If you look closely they didn't even write "Apple" in the graphic,
Haha! So true! We just see their brand symbol and know who it is on top. Consumers don't even need to see the word "Apple" to recognize the company's branding... What other symbols are so easily recognized by so many? The Superman symbol? Batman? And dare I say the Flash? A couple of sports teams? Wow, well done, ???? (sorry, couldn't figure out how to paste the actual Apple symbol here).
What makes you think Apple despises branding and marketing? On the contrary they embrace it, and one of the best at it IMO.
Surprise, you and DroidFTW and even lkrupp don't get it. /s
See Ochyming's post above for the link to Allison Johnston's first-hand account. Steve Jobs rightfully hated the present-day obsession with branding and marketing, which now extends into areas like, e.g., politics, turning parties and candidates into commodities. That sort of thing.
I'm reading between the lines, but what Jobs was objecting to is the manufacture of awareness in the "target market," rather than letting the quality and ingenuity of the product create the awareness and desire from within, as it were. So Apple's video advertising became about what the products can do, and their visual campaigns on billboards and magazines became lessons in showing how beautiful the products are in quasi-erotic close-up.
Branding and marketing belong to companies that need to force your attention. This tawdry field developed in parallel with planned obsolescence and ever more useless tweaks to products to "drive sales."
Surprise, you and DroidFTW and even lkrupp don't get it. /s
See Ochyming's post above for the link to Allison Johnston's first-hand account. Steve Jobs rightfully hated the present-day obsession with branding and marketing, which now extends into areas like, e.g., politics, turning parties and candidates into commodities. That sort of thing.
I'm reading between the lines, but what Jobs was objecting to is the manufacture of awareness in the "target market," rather than letting the quality and ingenuity of the product create the awareness and desire from within, as it were. So Apple's video advertising became about what the products can do, and their visual campaigns on billboards and magazines became lessons in showing how beautiful the products are in quasi-erotic close-up.
Branding and marketing belong to companies that need to force your attention. This tawdry field developed in parallel with planned obsolescence and ever more useless tweaks to products to "drive sales."
Retina display, Think Different, Post-PC era, It Just Works, even Designed by Apple in California. . .
Surprise, you and DroidFTW and even lkrupp don't get it. /s
See Ochyming's post above for the link to Allison Johnston's first-hand account. Steve Jobs rightfully hated the present-day obsession with branding and marketing, which now extends into areas like, e.g., politics, turning parties and candidates into commodities. That sort of thing.
I'm reading between the lines, but what Jobs was objecting to is the manufacture of awareness in the "target market," rather than letting the quality and ingenuity of the product create the awareness and desire from within, as it were. So Apple's video advertising became about what the products can do, and their visual campaigns on billboards and magazines became lessons in showing how beautiful the products are in quasi-erotic close-up.
Branding and marketing belong to companies that need to force your attention. This tawdry field developed in parallel with planned obsolescence and ever more useless tweaks to products to "drive sales."
You speak lucidly about Jobs' perception of marketing. I have once again run out of thumbs up, so here's one: ????
Apple is a certified genius at branding and marketing. Nobody comes close.
I completely agree here. There's a reason Apple takes the #1 spot in this category by such a large margin. It's certainly not by accident. There are many people who have spent a lot of time and energy into making it happen.
Why guess about Steve Jobs attitude towards marketing? Here it is in 6.5 minutes.
Thanks for the links. They make the point that Apple does marketing by not focusing on marketing, branding by the same Buddhist way of not-doing. I think that's the context of Allison's and Benjamin Frost's statements.
Focusing on branding for its own sake allows one to forget the integrity of the product, which would make your brand if you only made it and what it does for the user the focus of your message. MBA brand-happy marketers are not generally aware of this speaking-from-within philosophy. No one has been able to copy this about Apple, as far as I know, and it's why so many of us follow the story as if it were an epic struggle for the soul of capitalism. Which it is.
No one has been able to copy this about Apple, as far as I know
If you rewatch the first video that was linked you'll find that Steve Jobs was copying Nike's approach to marketing. If you didn't watch the first video, just do it.
If you rewatch the first video that was linked you'll find that Steve Jobs was copying Nike's approach to marketing. If you didn't watch the first video, just do it.
