What a bunch of idiot, Apple need to fire this company and find some new and fresh mind to work on Brand and Ad campaigns for them.
I disagree. This company has proven itself very clever in the past, and given the recent ads they appear to be still clever. That was one person at said company throwing it out there. If anything, the fact that Schiller saw the situation totally different to them is a healthy thing. Otherwise Apple simply do its own marketing.
This is one of the worst ads ever shot! I won numerous Cleos so I have an inkling. What was Apple's directive to the agency? Target non white immigrants and 1 Percenters who can't afford the 5S and make the 5S owners feel superior to them? That's how the ad plays and lots of people besides me consider this spot to be ignorant, ill advised, and racist. Not to mention that the 5C is Apple's worst new product in decades.
I hate to tell ya... but you're going to be seriously disappointed with anything Apple or anyone puts in that small glass panel, which will more than likely be behind it.
Perhaps, but we'll have to wait and see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
I'm not an audio engineer, but I believe I know enough to say that any speaker will be starved for air to output anything than the weakest of sound waves. And I doubt they'll add a "sound chin"... which also would be starved for air and space to push a serious bass or mid-tone.
If my 8-year old Pioneer TV with its sound-chin can have awesome sound and still manage to look elegant I don't see how Apple can't improve upon that. Is my current TV well designed? Yes, it looks beautiful. Does it sound very good for a TV with no additional speakers? Yes. Could Apple do better if they were focused to achieve attractive looks and great sound quality in equal measure? Yes.
When watching a good TV show or good movie sound is absolutely crucial. Having to add on products to achieve the desired affect is bad design. Think about it, what is crucial needs to be added to said product after unboxing? That makes no sense in an Apple's world.
Why do people suggest adding on a soundbar? Because they have no idea what they are talking about. They are enthusiast. They're not regular people. Regular people should never be calling Apple to ask them which sound-bar they should add on. Apple should sell them a finished product where everything they need is built in.
The ideal Apple television will be one that has an App Store, a bundled bluetooth remote with Siri, very nicely designed optional hardware games controllers, exquisite hardware set design, 802.11n, movies for rent at a good price, an iTunes TV subscription service, calibrated colour reproduction, Kuro-level blacks, top-quality motion performance, and also crucially, great sound quality. If Apple can't do all that with their TV then perhaps they shouldn't bother trying. Their focus according to themselves is to make the best products in the world, to do so they need to do all that. Although, given just how tricky it's going to be for them to get content owners to ink that iTunes TV deal, maybe they should just unleash this product at full price alongside their regular Apple TV product and continue to work on ways to add that iTunes TV 2-year contract. If there ever came a day where they did ink a descent iTunes TV deal then they could simply continue to offer iTV on their website at full price without a contract, but also now subsided with a 2-year contract. Just like the way they offer iPhones at full price on Apple.com alongside subsidised units. The only difference in this case being that they'd be fulfilling the entire deal. The whole banana.
This is one of the worst ads ever shot! I won numerous Cleos so I have an inkling. What was Apple's directive to the agency? Target non white immigrants and 1 Percenters who can't afford the 5S and make the 5S owners feel superior to them? That's how the ad plays and lots of people besides me consider this spot to be ignorant, ill advised, and racist. Not to mention that the 5C is Apple's stupidest product in decades.
Foreign accents are racist now? Colourful here meant variety, not skin tone. Besides, when you include every colour human who are you being racist towards?
This is one of the worst ads ever shot! I won numerous Cleos so I have an inkling. What was Apple's directive to the agency? Target non white immigrants and 1 Percenters who can't afford the 5S and make the 5S owners feel superior to them? That's how the ad plays and lots of people besides me consider this spot to be ignorant, ill advised, and racist. Not to mention that the 5C is Apple's worst new product in decades.
Are you completely insane, or just slightly? Shut up.
I disagree. This company has proven itself very clever in the past, and given the recent ads they appear to be still clever. That was one person at said company throwing it out there. If anything, the fact that Schiller saw the situation totally different to them is a healthy thing. Otherwise Apple simply do its own marketing.
Read the rest of what I wrote, it was not one person at the ad company it was the person at the ad company who runs the show throwing his hands up saying apple as tied their hands and will not allow them to market the future things apple is doing. It obviously he know what they are up to, but apple as usually will not allow them to market which is not already in the market place. Schiller comment is they have great product in the market already and this company can not think of a better ad campaign then to focus on what is coming next. Schiller comment about Samsung commercial was point at their next big things is already here.
