Steve was Johnny's boss. Forstall was fired precisely because he was a fly in the ointment and things are probably much happier around there now. From my experience the best creativity has arisen from conflict/chaos. All things move towards their opposites.
I notice you avoided answering every one of my questions. (Btw, Cook was Forstall's boss, so why isn't he Apple's resident 'fly in the ointment' per your earlier argument about Jobs? And while we're at it, can we names right? It's Jony).
All you've done so far is make a bunch of sweeping statements.
Do you want to know what I find completely pretentious? Your last sentence.
I notice you avoided answering every one of my questions. (Btw, Cook was Forstall's boss, so why isn't he Apple's resident 'fly in the ointment' per your earlier argument about Jobs? And while we're at it, can we names right? It's Jony).
All you've done so far is make a bunch of sweeping statements.
Do you want to know what I find completely pretentious? Your last sentence.
Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself... (per his daughter Lisa's story) He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.
Steve was likely much harder to work for than Phil.
Steve knew more of what he wanted and he probably worked well with that Ad agency as they've worked with Steve for decades. They are among the best in the industry. Ad Agency take some degree of ownership of the entire process and they manage the team, it's a much easier way of doing it. To do it in house isn't so easy. Ad agencies can pull people off one account and move them into another very easily, can't do that if it's done in house. I'm actually surprised they don't use Jony Ives a little more in his new role. Craig did a great job. He needs to relax a little more and not have so much canned responses. He reminds me of someone that learned the text book ways of doing a presentation, but he just needs to relax a little more. I do think they have a lot of personality compared to most of the other high tech companies in terms of presentations. In comparison, the guys are Google are too amateur and look like they don't know what they are doing. Almost like they are still in college still taking communication courses in public speaking and they haven't passed the course yet.
Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself... (per his daughter Lisa's story) <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;line-height:26px;text-indent:48px;">He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.</span>
Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself... (per his daughter Lisa's story) <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;line-height:26px;text-indent:48px;">He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.</span>
I must have trouble with my eyesight, but I am missing your "All things move towards their opposites " above. Can you perhaps highlight or bold it in your response?
Is that the same as "things led to their opposites"? And did Jobs say that, or his daughter?
I notice that, again, you've avoided answering my questions.
If you can't/won't, this is perhaps a good time to stop your incoherent ramblings.
I must have trouble with my eyesight, but I am missing your "All things move towards their opposites " above. Can you perhaps highlight or bold it in your response?
Is that the same as "things led to their opposites"? And did Jobs say that, or his daughter?
I notice that, again, you've avoided answering my questions.
If you can't/won't, this is perhaps a good time to stop your incoherent ramblings.
I was paraphrasing... "things led toward their opposites", "things move toward their opposites" - is there that much of a difference? Or are you just here for an argument? In that case it will be £1 for 15 minutes....
I was paraphrasing... "things led toward their opposites", "things move toward their opposites" - is there that much of a difference? Or are you just here for an argument? In that case it will be £1 for 15 minutes....
Take those quids and start saving for a course on reading comprehension.
Oh man, I couldn't disagree more. In this and age upstarts, 'know it alls' and 'media experts' are a dime a dozen. Creatives with clarity of vision, deep understanding of the message and the audience, and clear leadership, are very very hard to find. To get the marketing strategy right for a company like Apple is impossibly difficult, made more so by the fact that 'creative talent' and 'marketing nous' is something that seemingly every Tom Dick and Harriet has aplenty.
Marketing is difficult and always involves much doubt and soul-searching, and to be able o think clearly and have a clear vision in the cacophony of opinions, takes very special people.
Man you got that right. Really excellent marketing and advertising are hard to find. Bad advertising is everywhere.
