Well until TV does go away they would have had over 110 million viewers who were not DVD skipping their ad last night.
The great and unique thing about this ad was the way it was conceived and executed (information which can really only be communicated how Apple is doing with the story following the ad on the website.). I agree with you about the captive number of people at home watching the Super Bowl, but in this case I feel Apple did a smart thing by not following the norm.
Another Apple marketing blunder. For 3 or 4 million you get in front of 110 million people plus all the follow through on the rollup pages that contain all the videos for super bowl ads. Even if it was 8 million for a minute spot to run this. They spend more than that on patent attorneys every single week. Wouldn't this add do more for them than the wasted billions on patent attorneys which have done nothing for them?
Apple would rather let 160 billion sit in the bank doing nothing year after year. Growing and growing.
Super Bowl makes a statement. It's a chance to show what apple is all about. That they are still cool. This spot touches that chord but won't get the viewership because apple could not spend a few million to air it.
Tim Cook and the marketing team made a great ad. Too bad it won't get the viewership and recognition it deserves. Sure 8 million is alot to us but Apple just made that much in the time it took you to read my post here.
Or they can target specific shows for a fraction of the cost. Plus the Olympics are coming and ad space is cheaper there as well. Sure it would have been neat but Apple is every where.
Apple was smart as they could never top that iconic commercial. A true classic.
Besides Apple is now Big Brother- but it would be clever to show a role reversal with some humor.
However this was just boring.
Did you know that every year they lose money on the 160 billion in the bank? It's sad but true. That money is invested at rates lower than annual inflation. Each year the cash in the bank loses buying power. Alot more than what the super bowl ad would have cost them. Assume they are netting 2% on short term investments and cash right now which is close. Inflation rate is about 3%. That is net loss per year of 1% on 160 billion dollars. Folks, for those who may not be good at math, that is 1.6B lost annually to inflation. 5 to 10 mil for an ad is chump change and not alot of incremental business or brand awareness is needed at apple margins to justify the spend.
Perhaps you've heard of the the world's biggest hedge fund? Braeburn Capital. They have over 100 billion invested for Apple. the cash is not sitting in the bank. Also a lot of Apple's cash is overseas so it is difficult to speculate how much it earns. Clearly, their decision not to participate in the super bowl was not a question of how or how much to invest but rather how to best protect and promote Apple's brand and image.
My goodness, it's almost as if $1000s in lighting, support equipment, and full access to amazing scenes and professional cinematographers and photographers is more valuable than professional equipment, in some situations. Just showing what's "possible," I suppose.
This reminds me of a follow up to the Knowledge Navigator videos. Except in this case, it's the realization and not the promise. There is a lot of hinting in this video about where Apple is going next. Medical, robotics, 3D fabrication just to name a few. One could also say this the logical follow up to the 1984 commercial in that it shows an open non-comformed world free to explore and communicate with tools that are flexible and personal instead of mindless subjects chained to a desk staring at C:\ all day long. Basically the era of peace after the war.
Perhaps you've heard of the the world's biggest hedge fund? Braeburn Capital. They have over 100 billion invested for Apple. the cash is not sitting in the bank. Also a lot of Apple's cash is overseas so it is difficult to speculate how much it earns. Clearly, their decision not to participate in the super bowl was not a question of how or how much to invest but rather how to best protect and promote Apple's brand and image.
Sorry wrong on all accounts. Go read apple's 10k's. They tell you what they are invested in and where all that money is and what it makes. Cash and short term marketable securities. You can see what they earn. It's all there. Learn how to read the 10k then post. Ever heard of a 10k?
My goodness, it's almost as if $1000s in lighting, support equipment, and full access to amazing scenes and professional cinematographers and photographers is more valuable than professional equipment, in some situations. Just showing what's "possible," I suppose.
Yes... the above bolded statement is most definitly true. An artist and/or pro in any creative discipline can do far more with much less than the average Joe. :smokey:
The Apple of today is different than 30 years ago. The Apple brand of today is a household word, not a niche, and as such requires less advertising to support the brand.
The 1984 ad was in support of a product launch. Nothing launched on Super Bowl Sunday this year. The ad was followed-up with a 20 page supplement to major print publications explaining the Mac and it's approach to computing, the job which today is being done by thousands of Apple Store employees that didn't exist back then.
The stores are giving Apple products more visibility every day than any Super Bowl ad could ever dream of providing at any cost.
