Samsung goes after Apple and iPhone X again with two more 'Ingenious' ads

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,810member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    lukei said:
    In sales related roles for 25+ years. 

    First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
    3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
    Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
    These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
    Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
    Are you factoring in how bad their smartphone PR was with all the fires, flight bans, and recalls? Sometimes, it's not about increasing your sales so much as slowing a decline. For all I know Samsung is predicting a slowdown of the market for their higher-end devices (which I would think would be targeted first, just like higher-end WinPCs were hit first once the market was saturated).
    Uh, the Note 7 fiasco is long gone. Since then Samsung has released the S8, Note 8 and S9. The S9 did poorly compared to the S8, which came out right after the Note 7 disaster. If anything, the S8 should have had dismal sales because of its proximity to the Note 7.
    No it's not! Why would you think PR issues go away simply because you release a new model?

    How long has it been since the Volkswagen emissions issue? How many others were also caught cheating since then? You probably don't know (I definitely don't know without googling it) and yet if you ask 100 people which companies were cheating on their car emissions you're easily going to get one, and only one, answer. Wells Fargo is also still reeling. How many years after an oil spill have BP and Exxon had to deal with PR issues? Do you know the name Valdez? I do, and I yet I doubt I've ever been to an area that was directly affected by it and I don't think I can name even one other oil tanker without referencing a oil tycoon or generic sounding name that would mostly be an educated guess; hell, I can't even name the cruise ships I've been on, and yet I can recall which cruise lines had major health issues and where they were cruising off the top of my head).

    You probably never ever own a Samsung smartphone and yet you're well aware of this issue by the specific Samsung device type and model that made the news even though it affected other Samsung devices and can affect any device with a Li-Ion battery. I know people that know jack shit about technology and are only iPhone users yet they've heard that Samsung phones "blow up." This will likely live in infamy for a longtime to come unless something else comes along that make this pale in comparison, but even then you need the media exposure for that happen.

    According to a quick search and math Coca-Cola spent 11.2% of its revenue on advertising in 2017. Since they lost $1.25 billion for the year would you say that spending $4B on advertising was a waste? I sure hope not.
    edited August 2018 philboogie
  • Reply 42 of 66
    firelockfirelock Posts: 150member
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    Ironic that, on one hand they question why someone would want to FaceTime with up to 32 people, but on the other, don't question why someone would want to go through the pain of trying to write/draw anything significant on a phone-sized device.
    ...annnnnnd this is exactly what I came here to say. You beat me to it :) I have a side gig in a retail-type environment where we have a pen we can use for out iPad-based POS system. I can count on one hand the number of times I've tried it, and I can count on zero fingers the number of times it's been useful and/or not-painful.
    I have an Apple Pencil and an iPad Pro, and it's definitely useful for sketches, drawing, and adding signatures/markup to documents. I just can't imagine doing those things on a phone-sized screen. You'd constantly need to be zooming in and panning around to do it, which is just painful.
    I also have an Apple Pencil and iPad Pro, and love the combination. However I disagree that the Pencil wouldn’t be useful in conjunction with an iPhone. I used to carry around a Moleskin notebook and it would be nice to be able to take notes on a phone in a similar fashion.
    edited August 2018 tmaywatto_cobranetrox
  • Reply 43 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,810member
    firelock said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    Ironic that, on one hand they question why someone would want to FaceTime with up to 32 people, but on the other, don't question why someone would want to go through the pain of trying to write/draw anything significant on a phone-sized device.
    ...annnnnnd this is exactly what I came here to say. You beat me to it :) I have a side gig in a retail-type environment where we have a pen we can use for out iPad-based POS system. I can count on one hand the number of times I've tried it, and I can count on zero fingers the number of times it's been useful and/or not-painful.
    I have an Apple Pencil and an iPad Pro, and it's definitely useful for sketches, drawing, and adding signatures/markup to documents. I just can't imagine doing those things on a phone-sized screen. You'd constantly need to be zooming in and panning around to do it, which is just painful.
    I also have an Apple Pencil and iPad Pro, and love the combination. However I disagree that the Pencil wouldn’t be useful in conjuntion with an iPhone. I used to carry around a Moleskin notebook and it would be nice to be able to take notes on a phone in a similar fashion.
    If the digitizer prices come down enough -and- they have some killer SW for the iPhone they can market I can see them at least adding ti to the Plus-sized iPhones. If they do, would they offer a different Pencil? Right now the pencil length is taller than the iPhone. Would this have to be right around the same size so that cases can be made for them? I'm certain they'd never offer a slot for which you insert the Pencil into the iPhone.
    firelocktmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 66
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    lukei said:
    In sales related roles for 25+ years. 

