That ad is fantastic... Better than most of Apple's ads even.
I think it's got the same feel, but it doesn't come close to Apple's ads. a) They're saying their product kills Apple's (which is bollocks), b) it's a touch-phone, and they're saying nothing touches it... that neither works as a literal reference or a metaphor, as both ways it appears negative to the blackberry, and c) they weren't using Lightwave to render the animation... ;p
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
The ad would reek of desperation had Blackberry actually went with that ad.
It would have got them attention though, and started debates in threads like- ... oh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
The ad was fantastic. Of course, it just doesn't meet reality, but a very creative, seamless and succinct ad.
Apple should hire the team talent behind it.
Of course they could show the ad parody showing the Blackberry running into the Apple and splatting all over the face of the Apple.
Yes ... yes they should do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Forget RIM's add-
Do you think people really buy laptops because they're environmentally friendly? Even cars and refrigerators barely are advertised for that reason. It's value that's usually advertised- especially now in a depression.
Apple should kill the perception that its overpriced by showing the va$ue in an Apple purchase.
Actually, I know I sound like a bit of a knob here, but yes, personally the environmental factors they're touting are very attractive. I'm not a vegan or hippie mind you, but I recycle diligently, unplug utilities after using them, don't have a car, take my own bags to the supermarket, and ... well basically think the 3 R's. So them saying they're concerned about this stuff strikes a chord with me, even if I know it's advertising hype. (Actually it's not really hype, the fact that they've manufactured the laptop from those materials, lowered power consumption, it performs like a shitzu on E and it still looks like silver-freakin-sexiness gets a +++ from me.)
The Mac maker's green notebook campaign comes after years of criticism from activists over the company's refusal to follow suit with other leading consumer electronics firms by bribing Greenpeace into giving them a higher spot on their arbitrary "green list".
Back in May of 2007, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs authored an open letter outlining the company's green goals and noted the progress it had already legitimately made in comparison with its competitors.
The carrier that has the iPhone does not advertise it at all, they advertise their Blackberry line up only, and the other carriers also advertise the Blackberry line up. If not for Apple's ads, no one would even know the iPhone exists.
Isn't that part of their agreement with Apple. I thought I read somewhere that Apple was to do all of the advertising for the iPhone.
here I was probably trying to hard to use fancy words. I probably meant something closer to compulsion. The idea is to compel the viewer to buy the product as opposed to setting out a reasoned argument. You can see this in the history of advertisements that started out much longer, more argumentative, and more logical. Nowadays we have 10 second ads in some cases. One cannot logically "explain" anything or construct an argument in 10 seconds really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
I am not sure if they are less than honest. Honesty here is ambiguous. They may not tell the whole truth, but that is not their purpose. They 'highlight' the advantages. But few ads lie outright.
Well I would argue, (and many others have as well), that this is just lying by omission. Not telling the whole truth *is* lying.
I would disagree that few ads "lie outright" also. My favourite example of this is the Energiser Bunny ads. They ran for years and years telling everyone that Energiser batteries outlast all others that was almost the single purpose of the ads and the tagline was basically the same in every ad. If you look at the facts, during all that period Duracell was actually the best battery to get and lasted the longest. I don't have the exact copy and I'm not writing an essay here, but somehow it was worded in a clever way so that no one could sue them or whatever, but if you ask people which lasts longer, they will say Energiser and quote the ad as "proof." To me, that's a clear lie, and always made me hate that bunny!
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
That is true. An ad strives to PERSUADE the viewer / listener / reader to buy a product or service. Most people act upon emotions first and foremost. Look at the apple ads - no 'facts' whatsoever. But there are strict guidelines as to what is and isn't allowed in advertising.
Again, I disagree a bit here. I am incredibly old and remember the truth in advertising legislation and debates from the 70's. A great deal of what is allowed on TV today would be strictly illegal and not allowed based on the 1970's idea of what's a "lie" and what's "misleading" etc., so at best these things change over time. I would not rely on any of the basically toothless agencies "regulating" advertising to winnow out the "bad" advertisements or anything like that. These groups are mostly for show. I can't think of any advertisement that has been rejected in the last 20 years or so, at least not for fibbing about performance issues or gently misleading the consumer down the garden path.
