I seriously don't want people to think I'm some backwards 1960's prejudicial old-timer male because I have a Motorola phone. We've come a long way in 30 odd-years and this just sets us right back.
This requires some consideration. Considered - I'm dumping my moto.
I seriously don't want people to think I'm some backwards 1960's prejudicial old-timer male because I have a Motorola phone. We've come a long way in 30 odd-years and this just sets us right back.
This requires some consideration. Considered - I'm dumping my moto.
(I'm not kidding)
The ad takes pot-shots at modern, progressive men, like you and me; it takes a shot at homosexuals, and it takes a shot at women.
In fact, the Reg got it quite right. it's worth a read.
I think people who think that "Apple products are posh and targeting Paris Hilton & friends sort of clients" (which is the purest form of dumbf******) grossly overestimate the number of people who think this way.
How many people think iPods are high end items only indulged in by celebrities and the like? How many people can't figure out that the iPhone costs exactly as much as the Droid or most other smartphones?
There's no "princess" market to lose, it's an idiotic conceit with no bearing on reality. iPhones are in the hands of truckers, dentists, teenagers, soccer moms, little league coaches, campers, surfers, retirees, lab assistants, carpenters and dog trainers. To try to redefine its appeal, at this point, as somehow "elitist", and to counter that ludicrous characterization with "angry, macho and loud" doesn't make a lot of sense. Except to this interesting little demographic you've described. Who are, well, you know.
Just like in politics, winning relies on exploiting the perceived weakness of your opponent. When your opponent has few weaknesses, it's easier to lie or make up a weakness and play it to the hilt. Of course, the iPhone's real known weakness is at&t and they're already playing that card.
Just like in politics, winning relies on exploiting the perceived weakness of your opponent. When your opponent has few weaknesses, it's easier to lie or make up a weakness and play it to the hilt. Of course, the iPhone's real known weakness is at&t and they're already playing that card.
But that's my point exactly: who "perceives" that a weakness of the iPhone is that it's dainty, or the phone of choice for homosexuals and fatuous celebrities, or that it's some kind of jewel encrusted bauble that can't do much? The criminally insane? Hillbillies? Angry shut-ins?
And if that isn't the general perception, then how effective, really, is claiming those things? Motorola could also run ads suggesting that the Droid doesn't burst into flame and melt your face, unlike certain Jesus phones they could name, but that would that be an effective campaign?
A campaign isn't effective just because it says bad stuff about the competitor, or implies that only bad people use the competitor's product. The claims have to resonate with something at least marginally connected to most people's reality.
Again, the idea that the Droid is a "robot" that destroys things which makes it the antidote for iPhone's Barbie Doll fecklessness is not an idea likely to resonate with most people's reality, for the simple reason that it's insultingly ridiculous on the face of it.
But back to the topic. The one reason this ad is successful? It causes controversy. Controversy leads to recognition of an item. Whether or not this is positive or negative to the Droid is a matter of personal opinion. But you can't deny that it's getting the Droid name out there more. Hell we're all discussing it right now! Exactly what Motorola wants!
My favorite line was "duct taped to a Scud missile..."
This often gets said about ad campaigns that stir debate, but I don't think it's actually true-- that there's "no such thing as bad publicity."
For instance, Motorola could next run ads showing the Droid intercut with scenes of women being brutalized. Or rapid images of fascist dictators. Or Elephants being slaughtered. That would certainly get people talking. A lot. Think it's the kind of attention Verizon would welcome?
This often gets said about ad campaigns that stir debate, but I don't think it's actually true-- that there's "no such thing as bad publicity.?
Most adages aren?t true or to be taken literally. This is clearly one of them. That?s not even the full quote and Micheal Jackson?s untimely death provided a clear example of that.
"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary? ~Brendan Behan
Its a bitch phone. I use a sonim land rover S1 and when i put that thing on the table women know I'm hard bastard. All you guys out there who have a iphone you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at the thing, it says girlie all over. you guys are becoming more like women, losing your masculinity. little bitches with their iphones. look at me, look at me i've got an iphone. none of the boys serving overseas have an iphone.........
Not sure this is really the best approach for Motorola/Verizon. It seems to me men have a habit of projecting a female gender on possessions: boats, cars, guitars, etc. Perhaps most men only feel comfortable thinking of something as beautiful if it has a female gender attached to it. Or perhaps they are looking for socially acceptable ways to appreciate beauty that fits with the macho male image.