    First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
    3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
    Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
    These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
    Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
    Are you factoring in how bad their smartphone PR was with all the fires, flight bans, and recalls? Sometimes, it's not about increasing your sales so much as slowing a decline. For all I know Samsung is predicting a slowdown of the market for their higher-end devices (which I would think would be targeted first, just like higher-end WinPCs were hit first once the market was saturated).
    Uh, the Note 7 fiasco is long gone. Since then Samsung has released the S8, Note 8 and S9. The S9 did poorly compared to the S8, which came out right after the Note 7 disaster. If anything, the S8 should have had dismal sales because of its proximity to the Note 7.
    No it's not! Why would you think PR issues go away simply because you release a new model?

    How long has it been since the Volkswagen emissions issue? How many others were also caught cheating since then? You probably don't know (I definitely don't know without googling it) and yet if you ask 100 people which companies were cheating on their car emissions you're easily going to get one, and only one, answer. Wells Fargo is also still reeling. How many years after an oil spill have BP and Exxon had to deal with PR issues? Do you know the name Valdez? I do, and I yet I doubt I've ever been to an area that was directly affected by it and I don't think I can name even one other oil tanker without referencing a oil tycoon or generic sounding name that would mostly be an educated guess; hell, I can't even name the cruise ships I've been on, and yet I can recall which cruise lines had major health issues and where they were cruising off the top of my head).

    You probably never ever own a Samsung smartphone and yet you're well aware of this issue by the specific Samsung device type and model that made the news even though it affected other Samsung devices and can affect any device with a Li-Ion battery. I know people that know jack shit about technology and are only iPhone users yet they've heard that Samsung phones "blow up." This will likely live in infamy for a longtime to come unless something else comes along that make this pale in comparison, but even then you need the media exposure for that happen.

    According to a quick search and math Coca-Cola spent 11.2% of its revenue on advertising in 2017. Since they lost $1.25 billion for the year would you say that spending $4B on advertising was a waste? I sure hope not.

    As someone else said, you're really grasping at straws here.

    Bad PR fades over time. The effect of the Note 7 would be less for the Note 8 and the S9. Yet the S9 was a failure, sales wise. Are you actually going to claim that the Note 7 disaster was somehow "revived" and had a larger impact on the S9 than the S8?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,810member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    lukei said:
    In sales related roles for 25+ years. 

    First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
    3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
    Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
    These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
    Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
    Are you factoring in how bad their smartphone PR was with all the fires, flight bans, and recalls? Sometimes, it's not about increasing your sales so much as slowing a decline. For all I know Samsung is predicting a slowdown of the market for their higher-end devices (which I would think would be targeted first, just like higher-end WinPCs were hit first once the market was saturated).
    Uh, the Note 7 fiasco is long gone. Since then Samsung has released the S8, Note 8 and S9. The S9 did poorly compared to the S8, which came out right after the Note 7 disaster. If anything, the S8 should have had dismal sales because of its proximity to the Note 7.
    No it's not! Why would you think PR issues go away simply because you release a new model?

    How long has it been since the Volkswagen emissions issue? How many others were also caught cheating since then? You probably don't know (I definitely don't know without googling it) and yet if you ask 100 people which companies were cheating on their car emissions you're easily going to get one, and only one, answer. Wells Fargo is also still reeling. How many years after an oil spill have BP and Exxon had to deal with PR issues? Do you know the name Valdez? I do, and I yet I doubt I've ever been to an area that was directly affected by it and I don't think I can name even one other oil tanker without referencing a oil tycoon or generic sounding name that would mostly be an educated guess; hell, I can't even name the cruise ships I've been on, and yet I can recall which cruise lines had major health issues and where they were cruising off the top of my head).