Ads are based on deception IMO. They are almost a perfect reverse weathervane of what's wrong with the product. The breakfast cereal ads that stress nutrition are the ones that are the least nutritious usually; the car ads that focus on mileage are usually by the models with the worst mileage stats, etc. etc. Advertisers use ads to counter the "bad" things about their products by presenting them in a better light a lot of the time. People think they are rationally "choosing" one product or another, but basic sociology tells us that they are being led by the nose. You can literally sell anything to anyone with the right kind of advertisements.
You are not putting it in context - that ad was played during the Oscars. What was the Blackberry ad for? An NRA exhibition?
Epic Fail. For one, the commercial may have first come out during the oscars, but it played for weeks afterward. Also, that wasn't even the friggin point. The point was, that the commercial said nothing about the product.
Nowadays we have 10 second ads in some cases. One cannot logically "explain" anything or construct an argument in 10 seconds really.
But there is nothing wrong with that, per se, you must agree. I don't love all advertising, in fact I hate a lot of it, but all they are doing is selling something.
Quote:
Well I would argue, (and many others have as well), that this is just lying by omission. Not telling the whole truth *is* lying.
I can't answer for the Bunny (poor thing) but if I sell a car that does 500mpg and I say that, but omit the fact that it has no breaks, I am hardly lying. Of course these days sneaking around the rules is a fine art, and we are all suckers for not delving deeper into the specs of whatever we buy :-(
Quote:
Ads are based on deception IMO. They are almost a perfect reverse weathervane of what's wrong with the product.
You are being too harsh and painting in too broad strokes. Companies and their agencies have to stay within the law. Companies are often taken to task - Apple had to remove or alter one or two iPhone ads in the UK, remember? The reason they must stay within the law is because not doing so will reflect VERY badly on them. And likely cost them shed loads of money. The ad-agencies are terrified of getting their clients into trouble. Bad for their reputation and bad for bottom line. Its a very effective form of self regulation
Quote:
You can literally sell anything to anyone with the right kind of advertisements.
I completely agree. Advertising is an art. You may not like it, but these are on the whole very clever people. If you are interested download the podcasts called "The Age of Persuasion" from iTunes. Very interesting, educational and entertaining.
Do you think people really buy laptops because they're environmentally friendly? Even cars and refrigerators barely are advertised for that reason. It's value that's usually advertised- especially now in a depression.
Apple should kill the perception that its overpriced by showing the va$ue in an Apple purchase.
It is about public image not a reason for people to buy laptops. You will see other computer companies follow Apple footsteps in the near future regarding environmental friendliness.
... but ultimately couldn't bring itself to pull the trigger...
Though they didn't buy commercial time to air it, by allowing it to load into the viral marketing ammo box they still effectively took the shot. It'd be more accurate to say they pulled the trigger, but wiped the gun stock of prints to create the illusion they didn't.
Great ad, btw. Metaphorical but unmistakable, and with humor. Y'haveta admire that.
apple is in charge of advertising the iPhone. AT&T makes causal references to it in some of their ads, but the deal is Apple will handle promoting the device. Apple likes a consistent theme to the way they advertise their products (ipods, macs, etc) so it's no surpirse they're the ones in full control of the iPhone marketing. They don't want AT&T running around making cheeseball ads like two pieces of fruit killing each other....
In regards to the blackberry ad, it's not very creative. Visually appealing, yes. Creative- no. And the tag line is absolutely horrid.
... I can't answer for the Bunny (poor thing) but if I sell a car that does 500mpg and I say that, but omit the fact that it has no breaks, I am hardly lying. Of course these days sneaking around the rules is a fine art, and we are all suckers for not delving deeper into the specs of whatever we buy :-( ...
Well, I am not sure we will ever agree on this and it's driving the thread a bit off track, so I will just respond to this part which I think is central to our disagreement.