Remember, according to Steve Jobs himself, Tim Cook's job is not to ask "What would Steve do" but just to "do the right thing" for Apple. Let Tim honour that request.
The Apple of today is different than 30 years ago. The Apple brand of today is a household word, not a niche, and as such requires less advertising to support the brand.
The 1984 ad was in support of a product launch. Nothing launched on Super Bowl Sunday this year. The ad was followed-up with a 20 page supplement to major print publications explaining the Mac and it's approach to computing, the job which today is being done by thousands of Apple Store employees that didn't exist back then.
The stores are giving Apple products more visibility every day than any Super Bowl ad could ever dream of providing at any cost.
Remember, according to Steve Jobs himself, Tim Cook's job is not to ask "What would Steve do" but just to "do the right thing" for Apple. Let Tim honour that request.
Good thing you are not in marketing. Apple requires less advertising to support the brand? Sure they do. They are already doing a lot less to support their brand. Samsung outspent them what 5 to 1 in 2013?
You know who else is a top brand but also spends in the top 10 for advertising? Quite a few household names that could also spend a lot less but they know better. Somehow they know you have to keep branding and advertising your product or service. Apple doesn't even rank in the top 10. I wonder if this could have anything to do with the lack of branding and now many thinking they just aren't as cool anymore? Maybe the constant branding by competitors always in consumers faces gaining mind share. Learning alternatives to apple.
There are others that aren't in the top 10 that also brand and market despite being household words worldwide. Coke, Pepsi
As far as the stores giving visibility are you kidding me? They have less than 500 worldwide. Plus you have to go past one and then INTO one to gain any benefit from this. Stores are not marketing tools. There is a reason advertising is over a 1 trillion per year industry. But then again apple doesn't really need to be part of this. It's competitors are more than happy to let them outmarket and outbrand them.
So apple's iphone sales growth rate is slowing dramatically now. We can blame the product or the marketing. Plenty of phones being sold that are not apple still. Maybe it's both?
Hint: your movies will look NOTHING like this unless your phone is mounted on a 30k floating rig, shot by a professional DP, and then edited on a high end rig by a professional editor.
Spending money on a super bowl ad is not forward thinking and is a waste of money. More people will eventually see this ad on-line (and hear the great story behind the making of it). TV ads will soon go the way of the CD, DVD, etc...
Again, does anyone think Apple's 1984 Super Bowl ad was a waste of money?
I liked it. I like ads where they show people actually using their products to do real things. And if you read the Apple page about the making of it, it's logistically impressive too.
Generally speaking, I agree with the sentiments behind your question (please actually read the last sentence before you attack me!), but I can imagine some arguments:
Apple has by far the largest population of users using identical devices (remember all those arguments about Android fragmentation?).
Apple devices are not cheaper (though they may bring more power to users per dollar).
Apple users accept the "ideology" of the company more than users of other company's products ("hipster conformists").
Apple's "walled garden" aims to maintain extensive control over users' use of their devices.
Punchline: That said, Google's information-gathering, hoarding, and use make it a better candidate for today's Big Brother.
For all those that claim Steve would have run an ad, they weren't paying enough attention. Steve was the first one to always say, look to the future, not the past. I think everything Apple has done in celebration of the 30 years has been tasteful. From the 30 year page with various users throughout the years, the custom font with various Macs, and this ad.
As far as running a Super Bowl ad...so many companies do them that things get lost in the noise. This year and I think last year as well, most, if not all, the ads were posted in their entirety before the Super Bowl. The one exception being the teaser trailer for 24. Apple wasn't caught up with the noise of the ads before the game or during the game. They released theirs afterwards and will clearly stand out. If anything, it's much better marketing. For those that think Apple can't reach 110 million people, they are crazy.
Sorry wrong on all accounts. Go read apple's 10k's. They tell you what they are invested in and where all that money is and what it makes. Cash and short term marketable securities. You can see what they earn. It's all there. Learn how to read the 10k then post. Ever heard of a 10k?
Is this the 10k data you were referring to? I only see 8.7 billion in actual cash. The rest of the 147 billion appears to be in various investments. Since you are the expert, please explain how you came up with 160 billion in cash.
Good thing you are not in marketing. Apple requires less advertising to support the brand? Sure they do. They are already doing a lot less to support their brand. Samsung outspent them what 5 to 1 in 2013?