I had watched the first video. He's referring to Nike as an example of the "what the product can do for you" genre. That has a long history in advertising, pre-dating Nike. Who copied this or that is troll-level fodder for one-dimensional minds.
The more interesting point is how they used the "Think Different" campaign to highlight Apple as the tool for artists and misfit thinkers of all kinds. The campaign would never have worked for Microsoft, for example. Apple was "antimarketing" the box and the specs, instead magnetizing the dispersed bohemians of the world to join a community of users of a computer they could love.
This is what drives the Apple haters and droid heads like yourself crazy, or at least into terminal meanness.
PS: What I meant about nobody being able to copy Apple is that no computer maker has been able to make a product with the strict integrity aspect covered, so they can't do this kind of product-speak advertising. Compare Samsung's infamous get-the-girl-with-your-Galaxy-Gear commercial. Empty "lifestyle" hucksterism.
PS: What I meant about nobody being able to copy Apple is that no computer maker has been able to make a product with the strict integrity aspect covered, so they can't do this kind of product-speak advertising. Compare Samsung's infamous get-the-girl-with-your-Galaxy-Gear commercial. Empty "lifestyle" hucksterism.
Ahh, that's all that was necessary, a little clarification on what you meant when you said that nobody has been able to copy Apple. It sounded like you were suggesting that Apple was the only one taking their marketing approach. I see where you're coming from now. There was no need to resort to personal attacks.
Ahh, that's all that was necessary, a little clarification on what you meant when you said that nobody has been able to copy Apple. It sounded like you were suggesting that Apple was the only one taking their marketing approach. I see where you're coming from now. There was no need to resort to personal attacks.
Apologies, meme fatigue gets the better of me at times.
"Brand Finance calculates brand value using the Royalty Relief methodology which determines the value a company would be willing to pay to license its brand as if it did not own it. This approach involves estimating the future revenue attributable to a brand and calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for the use of the brand. The steps in this process are as follows:
Calculate brand strength on a scale of 0 to 100 based using a balanced scorecard of a number of relevant attributes such as emotional connection, financial performance and sustainability, among others. This score is known as the Brand Strength Index.
Determine the royalty rate range for the respective brand sectors. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database of license agreements and other online databases.
Calculate royalty rate. The brand strength score is applied to the royalty rate range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty rate range in a brand’s sector is 1-5% and a brand has a brand strength score of 82 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4.1%.
Determine brand specific revenues estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to each specific brand and industry sector. Determine forecast brand specific revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts and economic growth rates.
Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive the implied royalty charge for use of the brand.
The forecast royalties are discounted post tax to a net present value which represents current value of the future income attributable to the brand asset."
If they went ahead and pulled numbers out of their ass and used them directly, they'd feel like it was a waste of time so instead they pull multiple numbers out and combine them in a way that they think makes something meaningful and then they make a graph of it. The end goal is finding a new way to reorder the same top companies we hear about in lots of other lists in order to sell reports to lower down companies on how they can improve on these ass-sourced metrics.
Comments
Command+Shift+K. ?
Strange that their own emoji looks more like a strawberry.
Surprise, you and DroidFTW and even lkrupp don't get it. /s
See Ochyming's post above for the link to Allison Johnston's first-hand account. Steve Jobs rightfully hated the present-day obsession with branding and marketing, which now extends into areas like, e.g., politics, turning parties and candidates into commodities. That sort of thing.
I'm reading between the lines, but what Jobs was objecting to is the manufacture of awareness in the "target market," rather than letting the quality and ingenuity of the product create the awareness and desire from within, as it were. So Apple's video advertising became about what the products can do, and their visual campaigns on billboards and magazines became lessons in showing how beautiful the products are in quasi-erotic close-up.
Branding and marketing belong to companies that need to force your attention. This tawdry field developed in parallel with planned obsolescence and ever more useless tweaks to products to "drive sales."
Correct, for that very reason. One other possible cosmic reason: Jobs's and Apple's dedication to making people's lives better, not stupider.
More posts on this above.
Retina display, Think Different, Post-PC era, It Just Works, even Designed by Apple in California. . .
All those are Apple marketing speak IMHO.
I was referring to Allison's recent interview.
You speak lucidly about Jobs' perception of marketing. I have once again run out of thumbs up, so here's one: ????