Either way it's a short sighted way to market a product. Too negative. If you look at the Apple PC/Mac ads they were very careful to make John Hodgman a likable character. So while the ads are manipulative they are not negative. The role of the PC is a mixture of an exploited customer who, by proxy, is repeating the status quo wisdom of computing. The Mac is the alternative.
A better campaign for Motorola/Verizon would be a "man on the street" ad. Two people sitting at a table using their phones. The ad would show the practical advantages of an Android phone and a frustrated iPhone user saying "oh... mine doesn't do that"
But this is Motorola -- no matter how much Verizon is involved you can't escape the fact Motorola is clueless about advertising and good design. The fact that their best response is "well you're a homo if you like the iPhone" -- and let's be honest that's EXACTLY what this is, shows how incapable they are at marketing.
This often gets said about ad campaigns that stir debate, but I don't think it's actually true-- that there's "no such thing as bad publicity."
For instance, Motorola could next run ads showing the Droid intercut with scenes of women being brutalized. Or rapid images of fascist dictators. Or Elephants being slaughtered. That would certainly get people talking. A lot. Think it's the kind of attention Verizon would welcome?
Of course there is a limit to what is too far. But I don't think Verizon did anything that went past the line. Did Verizon do any of those things that you list later in your post? No. They know better.
Verizon poked fun of the iPhone with their iDon't ad, which was a real success in getting people talking about what the Droid was. Now Motorola did the same thing with this commercial. It's poking a bit of fun at a phone that suggested to be the iPhone.
Now you see lots and lots of commercials of Ford or Nissan Chevy trucks that use all kinds of manly images and words. Some of the earlier ones also picked on their competitor's trucks being sissy and not as powerful as their models. I don't see anyone complaining about those ads segregating the population. So why is Motorola getting such flak for making a similar ad?
But want to know the most ironic part of your post? The act of you posting is causing a debate. Like it or not, Motorola's ad had the intended effect. You're spreading the name of the Droid on an Apple fan website.
I really think it would be better if iPhone competitors would just tout their own products and stop targeting the iPhone. The iPhone is so popular that their attempts at attacking just come off as cheap and transparent. Make a better product, advertise it on its merits, etc. Let the consumer do the rest.
I agree with you! Why don't phone makers focus on their own products instead of comparing with iPhone. Except for PC vs Mac, Apple didn't have to do iPhone v/s Nokia/Windows Mobile comparison. The problem with Motorola is that they have lost the market share and now they are put all eggs in one basket - Droid. It is make or break situation for them. I think Droid is a sad comparison - Even among Android phones. I think HTC makes a better Android phone.
Of course they didn't do any of the things that Addabox used as bad analogies in his post.
The iPhone is weak in several ways and strong in several ways. The fact it is all one piece makes it feel very solid. However Moto is trying to show how simple to use can also mean simpleminded using it. Form verus function is a legitimate discussion point and this ad raises it. Whether it will resonate with consumers is a point of contention but then everyone is picking at straws nowadays. Apple is stuck highlighting the very limited form of multitasking they support as a reverse example.
The Apple had has to be one of the first times I've seen them respond to a competitor. I think a lot of folks are worried about Android hurting Apple. I don't just mean Droid and Motorola. I mean the possibility of death by a thousand cuts via Android phones.
Of course there is a limit to what is too far. But I don't think Verizon did anything that went past the line. Did Verizon do any of those things that you list later in your post? No. They know better.
Verizon poked fun of the iPhone with their iDon't ad, which was a real success in getting people talking about what the Droid was. Now Motorola did the same thing with this commercial. It's poking a bit of fun at a phone that suggested to be the iPhone.
Now you see lots and lots of commercials of Ford or Nissan Chevy trucks that use all kinds of manly images and words. Some of the earlier ones also picked on their competitor's trucks being sissy and not as powerful as their models. I don't see anyone complaining about those ads segregating the population. So why is Motorola getting such flak for making a similar ad?
But want to know the most ironic part of your post? The act of you posting is causing a debate. Like it or not, Motorola's ad had the intended effect. You're spreading the name of the Droid on an Apple fan website.
My point being that simply getting people to talk about your product isn't an automatic win. Talking about the Droid on this forum isn't a win. Anyone here who wasn't particularly interested in the Droid is unlikely to be won over by this conversation. And surely you don't imagine that there many people here were unaware of the Droid, who are now intrigued?