You know who else is a top brand but also spends in the top 10 for advertising? Quite a few household names that could also spend a lot less but they know better. Somehow they know you have to keep branding and advertising your product or service. Apple doesn't even rank in the top 10. I wonder if this could have anything to do with the lack of branding and now many thinking they just aren't as cool anymore? Maybe the constant branding by competitors always in consumers faces gaining mind share. Learning alternatives to apple.
There are others that aren't in the top 10 that also brand and market despite being household words worldwide. Coke, Pepsi
As far as the stores giving visibility are you kidding me? They have less than 500 worldwide. Plus you have to go past one and then INTO one to gain any benefit from this. Stores are not marketing tools. There is a reason advertising is over a 1 trillion per year industry. But then again apple doesn't really need to be part of this. It's competitors are more than happy to let them outmarket and outbrand them.
So apple's iphone sales growth rate is slowing dramatically now. We can blame the product or the marketing. Plenty of phones being sold that are not apple still. Maybe it's both?
Thankfully I am not in marketing, but that doesn't mean I can't put together a reasoned argument.
Apple spends just enough on media ads to get people into the stores. Apple stores have been averaging over 90 million visits per quarter for the last year as a constant year-round advertisement.. Many of those in countries with little to no interest in American football. See this link here:
It don't believe the size of a companies' advertising budget is an indication of its marketing effectiveness. For a complex product like a Mac or an iPhone and it's related ecosystem, the stores are more effective/efficient and provide local after sales support as well. Samsung's marketing is going this way more and more. I don't want Apple to win the ad budget prize.
Marketing must be custom tailored to the product and the company's position in the market. The core business for AT&T, Verizon, Geico and T-Mob is selling services, not products. Switching loyalties costs their customers little or nothing at renewal time. Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford, McDonald's, Macy's, Walmart Pepsi and Coke sell commodity products with many more direct and indirect competitors than Apple. They have to fight to retain customer loyalty.
Apple's goals are not total market domination, driven by carpet-bombing ad campaigns. Their only after the people with money to spend on digital assets to support the ecosystem. The market for high-end computers and smartphones is slowing but not dead. Would more ads change that? One thing is certain, there will be other products from Apple to skim the cream off the top of the next market they enter/re-invent.
Is this the 10k data you were referring to? I only see 8.7 billion in actual cash. The rest of the 147 billion appears to be in various investments. Since you are the expert, please explain how you came up with 160 billion in cash.
Now I'm educating people who don't know how investments are noted. When people speak of cash it means cash and liquid investments and short term marketable securities. Here you go. read this
Thankfully I am not in marketing, but that doesn't mean I can't put together a reasoned argument.
Apple spends just enough on media ads to get people into the stores. Apple stores have been averaging over 90 million visits per quarter for the last year as a constant year-round advertisement.. Many of those in countries with little to no interest in American football. See this link here:
It don't believe the size of a companies' advertising budget is an indication of its marketing effectiveness. For a complex product like a Mac or an iPhone and it's related ecosystem, the stores are more effective/efficient and provide local after sales support as well. Samsung's marketing is going this way more and more. I don't want Apple to win the ad budget prize.
Marketing must be custom tailored to the product and the company's position in the market. The core business for AT&T, Verizon, Geico and T-Mob is selling services, not products. Switching loyalties costs their customers little or nothing at renewal time. Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford, McDonald's, Macy's, Walmart Pepsi and Coke sell commodity products with many more direct and indirect competitors than Apple. They have to fight to retain customer loyalty.
Apple's goals are not total market domination, driven by carpet-bombing ad campaigns. Their only after the people with money to spend on digital assets to support the ecosystem. The market for high-end computers and smartphones is slowing but not dead. Would more ads change that? One thing is certain, there will be other products from Apple to skim the cream off the top of the next market they enter/re-invent.
Quite a reasonable response. I do believe and I could be wrong, that Apple could stand to spend more on ads and be more effective. Sometimes mind share comes down to frequency and effectiveness of ads. It's extremely powerful and even apple is not immune to it.
Comments
Well until TV does go away they would have had over 110 million viewers who were not DVD skipping their ad last night.
The great and unique thing about this ad was the way it was conceived and executed (information which can really only be communicated how Apple is doing with the story following the ad on the website.). I agree with you about the captive number of people at home watching the Super Bowl, but in this case I feel Apple did a smart thing by not following the norm.
Or they can target specific shows for a fraction of the cost. Plus the Olympics are coming and ad space is cheaper there as well. Sure it would have been neat but Apple is every where.
How is Apple Big Brother?