Some have suggested giving part of the Apple business to another "hungry" agency. That does work sometimes. However, doing business with Apple is very difficult and very expensive. The Media lab at TWBA/Chiat/Day is an example. They are in a separate building with Apple style security. The people there are held to the same security standards as Apple employees. I would expect that there are probably Apple security people in the lab building at all times. Not every agency can afford to deal with those requirements. It is not unheard of for agencies to resign business because certain clients are too much trouble and not profitable. This happened to GSD&M with BMW. BMW is a difficult client, particularly in the U.S. because most of the shots are called from Germany. GSD&M had the account and did some nice work, but it was burning their people out. Producers and creatives would sometimes be out of the country more days a year than they were in. Nonetheless, GSD&M was hanging in there, determined to hold on to their major car account. Then something tragic happened. Jack Pitney, the BMW marketing chief in the U.S. was killed in a tractor accident. People loved this guy and he was the main reason GSD&M was holding on to the account. He ran interference for them, he would stand up for them and made things work more smoothly. When he was gone things just got worse and GSD&M ultimately resigned the account. Not many agencies would do that. Unless the client was draining resources and not making them much profit, which of course was exactly what happened. I can see this same scenario play out for any agency lucky/unfortunate enough to get part of the Apple business. Guess you just have to be careful what you wish for. I predict TBWA will hold on to the Apple business.
This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.
I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.
Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.
Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself... (per his daughter Lisa's story) <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;line-height:26px;text-indent:48px;">He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.</span>
I don't care who wrote that or of it was Jobs himself, it's still pretentious and a whole bunch of philosophical nothing. Sounds like something a first year "wise" college student might say. Actually, sounds like something I might have wrote back when I thought I could be a writer. Lol.
This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.
I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.
Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.
Very true. Jobs had clarity and vision... or so it seemed. Famously he used everyone around him to get to that point. He had 'something' that resulted in great results an unusual number of times, but I can very easily imagine that Jobs must have been a nightmare to work for for virtually every agency creative. Not all ads under Jobs were brilliant. The smug Jeff Goldblum voiced ads come to mind.
This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.
I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.
Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.
I've been in marketing over 30 years and I agree totally.
There's often a huge disconnect between an "approved" storyboard and the final commercial. That storyboard is there only to give the cinematographer a basic suggestion, a rough roadmap, or a general flavor of what is to be conveyed by the commercial... then you get out of the way and let them do the job he or she was hired for. While there's always a responsible art director overseeing things, every step of the process should not rigidly constrain the individuals doing them.
Shiller is absolutely right in not approving a commercial from a storyboard. You're only going to know if it's right when it's done right... and you re-do it until it is right. Considering what's riding on it, it's not a sign of indecision or a waste of money.
As for the latest commercials, I think they're brilliant. When competitors simple parody your spots, belittle your features and exaggerate their own, and outright copy your style, you should advertise something they can't easily claim as their own... Apple quality and design, easy of use, and lifestyle benefits. These new ads are a bullseye!
The 1984 ad was definitely memorable but it totally blew it when conveying anything about computers. This new ad about things being designed in California is similar with less impact. The focus of the ads are on the people and not much on the devices. I can see people using computers of all types anywhere, even in ads not about computers or phones. If Apple wants to sell things then those items must be featured directly with people getting results from using the devices. Showing children in a classroom that happens to have tablets on the tables says nothing. The new Kindle ads with children talking about books is a really good ad that features the devices.
Advertisements are supposed to sell things. Messages about anything else but selling a product are a huge waste of money. The idea about generating a reputation or brand identity is worthless unless the products become known and wanted. Too many ad agencies earn millions of dollars telling their clients they must build their image above selling their products. Selling the products is what builds the brand image. Not the other way around. If Apple wants to waste its millions of dollars on such ads then it is up to them. I don't own Apple stock so it doesn't worry me.
The 1984 ad was definitely memorable but it totally blew it when conveying anything about computers. This new ad about things being designed in California is similar with less impact. The focus of the ads are on the people and not much on the devices. I can see people using computers of all types anywhere, even in ads not about computers or phones. If Apple wants to sell things then those items must be featured directly with people getting results from using the devices. Showing children in a classroom that happens to have tablets on the tables says nothing. The new Kindle ads with children talking about books is a really good ad that features the devices.
Advertisements are supposed to sell things. Messages about anything else but selling a product are a huge waste of money. The idea about generating a reputation or brand identity is worthless unless the products become known and wanted. Too many ad agencies earn millions of dollars telling their clients they must build their image above selling their products. Selling the products is what builds the brand image. Not the other way around. If Apple wants to waste its millions of dollars on such ads then it is up to them. I don't own Apple stock so it doesn't worry me.
That may be true when introducing new products but everyone knows what an iDevice is. These ads show you what they can do in everyday life without being pretentious.