I think in the case described above you certainly are lying. The product you are advertising is not the mileage, but the car. You are telling us about one of it's features (it does 500 mpg), and leaving out another (that it has no breaks). But what you are advertising is your great car.
In leaving out that it has no breaks you are essentially advertising this "great car" without telling the customer that it's actually a POS because it has no breaks. To me this is purposely misleading and a "lie of omission" as previously framed.
It's like when they advertise breakfast cereals. They've been using the same line for at least 40 years or so now; that cereal brand X is "a part of any nutritious breakfast." In reality, brand X is sugar coated garbage with almost zero nutritive value and full of questionable chemicals some of which have been proven to actually cause you harm (cancer). No unbiased assessment of that product would ever come back with the idea that it was "nutritious," or good for you to eat, but the manufacturer gets away with it by saying "part of" and having a glass of orange juice hovering in the background of the shot.
You might argue that this is only misleading and not a lie per se, but people are still fooled on a regular basis by this. Most folks are not smart enough, and not interested enough to figure out the details of what is being said, they just see "nutritious" and "cereal" and a smiling mom feeding it to their smiling child. The advertisers know this, and they use it on purpose. That's what they see as their job.
In this case, the essence of what is being advertised here is "nutritious cereal," and if you sat down most people in front of the ad and asked them what the ad was about, they would certainly agree. In fact, the cereal is not only not nutritious, it's arguably harmful. I don't see how anyone can see that as anything but intentional duplicitousness. It's a lie by any other name. Even though the details of the wording are not going to get them in trouble technically or legally, they are purposely selling you something that the product is clearly not.
I had my first Blackberry from 2005-2008. It was pretty much bulletproof till it died.
My second from May 2008-January 2009. Hardware failure- bad usb port, couldn't charge...
My Third from January 2009-February 2009. Weird radio issues won't connect to the network, says it's connected but isn't and vice versa..
To me RIM's products seem to be getting worse each year. The only reason I haven't given up on them completely, is that it's on a corporate account that I don't pay for.
It's a lie by any other name. Even though the details of the wording are not going to get them in trouble technically or legally, they are purposely selling you something that the product is clearly not.
I certainly see your point though your claim would be thrown out of any court. But they are devious, undoubtedly. And you could argue immoral. In the case of cereal I certainly hear you. I have two young kids and it pisses me off no end the kind of junk that is passed off as nutritious food. So should we regulate the crap out of advertising and the food industry? A big part of me thinks so. I certainly am not a free market fundamentalist of the capitalist church. If all advertising aimed at kids under 10 was banned during the xmas season I'd back it 100%. Ooops... I can see I am veering further and further off topic here.
It is about public image not a reason for people to buy laptops. You will see other computer companies follow Apple footsteps in the near future regarding environmental friendliness.
True; however i DO buy electronics that are environmentally friendly, as do many of my friends.
I'm willing to pay a premium for more efficient and recyclable products, and the world is shifting that way I think (i.e. hyrbrid cars, which are selling more lately)
It's week to say, "first touch Blackberry", when that simply makes one think how it's not the first touch phone. I really don't think being a bully is good enough to penetrate - they are going to have to demonstrate why that device is better, if they don't do that - they''l get a few people, but nothing significant. They're up against a game-changer, they need waaaaay more.
Hard to say...the execs must've seen something in there they didn't like. If it's going to increase sales, you go with it. If you compare it to Apple's iPhone adds, they at least show you some app functionality you can download and use. All this was was a very nicely done image-merical. I suspect if someone were savvy enough to understand the imagery, they would probably be savvy enough to ask for something with a little more substance for the money.
It's weak to say, "first touch Blackberry", when that simply makes one think how it's not the first touch phone.
Not a bad marketing move on RiM's part. Like Klennex and Coke, Blackberry seems to have a limited scope of referencing any smartphone. in colloquial speak. I can't tell you how many times people have referred to my iPhone in various ways as a Blackberry, even knowing that it's the device from Apple.