You need to read between the line here, there is no way apple will allow emails to leave the company which have any comments about future products. They are talking in code and inferences.
Look at the email portion with the first suggestion, where the ad guy says:
"advertising can absolutely help to begin to change this chilling negative narrative to a more positive one, particularly if they are seen as part of a broader effort within the company"
- company behavior - how should we behave? (lawsuits, china/usa workers, too rich, giveback)
- product roadmap - whats our next innovation? (bigger screens, new look software, maps, product cycles)
- advertising - changing the conversation? (iPhone 5 difference, competitive depositioning, apple brand slipping)
Then he calls for an emergency meeting to "help pull Apple through".
He may have been describing narratives but he was also validating them by suggesting they needed a response and that portion as a whole was way out of line. Schiller's response was totally appropriate:
"to come back and suggest that Apple needs to think dramatically different about how we are running our company is a shocking response."
The ad guy's suggestions are in brackets where he's saying 'innovate don't litigate', spend more cash, sort out working conditions in factories, suggesting that big screens, maps etc qualify as big innovations for Apple, competitive depositioning - basically doing what Samsung does by trying to badmouth the competition, spiffs - sales bonuses to retailers for pushing the iPhone, again what the likes of Samsung does.
That one section instantly showed that the ad agency representing them didn't have a clue what they're about and that is shocking from a company that has helped define a lot of their best marketing.
Sometimes people go off on tangents so a single email isn't grounds for ditching a whole agency but Schiller was right to call them out on it and if it turned out to be representative of the whole agency's feelings towards Apple then that is cause for concern.
I just re-read the citation to better respond to this, and I still think it's a very heavy discussion for email. The two of them have obviously worked together for a lot of years. I thought the use of 1997 related to that in the sense that it was the last time they really needed an aggressive advertising stance. The agency contact is referring to an overall narrative after receiving an email concerning negative PR. As for the emergency meeting, look at Schiller's initial email. "We have a lot of work to do to turn this around." It's scary to get a line like that from a client, so he reacts big. I'm not sure if you've ever experienced the awkwardness of responding to something that ominous via email. It really is more of a meeting topic.
Buy one of the panasonic commercial displays that don't have speakers, and then add your own speakers (wall mount or floor standing). They are cheaper than the ones with speakers, and they have plug in modules for inputs (so you can switch dvi, hdmi, etc).
Foreign accents are racist now? Colourful here meant variety, not skin tone. Besides, when you include every colour human who are you being racist towards?
Didn't see that ad yet and it is a bit idiotic...
Colorful? Racism? I might have used other words. "Color... for the Vibrant" for instance (as silly a tagline as the ad. Just to show that a tagline can be construed without any possible reference to racism)
If my 8-year old Pioneer TV with its sound-chin can have awesome sound and still manage to look elegant I don't see how Apple can't improve upon that. Is my current TV well designed? Yes, it looks beautiful. Does it sound very good for a TV with no additional speakers? Yes. Could Apple do better if they were focused to achieve attractive looks and great sound quality in equal measure? Yes.
When watching a good TV show or good movie sound is absolutely crucial. Having to add on products to achieve the desired affect is bad design. Think about it, what is crucial needs to be added to said product after unboxing? That makes no sense in an Apple's world.
Why do people suggest adding on a soundbar? Because they have no idea what they are talking about. They are enthusiast. They're not regular people. Regular people should never be calling Apple to ask them which sound-bar they should add on. Apple should sell them a finished product where everything they need is built in.
The ideal Apple television will be one that has an App Store, a bundled bluetooth remote with Siri, very nicely designed optional hardware games controllers, exquisite hardware set design, 802.11n, movies for rent at a good price, an iTunes TV subscription service, calibrated colour reproduction, Kuro-level blacks, top-quality motion performance, and also crucially, great sound quality. If Apple can't do all that with their TV then perhaps they shouldn't bother trying. Their focus according to themselves is to make the best products in the world, to do so they need to do all that. Although, given just how tricky it's going to be for them to get content owners to ink that iTunes TV deal, maybe they should just unleash this product at full price alongside their regular Apple TV product and continue to work on ways to add that iTunes TV 2-year contract. If there ever came a day where they did ink a descent iTunes TV deal then they could simply continue to offer iTV on their website at full price without a contract, but also now subsided with a 2-year contract. Just like the way they offer iPhones at full price on Apple.com alongside subsidised units. The only difference in this case being that they'd be fulfilling the entire deal. The whole banana.
