1) I feel bad for them, too. They were given an opportunity for fame and they took it. I doubt many would say no. They certainly weren't the ringleaders not one of us know the names or faces of these people that set it all up and profited by it.
2) Regardng Danny Kaye, it's amazing how someone can be so well known and beloved in one generation can be lost the next. The Hollywood Walk of Fame is filled with names of people whom I've never even heard of.
It's well known who was behind the whole Milli Vanilli debacle.
Not that I would compare this Samsung ad with the 1984 Apple ad in any other way except to say that ad also didn't show what the Macintosh could do.
Sadly for them, though, this teaser doesn't make me think of Samsung after seeing it. I'll have to wait to see the entire ad to know if that changes.
The difference being that the Samsung ad won't be discussed 30 secs after it airs meanwhile the Apple ad is being mentioned some 30 years after it aired. See the difference?
To the general public the "smartphone" is a new thing, most know mistakenly believe that it started with Apple's iPhone, but everyone who's interested has also heard of Android. They are currently wondering "who is going to win" or "who is best" or something similar because people are generally stupid, simplistic and vain and want to be on the "winning team." For them, it's a battle.
There are also several scenarios wherein Samsung could "loose" "lose" (the battle) even earlier.
The difference being that the Samsung ad won't be discussed 30 secs after it airs meanwhile the Apple ad is being mentioned some 30 years after it aired. See the difference?
That's not the original argument, though.
... and if it was the argument then when they showed it, did Apple know it would be discussed 30 years in the future (by the way... my 23 year old niece and her friends don't know about the 1984 ad).
... and I still haven't been shown in that ad where it mentioned the capabilities of the Mac.
I find it hard to see how this is making fun of Apple. If not for AI posting this I would have said that you'd have to be anti-Apple to see it that way.
Even Samsung barely gets a mentioned. It's said once at the beginning and their bookend logos on the screen. No products at all, just humor with celebrities.
I agree with you, except the way the exec says "We could get sued" seems suggestive. But yes, this ad by itself could not be aimed at Apple. If it doesn't even mention them, then they're depending way too much on viewer knowledge, which would be foolish, to say the least.
... and if it was the argument then when they showed it, did Apple know it would be discussed 30 years in the future (by the way... my 23 year old niece and her friends don't know about the 1984 ad).
See the difference?
The whole purpose of a ad is to get a product or company in the minds of people. While the 1984 ad didn't show what the Mac could do it most certainly made Apple the most discussed company that year. This ad neither shows off a product nor does it wow us with it's ingenuity. That's why I say it was a squandered opportunity.
The whole purpose of a ad is to get a product or company in the minds of people. While the 1984 ad didn't show what the Mac could do it most certainly made Apple the most discussed company that year. This ad neither shows off a product nor does it wow us with it's ingenuity. That's why I say it was a squandered opportunity.
Now you are changing your argument altogether. Not once did you mention part 2 of your argument. You never mentioned anything about the ads ingenuity... and, again, did Apple know at the time that it would have that effect?
By the way... just as a refresher with your comprehension problem... here is my original reply to you:
____________
"Not that I would compare this Samsung ad with the 1984 Apple ad in any other way except to say that ad also didn't show what the Macintosh could do.
Sadly for them, though, this teaser doesn't make me think of Samsung after seeing it. I'll have to wait to see the entire ad to know if that changes."
____________
Upon reading my original reply don't you think that your reply to me was just redundancy? Really. You were just repeating everything I said. Like you weren't really making me see a difference. You were just trying really hard to show how brilliant you think you are.
Now you are changing your argument altogether. Not once did you mention part 2 of your argument. You never mentioned anything about the ads ingenuity... and, again, did Apple know at the time that it would have that effect?
By the way... just as a refresher with your comprehension problem... here is my original reply to you:
____________
"Not that I would compare this Samsung ad with the 1984 Apple ad in any other way except to say that ad also didn't show what the Macintosh could do.
