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.
Are you really that clueless? The iPhone was only most covered electronic device probably in the world. Everyone new everything about it - Apple had extensive videos regarding it's operation - it was all that was talked about at MacWorld, it's all that was talked about at CES - what the fuck else where they supposed to mention in the commercial.
The real point is - you can't defend the Blackberry commercial for not saying anything about the product by pointing to an Apple commercial which did the same thing because Apple already had a crapload of material demonstrating the iPhone.
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.
You're right that in this economy, value takes center stage. But yes, people DO buy laptops because they're environmentally friendly. The people who would buy a Mac are the ones who are concerned with the eco-friendliness of their computer. Apple is speaking directly to their customer-base. They know the message to deliver to those people and will stay static with that message throughout this economic era. SJ has always said that Apple used innovation to make it through the first economic downturn they experienced, and that they would do the same with this one.
Do you actually have any real reasons? Have you ever had a BB connected to a BES? Have you actually ever used one?
Or is it just "If it aint made by Apple it must suck"?
The Storm in particular has been panned by...well, just about everybody. Considering that its one and only purpose in life was to be an imitation iPhone, it failed at having usable touch capabilities or a workable OS compared to the real thing. If I recall correctly, it had something like a fifty percent return rate. I myself got an actual iPhone, though, so none of the above is firsthand; it's all just what I've heard. I'm sure the other Blackberries are lovely devices.
Its very simple to know if you should do an ad that mentions your competition - do most people know about your competition?
Most people know that PCs exist and that they are a company in competition with apple = okay to use in commercials
Most people know about the iPhone, so could blackberry use them in their commercials - yes.
basically if your the underdog in a certain category, it is perfectly okay to mention your competition - because people already know about them. If they dont know about them, then yes you are giving them mention which might hurt you.
basically if your the underdog in a certain category, it is perfectly okay to mention your competition
Mentioning your competition in one thing, but this ad clearly made the point that the blackberry "kills" the iPhone. Not only do they not mention one reason why - but all sales data pretty much points to the opposite being true.
But it makes no difference, really, because taken for all in all the rest of the industry it still way behind the iPhone.
You are right, the rest of the industry is miles behind a phone that cannot run more than one application at a time, a phone that does not offer cut 'n' paste, a phone that is much slower to type on than a Blackberry, a phone that has one of the worst cameras available on a high end phone, a phone that does not support MMS, a phone that does not allow you to text more than one person at a time.
I can only speak from my own limited experience, but I installed clipboard support on mine, and in the months that I had it, I used it maybe twice ? and never for anything I couldn't have easily typed myself. On a desktop, yeah, copy and paste is an absolute necessity. On a smartphone? Less than you'd think. It'll inevitably come, but who cares except WinMo trolls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
much slower to type on than a Blackberry
...unless you actually spend more than five minutes learning to type on it. I mean, God forbid, if you own one, that you might actually become proficient with it. If I recall, studies have shown the iPhone's keyboard to be at least as fast to type with as a plastic Blackberry keyboard, depending on which one you cite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
has one of the worst cameras available on a high end phone
No argument there. Sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
does not support MMS
That's right, it only has real email instead of the stopgap fake kind meant for nearly-ineffectual dumbphones. Aww. Those killjoys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
does not allow you to text more than one person at a time.
...unless you make the Herculean effort to reach your finger alllllllll the way up and tap the To: field again. Yeah, oops.
That's right, it only has real email instead of the stopgap fake kind meant for nearly-ineffectual dumbphones. Aww. Those killjoys.
???
Phones have had real email for years, in fact every single phone I have had since at least 2001 has had a real, full, email client. People still preferred SMS to write a quick message and MMS to send photographs to each others phones as it is a better technology and more suited to quick, mobile messaging.
Imagine taking a photo now with your iphone that you want a group of friends to see, you are gonna email it and everybody who does not have an iPhone are just gonna wait till they open their email? Or MMS it and everybody gets it immediately.
Yes, they have. I can be listening to the iPod app hole using thr Safari app and I'll be to recieve a call from the phone app. What Apple doesn't allow are 3rd-party apps to run in the background or install processes at the iPhone's startup. Perhaps you can see how a phone's primary focus may need to be a phone and not a silly app that drains the battery becuaee you forgot to turn it off and it was written poorly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
???
Phones have had real email for years, in fact every single phone I have had since at least 2001 has had a real, full, email client. People still preferred SMS to write a quick message and MMS to send photographs to each others phones as it is a better technology and more suited to quick, mobile messaging.