Well at least you have a discerning and good taste in quality TVs as we know them now.
Here's an article why taking the "brains" out of a TV is also a good thing now and in the future as technology is progressing at a torrid pace. Apple and/or a manufacturer that get's this right is doing us all a favor.
What you're describing and desire is a "big iMac". An "all-in-one" that you describe is a product that could have seen a certain amount of success 6 or 7 years ago.
In those years I was using an iMac as my main TV with an EyeTV box which included a CI slot for a premium subscription to Sky and Arena before them (a now defunct provider for mostly American sports, ESPN, etc.). This setup is still being run by a friend of mine on a MacMini with a Sony screen and 7.1 setup, and it is easily the best DVR/entertainment system I have ever seen or used. Basically... you get everything entertainment related in any format or with any service that you could desire, mainly because of the browser. That's not to forget full iTunes, iPhoto, software of all kinds, whatever. Also, the whole thing is controlled from an iPad these days with any number of remote apps.
My theory (hope) has been for a long time for Apple to marry their devices together in a home cloud server the size of a Time Capsule or smaller. Add an ATV-type module or allow apps to be played in a window or directly from iTunes. Add Safari... and I think Apple would not only have the absolute best entertainment system, but the easiest configurable security backup device and NAS on the market.... by a long shot. Suffice it to say I think this type of device would benefit from iOS "Pro" or a "iOS Server" version.
The device that I envision is IMO what is missing in the Apple line-up between iOS and OSX... or even families and individuals that have no "real" need going forward for anything OSX at all. Also, if it could do all that I mention above, including hooking up to a sound system, OLED panel (or immediately rendered "Dumb TV"), and 2-4 HDMI inputs for other devices, I could see Apple selling boatloads for slightly less than $1000.-... and it being worth it.
NOTE: there is one interesting aspect to your all-in-one, and also something that I haven"t seen discussed: an Apple all-in-one TV being subsidized by a cable provider.
Let's be honest, iPhone is as big as it is in America and select countries because of it's carrier subsidized contracts. People that purchase their phones in other countries with PAYG don't purchase iPhones because of the large up front cost of the device, which is more than many folk expect to pay for a full PC or laptop. Also, at the end of a contract, you can keep the phone, or trade up to a new one that has all of the new bells and whistles and is faster (of course) and pass down the "old" phone to a loved one, SO, etc.
Imagine Apple partnering with a cable provider and doing the same thing, including data and channel packages at preferred-customer speeds. All hell would break loose due to net neutrality being sabotaged... but hey... when hasn't Apple released a major storm of one kind or another with a re-visioning of a new/old product?
What IF a new ATV is "just a (subsidized) giant iPad or monster-size iPhone"...? ... :smokey:
The agency contact is referring to an overall narrative after receiving an email concerning negative PR. As for the emergency meeting, look at Schiller's initial email. "We have a lot of work to do to turn this around." It's scary to get a line like that from a client, so he reacts big.
I agree that Schiller's initial email sounded like they were worried but it's not appropriate for any ad agency to tell a company how to conduct itself, especially when those suggestions are based on 3rd party reports. He had every right to suggest marketing strategies but never to say they should stop suing people, sort out their workers in China, stop hoarding cash, look at making better products, give out incentives to sales staff and so on - the ad guy said the marketing changes had to come with a broader effort within Apple. Phil made it clear beforehand that the problem lay with their marketing - their public communication about who they are, which had been sullied. That put the the entire blame on the ad agency and they tried to turn it back on Apple. Not cool when they're one of their biggest and most important clients.
They must have patched things up though as their recent ad campaigns are really well made:
I agree that Schiller's initial email sounded like they were worried but it's not appropriate for any ad agency to tell a company how to conduct itself, especially when those suggestions are based on 3rd party reports. He had every right to suggest marketing strategies but never to say they should stop suing people, sort out their workers in China, stop hoarding cash, look at making better products, give out incentives to sales staff and so on - the ad guy said the marketing changes had to come with a broader effort within Apple. Phil made it clear beforehand that the problem lay with their marketing - their public communication about who they are, which had been sullied. That put the the entire blame on the ad agency and they tried to turn it back on Apple. Not cool when they're one of their biggest and most important clients.