Sadly for them, though, this teaser doesn't make me think of Samsung after seeing it. I'll have to wait to see the entire ad to know if that changes."
____________
Upon reading my original reply don't you think that your reply to me was just redundancy? Really. You were just repeating everything I said. Like you weren't really making me see a difference. You were just trying really hard to show how brilliant you think you are.
You're absolutely correct I didn't mention the ingenuity part originally because frankly it's an almost impossible thing to do. It's kinda like Daffy Duck's trick, it's terrific but it could only be done once.
You're absolutely correct I didn't mention the ingenuity part originally because frankly it's an almost impossible thing to do. It's kinda like Daffy Duck's trick, it's terrific but it could only be done once.
Which is true.
Although sales were higher than expected for the first 3 or 4 months after the airing of the 1984 commercial, Mac sales sank drastically for the rest of the year. Trying to increase sales Apple aired Lemmings at the next Super Bowl and it was a stinker. Apple changed ad agencies at that point.
If you knew that off the top of your head and know that name and his face better than Rob And Fab then perhaps it's just me but I don't recall anyone ever mentioning Milli Vanilli in the past 2 decades that then mentioned Frank Farian.
Really? So you're now the authority on what's funny?
If I were a Samsung stockholder, I'd be royally pi$$ed. The ad does nothing to improve their brand. It does nothing to explain why someone should buy a Samsung product. It leaves the message that lawyers control the company rather than people who create something.
And for the sake of creating that impression with customers, Samsung will be paying how much for a SuperBowl ad? You really don't think they could have found a better way to spend those millions of dollars? Is it worth spending $5,000,000 on a lame joke that does nothing for your company or product?
If you knew that off the top of your head and know that name and his face better than Rob And Fab then perhaps it's just me but I don't recall anyone ever mentioning Milli Vanilli in the past 2 decades that then mentioned Frank Farian.
I knew the story well but will confess that I had to look up his name to refresh my memory.
To the general public the "smartphone" is a new thing, most know that it started with Apple's iPhone, but everyone who's interested has also heard of Android. They are currently wondering "who is going to win" or "who is best" or something similar because people are generally stupid, simplistic and vain and want to be on the "winning team." For them, it's a battle.
Most know it started with Apple's iPhone- most people "knowing" this show their ignorance. You could make an argument that the Kyocera 6035 was the first "smartphone" being introduced in 2001 AND that is discounting BlackBerry's devices that had real-time push-email communications on a wireless device in 1999. The Android platform was founded in 2003. The original iPhone wasn't introduced until 2007 and on initial release it lacked the capability to install native apps so some people didn't even categorize it as a "smartphone".
Quote:
Apple is trying to win this battle by making the best product and putting it in the most hands.
From venturebeat.com: "Smartphone sales grew 38 percent last quarter to reach 217 million units worldwide, and over 700 million units for the entire year, according to a new report from Strategy Analytics. Of those 700 million-plus smartphones, 68.4% smartphones ran Android as the operating system, while only 19.4 percent ran iOS, Apple’s mobile operating system."
I'm quite sure we could argue hardware back and forth but for time's sake lets just discount the "putting it in the most hands" argument. Less than a quarter of smartphone users prefer an Apple phone.
Quote:
Contrary to what most folks believe, advertising actually has the power to convince people of almost anything, regardless of the actual facts. Although we tend to think we are individual agents making clear logical choices, in fact, a good commercial can sell almost anything to anyone. History proves this over and over again. Therefore, (short term), Samsung wins.
The whole reason Apple has any PC market share is their clever marketing that was grossly misleading. Remember the whole "Mac vs PC" commercials that painted Macs as being these machines impenetrable by viruses while the poor PC was sick? From nbcnews.com article: "Apple has now issued the second software update this week in order to patch the vulnerability in Java software that allowed the malware to spread to up to 600,000 Mac computers." People still believe that Macs are inherently better for security than PCs because they don't comprehend the fact that Macs are more secure because they're obscure. Windows OS marketshare: 85.54% iOS marketshare: 6% according to: http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
Quote:
Long term, the product that actually works will always beat out a non-working, poorly designed product that was only successful through advertising. Therefore (long term) Apple wins.