    You probably never ever own a Samsung smartphone and yet you're well aware of this issue by the specific Samsung device type and model that made the news even though it affected other Samsung devices and can affect any device with a Li-Ion battery. I know people that know jack shit about technology and are only iPhone users yet they've heard that Samsung phones "blow up." This will likely live in infamy for a longtime to come unless something else comes along that make this pale in comparison, but even then you need the media exposure for that happen.

    According to a quick search and math Coca-Cola spent 11.2% of its revenue on advertising in 2017. Since they lost $1.25 billion for the year would you say that spending $4B on advertising was a waste? I sure hope not.
    As someone else said, you're really grasping at straws here.

    Bad PR fades over time. The effect of the Note 7 would be less for the Note 8 and the S9. Yet the S9 was a failure, sales wise. Are you actually going to claim that the Note 7 disaster was somehow "revived" and had a larger impact on the S9 than the S8?
    Why would you think it was "revived" as opposed to still in effect as being a cancer on Samsung? Your hate for Samsung ends up being a weird defense for Samsung with your claim that their PR issue is "long gone" despite you bringing up the device type and model by name. I mentioned "fires, flight bans, and recalls" and you made a mention of it by name. How exactly does that work? I can't even recall which iPhone—that I've owned—came with what new HW feature without looking it up on the MacTracker app. The number of examples of things that are "long gone" that invoke something negative is so long you may as well say it's infinite.

    A long-running, successful ad campaign is tough, but the concept of marketing is pretty fucking straightforward. If you really can't understand the basic reasons why another company would make fun of an industry leader then there's absolutely nothing I can say that will make you understand 101 concepts that you should've figured out just by watching TV as a kid, but here's one last attempt:

    edited August 2018
  • Reply 46 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,458member
    sflocal said:
    I wish Apple would start doing some ads to bash Samsung, similar to the "I'm a Mac, You're a PC" campaign from ages ago.  It's time to smack Samsung with some humble pie.
    "When they go low, We go High!"

    watto_cobramhaecki
  • Reply 47 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,458member
    maestro64 said:
    sflocal said:
    I wish Apple would start doing some ads to bash Samsung, similar to the "I'm a Mac, You're a PC" campaign from ages ago.  It's time to smack Samsung with some humble pie.
    We will never see those kinds of ads again, Steve was the only one who had guts to do that. But if they would do then again, it would be "i'm a iPhone you're a Android" you need to spoof the entire market.
    True, we won't see them again.   But not because of any lack of guts.  Rather, from a hardware (only) perspective there isn't that much difference between Apple and its competitors.  

    What distinguishes Apple is:
    1)  Quality hardware
    2)  Tight integration of hardware and software that make the end result better than the sum of the parts.
    3)  The Apple eco-system

    It's a complete, high end product that nobody can match.   But, it's hard to market it using glitzy soundbites...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 66
    Is apple going to response or what??!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 66
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Is apple going to response or what??!
    Respond to what, whining non sequiturs from Samsung? Their sales and profits are its response.
    StrangeDayswatto_cobraclaire1
  • Reply 50 of 66
    BebeBebe Posts: 120member
    Based on last Apple earning announcement, iPhone are selling well despite Samsung ads mocking the product.  Ads are only good if they are effective. 
    watto_cobraclaire1
  • Reply 51 of 66
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,055member
    sirozha said:
    These apps make fun of Apple people, not of iPhones. The Android fans look like the "salt of the earth" no-nonsense working class people who know the value of the money. The Apple lovers come across like mindless followers of a cult. The Samsung message is directed at the lower class. Be smart and buy a Samsung unless you want to look like these Apple fruitcakes. 