"Tongues are wagging, they're playing right into their hands" is an easy thing to say, I just don't happen to think it's true, as can be demonstrated by any number of episodes of negative press that got everybody talking about this or that product.
As far as pickup truck ad campaign go: pickup trucks are not cell phones, which is part of what I'm saying. I have no idea if truck ads that make out the competitors as being wimpy are effective or not; I will say that such ads have always struck me as dumbfoundingly stupid, even by the very low standards of advertising. I shudder to think what kind of buyer is actually swayed by the idea that one truck has a bigger dick than the next.
But be that as it may, since when does anyone think of a cellphone as having any of the cultural positioning of a pickup truck? It's just tone deaf, the idea of selling your phone as some kind of testosterone fueled penis monster accessory. It's beyond stupid, it's insane.
I'm sure there are a certain number of deeply insecure young men that will be sadly aroused by this nonsense, but how many of them will actually go out and buy a Droid? Against how many potential buyers that now consider the Droid a bad dick joke?
My point being that simply getting people to talk about your product isn't an automatic win. Talking about the Droid on this forum isn't a win. Anyone here who wasn't particularly interested in the Droid is unlikely to be won over by this conversation. And surely you don't imagine that there many people here were unaware of the Droid, who are now intrigued?
"Tongues are wagging, they're playing right into their hands" is an easy thing to say, I just don't happen to think it's true, as can be demonstrated by any number of episodes of negative press that got everybody talking about this or that product.
As far as pickup truck ad campaign go: pickup trucks are not cell phones, which is part of what I'm saying. I have no idea if truck ads that make out the competitors as being wimpy are effective or not; I will say that such ads have always struck me as dumbfoundingly stupid, even by the very low standards of advertising. I shudder to think what kind of buyer is actually swayed by the idea that one truck has a bigger dick than the next.
But be that as it may, since when does anyone think of a cellphone as having any of the cultural positioning of a pickup truck? It's just tone deaf, the idea of selling your phone as some kind of testosterone fueled penis monster accessory. It's beyond stupid, it's insane.
I'm sure there are a certain number of deeply insecure young men that will be sadly aroused by this nonsense, but how many of them will actually go out and buy a Droid? Against how many potential buyers that now consider the Droid a bad dick joke?
My point was that AI is only one of many media outlets that are reporting on the Motorola ad. Everything from CNNMoney to The Wall Street Journal. While you're probably right that no one here would be swayed to get a Droid (it is an Apple fan site, after all), you can't say that no one would be swayed be reading any of those other articles.
As for my trucks comparison, you're right that cellphones are different from trucks . But they are still products being marketed. It's the commercials I was talking about.
I would agree that getting a truck solely on the reason that it "has a bigger dick" than the next one is stupid. But having more of something is still a valid reason to buy something...
But I really think you're reading way too much into the commercial. Motorola made an amusing commercial that advertised their product over a competitor's product by insulting it a little. Nothing that hasn't been done in the past. I'm looking at you Apple "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC ads".
My point was that AI is only one of many media outlets that are reporting on the Motorola ad. Everything from CNNMoney to The Wall Street Journal. While you're probably right that no one here would be swayed to get a Droid (it is an Apple fan site, after all), you can't say that no one would be swayed be reading any of those other articles.
As for my trucks comparison, you're right that cellphones are different from trucks . But they are still products being marketed. It's the commercials I was talking about.
I would agree that getting a truck solely on the reason that it "has a bigger dick" than the next one is stupid. But having more of something is still a valid reason to buy something...
But I really think you're reading way too much into the commercial. Motorola made an amusing commercial that advertised their product over a competitor's product by insulting it a little. Nothing that hasn't been done in the past. I'm looking at you Apple "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC ads".
Well, I guess we're just going to disagree on this, but:
1) Reading about a controversial ad campaign doesn't strike me as a likely way to drive adoption.
2) "Products being marketed" as a point of comparison between campaigns is so broad as to be meaningless. Different products are marketed in different ways because they have differing types of appeal to different groups. Just as you're never going to see burgers marketed with the sex appeal angle of liquor or cars, I think marketing a cell phone with pickup style machismo is a mistake. As far as having "more of something" what is it that Motorola is saying the Droid has more of, than the iPhone? Dick? And you're saying that's a valid point? Really?