Not exactly the phrase I'd use for a 'touch' device.
Cute add otherwise.... ineffective, but cute.
It'd be funny if the touchscreen did not work well... Oh wait a minute, it doesn't. On another note - it looks like they've used a similar font to Apple ads.
Comments
That ad is fantastic... Better than most of Apple's ads even.
I think it's got the same feel, but it doesn't come close to Apple's ads. a) They're saying their product kills Apple's (which is bollocks), b) it's a touch-phone, and they're saying nothing touches it... that neither works as a literal reference or a metaphor, as both ways it appears negative to the blackberry, and c) they weren't using Lightwave to render the animation... ;p
The ad would reek of desperation had Blackberry actually went with that ad.
It would have got them attention though, and started debates in threads like- ... oh.
The ad was fantastic. Of course, it just doesn't meet reality, but a very creative, seamless and succinct ad.
Apple should hire the team talent behind it.
Of course they could show the ad parody showing the Blackberry running into the Apple and splatting all over the face of the Apple.
Yes ... yes they should do that.
Forget RIM's add-
Do you think people really buy laptops because they're environmentally friendly? Even cars and refrigerators barely are advertised for that reason. It's value that's usually advertised- especially now in a depression.
Apple should kill the perception that its overpriced by showing the va$ue in an Apple purchase.
Actually, I know I sound like a bit of a knob here, but yes, personally the environmental factors they're touting are very attractive. I'm not a vegan or hippie mind you, but I recycle diligently, unplug utilities after using them, don't have a car, take my own bags to the supermarket, and ... well basically think the 3 R's.
Jimzip
The Mac maker's green notebook campaign comes after years of criticism from activists over the company's refusal to follow suit with other leading consumer electronics firms by bribing Greenpeace into giving them a higher spot on their arbitrary "green list".
Back in May of 2007, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs authored an open letter outlining the company's green goals and noted the progress it had already legitimately made in comparison with its competitors.
Fixed.
The carrier that has the iPhone does not advertise it at all, they advertise their Blackberry line up only, and the other carriers also advertise the Blackberry line up. If not for Apple's ads, no one would even know the iPhone exists.
Isn't that part of their agreement with Apple. I thought I read somewhere that Apple was to do all of the advertising for the iPhone.
Coercion? Please elaborate
here I was probably trying to hard to use fancy words. I probably meant something closer to compulsion. The idea is to compel the viewer to buy the product as opposed to setting out a reasoned argument. You can see this in the history of advertisements that started out much longer, more argumentative, and more logical. Nowadays we have 10 second ads in some cases. One cannot logically "explain" anything or construct an argument in 10 seconds really.
I am not sure if they are less than honest. Honesty here is ambiguous. They may not tell the whole truth, but that is not their purpose. They 'highlight' the advantages. But few ads lie outright.
Well I would argue, (and many others have as well), that this is just lying by omission. Not telling the whole truth *is* lying.
I would disagree that few ads "lie outright" also. My favourite example of this is the Energiser Bunny ads. They ran for years and years telling everyone that Energiser batteries outlast all others that was almost the single purpose of the ads and the tagline was basically the same in every ad. If you look at the facts, during all that period Duracell was actually the best battery to get and lasted the longest. I don't have the exact copy and I'm not writing an essay here, but somehow it was worded in a clever way so that no one could sue them or whatever, but if you ask people which lasts longer, they will say Energiser and quote the ad as "proof." To me, that's a clear lie, and always made me hate that bunny!
That is true. An ad strives to PERSUADE the viewer / listener / reader to buy a product or service. Most people act upon emotions first and foremost. Look at the apple ads - no 'facts' whatsoever. But there are strict guidelines as to what is and isn't allowed in advertising.