If all regular cellphones have had email capabilities for years then why are you complaining about MMS so much.
Quote:
Imagine taking a photo now with your iphone that you want a group of friends to see, you are gonna email it and everybody who does not have an iPhone are just gonna wait till they open their email? Or MMS it and everybody gets it immediately.
According to you everyone has robust email capabilites on their run of the mill cellphones, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Ads are not really about giving compelling reasons to buy product A over product B. If they were, they'd all be longer than 30 seconds.
Most ads are based on coercion are less than honest, and appeal to the emotions.
I think you have it wrong...Ads are all about giving compelling reasons to buy product A over product B or more precisely, choosing Brand A(pple) instead of Brand B. Now, the reasons and the ways in showing that "compelling reason" are the differentiating factors, be it an appeal to the emotions, or a simple list of product specs and advantages or whatnot.
With that said, the ad is beautifully done (good visuals) but, IMHO, not effective. I could go on and on about the details but the main thing about it is that the ad can be used by Palm Pre (or by any competitor with a iPhone-like UI) and that it wasn't memorable in the sense that the one who took the shot at Apple can be anyone...and therefore can be no one.
The best ads are the ads wherein the product/brand being advertised is an indispensable part of the ad. Taking out BB out of that ad and replacing it with any other brand/product is not going to really break the ad.
I think you have it wrong...Ads are all about giving compelling reasons to buy product A over product B....
If it was just about compelling reasons then CE would just list tech specs for the item, especially in comparison to an Apple product. But they don't because ads are designed simply to generate interest in a product. OFten they compare actual features but they often just doing flashy to make you want to know more about the product. Some popular examples are teaser trailers for movies or the iPod commercials with cartooned people dancing around. The first tells you nothing of the plot or story line,, while the later tells you nothing but that the iPod and accompanying headphones are white, which you already knew. Both are just flashy eye candy to get you wanting more.
If it was just about compelling reasons then CE would just list tech specs for the item, especially in comparison to an Apple product. But they don't because ads are designed simply to generate interest in a product. OFten they compare actual features but they often just doing flashy to make you want to know more about the product. Some popular examples are teaser trailers for movies or the iPod commercials with cartooned people dancing around. The first tells you nothing of the plot or story line,, while the later tells you nothing but that the iPod and accompanying headphones are white, which you already knew. Both are just flashy eye candy to get you wanting more.
You should have included my next sentence in your quote... Ads are there to sell stuff and they give reasons why people should buy stuff instead of other stuff. This is the USP, or the unique selling proposition or in the compelling reason... HOWEVER, what people here don't understand is that there are many different reasons why people buy stuff. And "compelling reasons" have different forms and differ from one person to the other. Some like long list of features, others want to be associated with cool and hip, some like value for money, etc. "Compelling reasons" is NOT limited to tech specs alone, even in computers and tech gadgets.
Call me knit picking or whatever, but the statement "World's first touch-screen Blackberry" sounds like Blackberry is trying too hard to toot their own horn. I mean, who else makes Blackberry devices other than Blackberry? It would be like Apple promoting the iPhone as "World's first OS X based mobile phone". Again, same question would apply; who uses OS X other than Apple? The statement should have been "Blackberry's first touch-screen phone/device." The statement would only work in my opinion let's say MS came out with WM7 and one the manufacturer i.e. Motorola, HTC, Samsung first comes out with a phone with this software and touts it as "World's first WM7 smartphone." The above statement sounds like Blackberry is somehow claiming that they are the first company to make touch based mobile phone.
I've had WM based PDA and after owing the 3G iPhone for about 6 months, I am just so impressed with the fact that Apple who never made any mobile phones before comes out with a phone for the very first time that is so easy to use and intuitive and makes every other phone makers to try to come out with their own touch-based phone.
You can't look at just one ad. The first iphone ad was a classic teaser ad. And classic Apple style.
No detail at all. Aired during a major event. Its meant to pique interest about a new product to a mostly indifferent public. To soften the ground, so to speak, for the more detailed, and multi-layed campaign to follow.
But lack of detail doesn't mean they're not getting their message out. Look what the visuals said. They showed example after example of the classic "on the phone" shot. The old tethered telephone. Then they showed the iphone. and it was completely different, totally new. And that was the point.
The BB ad's visuals said they wanted to start a fight with Apple. That's not a good kick off for a campaign.
Comments
But this one sailed right past him
You're right, a straight man would've helped!
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.
Are you really that clueless? The iPhone was only most covered electronic device probably in the world. Everyone new everything about it - Apple had extensive videos regarding it's operation - it was all that was talked about at MacWorld, it's all that was talked about at CES - what the fuck else where they supposed to mention in the commercial.