3) I have no problem with an advertising tweaking a product humorously, or pointedly. What I'm saying is that the Droid commercials are neither. The tone is clearly intended as edgy and aggressive, not funny. And, again, the "points" being scored against the iPhone are incoherent.
Can you tell me what, exactly, is princess like or beauty queen like about the iPhone? How it's a delicate porcelain thing? Do you know anyone that has that impression? If anything, the iPhone is more utilitarian than the various flavors of Android and WinMo that have surfaced lately, which tend to be far more ornate.
At heart, the entire campaign hinges on the innate presumption that "Apple stuff is for fags", which apparently you think is cute and funny and kinda true. I guess there a few Beavis and Butthead types that agree. But good luck to Motorola building a customer base on that demographic.
Well, it's kinda true. I've never seen so many people fascinated with the looks of their phone or its appearance than I do with iPhone users (myself included).
You always hear bitching about "oh, I scratched the back of it... WHAT DO I DO!?", or "OMG, my keys slightly scratched the screen -- IT'S RUINED!"
Most other phone owners don't give a shit; they just keep using their devices, battle scars and all.
Man do I ever agree with this.
My iPhone has just survived a weekend of scaffolding in my back pocket of my shorts. It's been dropped, it has fallen into puddles, it has a handful of minor scratches, on the screen and tons on the plastic and yet I don't care. In fact I kind of like the scratches because it shows it actually gets used a lot not just sit in a case all the time.
I'm the sort of person that you should give your products to to field test your gear. If it can survive a week with me then you're on to a winner. The iPhone has survived a year and a half with me and it's still going strong with a daily use. It's the phone I've waited 10 years for and it's the phone that has been the strongest for me. Definitely upgrading next year when my contract expires.
At heart, the entire campaign hinges on the innate presumption that "Apple stuff is for fags", which apparently you think is cute and funny and kinda true. I guess there a few Beavis and Butthead types that agree. But good luck to Motorola building a customer base on that demographic.
That may be true, but 7 pages later it still seems to be bothering many of you.
What I would be more concerned with is given the reaction across all the forums is if other Mobile & Telco's don't pick up on it and run with it.
It may be sophomoric advertising but if others pick up on it and start portraying the iPhone in the same manner it may change the perception of the iPhone to a negative connotation.
Does it mean that being gay is a negative or wrong in any way? No.
But if the iPhone is perceived this way it will matter. Better hope other Vendors don’t take the ball and run with it.
10% of the population is speculated to be Gay. That leaves a large percentage that may not want to be perceived in this manner. Many don’t care but far too many more do.
That may be true, but 7 pages later it still seems to be bothering many of you.
What I would be more concerned with is given the reaction across all the forums is if other Mobile & Telco's don't pick up on it and run with it.
It may be sophomoric advertising but if others pick up on it and start portraying the iPhone in the same manner it may change the perception of the iPhone to a negative connotation.
Does it mean that being gay is a negative or wrong in any way? No.
But if the iPhone is perceived this way it will matter. Better hope other Vendors don’t take the ball and run with it.
10% of the population is speculated to be Gay. That leaves a large percentage that may not want to be perceived in this manner. Many don’t care but far too many more do.
Except advertising can't actually make stuff up out of whole cloth, it can only work off of existing currents. If there were something dainty about the iPhone, or it came encrusted with jewels, or it was much more expensive than the competition yet did far less, or it was famously delicate, then I guess there might be something to run with.
But this is the phone that a lot of people seem to be convinced is defined by its fart apps. It's pretty well known for being robust. It's a plain little slab of tech without any decorative touches whatsoever, and its dominant visual is its home page of app icons. It's an iPod. It's a browser.
It is, in a word, neutral, insofar as Apple could make it so. The phone itself endeavors to disappear, being characterized by whatever app is running. Anyone trying to characterize that as "gay" is just drawing attention to their own anxiety-- or their desire to prey on the anxiety of adolescent boys. Then again, it doesn't take much to convince adolescent boys that, say, coffee pots and lawnmowers are gay, since calling things gay is a reflexive effort to establish sexual identity.
As far as "bothering me", I'm just interested in how messages are formed. This particular message particularly interests me because it's so overt, and so very insane. There's all kind of bad advertising, but rarely do you get something that seems to have been actually made by gender anxious adolescents.
By the way, the concern trolling about how dreadful it would be if the iPhone were to come to be seen as "gay" is pretty pathetic.