    This is a battle for the market share - pure and simple. Samsung wants to prevent low earners from switching to Apple. Samsung is not going for high earners, knowing full well that the efficacy of their commercials with that audience is extremely low. There's a reason both Android fans are minorities. It's actually sort of racist of Samsung to do this. 
    You nailed it. Not sure I'd go as far as saying it's racist or sexist, but it is at the very least employing non-subtle signaling along the borderlines of those biases. 

    I'd imagine that the same ad agency that Samedung is is using will soon be spinning these same techniques in the run-up to the November midterm elections. This is a very commonly employed technique for political ads. From September 1st until mid November would be a good time to get reacquainted with your music collection and to milk everything you can from your Netflix subscription. 
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 66
    lukeilukei Posts: 332member
    Soli said:
    lukei said:
    In sales related roles for 25+ years. 

    First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
    1) This isn't sales, this is marketing.

    2) That's not only not the first rule, but not a rule at all. Look at the Get A Mac campaign for a subtle and clever examples, and political ads for ham-fisted examples for dumb people.

    3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
    And what would the purpose of marketing be other than to generate sales?

    I’d suggest you’ve never held a sales position or if you have then doubt your success. Anyone who knocks their competion causes the customer to switch off. 

    Always focus on your positives not your competitors negatives. 

    You are welcome. 


    StrangeDayswatto_cobraericthehalfbee
  • Reply 53 of 66
    sflocal said:
    I wish Apple would start doing some ads to bash Samsung, similar to the "I'm a Mac, You're a PC" campaign from ages ago.  It's time to smack Samsung with some humble pie.
    "When they go low, We go High!"

    How did that work out?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 66
    nunzynunzy Posts: 662member
    sirozha said:
    These apps make fun of Apple people, not of iPhones. The Android fans look like the "salt of the earth" no-nonsense working class people who know the value of the money. The Apple lovers come across like mindless followers of a cult. The Samsung message is directed at the lower class. Be smart and buy a Samsung unless you want to look like these Apple fruitcakes. 

    This is a battle for the market share - pure and simple. Samsung wants to prevent low earners from switching to Apple. Samsung is not going for high earners, knowing full well that the efficacy of their commercials with that audience is extremely low. There's a reason both Android fans are minorities. It's actually sort of racist of Samsung to do this. 
    The Samsung product being advertised costs as much as iPhone. Good reasoning.
    watto_cobraprismatics
  • Reply 55 of 66
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    lukei said:
    In sales related roles for 25+ years. 

    First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
    3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
    Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
    These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
    Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
    Are you factoring in how bad their smartphone PR was with all the fires, flight bans, and recalls? Sometimes, it's not about increasing your sales so much as slowing a decline. For all I know Samsung is predicting a slowdown of the market for their higher-end devices (which I would think would be targeted first, just like higher-end WinPCs were hit first once the market was saturated).
    Uh, the Note 7 fiasco is long gone. Since then Samsung has released the S8, Note 8 and S9. The S9 did poorly compared to the S8, which came out right after the Note 7 disaster. If anything, the S8 should have had dismal sales because of its proximity to the Note 7.
    No it's not! Why would you think PR issues go away simply because you release a new model?

    How long has it been since the Volkswagen emissions issue? How many others were also caught cheating since then? You probably don't know (I definitely don't know without googling it) and yet if you ask 100 people which companies were cheating on their car emissions you're easily going to get one, and only one, answer. Wells Fargo is also still reeling. How many years after an oil spill have BP and Exxon had to deal with PR issues? Do you know the name Valdez? I do, and I yet I doubt I've ever been to an area that was directly affected by it and I don't think I can name even one other oil tanker without referencing a oil tycoon or generic sounding name that would mostly be an educated guess; hell, I can't even name the cruise ships I've been on, and yet I can recall which cruise lines had major health issues and where they were cruising off the top of my head).

    You probably never ever own a Samsung smartphone and yet you're well aware of this issue by the specific Samsung device type and model that made the news even though it affected other Samsung devices and can affect any device with a Li-Ion battery. I know people that know jack shit about technology and are only iPhone users yet they've heard that Samsung phones "blow up." This will likely live in infamy for a longtime to come unless something else comes along that make this pale in comparison, but even then you need the media exposure for that happen.