Comments
I notice you avoided answering every one of my questions. (Btw, Cook was Forstall's boss, so why isn't he Apple's resident 'fly in the ointment' per your earlier argument about Jobs? And while we're at it, can we names right? It's Jony).
All you've done so far is make a bunch of sweeping statements.
Do you want to know what I find completely pretentious? Your last sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I notice you avoided answering every one of my questions. (Btw, Cook was Forstall's boss, so why isn't he Apple's resident 'fly in the ointment' per your earlier argument about Jobs? And while we're at it, can we names right? It's Jony).
All you've done so far is make a bunch of sweeping statements.
Do you want to know what I find completely pretentious? Your last sentence.
Funny - that last sentence was simply from Steve Jobs himself... (per his daughter Lisa's story) He was a more extreme vegetarian than my mother and I, and sharp focused. We experimented, commented, dabbled; he honed and perfected. He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint. He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: things led to their opposites. Most people thought that things led to more of the same, so they took what came, and missed out on larger, more significant gratifications. They ate, drank and reveled. He didn’t, but he reveled later, on a larger, more permanent scale that would not deflate or sour, and that was his alchemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
Steve was likely much harder to work for than Phil.
Steve knew more of what he wanted and he probably worked well with that Ad agency as they've worked with Steve for decades. They are among the best in the industry. Ad Agency take some degree of ownership of the entire process and they manage the team, it's a much easier way of doing it. To do it in house isn't so easy. Ad agencies can pull people off one account and move them into another very easily, can't do that if it's done in house. I'm actually surprised they don't use Jony Ives a little more in his new role. Craig did a great job. He needs to relax a little more and not have so much canned responses. He reminds me of someone that learned the text book ways of doing a presentation, but he just needs to relax a little more. I do think they have a lot of personality compared to most of the other high tech companies in terms of presentations. In comparison, the guys are Google are too amateur and look like they don't know what they are doing. Almost like they are still in college still taking communication courses in public speaking and they haven't passed the course yet.
Forstall isn't Jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Forstall isn't Jobs.
Can't argue with that. Nor did I ever infer that he was....
I must have trouble with my eyesight, but I am missing your "All things move towards their opposites " above. Can you perhaps highlight or bold it in your response?
Is that the same as "things led to their opposites"? And did Jobs say that, or his daughter?
I notice that, again, you've avoided answering my questions.
If you can't/won't, this is perhaps a good time to stop your incoherent ramblings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Forstall was fired because he refused to accept blame for Maps.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I must have trouble with my eyesight, but I am missing your "All things move towards their opposites " above. Can you perhaps highlight or bold it in your response?
Is that the same as "things led to their opposites"? And did Jobs say that, or his daughter?
I notice that, again, you've avoided answering my questions.
If you can't/won't, this is perhaps a good time to stop your incoherent ramblings.
I was paraphrasing... "things led toward their opposites", "things move toward their opposites" - is there that much of a difference? Or are you just here for an argument? In that case it will be £1 for 15 minutes....
Take those quids and start saving for a course on reading comprehension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Take those quids and start saving for a course on reading comprehension.
£1 = one quid, singular not plural my good man.... and your 15 minutes are now up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista
Jobs was a great match for Johnny as he kicked him in the ass and brought out the best in him, not letting him get too far into his own head.
Yes. Like the time Steve made Jony design the desk lamp iMac after being "inspired" by sunflowers in the garden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Oh man, I couldn't disagree more. In this and age upstarts, 'know it alls' and 'media experts' are a dime a dozen. Creatives with clarity of vision, deep understanding of the message and the audience, and clear leadership, are very very hard to find. To get the marketing strategy right for a company like Apple is impossibly difficult, made more so by the fact that 'creative talent' and 'marketing nous' is something that seemingly every Tom Dick and Harriet has aplenty.
Marketing is difficult and always involves much doubt and soul-searching, and to be able o think clearly and have a clear vision in the cacophony of opinions, takes very special people.
Man you got that right. Really excellent marketing and advertising are hard to find. Bad advertising is everywhere.