I'm not really sure how to argue this point. Are you insinuating that other products are "non-working poorly designed products" as compared to Apple products? Apple Maps lol.
Quote:
Without a clearly original, quality product to fall back on when the advertising fails, Samsung's whole enterprise would collapse like a house of cards.
Samsung's enterprise won't collapse any time soon for any reason. In the second quarter of 2012 they posted an operating profit of $5.9 billion. They can afford to lose many more patent lawsuits to Apple, or anyone else for that matter, over vague patents and still make plenty of money.
Apple could be facing a giant lawsuit (if Micron chose to try to enforce their patents like Apple does) for using slide to unlock as a feature. Micron technology filed a patent for that idea in February 2000 and was just recently granted a patent for it. One might argue that swiping your finger across the screen to unlock it should not be granted a patent but Apple's mainstays in the recent Apple vs Samsung court battle were "rectangular phone with rounded edges" and "icons with rounded edges".
To keep this thread relevant though I will offer this comment about the actual teaser video:
This is just as much a shot at the NFL as it is Apple or anyone else in the sue happy patent hungry world. Anyone should be able to say Super Bowl on TV and any company should be able to make smart phones that are rectangular in shape with rounded corners.
Who is the target audience?
What is the message?
What is the purpose of the ad?
That's the usual analysis of advertising but a lot of the time, it's nothing to do with the association of brand to content. It's just brand awareness. Take the following ad for example, the audience is people who drink beer, the message appears to be don't mix candles and horses, the purpose is to appeal to people with a sense of humour, nothing more:
[VIDEO]
All the advertiser needs is that you remember the ad and the brand that made it. Apple used to make funny ads years ago.
[VIDEO]
When I see the bouncing iPod ads now:
[VIDEO]
they're cool enough but they have no soul. They still have inspirational ads I like and the Genius ads I suppose were an example of injecting humor but they fell a little flat.
They could do so many things like have a family walk into a store and be confused that all the tablets and phones look the same or make fun about them being too big or that the salesman is trying to push Android tablets because they have plenty in the back - have them all under a banner that says The Next Best Thing. They should give as good as they get.
That's the usual analysis of advertising but a lot of the time, it's nothing to do with the association of brand to content. It's just brand awareness. Take the following ad for example, the audience is people who drink beer, the message appears to be don't mix candles and horses, the purpose is to appeal to people with a sense of humour, nothing more:
[video]
All the advertiser needs is that you remember the ad and the brand that made it. Apple used to make funny ads years ago.
[video]
When I see the bouncing iPod ads now:
[video]
they're cool enough but they have no soul. They still have inspirational ads I like and the Genius ads I suppose were an example of injecting humor but they fell a little flat.
They could do so many things like have a family walk into a store and be confused that all the tablets and phones look the same or make fun about them being too big or that the salesman is trying to push Android tablets because they have plenty in the back - have them all under a banner that says The Next Best Thing. They should give as good as they get.
I agree with your premise but not the Apple Mac ad you choose. The clearly purpose was the Power Mac G3 was faster than the Pentium II. I think a better example would be the I'm a Mac campaign that also did compare Macs to WinPCs, but in an indirect way.
That was hilarious. It makes me wonder tho - if Samsung keeps going down this road if Apple will get pissed and open a big can of "I'm an iPhone, I'm Android" ads like they did to Microsoft. Apple has a knack for attacking with humor while highlighting it's products.
Comments
It's well known who was behind the whole Milli Vanilli debacle.
I can't name a single person except for Rob and Fab.
The difference being that the Samsung ad won't be discussed 30 secs after it airs meanwhile the Apple ad is being mentioned some 30 years after it aired. See the difference?