    According to a quick search and math Coca-Cola spent 11.2% of its revenue on advertising in 2017. Since they lost $1.25 billion for the year would you say that spending $4B on advertising was a waste? I sure hope not.
    As someone else said, you're really grasping at straws here.

    Bad PR fades over time. The effect of the Note 7 would be less for the Note 8 and the S9. Yet the S9 was a failure, sales wise. Are you actually going to claim that the Note 7 disaster was somehow "revived" and had a larger impact on the S9 than the S8?
    Why would you think it was "revived" as opposed to still in effect as being a cancer on Samsung? Your hate for Samsung ends up being a weird defense for Samsung with your claim that their PR issue is "long gone" despite you bringing up the device type and model by name. I mentioned "fires, flight bans, and recalls" and you made a mention of it by name. How exactly does that work? I can't even recall which iPhone—that I've owned—came with what new HW feature without looking it up on the MacTracker app. The number of examples of things that are "long gone" that invoke something negative is so long you may as well say it's infinite.

    A long-running, successful ad campaign is tough, but the concept of marketing is pretty fucking straightforward. If you really can't understand the basic reasons why another company would make fun of an industry leader then there's absolutely nothing I can say that will make you understand 101 concepts that you should've figured out just by watching TV as a kid, but here's one last attempt:


    Seems I’ve struck a nerve. Instead of discussing facts you try to claim my argument is based on hate? Pathetic. My argument is the ads are not effective, based on the fact they’ve been running for some time and the S9 was a failure. That’s it. Now you’re claiming I don’t understand advertising (logical fallacy) instead of countering my claims. As I said, pathetic.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,810member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    lukei said:
    In sales related roles for 25+ years. 

    First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
    3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
    Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
    These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
    Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
    Are you factoring in how bad their smartphone PR was with all the fires, flight bans, and recalls? Sometimes, it's not about increasing your sales so much as slowing a decline. For all I know Samsung is predicting a slowdown of the market for their higher-end devices (which I would think would be targeted first, just like higher-end WinPCs were hit first once the market was saturated).
    Uh, the Note 7 fiasco is long gone. Since then Samsung has released the S8, Note 8 and S9. The S9 did poorly compared to the S8, which came out right after the Note 7 disaster. If anything, the S8 should have had dismal sales because of its proximity to the Note 7.
    No it's not! Why would you think PR issues go away simply because you release a new model?

    How long has it been since the Volkswagen emissions issue? How many others were also caught cheating since then? You probably don't know (I definitely don't know without googling it) and yet if you ask 100 people which companies were cheating on their car emissions you're easily going to get one, and only one, answer. Wells Fargo is also still reeling. How many years after an oil spill have BP and Exxon had to deal with PR issues? Do you know the name Valdez? I do, and I yet I doubt I've ever been to an area that was directly affected by it and I don't think I can name even one other oil tanker without referencing a oil tycoon or generic sounding name that would mostly be an educated guess; hell, I can't even name the cruise ships I've been on, and yet I can recall which cruise lines had major health issues and where they were cruising off the top of my head).

    You probably never ever own a Samsung smartphone and yet you're well aware of this issue by the specific Samsung device type and model that made the news even though it affected other Samsung devices and can affect any device with a Li-Ion battery. I know people that know jack shit about technology and are only iPhone users yet they've heard that Samsung phones "blow up." This will likely live in infamy for a longtime to come unless something else comes along that make this pale in comparison, but even then you need the media exposure for that happen.

    According to a quick search and math Coca-Cola spent 11.2% of its revenue on advertising in 2017. Since they lost $1.25 billion for the year would you say that spending $4B on advertising was a waste? I sure hope not.
    As someone else said, you're really grasping at straws here.