Some have suggested giving part of the Apple business to another "hungry" agency. That does work sometimes. However, doing business with Apple is very difficult and very expensive. The Media lab at TWBA/Chiat/Day is an example. They are in a separate building with Apple style security. The people there are held to the same security standards as Apple employees. I would expect that there are probably Apple security people in the lab building at all times. Not every agency can afford to deal with those requirements. It is not unheard of for agencies to resign business because certain clients are too much trouble and not profitable. This happened to GSD&M with BMW. BMW is a difficult client, particularly in the U.S. because most of the shots are called from Germany. GSD&M had the account and did some nice work, but it was burning their people out. Producers and creatives would sometimes be out of the country more days a year than they were in. Nonetheless, GSD&M was hanging in there, determined to hold on to their major car account. Then something tragic happened. Jack Pitney, the BMW marketing chief in the U.S. was killed in a tractor accident. People loved this guy and he was the main reason GSD&M was holding on to the account. He ran interference for them, he would stand up for them and made things work more smoothly. When he was gone things just got worse and GSD&M ultimately resigned the account. Not many agencies would do that. Unless the client was draining resources and not making them much profit, which of course was exactly what happened. I can see this same scenario play out for any agency lucky/unfortunate enough to get part of the Apple business. Guess you just have to be careful what you wish for. I predict TBWA will hold on to the Apple business.
This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.
I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.
Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.
I don't care who wrote that or of it was Jobs himself, it's still pretentious and a whole bunch of philosophical nothing. Sounds like something a first year "wise" college student might say. Actually, sounds like something I might have wrote back when I thought I could be a writer. Lol.
I think his daughter wrote a fine essay and an enjoyable read. Nice insight on her relationship with her Dad.
http://www.lisabrennanjobs.net/2009/09/confessions-of-lapsed-vegetarian.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott
This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.
I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.
Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.
Very true. Jobs had clarity and vision... or so it seemed. Famously he used everyone around him to get to that point. He had 'something' that resulted in great results an unusual number of times, but I can very easily imagine that Jobs must have been a nightmare to work for for virtually every agency creative. Not all ads under Jobs were brilliant. The smug Jeff Goldblum voiced ads come to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott
This is not about the agency. Nor is it about Schiller. It's about Apple headlines and that's all.
I've been in marketing for 20 years. It's not news (at all) to say that an agency is frustrated with its client. It's an everyday occurrence. "They don't provide enough money/clarity/direction/time/understanding of the creative process/integration with other things they're doing/et cetera... in order for us to do our best work - the outrageously jaw-dropping work they are asking for." I mean, it's... it's every day.
Move on without bashing Phil or the agency. It's par for the course and it happened with Jobs, too.
I've been in marketing over 30 years and I agree totally.
There's often a huge disconnect between an "approved" storyboard and the final commercial. That storyboard is there only to give the cinematographer a basic suggestion, a rough roadmap, or a general flavor of what is to be conveyed by the commercial... then you get out of the way and let them do the job he or she was hired for. While there's always a responsible art director overseeing things, every step of the process should not rigidly constrain the individuals doing them.
Shiller is absolutely right in not approving a commercial from a storyboard. You're only going to know if it's right when it's done right... and you re-do it until it is right. Considering what's riding on it, it's not a sign of indecision or a waste of money.
As for the latest commercials, I think they're brilliant. When competitors simple parody your spots, belittle your features and exaggerate their own, and outright copy your style, you should advertise something they can't easily claim as their own... Apple quality and design, easy of use, and lifestyle benefits. These new ads are a bullseye!
The 1984 ad was definitely memorable but it totally blew it when conveying anything about computers. This new ad about things being designed in California is similar with less impact. The focus of the ads are on the people and not much on the devices. I can see people using computers of all types anywhere, even in ads not about computers or phones. If Apple wants to sell things then those items must be featured directly with people getting results from using the devices. Showing children in a classroom that happens to have tablets on the tables says nothing. The new Kindle ads with children talking about books is a really good ad that features the devices.
Advertisements are supposed to sell things. Messages about anything else but selling a product are a huge waste of money. The idea about generating a reputation or brand identity is worthless unless the products become known and wanted. Too many ad agencies earn millions of dollars telling their clients they must build their image above selling their products. Selling the products is what builds the brand image. Not the other way around. If Apple wants to waste its millions of dollars on such ads then it is up to them. I don't own Apple stock so it doesn't worry me.
That may be true when introducing new products but everyone knows what an iDevice is. These ads show you what they can do in everyday life without being pretentious.