they wont have permission from Apple. I see those stickers all the time in television advertisements.
Apple wouldn't get paid to have products in the shows, they would've supplied products for free in return for free advertisement. Though in quite a lot of shows the Apple logo/product name is covered by some kind of sticker (usually with a fake company logo on it) because they wont have permission from Apple. I see those stickers all the time in television advertisements.
You're quite correct. Apple claims not to pay in real money for product placement, and there's no reason to doubt it. But when the credits show "Promotional Consideration Furnished by" it means that something of value was provided in exchange for the placement. Could be a few iPads, a half dozen Airs, hotel rooms for the production crew, or a 10 oz. gold bar.
For Apple that's a trade secret.
You're quite correct. Apple claims not to pay in real money for product placement, and there's no reason to doubt it. But when the credits show "Promotional Consideration Furnished by" it means that something of value was provided in exchange for the placement. Could be a few iPads, a half dozen Airs, hotel rooms for the production crew, or a 10 oz. gold bar.
For Apple that's a trade secret.
A secret protected by rocket launching, genetically modified T-Rex's like everything else in Apple's catalogue.
With quite a lot of things relating to props, Apple might want them back once they have been used. Furnishing, not charity.
With quite a lot of things relating to props, Apple might want them back once they have been used. Furnishing, not charity.
Of course it wouldn't be charity. How valuable is a 5-10 second product placement on House? Or an entire movie built around Apple products (Gulliver's Travels w/Jack Black) or GM vehicles (Transformers)?
Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0014547/
It looks like Apple is particularly fond of House and 30 Rock.
Which means the art director called Apple up and said "We want to use an iPhone/iPad/iMac on our show/movie, can you send us one?"
Which of course Apple will do, they'd be crazy not to. But that's different from paying people to stick their stuff on screen.
Which means the art director called Apple up and said "We want to use an iPhone/iPad/iMac on our show/movie, can you send us one?"
Which of course Apple will do, they'd be crazy not to. But that's different from paying people to stick their stuff on screen.
None of us "commoners" know what Apple will exchange in return for placement in video/TV/movies, particularly one as high profile as House. It's not something they're willing to discuss. Maybe the networks and movie studios make so much money they're happy to trade a few thousand in advertising for a borrowed iPhone.
No.
Sorry, your post doesn't have anything to do with anything and you have absolutely no argument in the first place.
You can't say "I don't think they're infringing on anything" and then not explain why you think this, particularly since it's a huge court case that has yet to be decided and Apple obviously believes there's infringing going on.
Don't expect anyone to take you seriously from now on.
If you cant see whats wrong with what Apple is doing then you are just too much of a blinded fanboy to see it. You probably will just blow this off like the rest of the fanboys but you are interested in what your average Aussie thinks of this then read the comments from an article one of Australia's biggest newspaper http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...802-1i90c.html
If you cant see whats wrong with what Apple is doing
Enlighten me. What is Apple "doing"?
then you are just too much of a blinded fanboy to see it.
Oh, okay. Never mind if you don't know what you're talking about either.
what your average Aussie thinks of this
So none of those commenters have ever created anything in their entire lives. Big deal.