The real point is - you can't defend the Blackberry commercial for not saying anything about the product by pointing to an Apple commercial which did the same thing because Apple already had a crapload of material demonstrating the iPhone.
Too bad their actual product sucks.
Please tell us all why Blackberry's suck?
Do you actually have any real reasons? Have you ever had a BB connected to a BES? Have you actually ever used one?
Or is it just "If it aint made by Apple it must suck"?
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.
You're right that in this economy, value takes center stage. But yes, people DO buy laptops because they're environmentally friendly. The people who would buy a Mac are the ones who are concerned with the eco-friendliness of their computer. Apple is speaking directly to their customer-base. They know the message to deliver to those people and will stay static with that message throughout this economic era. SJ has always said that Apple used innovation to make it through the first economic downturn they experienced, and that they would do the same with this one.
Just my (unwelcomed) 2 cents.
Please tell us all why Blackberry's suck?
Do you actually have any real reasons? Have you ever had a BB connected to a BES? Have you actually ever used one?
Or is it just "If it aint made by Apple it must suck"?
The Storm in particular has been panned by...well, just about everybody. Considering that its one and only purpose in life was to be an imitation iPhone, it failed at having usable touch capabilities or a workable OS compared to the real thing. If I recall correctly, it had something like a fifty percent return rate. I myself got an actual iPhone, though, so none of the above is firsthand; it's all just what I've heard. I'm sure the other Blackberries are lovely devices.
Please tell us all why Blackberry's suck?
Do you actually have any real reasons? Have you ever had a BB connected to a BES? Have you actually ever used one?
Or is it just "If it aint made by Apple it must suck"?
He meant the Storm.
But it makes no difference, really, because taken for all in all the rest of the industry it still way behind the iPhone.
The Mac Vs. PC ads have ALL done this.
Its very simple to know if you should do an ad that mentions your competition - do most people know about your competition?
Most people know that PCs exist and that they are a company in competition with apple = okay to use in commercials
Most people know about the iPhone, so could blackberry use them in their commercials - yes.
basically if your the underdog in a certain category, it is perfectly okay to mention your competition - because people already know about them. If they dont know about them, then yes you are giving them mention which might hurt you.
basically if your the underdog in a certain category, it is perfectly okay to mention your competition
Mentioning your competition in one thing, but this ad clearly made the point that the blackberry "kills" the iPhone. Not only do they not mention one reason why - but all sales data pretty much points to the opposite being true.
He meant the Storm.
But it makes no difference, really, because taken for all in all the rest of the industry it still way behind the iPhone.
You are right, the rest of the industry is miles behind a phone that cannot run more than one application at a time, a phone that does not offer cut 'n' paste, a phone that is much slower to type on than a Blackberry, a phone that has one of the worst cameras available on a high end phone, a phone that does not support MMS, a phone that does not allow you to text more than one person at a time.
mmm... yup, miles behind.
cannot run more than one application at a time
...yet regularly does. Hmm.
does not offer cut 'n' paste
I can only speak from my own limited experience, but I installed clipboard support on mine, and in the months that I had it, I used it maybe twice ? and never for anything I couldn't have easily typed myself. On a desktop, yeah, copy and paste is an absolute necessity. On a smartphone? Less than you'd think. It'll inevitably come, but who cares except WinMo trolls?
much slower to type on than a Blackberry
...unless you actually spend more than five minutes learning to type on it. I mean, God forbid, if you own one, that you might actually become proficient with it. If I recall, studies have shown the iPhone's keyboard to be at least as fast to type with as a plastic Blackberry keyboard, depending on which one you cite.
has one of the worst cameras available on a high end phone
No argument there. Sheesh.
does not support MMS
That's right, it only has real email instead of the stopgap fake kind meant for nearly-ineffectual dumbphones. Aww. Those killjoys.
does not allow you to text more than one person at a time.
...unless you make the Herculean effort to reach your finger alllllllll the way up and tap the To: field again. Yeah, oops.
...yet regularly does. Hmm.
Err, no it does not.
That's right, it only has real email instead of the stopgap fake kind meant for nearly-ineffectual dumbphones. Aww. Those killjoys.
???
Phones have had real email for years, in fact every single phone I have had since at least 2001 has had a real, full, email client. People still preferred SMS to write a quick message and MMS to send photographs to each others phones as it is a better technology and more suited to quick, mobile messaging.