They must have patched things up though as their recent ad campaigns are really well made:
Yeah they did a nice job on those. I initially typed a longer response, but it came down to the issue that I think the ad agency guy was focusing on narrative there. They saw a less positive narrative in headlines and wanted to fix that before it got any worse. I suspect part of it was lip service to appease a potentially disgruntled client. When a client feels the need to forward an article like that with such a brief and negative line attached, it can be disconcerting. I've been on the receiving end of that, so I know it's not fun.
Comments
What a bunch of idiot, Apple need to fire this company and find some new and fresh mind to work on Brand and Ad campaigns for them.
I disagree. This company has proven itself very clever in the past, and given the recent ads they appear to be still clever. That was one person at said company throwing it out there. If anything, the fact that Schiller saw the situation totally different to them is a healthy thing. Otherwise Apple simply do its own marketing.
This is one of the worst ads ever shot! I won numerous Cleos so I have an inkling. What was Apple's directive to the agency? Target non white immigrants and 1 Percenters who can't afford the 5S and make the 5S owners feel superior to them? That's how the ad plays and lots of people besides me consider this spot to be ignorant, ill advised, and racist. Not to mention that the 5C is Apple's worst new product in decades.
I hate to tell ya... but you're going to be seriously disappointed with anything Apple or anyone puts in that small glass panel, which will more than likely be behind it.
Perhaps, but we'll have to wait and see.
I'm not an audio engineer, but I believe I know enough to say that any speaker will be starved for air to output anything than the weakest of sound waves. And I doubt they'll add a "sound chin"... which also would be starved for air and space to push a serious bass or mid-tone.
If my 8-year old Pioneer TV with its sound-chin can have awesome sound and still manage to look elegant I don't see how Apple can't improve upon that. Is my current TV well designed? Yes, it looks beautiful. Does it sound very good for a TV with no additional speakers? Yes. Could Apple do better if they were focused to achieve attractive looks and great sound quality in equal measure? Yes.
When watching a good TV show or good movie sound is absolutely crucial. Having to add on products to achieve the desired affect is bad design. Think about it, what is crucial needs to be added to said product after unboxing? That makes no sense in an Apple's world.
Why do people suggest adding on a soundbar? Because they have no idea what they are talking about. They are enthusiast. They're not regular people. Regular people should never be calling Apple to ask them which sound-bar they should add on. Apple should sell them a finished product where everything they need is built in.
The ideal Apple television will be one that has an App Store, a bundled bluetooth remote with Siri, very nicely designed optional hardware games controllers, exquisite hardware set design, 802.11n, movies for rent at a good price, an iTunes TV subscription service, calibrated colour reproduction, Kuro-level blacks, top-quality motion performance, and also crucially, great sound quality. If Apple can't do all that with their TV then perhaps they shouldn't bother trying. Their focus according to themselves is to make the best products in the world, to do so they need to do all that. Although, given just how tricky it's going to be for them to get content owners to ink that iTunes TV deal, maybe they should just unleash this product at full price alongside their regular Apple TV product and continue to work on ways to add that iTunes TV 2-year contract. If there ever came a day where they did ink a descent iTunes TV deal then they could simply continue to offer iTV on their website at full price without a contract, but also now subsided with a 2-year contract. Just like the way they offer iPhones at full price on Apple.com alongside subsidised units. The only difference in this case being that they'd be fulfilling the entire deal. The whole banana.
This is one of the worst ads ever shot! I won numerous Cleos so I have an inkling. What was Apple's directive to the agency? Target non white immigrants and 1 Percenters who can't afford the 5S and make the 5S owners feel superior to them? That's how the ad plays and lots of people besides me consider this spot to be ignorant, ill advised, and racist. Not to mention that the 5C is Apple's stupidest product in decades.
Foreign accents are racist now? Colourful here meant variety, not skin tone. Besides, when you include every colour human who are you being racist towards?
Are you completely insane, or just slightly? Shut up.
Are you completely insane, or just slightly? Shut up.