Frank Farian was the mastermind.
There I fixed it for you
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The difference being that the Samsung ad won't be discussed 30 secs after it airs meanwhile the Apple ad is being mentioned some 30 years after it aired. See the difference?
That's not the original argument, though.
... and if it was the argument then when they showed it, did Apple know it would be discussed 30 years in the future (by the way... my 23 year old niece and her friends don't know about the 1984 ad).
... and I still haven't been shown in that ad where it mentioned the capabilities of the Mac.
See the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I find it hard to see how this is making fun of Apple. If not for AI posting this I would have said that you'd have to be anti-Apple to see it that way.
Even Samsung barely gets a mentioned. It's said once at the beginning and their bookend logos on the screen. No products at all, just humor with celebrities.
I agree with you, except the way the exec says "We could get sued" seems suggestive. But yes, this ad by itself could not be aimed at Apple. If it doesn't even mention them, then they're depending way too much on viewer knowledge, which would be foolish, to say the least.
The whole purpose of a ad is to get a product or company in the minds of people. While the 1984 ad didn't show what the Mac could do it most certainly made Apple the most discussed company that year. This ad neither shows off a product nor does it wow us with it's ingenuity. That's why I say it was a squandered opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The whole purpose of a ad is to get a product or company in the minds of people. While the 1984 ad didn't show what the Mac could do it most certainly made Apple the most discussed company that year. This ad neither shows off a product nor does it wow us with it's ingenuity. That's why I say it was a squandered opportunity.
Now you are changing your argument altogether. Not once did you mention part 2 of your argument. You never mentioned anything about the ads ingenuity... and, again, did Apple know at the time that it would have that effect?
By the way... just as a refresher with your comprehension problem... here is my original reply to you:
____________
"Not that I would compare this Samsung ad with the 1984 Apple ad in any other way except to say that ad also didn't show what the Macintosh could do.
Sadly for them, though, this teaser doesn't make me think of Samsung after seeing it. I'll have to wait to see the entire ad to know if that changes."
____________
Upon reading my original reply don't you think that your reply to me was just redundancy? Really. You were just repeating everything I said. Like you weren't really making me see a difference. You were just trying really hard to show how brilliant you think you are.
You're absolutely correct I didn't mention the ingenuity part originally because frankly it's an almost impossible thing to do. It's kinda like Daffy Duck's trick, it's terrific but it could only be done once.
[VIDEO]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You're absolutely correct I didn't mention the ingenuity part originally because frankly it's an almost impossible thing to do. It's kinda like Daffy Duck's trick, it's terrific but it could only be done once.
Which is true.
Although sales were higher than expected for the first 3 or 4 months after the airing of the 1984 commercial, Mac sales sank drastically for the rest of the year. Trying to increase sales Apple aired Lemmings at the next Super Bowl and it was a stinker. Apple changed ad agencies at that point.
If you knew that off the top of your head and know that name and his face better than Rob And Fab then perhaps it's just me but I don't recall anyone ever mentioning Milli Vanilli in the past 2 decades that then mentioned Frank Farian.
Wow, and I thought the Cantabs were one eyed
I knew the story well but will confess that I had to look up his name to refresh my memory.
They are poking fun at pro sports teams etc that sue when their name is used without proper licensing.
Quote:
To the general public the "smartphone" is a new thing, most know that it started with Apple's iPhone, but everyone who's interested has also heard of Android. They are currently wondering "who is going to win" or "who is best" or something similar because people are generally stupid, simplistic and vain and want to be on the "winning team." For them, it's a battle.
Most know it started with Apple's iPhone- most people "knowing" this show their ignorance. You could make an argument that the Kyocera 6035 was the first "smartphone" being introduced in 2001 AND that is discounting BlackBerry's devices that had real-time push-email communications on a wireless device in 1999. The Android platform was founded in 2003. The original iPhone wasn't introduced until 2007 and on initial release it lacked the capability to install native apps so some people didn't even categorize it as a "smartphone".