Imagine taking a photo now with your iphone that you want a group of friends to see, you are gonna email it and everybody who does not have an iPhone are just gonna wait till they open their email? Or MMS it and everybody gets it immediately.
Err, no it does not.
Yes, they have. I can be listening to the iPod app hole using thr Safari app and I'll be to recieve a call from the phone app. What Apple doesn't allow are 3rd-party apps to run in the background or install processes at the iPhone's startup. Perhaps you can see how a phone's primary focus may need to be a phone and not a silly app that drains the battery becuaee you forgot to turn it off and it was written poorly.
???
Phones have had real email for years, in fact every single phone I have had since at least 2001 has had a real, full, email client. People still preferred SMS to write a quick message and MMS to send photographs to each others phones as it is a better technology and more suited to quick, mobile messaging.
If all regular cellphones have had email capabilities for years then why are you complaining about MMS so much.
Imagine taking a photo now with your iphone that you want a group of friends to see, you are gonna email it and everybody who does not have an iPhone are just gonna wait till they open their email? Or MMS it and everybody gets it immediately.
According to you everyone has robust email capabilites on their run of the mill cellphones, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Ads are not really about giving compelling reasons to buy product A over product B. If they were, they'd all be longer than 30 seconds.
Most ads are based on coercion are less than honest, and appeal to the emotions.
I think you have it wrong...Ads are all about giving compelling reasons to buy product A over product B or more precisely, choosing Brand A(pple) instead of Brand B. Now, the reasons and the ways in showing that "compelling reason" are the differentiating factors, be it an appeal to the emotions, or a simple list of product specs and advantages or whatnot.
With that said, the ad is beautifully done (good visuals) but, IMHO, not effective. I could go on and on about the details but the main thing about it is that the ad can be used by Palm Pre (or by any competitor with a iPhone-like UI) and that it wasn't memorable in the sense that the one who took the shot at Apple can be anyone...and therefore can be no one.
The best ads are the ads wherein the product/brand being advertised is an indispensable part of the ad. Taking out BB out of that ad and replacing it with any other brand/product is not going to really break the ad.
I think you have it wrong...Ads are all about giving compelling reasons to buy product A over product B....
If it was just about compelling reasons then CE would just list tech specs for the item, especially in comparison to an Apple product. But they don't because ads are designed simply to generate interest in a product. OFten they compare actual features but they often just doing flashy to make you want to know more about the product. Some popular examples are teaser trailers for movies or the iPod commercials with cartooned people dancing around. The first tells you nothing of the plot or story line,, while the later tells you nothing but that the iPod and accompanying headphones are white, which you already knew. Both are just flashy eye candy to get you wanting more.
If it was just about compelling reasons then CE would just list tech specs for the item, especially in comparison to an Apple product. But they don't because ads are designed simply to generate interest in a product. OFten they compare actual features but they often just doing flashy to make you want to know more about the product. Some popular examples are teaser trailers for movies or the iPod commercials with cartooned people dancing around. The first tells you nothing of the plot or story line,, while the later tells you nothing but that the iPod and accompanying headphones are white, which you already knew. Both are just flashy eye candy to get you wanting more.
You should have included my next sentence in your quote... Ads are there to sell stuff and they give reasons why people should buy stuff instead of other stuff. This is the USP, or the unique selling proposition or in the compelling reason... HOWEVER, what people here don't understand is that there are many different reasons why people buy stuff. And "compelling reasons" have different forms and differ from one person to the other. Some like long list of features, others want to be associated with cool and hip, some like value for money, etc. "Compelling reasons" is NOT limited to tech specs alone, even in computers and tech gadgets.
I've had WM based PDA and after owing the 3G iPhone for about 6 months, I am just so impressed with the fact that Apple who never made any mobile phones before comes out with a phone for the very first time that is so easy to use and intuitive and makes every other phone makers to try to come out with their own touch-based phone.
No detail at all. Aired during a major event. Its meant to pique interest about a new product to a mostly indifferent public. To soften the ground, so to speak, for the more detailed, and multi-layed campaign to follow.
But lack of detail doesn't mean they're not getting their message out. Look what the visuals said. They showed example after example of the classic "on the phone" shot. The old tethered telephone. Then they showed the iphone. and it was completely different, totally new. And that was the point.
The BB ad's visuals said they wanted to start a fight with Apple. That's not a good kick off for a campaign.
They were wise to kill the ad.
Please tell us all why Blackberry's suck?
Do you actually have any real reasons? Have you ever had a BB connected to a BES? Have you actually ever used one?
Or is it just "If it aint made by Apple it must suck"?
Dude go and read the reviews of the Storm.