Why guess about Steve Jobs attitude towards marketing? Here it is in 6.5 minutes.
[VIDEO]
EDIT: Here's another quite rare old Steve Jobs video from Apple's earliest days. for those who have never seen it, Enjoy!
[VIDEO]
Quote:
Apple is a certified genius at branding and marketing. Nobody comes close.
I completely agree here. There's a reason Apple takes the #1 spot in this category by such a large margin. It's certainly not by accident. There are many people who have spent a lot of time and energy into making it happen.
Thanks for the links. They make the point that Apple does marketing by not focusing on marketing, branding by the same Buddhist way of not-doing. I think that's the context of Allison's and Benjamin Frost's statements.
Focusing on branding for its own sake allows one to forget the integrity of the product, which would make your brand if you only made it and what it does for the user the focus of your message. MBA brand-happy marketers are not generally aware of this speaking-from-within philosophy. No one has been able to copy this about Apple, as far as I know, and it's why so many of us follow the story as if it were an epic struggle for the soul of capitalism. Which it is.
No one has been able to copy this about Apple, as far as I know
If you rewatch the first video that was linked you'll find that Steve Jobs was copying Nike's approach to marketing. If you didn't watch the first video, just do it.
Fluff, fluff, fluffity fluff
I had watched the first video. He's referring to Nike as an example of the "what the product can do for you" genre. That has a long history in advertising, pre-dating Nike. Who copied this or that is troll-level fodder for one-dimensional minds.
The more interesting point is how they used the "Think Different" campaign to highlight Apple as the tool for artists and misfit thinkers of all kinds. The campaign would never have worked for Microsoft, for example. Apple was "antimarketing" the box and the specs, instead magnetizing the dispersed bohemians of the world to join a community of users of a computer they could love.
This is what drives the Apple haters and droid heads like yourself crazy, or at least into terminal meanness.
PS: What I meant about nobody being able to copy Apple is that no computer maker has been able to make a product with the strict integrity aspect covered, so they can't do this kind of product-speak advertising. Compare Samsung's infamous get-the-girl-with-your-Galaxy-Gear commercial. Empty "lifestyle" hucksterism.
PS: What I meant about nobody being able to copy Apple is that no computer maker has been able to make a product with the strict integrity aspect covered, so they can't do this kind of product-speak advertising. Compare Samsung's infamous get-the-girl-with-your-Galaxy-Gear commercial. Empty "lifestyle" hucksterism.
Ahh, that's all that was necessary, a little clarification on what you meant when you said that nobody has been able to copy Apple. It sounded like you were suggesting that Apple was the only one taking their marketing approach. I see where you're coming from now. There was no need to resort to personal attacks.
Apologies, meme fatigue gets the better of me at times.
Seems like a lot more.
Apple, after all, is one brand, with other companies having subsidiaries out of their name.
If I'm not mistaken, the $104.7B is the value of the brand and not the whole company.
'Brand value' doesn't really have much of a meaning. They outline the methodology here:
http://brandirectory.com/methodology
"Brand Finance calculates brand value using the Royalty Relief methodology which determines the value a company would be willing to pay to license its brand as if it did not own it. This approach involves estimating the future revenue attributable to a brand and calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for the use of the brand. The steps in this process are as follows:
Calculate brand strength on a scale of 0 to 100 based using a balanced scorecard of a number of relevant attributes such as emotional connection, financial performance and sustainability, among others. This score is known as the Brand Strength Index.
Determine the royalty rate range for the respective brand sectors. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database of license agreements and other online databases.
Calculate royalty rate. The brand strength score is applied to the royalty rate range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty rate range in a brand’s sector is 1-5% and a brand has a brand strength score of 82 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4.1%.
Determine brand specific revenues estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to each specific brand and industry sector.
Determine forecast brand specific revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts and economic growth rates.
Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive the implied royalty charge for use of the brand.
The forecast royalties are discounted post tax to a net present value which represents current value of the future income attributable to the brand asset."
If they went ahead and pulled numbers out of their ass and used them directly, they'd feel like it was a waste of time so instead they pull multiple numbers out and combine them in a way that they think makes something meaningful and then they make a graph of it. The end goal is finding a new way to reorder the same top companies we hear about in lots of other lists in order to sell reports to lower down companies on how they can improve on these ass-sourced metrics.