Comments
I seriously don't want people to think I'm some backwards 1960's prejudicial old-timer male because I have a Motorola phone. We've come a long way in 30 odd-years and this just sets us right back.
This requires some consideration. Considered - I'm dumping my moto.
(I'm not kidding)
Someone should tell Motorola that the iphone is BOTH good looking, feels good in a hand AND is FAST.
Nice to see someone other than Apple actually advertise they have a phone.
Sorry, Moto, I'll take that blonde over a robot anyday.
Indeed.
Plus the blonde buys more phones and talks on them longer than the linux geek in his basement playing with robots.
Such misogyny makes me want to dump my RaZr.
I seriously don't want people to think I'm some backwards 1960's prejudicial old-timer male because I have a Motorola phone. We've come a long way in 30 odd-years and this just sets us right back.
This requires some consideration. Considered - I'm dumping my moto.
(I'm not kidding)
The ad takes pot-shots at modern, progressive men, like you and me; it takes a shot at homosexuals, and it takes a shot at women.
In fact, the Reg got it quite right. it's worth a read.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12...disses_iphone/
I think people who think that "Apple products are posh and targeting Paris Hilton & friends sort of clients" (which is the purest form of dumbf******) grossly overestimate the number of people who think this way.
How many people think iPods are high end items only indulged in by celebrities and the like? How many people can't figure out that the iPhone costs exactly as much as the Droid or most other smartphones?
There's no "princess" market to lose, it's an idiotic conceit with no bearing on reality. iPhones are in the hands of truckers, dentists, teenagers, soccer moms, little league coaches, campers, surfers, retirees, lab assistants, carpenters and dog trainers. To try to redefine its appeal, at this point, as somehow "elitist", and to counter that ludicrous characterization with "angry, macho and loud" doesn't make a lot of sense. Except to this interesting little demographic you've described. Who are, well, you know.
Just like in politics, winning relies on exploiting the perceived weakness of your opponent. When your opponent has few weaknesses, it's easier to lie or make up a weakness and play it to the hilt. Of course, the iPhone's real known weakness is at&t and they're already playing that card.
Just like in politics, winning relies on exploiting the perceived weakness of your opponent. When your opponent has few weaknesses, it's easier to lie or make up a weakness and play it to the hilt. Of course, the iPhone's real known weakness is at&t and they're already playing that card.
But that's my point exactly: who "perceives" that a weakness of the iPhone is that it's dainty, or the phone of choice for homosexuals and fatuous celebrities, or that it's some kind of jewel encrusted bauble that can't do much? The criminally insane? Hillbillies? Angry shut-ins?
And if that isn't the general perception, then how effective, really, is claiming those things? Motorola could also run ads suggesting that the Droid doesn't burst into flame and melt your face, unlike certain Jesus phones they could name, but that would that be an effective campaign?
A campaign isn't effective just because it says bad stuff about the competitor, or implies that only bad people use the competitor's product. The claims have to resonate with something at least marginally connected to most people's reality.
Again, the idea that the Droid is a "robot" that destroys things which makes it the antidote for iPhone's Barbie Doll fecklessness is not an idea likely to resonate with most people's reality, for the simple reason that it's insultingly ridiculous on the face of it.
But back to the topic. The one reason this ad is successful? It causes controversy. Controversy leads to recognition of an item. Whether or not this is positive or negative to the Droid is a matter of personal opinion. But you can't deny that it's getting the Droid name out there more. Hell we're all discussing it right now! Exactly what Motorola wants!
My favorite line was "duct taped to a Scud missile..."
This often gets said about ad campaigns that stir debate, but I don't think it's actually true-- that there's "no such thing as bad publicity."
For instance, Motorola could next run ads showing the Droid intercut with scenes of women being brutalized. Or rapid images of fascist dictators. Or Elephants being slaughtered. That would certainly get people talking. A lot. Think it's the kind of attention Verizon would welcome?
This often gets said about ad campaigns that stir debate, but I don't think it's actually true-- that there's "no such thing as bad publicity.?
Most adages aren?t true or to be taken literally. This is clearly one of them. That?s not even the full quote and Micheal Jackson?s untimely death provided a clear example of that.
Either way it's a short sighted way to market a product. Too negative. If you look at the Apple PC/Mac ads they were very careful to make John Hodgman a likable character. So while the ads are manipulative they are not negative. The role of the PC is a mixture of an exploited customer who, by proxy, is repeating the status quo wisdom of computing. The Mac is the alternative.