Quote:
Apple is trying to win this battle by making the best product and putting it in the most hands.
From venturebeat.com: "Smartphone sales grew 38 percent last quarter to reach 217 million units worldwide, and over 700 million units for the entire year, according to a new report from Strategy Analytics. Of those 700 million-plus smartphones, 68.4% smartphones ran Android as the operating system, while only 19.4 percent ran iOS, Apple’s mobile operating system."
I'm quite sure we could argue hardware back and forth but for time's sake lets just discount the "putting it in the most hands" argument. Less than a quarter of smartphone users prefer an Apple phone.
Quote:
Contrary to what most folks believe, advertising actually has the power to convince people of almost anything, regardless of the actual facts. Although we tend to think we are individual agents making clear logical choices, in fact, a good commercial can sell almost anything to anyone. History proves this over and over again. Therefore, (short term), Samsung wins.
The whole reason Apple has any PC market share is their clever marketing that was grossly misleading. Remember the whole "Mac vs PC" commercials that painted Macs as being these machines impenetrable by viruses while the poor PC was sick? From nbcnews.com article: "Apple has now issued the second software update this week in order to patch the vulnerability in Java software that allowed the malware to spread to up to 600,000 Mac computers." People still believe that Macs are inherently better for security than PCs because they don't comprehend the fact that Macs are more secure because they're obscure. Windows OS marketshare: 85.54% iOS marketshare: 6% according to: http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
Quote:
Long term, the product that actually works will always beat out a non-working, poorly designed product that was only successful through advertising. Therefore (long term) Apple wins.
I'm not really sure how to argue this point. Are you insinuating that other products are "non-working poorly designed products" as compared to Apple products? Apple Maps lol.
Quote:
Without a clearly original, quality product to fall back on when the advertising fails, Samsung's whole enterprise would collapse like a house of cards.
Samsung's enterprise won't collapse any time soon for any reason. In the second quarter of 2012 they posted an operating profit of $5.9 billion. They can afford to lose many more patent lawsuits to Apple, or anyone else for that matter, over vague patents and still make plenty of money.
Apple could be facing a giant lawsuit (if Micron chose to try to enforce their patents like Apple does) for using slide to unlock as a feature. Micron technology filed a patent for that idea in February 2000 and was just recently granted a patent for it. One might argue that swiping your finger across the screen to unlock it should not be granted a patent but Apple's mainstays in the recent Apple vs Samsung court battle were "rectangular phone with rounded edges" and "icons with rounded edges".
To keep this thread relevant though I will offer this comment about the actual teaser video:
This is just as much a shot at the NFL as it is Apple or anyone else in the sue happy patent hungry world. Anyone should be able to say Super Bowl on TV and any company should be able to make smart phones that are rectangular in shape with rounded corners.
That's the usual analysis of advertising but a lot of the time, it's nothing to do with the association of brand to content. It's just brand awareness. Take the following ad for example, the audience is people who drink beer, the message appears to be don't mix candles and horses, the purpose is to appeal to people with a sense of humour, nothing more:
[VIDEO]
All the advertiser needs is that you remember the ad and the brand that made it. Apple used to make funny ads years ago.
[VIDEO]
When I see the bouncing iPod ads now:
[VIDEO]
they're cool enough but they have no soul. They still have inspirational ads I like and the Genius ads I suppose were an example of injecting humor but they fell a little flat.
They could do so many things like have a family walk into a store and be confused that all the tablets and phones look the same or make fun about them being too big or that the salesman is trying to push Android tablets because they have plenty in the back - have them all under a banner that says The Next Best Thing. They should give as good as they get.
I agree with your premise but not the Apple Mac ad you choose. The clearly purpose was the Power Mac G3 was faster than the Pentium II. I think a better example would be the I'm a Mac campaign that also did compare Macs to WinPCs, but in an indirect way.