Perhaps you've heard of the the world's biggest hedge fund? Braeburn Capital. They have over 100 billion invested for Apple. the cash is not sitting in the bank. Also a lot of Apple's cash is overseas so it is difficult to speculate how much it earns. Clearly, their decision not to participate in the super bowl was not a question of how or how much to invest but rather how to best protect and promote Apple's brand and image.
My goodness, it's almost as if $1000s in lighting, support equipment, and full access to amazing scenes and professional cinematographers and photographers is more valuable than professional equipment, in some situations. Just showing what's "possible," I suppose.
Perhaps you've heard of the the world's biggest hedge fund? Braeburn Capital. They have over 100 billion invested for Apple. the cash is not sitting in the bank. Also a lot of Apple's cash is overseas so it is difficult to speculate how much it earns. Clearly, their decision not to participate in the super bowl was not a question of how or how much to invest but rather how to best protect and promote Apple's brand and image.
Sorry wrong on all accounts. Go read apple's 10k's. They tell you what they are invested in and where all that money is and what it makes. Cash and short term marketable securities. You can see what they earn. It's all there. Learn how to read the 10k then post. Ever heard of a 10k?
Yes... the above bolded statement is most definitly true. An artist and/or pro in any creative discipline can do far more with much less than the average Joe. :smokey:
The 1984 ad was in support of a product launch. Nothing launched on Super Bowl Sunday this year. The ad was followed-up with a 20 page supplement to major print publications explaining the Mac and it's approach to computing, the job which today is being done by thousands of Apple Store employees that didn't exist back then.
The stores are giving Apple products more visibility every day than any Super Bowl ad could ever dream of providing at any cost.
Remember, according to Steve Jobs himself, Tim Cook's job is not to ask "What would Steve do" but just to "do the right thing" for Apple. Let Tim honour that request.
The Apple of today is different than 30 years ago. The Apple brand of today is a household word, not a niche, and as such requires less advertising to support the brand.
The 1984 ad was in support of a product launch. Nothing launched on Super Bowl Sunday this year. The ad was followed-up with a 20 page supplement to major print publications explaining the Mac and it's approach to computing, the job which today is being done by thousands of Apple Store employees that didn't exist back then.
The stores are giving Apple products more visibility every day than any Super Bowl ad could ever dream of providing at any cost.
Remember, according to Steve Jobs himself, Tim Cook's job is not to ask "What would Steve do" but just to "do the right thing" for Apple. Let Tim honour that request.
Good thing you are not in marketing. Apple requires less advertising to support the brand? Sure they do. They are already doing a lot less to support their brand. Samsung outspent them what 5 to 1 in 2013?
You know who else is a top brand but also spends in the top 10 for advertising? Quite a few household names that could also spend a lot less but they know better. Somehow they know you have to keep branding and advertising your product or service. Apple doesn't even rank in the top 10. I wonder if this could have anything to do with the lack of branding and now many thinking they just aren't as cool anymore? Maybe the constant branding by competitors always in consumers faces gaining mind share. Learning alternatives to apple.
ATT, Verizon, Chevrolet, Mcdonald's, Geico, Toyota, Ford, T-mobile, Macy's, Wal-mart
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-biggest-advertisers-in-america-ranked-by-dollars-spent-annually-2013-7?op=1
There are others that aren't in the top 10 that also brand and market despite being household words worldwide. Coke, Pepsi
As far as the stores giving visibility are you kidding me? They have less than 500 worldwide. Plus you have to go past one and then INTO one to gain any benefit from this. Stores are not marketing tools. There is a reason advertising is over a 1 trillion per year industry. But then again apple doesn't really need to be part of this. It's competitors are more than happy to let them outmarket and outbrand them.
So apple's iphone sales growth rate is slowing dramatically now. We can blame the product or the marketing. Plenty of phones being sold that are not apple still. Maybe it's both?
Nice ad though.
Again, does anyone think Apple's 1984 Super Bowl ad was a waste of money?
I liked it. I like ads where they show people actually using their products to do real things. And if you read the Apple page about the making of it, it's logistically impressive too.
How is Apple Big Brother?
Generally speaking, I agree with the sentiments behind your question (please actually read the last sentence before you attack me!), but I can imagine some arguments:
Apple has by far the largest population of users using identical devices (remember all those arguments about Android fragmentation?).
Apple devices are not cheaper (though they may bring more power to users per dollar).
Apple users accept the "ideology" of the company more than users of other company's products ("hipster conformists").