A better campaign for Motorola/Verizon would be a "man on the street" ad. Two people sitting at a table using their phones. The ad would show the practical advantages of an Android phone and a frustrated iPhone user saying "oh... mine doesn't do that"
But this is Motorola -- no matter how much Verizon is involved you can't escape the fact Motorola is clueless about advertising and good design. The fact that their best response is "well you're a homo if you like the iPhone" -- and let's be honest that's EXACTLY what this is, shows how incapable they are at marketing.
The ad takes pot-shots at modern, progressive men, like you and me; it takes a shot at homosexuals, and it takes a shot at women.
In fact, the Reg got it quite right. it's worth a read.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12...disses_iphone/
... perhaps modern men and women who bathe are pathetic losers? Maybe a Motorola phone could fix this?
I text while I'm at it.
No other phone can do that. No woman in their right mind does that. Case closed
This often gets said about ad campaigns that stir debate, but I don't think it's actually true-- that there's "no such thing as bad publicity."
For instance, Motorola could next run ads showing the Droid intercut with scenes of women being brutalized. Or rapid images of fascist dictators. Or Elephants being slaughtered. That would certainly get people talking. A lot. Think it's the kind of attention Verizon would welcome?
Of course there is a limit to what is too far. But I don't think Verizon did anything that went past the line. Did Verizon do any of those things that you list later in your post? No. They know better.
Verizon poked fun of the iPhone with their iDon't ad, which was a real success in getting people talking about what the Droid was. Now Motorola did the same thing with this commercial. It's poking a bit of fun at a phone that suggested to be the iPhone.
Now you see lots and lots of commercials of Ford or Nissan Chevy trucks that use all kinds of manly images and words. Some of the earlier ones also picked on their competitor's trucks being sissy and not as powerful as their models. I don't see anyone complaining about those ads segregating the population. So why is Motorola getting such flak for making a similar ad?
But want to know the most ironic part of your post? The act of you posting is causing a debate. Like it or not, Motorola's ad had the intended effect. You're spreading the name of the Droid on an Apple fan website.
My wife has that phone. Piece of crap.
As for the ad:
I really think it would be better if iPhone competitors would just tout their own products and stop targeting the iPhone. The iPhone is so popular that their attempts at attacking just come off as cheap and transparent. Make a better product, advertise it on its merits, etc. Let the consumer do the rest.
I agree with you! Why don't phone makers focus on their own products instead of comparing with iPhone. Except for PC vs Mac, Apple didn't have to do iPhone v/s Nokia/Windows Mobile comparison. The problem with Motorola is that they have lost the market share and now they are put all eggs in one basket - Droid. It is make or break situation for them. I think Droid is a sad comparison - Even among Android phones. I think HTC makes a better Android phone.
The iPhone is weak in several ways and strong in several ways. The fact it is all one piece makes it feel very solid. However Moto is trying to show how simple to use can also mean simpleminded using it. Form verus function is a legitimate discussion point and this ad raises it. Whether it will resonate with consumers is a point of contention but then everyone is picking at straws nowadays. Apple is stuck highlighting the very limited form of multitasking they support as a reverse example.
The Apple had has to be one of the first times I've seen them respond to a competitor. I think a lot of folks are worried about Android hurting Apple. I don't just mean Droid and Motorola. I mean the possibility of death by a thousand cuts via Android phones.
Of course there is a limit to what is too far. But I don't think Verizon did anything that went past the line. Did Verizon do any of those things that you list later in your post? No. They know better.
Verizon poked fun of the iPhone with their iDon't ad, which was a real success in getting people talking about what the Droid was. Now Motorola did the same thing with this commercial. It's poking a bit of fun at a phone that suggested to be the iPhone.
Now you see lots and lots of commercials of Ford or Nissan Chevy trucks that use all kinds of manly images and words. Some of the earlier ones also picked on their competitor's trucks being sissy and not as powerful as their models. I don't see anyone complaining about those ads segregating the population. So why is Motorola getting such flak for making a similar ad?
But want to know the most ironic part of your post? The act of you posting is causing a debate. Like it or not, Motorola's ad had the intended effect. You're spreading the name of the Droid on an Apple fan website.