Again, I disagree a bit here. I am incredibly old and remember the truth in advertising legislation and debates from the 70's. A great deal of what is allowed on TV today would be strictly illegal and not allowed based on the 1970's idea of what's a "lie" and what's "misleading" etc., so at best these things change over time. I would not rely on any of the basically toothless agencies "regulating" advertising to winnow out the "bad" advertisements or anything like that. These groups are mostly for show. I can't think of any advertisement that has been rejected in the last 20 years or so, at least not for fibbing about performance issues or gently misleading the consumer down the garden path.
Ads are based on deception IMO. They are almost a perfect reverse weathervane of what's wrong with the product. The breakfast cereal ads that stress nutrition are the ones that are the least nutritious usually; the car ads that focus on mileage are usually by the models with the worst mileage stats, etc. etc. Advertisers use ads to counter the "bad" things about their products by presenting them in a better light a lot of the time. People think they are rationally "choosing" one product or another, but basic sociology tells us that they are being led by the nose. You can literally sell anything to anyone with the right kind of advertisements.
Isn't that part of their agreement with Apple. I thought I read somewhere that Apple was to do all of the advertising for the iPhone.
Not sure. I find it odd though.
You are not putting it in context - that ad was played during the Oscars. What was the Blackberry ad for? An NRA exhibition?
Epic Fail. For one, the commercial may have first come out during the oscars, but it played for weeks afterward. Also, that wasn't even the friggin point. The point was, that the commercial said nothing about the product.
Nowadays we have 10 second ads in some cases. One cannot logically "explain" anything or construct an argument in 10 seconds really.
But there is nothing wrong with that, per se, you must agree. I don't love all advertising, in fact I hate a lot of it, but all they are doing is selling something.
Well I would argue, (and many others have as well), that this is just lying by omission. Not telling the whole truth *is* lying.
I can't answer for the Bunny (poor thing) but if I sell a car that does 500mpg and I say that, but omit the fact that it has no breaks, I am hardly lying. Of course these days sneaking around the rules is a fine art, and we are all suckers for not delving deeper into the specs of whatever we buy :-(
Ads are based on deception IMO. They are almost a perfect reverse weathervane of what's wrong with the product.
You are being too harsh and painting in too broad strokes. Companies and their agencies have to stay within the law. Companies are often taken to task - Apple had to remove or alter one or two iPhone ads in the UK, remember? The reason they must stay within the law is because not doing so will reflect VERY badly on them. And likely cost them shed loads of money. The ad-agencies are terrified of getting their clients into trouble. Bad for their reputation and bad for bottom line. Its a very effective form of self regulation
You can literally sell anything to anyone with the right kind of advertisements.
I completely agree. Advertising is an art. You may not like it, but these are on the whole very clever people. If you are interested download the podcasts called "The Age of Persuasion" from iTunes. Very interesting, educational and entertaining.
Forget RIM's add-
Do you think people really buy laptops because they're environmentally friendly? Even cars and refrigerators barely are advertised for that reason. It's value that's usually advertised- especially now in a depression.
Apple should kill the perception that its overpriced by showing the va$ue in an Apple purchase.
It is about public image not a reason for people to buy laptops. You will see other computer companies follow Apple footsteps in the near future regarding environmental friendliness.
... but ultimately couldn't bring itself to pull the trigger...
Though they didn't buy commercial time to air it, by allowing it to load into the viral marketing ammo box they still effectively took the shot. It'd be more accurate to say they pulled the trigger, but wiped the gun stock of prints to create the illusion they didn't.
Great ad, btw. Metaphorical but unmistakable, and with humor. Y'haveta admire that.
In regards to the blackberry ad, it's not very creative. Visually appealing, yes. Creative- no. And the tag line is absolutely horrid.
'...nothing can touch it' ?
Not exactly the phrase I'd use for a 'touch' device.
Cute add otherwise.... ineffective, but cute.
... I can't answer for the Bunny (poor thing) but if I sell a car that does 500mpg and I say that, but omit the fact that it has no breaks, I am hardly lying. Of course these days sneaking around the rules is a fine art, and we are all suckers for not delving deeper into the specs of whatever we buy :-( ...
Well, I am not sure we will ever agree on this and it's driving the thread a bit off track, so I will just respond to this part which I think is central to our disagreement.