Get a life!
I disagree. This company has proven itself very clever in the past, and given the recent ads they appear to be still clever. That was one person at said company throwing it out there. If anything, the fact that Schiller saw the situation totally different to them is a healthy thing. Otherwise Apple simply do its own marketing.
Read the rest of what I wrote, it was not one person at the ad company it was the person at the ad company who runs the show throwing his hands up saying apple as tied their hands and will not allow them to market the future things apple is doing. It obviously he know what they are up to, but apple as usually will not allow them to market which is not already in the market place. Schiller comment is they have great product in the market already and this company can not think of a better ad campaign then to focus on what is coming next. Schiller comment about Samsung commercial was point at their next big things is already here.
You need to read between the line here, there is no way apple will allow emails to leave the company which have any comments about future products. They are talking in code and inferences.
The whole thing is kind of an embarrassing case for TVs.
They’re TVs. Not sound systems.
Look at the email portion with the first suggestion, where the ad guy says:
"advertising can absolutely help to begin to change this chilling negative narrative to a more positive one, particularly if they are seen as part of a broader effort within the company"
- company behavior - how should we behave? (lawsuits, china/usa workers, too rich, giveback)
- product roadmap - whats our next innovation? (bigger screens, new look software, maps, product cycles)
- advertising - changing the conversation? (iPhone 5 difference, competitive depositioning, apple brand slipping)
- sales approach - new tactics? (carriers, in-store, spiffs, retail approach)
Then he calls for an emergency meeting to "help pull Apple through".
He may have been describing narratives but he was also validating them by suggesting they needed a response and that portion as a whole was way out of line. Schiller's response was totally appropriate:
"to come back and suggest that Apple needs to think dramatically different about how we are running our company is a shocking response."
The ad guy's suggestions are in brackets where he's saying 'innovate don't litigate', spend more cash, sort out working conditions in factories, suggesting that big screens, maps etc qualify as big innovations for Apple, competitive depositioning - basically doing what Samsung does by trying to badmouth the competition, spiffs - sales bonuses to retailers for pushing the iPhone, again what the likes of Samsung does.
That one section instantly showed that the ad agency representing them didn't have a clue what they're about and that is shocking from a company that has helped define a lot of their best marketing.
Sometimes people go off on tangents so a single email isn't grounds for ditching a whole agency but Schiller was right to call them out on it and if it turned out to be representative of the whole agency's feelings towards Apple then that is cause for concern.
I just re-read the citation to better respond to this, and I still think it's a very heavy discussion for email. The two of them have obviously worked together for a lot of years. I thought the use of 1997 related to that in the sense that it was the last time they really needed an aggressive advertising stance. The agency contact is referring to an overall narrative after receiving an email concerning negative PR. As for the emergency meeting, look at Schiller's initial email. "We have a lot of work to do to turn this around." It's scary to get a line like that from a client, so he reacts big. I'm not sure if you've ever experienced the awkwardness of responding to something that ominous via email. It really is more of a meeting topic.
YOU CAN'T BUY A TV WITH A DECENT SET OF SPEAKERS BUILT IN. IT'S A JOKE!!!!
http://www.panasonic.com/business/plasma/index.asp
Buy one of the panasonic commercial displays that don't have speakers, and then add your own speakers (wall mount or floor standing). They are cheaper than the ones with speakers, and they have plug in modules for inputs (so you can switch dvi, hdmi, etc).
Sound bars suck.
Sound bars suck.
You could get something from Paradigm:
http://www.paradigm.com/products-current/type=inwall
Foreign accents are racist now? Colourful here meant variety, not skin tone. Besides, when you include every colour human who are you being racist towards?
Didn't see that ad yet and it is a bit idiotic...
Colorful? Racism? I might have used other words. "Color... for the Vibrant" for instance (as silly a tagline as the ad. Just to show that a tagline can be construed without any possible reference to racism)
Well at least you have a discerning and good taste in quality TVs as we know them now.
Here's an article why taking the "brains" out of a TV is also a good thing now and in the future as technology is progressing at a torrid pace. Apple and/or a manufacturer that get's this right is doing us all a favor.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/04/just-having-a-4k-tv-isnt-enough-to-see-netflixs-4k-streams/
What you're describing and desire is a "big iMac". An "all-in-one" that you describe is a product that could have seen a certain amount of success 6 or 7 years ago.