My point being that simply getting people to talk about your product isn't an automatic win. Talking about the Droid on this forum isn't a win. Anyone here who wasn't particularly interested in the Droid is unlikely to be won over by this conversation. And surely you don't imagine that there many people here were unaware of the Droid, who are now intrigued?
"Tongues are wagging, they're playing right into their hands" is an easy thing to say, I just don't happen to think it's true, as can be demonstrated by any number of episodes of negative press that got everybody talking about this or that product.
As far as pickup truck ad campaign go: pickup trucks are not cell phones, which is part of what I'm saying. I have no idea if truck ads that make out the competitors as being wimpy are effective or not; I will say that such ads have always struck me as dumbfoundingly stupid, even by the very low standards of advertising. I shudder to think what kind of buyer is actually swayed by the idea that one truck has a bigger dick than the next.
But be that as it may, since when does anyone think of a cellphone as having any of the cultural positioning of a pickup truck? It's just tone deaf, the idea of selling your phone as some kind of testosterone fueled penis monster accessory. It's beyond stupid, it's insane.
I'm sure there are a certain number of deeply insecure young men that will be sadly aroused by this nonsense, but how many of them will actually go out and buy a Droid? Against how many potential buyers that now consider the Droid a bad dick joke?
My point being that simply getting people to talk about your product isn't an automatic win. Talking about the Droid on this forum isn't a win. Anyone here who wasn't particularly interested in the Droid is unlikely to be won over by this conversation. And surely you don't imagine that there many people here were unaware of the Droid, who are now intrigued?
"Tongues are wagging, they're playing right into their hands" is an easy thing to say, I just don't happen to think it's true, as can be demonstrated by any number of episodes of negative press that got everybody talking about this or that product.
As far as pickup truck ad campaign go: pickup trucks are not cell phones, which is part of what I'm saying. I have no idea if truck ads that make out the competitors as being wimpy are effective or not; I will say that such ads have always struck me as dumbfoundingly stupid, even by the very low standards of advertising. I shudder to think what kind of buyer is actually swayed by the idea that one truck has a bigger dick than the next.
But be that as it may, since when does anyone think of a cellphone as having any of the cultural positioning of a pickup truck? It's just tone deaf, the idea of selling your phone as some kind of testosterone fueled penis monster accessory. It's beyond stupid, it's insane.
I'm sure there are a certain number of deeply insecure young men that will be sadly aroused by this nonsense, but how many of them will actually go out and buy a Droid? Against how many potential buyers that now consider the Droid a bad dick joke?
My point was that AI is only one of many media outlets that are reporting on the Motorola ad. Everything from CNNMoney to The Wall Street Journal. While you're probably right that no one here would be swayed to get a Droid (it is an Apple fan site, after all), you can't say that no one would be swayed be reading any of those other articles.
As for my trucks comparison, you're right that cellphones are different from trucks
I would agree that getting a truck solely on the reason that it "has a bigger dick" than the next one is stupid. But having more of something is still a valid reason to buy something...
But I really think you're reading way too much into the commercial. Motorola made an amusing commercial that advertised their product over a competitor's product by insulting it a little. Nothing that hasn't been done in the past. I'm looking at you Apple "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC ads".
My point was that AI is only one of many media outlets that are reporting on the Motorola ad. Everything from CNNMoney to The Wall Street Journal. While you're probably right that no one here would be swayed to get a Droid (it is an Apple fan site, after all), you can't say that no one would be swayed be reading any of those other articles.
As for my trucks comparison, you're right that cellphones are different from trucks
I would agree that getting a truck solely on the reason that it "has a bigger dick" than the next one is stupid. But having more of something is still a valid reason to buy something...
But I really think you're reading way too much into the commercial. Motorola made an amusing commercial that advertised their product over a competitor's product by insulting it a little. Nothing that hasn't been done in the past. I'm looking at you Apple "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC ads".
Well, I guess we're just going to disagree on this, but:
1) Reading about a controversial ad campaign doesn't strike me as a likely way to drive adoption.
2) "Products being marketed" as a point of comparison between campaigns is so broad as to be meaningless. Different products are marketed in different ways because they have differing types of appeal to different groups. Just as you're never going to see burgers marketed with the sex appeal angle of liquor or cars, I think marketing a cell phone with pickup style machismo is a mistake. As far as having "more of something" what is it that Motorola is saying the Droid has more of, than the iPhone? Dick? And you're saying that's a valid point? Really?