Apple's "walled garden" aims to maintain extensive control over users' use of their devices.
Punchline: That said, Google's information-gathering, hoarding, and use make it a better candidate for today's Big Brother.
For all those that claim Steve would have run an ad, they weren't paying enough attention. Steve was the first one to always say, look to the future, not the past. I think everything Apple has done in celebration of the 30 years has been tasteful. From the 30 year page with various users throughout the years, the custom font with various Macs, and this ad.
As far as running a Super Bowl ad...so many companies do them that things get lost in the noise. This year and I think last year as well, most, if not all, the ads were posted in their entirety before the Super Bowl. The one exception being the teaser trailer for 24. Apple wasn't caught up with the noise of the ads before the game or during the game. They released theirs afterwards and will clearly stand out. If anything, it's much better marketing. For those that think Apple can't reach 110 million people, they are crazy.
Sorry wrong on all accounts. Go read apple's 10k's. They tell you what they are invested in and where all that money is and what it makes. Cash and short term marketable securities. You can see what they earn. It's all there. Learn how to read the 10k then post. Ever heard of a 10k?
Is this the 10k data you were referring to? I only see 8.7 billion in actual cash. The rest of the 147 billion appears to be in various investments. Since you are the expert, please explain how you came up with 160 billion in cash.
Thankfully I am not in marketing, but that doesn't mean I can't put together a reasoned argument.
Apple spends just enough on media ads to get people into the stores. Apple stores have been averaging over 90 million visits per quarter for the last year as a constant year-round advertisement.. Many of those in countries with little to no interest in American football. See this link here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/traffic-to-apple-stores-2013-10
It don't believe the size of a companies' advertising budget is an indication of its marketing effectiveness. For a complex product like a Mac or an iPhone and it's related ecosystem, the stores are more effective/efficient and provide local after sales support as well. Samsung's marketing is going this way more and more. I don't want Apple to win the ad budget prize.
Marketing must be custom tailored to the product and the company's position in the market. The core business for AT&T, Verizon, Geico and T-Mob is selling services, not products. Switching loyalties costs their customers little or nothing at renewal time. Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford, McDonald's, Macy's, Walmart Pepsi and Coke sell commodity products with many more direct and indirect competitors than Apple. They have to fight to retain customer loyalty.
Apple's goals are not total market domination, driven by carpet-bombing ad campaigns. Their only after the people with money to spend on digital assets to support the ecosystem. The market for high-end computers and smartphones is slowing but not dead. Would more ads change that? One thing is certain, there will be other products from Apple to skim the cream off the top of the next market they enter/re-invent.
Is this the 10k data you were referring to? I only see 8.7 billion in actual cash. The rest of the 147 billion appears to be in various investments. Since you are the expert, please explain how you came up with 160 billion in cash.
Now I'm educating people who don't know how investments are noted. When people speak of cash it means cash and liquid investments and short term marketable securities. Here you go. read this
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-28/apple-s-160-billion-mystery.html
Thankfully I am not in marketing, but that doesn't mean I can't put together a reasoned argument.
Apple spends just enough on media ads to get people into the stores. Apple stores have been averaging over 90 million visits per quarter for the last year as a constant year-round advertisement.. Many of those in countries with little to no interest in American football. See this link here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/traffic-to-apple-stores-2013-10
It don't believe the size of a companies' advertising budget is an indication of its marketing effectiveness. For a complex product like a Mac or an iPhone and it's related ecosystem, the stores are more effective/efficient and provide local after sales support as well. Samsung's marketing is going this way more and more. I don't want Apple to win the ad budget prize.
Marketing must be custom tailored to the product and the company's position in the market. The core business for AT&T, Verizon, Geico and T-Mob is selling services, not products. Switching loyalties costs their customers little or nothing at renewal time. Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford, McDonald's, Macy's, Walmart Pepsi and Coke sell commodity products with many more direct and indirect competitors than Apple. They have to fight to retain customer loyalty.
Apple's goals are not total market domination, driven by carpet-bombing ad campaigns. Their only after the people with money to spend on digital assets to support the ecosystem. The market for high-end computers and smartphones is slowing but not dead. Would more ads change that? One thing is certain, there will be other products from Apple to skim the cream off the top of the next market they enter/re-invent.
Quite a reasonable response. I do believe and I could be wrong, that Apple could stand to spend more on ads and be more effective. Sometimes mind share comes down to frequency and effectiveness of ads. It's extremely powerful and even apple is not immune to it.