In those years I was using an iMac as my main TV with an EyeTV box which included a CI slot for a premium subscription to Sky and Arena before them (a now defunct provider for mostly American sports, ESPN, etc.). This setup is still being run by a friend of mine on a MacMini with a Sony screen and 7.1 setup, and it is easily the best DVR/entertainment system I have ever seen or used. Basically... you get everything entertainment related in any format or with any service that you could desire, mainly because of the browser. That's not to forget full iTunes, iPhoto, software of all kinds, whatever. Also, the whole thing is controlled from an iPad these days with any number of remote apps.
My theory (hope) has been for a long time for Apple to marry their devices together in a home cloud server the size of a Time Capsule or smaller. Add an ATV-type module or allow apps to be played in a window or directly from iTunes. Add Safari... and I think Apple would not only have the absolute best entertainment system, but the easiest configurable security backup device and NAS on the market.... by a long shot. Suffice it to say I think this type of device would benefit from iOS "Pro" or a "iOS Server" version.
The device that I envision is IMO what is missing in the Apple line-up between iOS and OSX... or even families and individuals that have no "real" need going forward for anything OSX at all. Also, if it could do all that I mention above, including hooking up to a sound system, OLED panel (or immediately rendered "Dumb TV"), and 2-4 HDMI inputs for other devices, I could see Apple selling boatloads for slightly less than $1000.-... and it being worth it.
NOTE: there is one interesting aspect to your all-in-one, and also something that I haven"t seen discussed: an Apple all-in-one TV being subsidized by a cable provider.
Let's be honest, iPhone is as big as it is in America and select countries because of it's carrier subsidized contracts. People that purchase their phones in other countries with PAYG don't purchase iPhones because of the large up front cost of the device, which is more than many folk expect to pay for a full PC or laptop. Also, at the end of a contract, you can keep the phone, or trade up to a new one that has all of the new bells and whistles and is faster (of course) and pass down the "old" phone to a loved one, SO, etc.
Imagine Apple partnering with a cable provider and doing the same thing, including data and channel packages at preferred-customer speeds. All hell would break loose due to net neutrality being sabotaged... but hey... when hasn't Apple released a major storm of one kind or another with a re-visioning of a new/old product?
What IF a new ATV is "just a (subsidized) giant iPad or monster-size iPhone"...? ... :smokey:
Not compared to the speakers that most TVs come with.
I agree that Schiller's initial email sounded like they were worried but it's not appropriate for any ad agency to tell a company how to conduct itself, especially when those suggestions are based on 3rd party reports. He had every right to suggest marketing strategies but never to say they should stop suing people, sort out their workers in China, stop hoarding cash, look at making better products, give out incentives to sales staff and so on - the ad guy said the marketing changes had to come with a broader effort within Apple. Phil made it clear beforehand that the problem lay with their marketing - their public communication about who they are, which had been sullied. That put the the entire blame on the ad agency and they tried to turn it back on Apple. Not cool when they're one of their biggest and most important clients.
They must have patched things up though as their recent ad campaigns are really well made:
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/tag/tbwamedia-arts-lab/
I agree that Schiller's initial email sounded like they were worried but it's not appropriate for any ad agency to tell a company how to conduct itself, especially when those suggestions are based on 3rd party reports. He had every right to suggest marketing strategies but never to say they should stop suing people, sort out their workers in China, stop hoarding cash, look at making better products, give out incentives to sales staff and so on - the ad guy said the marketing changes had to come with a broader effort within Apple. Phil made it clear beforehand that the problem lay with their marketing - their public communication about who they are, which had been sullied. That put the the entire blame on the ad agency and they tried to turn it back on Apple. Not cool when they're one of their biggest and most important clients.
They must have patched things up though as their recent ad campaigns are really well made:
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/tag/tbwamedia-arts-lab/
Yeah they did a nice job on those. I initially typed a longer response, but it came down to the issue that I think the ad agency guy was focusing on narrative there. They saw a less positive narrative in headlines and wanted to fix that before it got any worse. I suspect part of it was lip service to appease a potentially disgruntled client. When a client feels the need to forward an article like that with such a brief and negative line attached, it can be disconcerting. I've been on the receiving end of that, so I know it's not fun.