3) I have no problem with an advertising tweaking a product humorously, or pointedly. What I'm saying is that the Droid commercials are neither. The tone is clearly intended as edgy and aggressive, not funny. And, again, the "points" being scored against the iPhone are incoherent.
Can you tell me what, exactly, is princess like or beauty queen like about the iPhone? How it's a delicate porcelain thing? Do you know anyone that has that impression? If anything, the iPhone is more utilitarian than the various flavors of Android and WinMo that have surfaced lately, which tend to be far more ornate.
At heart, the entire campaign hinges on the innate presumption that "Apple stuff is for fags", which apparently you think is cute and funny and kinda true. I guess there a few Beavis and Butthead types that agree. But good luck to Motorola building a customer base on that demographic.
Well, it's kinda true. I've never seen so many people fascinated with the looks of their phone or its appearance than I do with iPhone users (myself included).
You always hear bitching about "oh, I scratched the back of it... WHAT DO I DO!?", or "OMG, my keys slightly scratched the screen -- IT'S RUINED!"
Most other phone owners don't give a shit; they just keep using their devices, battle scars and all.
Man do I ever agree with this.
My iPhone has just survived a weekend of scaffolding in my back pocket of my shorts. It's been dropped, it has fallen into puddles, it has a handful of minor scratches, on the screen and tons on the plastic and yet I don't care. In fact I kind of like the scratches because it shows it actually gets used a lot not just sit in a case all the time.
I'm the sort of person that you should give your products to to field test your gear. If it can survive a week with me then you're on to a winner. The iPhone has survived a year and a half with me and it's still going strong with a daily use. It's the phone I've waited 10 years for and it's the phone that has been the strongest for me. Definitely upgrading next year when my contract expires.
At heart, the entire campaign hinges on the innate presumption that "Apple stuff is for fags", which apparently you think is cute and funny and kinda true. I guess there a few Beavis and Butthead types that agree. But good luck to Motorola building a customer base on that demographic.
That may be true, but 7 pages later it still seems to be bothering many of you.
What I would be more concerned with is given the reaction across all the forums is if other Mobile & Telco's don't pick up on it and run with it.
It may be sophomoric advertising but if others pick up on it and start portraying the iPhone in the same manner it may change the perception of the iPhone to a negative connotation.
Does it mean that being gay is a negative or wrong in any way? No.
But if the iPhone is perceived this way it will matter. Better hope other Vendors don’t take the ball and run with it.
10% of the population is speculated to be Gay. That leaves a large percentage that may not want to be perceived in this manner. Many don’t care but far too many more do.
That may be true, but 7 pages later it still seems to be bothering many of you.
What I would be more concerned with is given the reaction across all the forums is if other Mobile & Telco's don't pick up on it and run with it.
It may be sophomoric advertising but if others pick up on it and start portraying the iPhone in the same manner it may change the perception of the iPhone to a negative connotation.
Does it mean that being gay is a negative or wrong in any way? No.
But if the iPhone is perceived this way it will matter. Better hope other Vendors don’t take the ball and run with it.
10% of the population is speculated to be Gay. That leaves a large percentage that may not want to be perceived in this manner. Many don’t care but far too many more do.
Except advertising can't actually make stuff up out of whole cloth, it can only work off of existing currents. If there were something dainty about the iPhone, or it came encrusted with jewels, or it was much more expensive than the competition yet did far less, or it was famously delicate, then I guess there might be something to run with.
But this is the phone that a lot of people seem to be convinced is defined by its fart apps. It's pretty well known for being robust. It's a plain little slab of tech without any decorative touches whatsoever, and its dominant visual is its home page of app icons. It's an iPod. It's a browser.
It is, in a word, neutral, insofar as Apple could make it so. The phone itself endeavors to disappear, being characterized by whatever app is running. Anyone trying to characterize that as "gay" is just drawing attention to their own anxiety-- or their desire to prey on the anxiety of adolescent boys. Then again, it doesn't take much to convince adolescent boys that, say, coffee pots and lawnmowers are gay, since calling things gay is a reflexive effort to establish sexual identity.
As far as "bothering me", I'm just interested in how messages are formed. This particular message particularly interests me because it's so overt, and so very insane. There's all kind of bad advertising, but rarely do you get something that seems to have been actually made by gender anxious adolescents.
By the way, the concern trolling about how dreadful it would be if the iPhone were to come to be seen as "gay" is pretty pathetic.