    Bad PR fades over time. The effect of the Note 7 would be less for the Note 8 and the S9. Yet the S9 was a failure, sales wise. Are you actually going to claim that the Note 7 disaster was somehow "revived" and had a larger impact on the S9 than the S8?
    Why would you think it was "revived" as opposed to still in effect as being a cancer on Samsung? Your hate for Samsung ends up being a weird defense for Samsung with your claim that their PR issue is "long gone" despite you bringing up the device type and model by name. I mentioned "fires, flight bans, and recalls" and you made a mention of it by name. How exactly does that work? I can't even recall which iPhone—that I've owned—came with what new HW feature without looking it up on the MacTracker app. The number of examples of things that are "long gone" that invoke something negative is so long you may as well say it's infinite.

    A long-running, successful ad campaign is tough, but the concept of marketing is pretty fucking straightforward. If you really can't understand the basic reasons why another company would make fun of an industry leader then there's absolutely nothing I can say that will make you understand 101 concepts that you should've figured out just by watching TV as a kid, but here's one last attempt:

    Seems I’ve struck a nerve. Instead of discussing facts you try to claim my argument is based on hate? Pathetic. My argument is the ads are not effective, based on the fact they’ve been running for some time and the S9 was a failure. That’s it. Now you’re claiming I don’t understand advertising (logical fallacy) instead of countering my claims. As I said, pathetic.
    The fact that you can't understand why these ads are effective while conflating sales and with marketing makes that clear. Where were you after 2007 claiming that iPod ads can't possibly be good and are a waste of money because iPod sales were steadily declining? I can point to many great iPod ads despite a significant drop in sales because there is no 1:1 ratio to the effect of advertising and sales, and I doubt that you made such a claim when tech forums were posting all the new iPod ads during those years of the iPod's decline.
    edited August 2018 philboogie
  • Reply 57 of 66
    I don’t post here ever but I do read from this site from time to time. The comments are the worst part because people here lack the emotional intelligence and get upset over something not worth getting upset about like these ads. Samsung accomplished exactly what they wanted to by getting apple sites to post this which gets people talking which generates page clicks and creates marketing buzz. Not everyone here is a fanboy (or girl) but it’s cringy to see how insecure they are posting about how they will expect to see negative comments from certain articles and how Apple has seemingly done no wrong and people are using the product wrong, like it’s their fault  not using a case and letting the IPhone 6 Plus bend, wtf. Apple is a company, and people treat it like a religion. It’s like that for other companies too but it’s sad and part of the downfall of humanity imo. 
    ‘Downfall of humanity’! Oh wow.

    Thanks for the heads-up. 
    edited August 2018 watto_cobraclaire1
  • Reply 58 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,458member
    sflocal said:
    I wish Apple would start doing some ads to bash Samsung, similar to the "I'm a Mac, You're a PC" campaign from ages ago.  It's time to smack Samsung with some humble pie.
    "When they go low, We go High!"

    How did that work out?
    Not so good...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 66
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,745member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    lukei said:
    In sales related roles for 25+ years. 

    First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
    3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
    Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
    These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
    Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
    Are you factoring in how bad their smartphone PR was with all the fires, flight bans, and recalls? Sometimes, it's not about increasing your sales so much as slowing a decline. For all I know Samsung is predicting a slowdown of the market for their higher-end devices (which I would think would be targeted first, just like higher-end WinPCs were hit first once the market was saturated).
    Uh, the Note 7 fiasco is long gone. Since then Samsung has released the S8, Note 8 and S9. The S9 did poorly compared to the S8, which came out right after the Note 7 disaster. If anything, the S8 should have had dismal sales because of its proximity to the Note 7.
    No it's not! Why would you think PR issues go away simply because you release a new model?

    How long has it been since the Volkswagen emissions issue? How many others were also caught cheating since then? You probably don't know (I definitely don't know without googling it) and yet if you ask 100 people which companies were cheating on their car emissions you're easily going to get one, and only one, answer. Wells Fargo is also still reeling. How many years after an oil spill have BP and Exxon had to deal with PR issues? Do you know the name Valdez? I do, and I yet I doubt I've ever been to an area that was directly affected by it and I don't think I can name even one other oil tanker without referencing a oil tycoon or generic sounding name that would mostly be an educated guess; hell, I can't even name the cruise ships I've been on, and yet I can recall which cruise lines had major health issues and where they were cruising off the top of my head).