I think in the case described above you certainly are lying. The product you are advertising is not the mileage, but the car. You are telling us about one of it's features (it does 500 mpg), and leaving out another (that it has no breaks). But what you are advertising is your great car.
In leaving out that it has no breaks you are essentially advertising this "great car" without telling the customer that it's actually a POS because it has no breaks. To me this is purposely misleading and a "lie of omission" as previously framed.
It's like when they advertise breakfast cereals. They've been using the same line for at least 40 years or so now; that cereal brand X is "a part of any nutritious breakfast." In reality, brand X is sugar coated garbage with almost zero nutritive value and full of questionable chemicals some of which have been proven to actually cause you harm (cancer). No unbiased assessment of that product would ever come back with the idea that it was "nutritious," or good for you to eat, but the manufacturer gets away with it by saying "part of" and having a glass of orange juice hovering in the background of the shot.
You might argue that this is only misleading and not a lie per se, but people are still fooled on a regular basis by this. Most folks are not smart enough, and not interested enough to figure out the details of what is being said, they just see "nutritious" and "cereal" and a smiling mom feeding it to their smiling child. The advertisers know this, and they use it on purpose. That's what they see as their job.
In this case, the essence of what is being advertised here is "nutritious cereal," and if you sat down most people in front of the ad and asked them what the ad was about, they would certainly agree. In fact, the cereal is not only not nutritious, it's arguably harmful. I don't see how anyone can see that as anything but intentional duplicitousness. It's a lie by any other name. Even though the details of the wording are not going to get them in trouble technically or legally, they are purposely selling you something that the product is clearly not.
My second from May 2008-January 2009. Hardware failure- bad usb port, couldn't charge...
My Third from January 2009-February 2009. Weird radio issues won't connect to the network, says it's connected but isn't and vice versa..
To me RIM's products seem to be getting worse each year. The only reason I haven't given up on them completely, is that it's on a corporate account that I don't pay for.
It's a lie by any other name. Even though the details of the wording are not going to get them in trouble technically or legally, they are purposely selling you something that the product is clearly not.
I certainly see your point though your claim would be thrown out of any court. But they are devious, undoubtedly. And you could argue immoral. In the case of cereal I certainly hear you. I have two young kids and it pisses me off no end the kind of junk that is passed off as nutritious food. So should we regulate the crap out of advertising and the food industry? A big part of me thinks so. I certainly am not a free market fundamentalist of the capitalist church. If all advertising aimed at kids under 10 was banned during the xmas season I'd back it 100%. Ooops... I can see I am veering further and further off topic here.
It is about public image not a reason for people to buy laptops. You will see other computer companies follow Apple footsteps in the near future regarding environmental friendliness.
True; however i DO buy electronics that are environmentally friendly, as do many of my friends.
I'm willing to pay a premium for more efficient and recyclable products, and the world is shifting that way I think (i.e. hyrbrid cars, which are selling more lately)
Hard to say...the execs must've seen something in there they didn't like. If it's going to increase sales, you go with it. If you compare it to Apple's iPhone adds, they at least show you some app functionality you can download and use. All this was was a very nicely done image-merical. I suspect if someone were savvy enough to understand the imagery, they would probably be savvy enough to ask for something with a little more substance for the money.
Why deny the ad agency a RIM job?
It's weak to say, "first touch Blackberry", when that simply makes one think how it's not the first touch phone.
Not a bad marketing move on RiM's part. Like Klennex and Coke, Blackberry seems to have a limited scope of referencing any smartphone. in colloquial speak. I can't tell you how many times people have referred to my iPhone in various ways as a Blackberry, even knowing that it's the device from Apple.
It has become common and cliche.
'...nothing can touch it' ?
Not exactly the phrase I'd use for a 'touch' device.
Cute add otherwise.... ineffective, but cute.
It'd be funny if the touchscreen did not work well... Oh wait a minute, it doesn't. On another note - it looks like they've used a similar font to Apple ads.