    You probably never ever own a Samsung smartphone and yet you're well aware of this issue by the specific Samsung device type and model that made the news even though it affected other Samsung devices and can affect any device with a Li-Ion battery. I know people that know jack shit about technology and are only iPhone users yet they've heard that Samsung phones "blow up." This will likely live in infamy for a longtime to come unless something else comes along that make this pale in comparison, but even then you need the media exposure for that happen.

    According to a quick search and math Coca-Cola spent 11.2% of its revenue on advertising in 2017. Since they lost $1.25 billion for the year would you say that spending $4B on advertising was a waste? I sure hope not.
    As someone else said, you're really grasping at straws here.

    Bad PR fades over time. The effect of the Note 7 would be less for the Note 8 and the S9. Yet the S9 was a failure, sales wise. Are you actually going to claim that the Note 7 disaster was somehow "revived" and had a larger impact on the S9 than the S8?
    Why would you think it was "revived" as opposed to still in effect as being a cancer on Samsung? Your hate for Samsung ends up being a weird defense for Samsung with your claim that their PR issue is "long gone" despite you bringing up the device type and model by name. I mentioned "fires, flight bans, and recalls" and you made a mention of it by name. How exactly does that work? I can't even recall which iPhone—that I've owned—came with what new HW feature without looking it up on the MacTracker app. The number of examples of things that are "long gone" that invoke something negative is so long you may as well say it's infinite.

    A long-running, successful ad campaign is tough, but the concept of marketing is pretty fucking straightforward. If you really can't understand the basic reasons why another company would make fun of an industry leader then there's absolutely nothing I can say that will make you understand 101 concepts that you should've figured out just by watching TV as a kid, but here's one last attempt:

    Seems I’ve struck a nerve. Instead of discussing facts you try to claim my argument is based on hate? Pathetic. My argument is the ads are not effective, based on the fact they’ve been running for some time and the S9 was a failure. That’s it. Now you’re claiming I don’t understand advertising (logical fallacy) instead of countering my claims. As I said, pathetic.
    The fact that you can't understand why these ads are effective while conflating sales and with marketing makes that clear. Where were you after 2007 claiming that iPod ads can't possibly be good and are a waste of money because iPod sales were steadily declining? I can point to many great iPod ads despite a significant drop in sales because there is no 1:1 ratio to the effect of advertising and sales, and I doubt that you made such a claim when tech forums were posting all the new iPod ads during those years of the iPod's decline.
    These ads aren't effective in stealing sales from Apple, nor are they even actually targeted at Apple for that reason. You have admitted as much in the past.

    Any success these ads have, can only be measured against a goal of staunching the erosion of sales that Samsung is experiencing due to the large Chinese Android OS device makers. For Android OS device makers, it is a zero sum solution with no long term growth in sight, albeit there are pockets of growth in countries, for example India, moving from feature phones to smartphones.

    Samsung portraying itself as the primary alternative to Apple worked pretty well in the past, but today, not so much.
    edited August 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 66
    claire1claire1 Posts: 503unconfirmed, member
    I don’t post here ever but I do read from this site from time to time. The comments are the worst part because people here lack the emotional intelligence and get upset over something not worth getting upset about like these ads. Samsung accomplished exactly what they wanted to by getting apple sites to post this which gets people talking which generates page clicks and creates marketing buzz. Not everyone here is a fanboy (or girl) but it’s cringy to see how insecure they are posting about how they will expect to see negative comments from certain articles and how Apple has seemingly done no wrong and people are using the product wrong, like it’s their fault  not using a case and letting the IPhone 6 Plus bend, wtf. Apple is a company, and people treat it like a religion. It’s like that for other companies too but it’s sad and part of the downfall of humanity imo. 
    Keep it that way. Whenever an angry iKnockoff fan mention a small (industry-wide)problem from 4 years ago but ignores Apples outstanding quality track record, they lose my respect.
Sign In or Register to comment.