First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
1) This isn't sales, this is marketing.
2) That's not only not the first rule, but not a rule at all. Look at the Get A Mac campaign for a subtle and clever examples, and political ads for ham-fisted examples for dumb people.
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Apple may have released the Apple Pencil, despite Steve Jobs' own long-held aversions to styluses, but it doesn't appear that there's any great groundswell of customers clamoring for the ability use the Apple Pencil with the iPhone.
AI, please don't spread this misunderstanding of Jobs' stylus remark. He was referring to mobile devices that required a stylus to operate the UI, as was common of the day in the Palm-era. Not optional drawing apparatuses.
Apple may have released the Apple Pencil, despite Steve Jobs' own long-held aversions to styluses, but it doesn't appear that there's any great groundswell of customers clamoring for the ability use the Apple Pencil with the iPhone.
As for the second ad, it doesn't do much to make the case for the Galaxy Note's power, which is demonstrably less than that of the iPhone X and iPhone 8. All it is likely to do is remind customers that Apple is adding the ability to FaceTime large amounts of people when iOS 12 arrives.
AI, please don't spread this misunderstanding of Jobs' stylus remark. He was referring to mobile devices that required a stylus to operate the UI, as was common of the day in the Palm-era. Not drawing apparatus.
I guess why certain forum members don't understand Jobs comment, but I would've thought that AI writers would know better. I really didn't think it needed explaining when he said it, but apparently it does.
First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
That's one way they could do it, but how would that be more effective action for the Android-focused audience with the number of vendors that are on the market; making fun of Apple is the one unifier for the anti-Apple crowd.
Again, like with political ads, they can completely not mention who they're promoting until the very end with the "approved by" statement but spend the entire spot trying to teardown someone else. Simpleminded people respond well to attack ads.
These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
I wish Apple would start doing some ads to bash Samsung, similar to the "I'm a Mac, You're a PC" campaign from ages ago. It's time to smack Samsung with some humble pie.
We will never see those kinds of ads again, Steve was the only one who had guts to do that. But if they would do then again, it would be "i'm a iPhone you're a Android" you need to spoof the entire market.
the only thing good in these ads is the comedic timing of the Apple guy. but the Samsung people are not people I'd want to hang out with. it's slightly cute but really comes off as unlikeable, desperate, and confused. it does not inspire me towards Samsung in any way
Every time Samsung does one of these ads, they accidentally point out that Apple is the industry leader. Attacking Apple tells people who has the product you're afraid of and who you want them not to buy. Occasionally they hit the mark, but usually it's just pathetic.
First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
That's one way they could do it, but how would that be more effective action for the Android-focused audience with the number of vendors that are on the market; making fun of Apple is the one unifier for the anti-Apple crowd.
Again, like with political ads, they can completely not mention who they're promoting until the very end with the "approved by" statement but spend the entire spot trying to teardown someone else. Simpleminded people respond well to attack ads.
These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
So the theory is that if an Android maker's marketing does a good job of making fun of Apple, it will attract more Androiders to their product line?
I can't quite put myself in an Androiders head, but this sounds plausible.
A smartphone has hundreds of features and just highlighting a very few is something any vendor can do. An experienced salesman could probably showcase a two year old Windows-phone and say "Hey, look what this can do that your iPhone can't." So by comparing very specific Samsung features to an iPhone's leaves people to wonder why. Maybe it's because Samsung Galaxy is actually inferior overall? So these ads may simply backfire.
They aren't trying to turn iPhone users into Galaxy owners. They're preaching to the choir, reinforcing reasons for Samsung owners (and other Android users) to stay with Samsung, and seems like particular attention paid to the under-30 somethings.
It's much like some of the new iPhone ads which aren't directed at non-Apple users as much as they are at keeping the faithful, well, faithful.
A smartphone has hundreds of features and just highlighting a very few is something any vendor can do. An experienced salesman could probably showcase a two year old Windows-phone and say "Hey, look what this can do that your iPhone can't." So by comparing very specific Samsung features to an iPhone's leaves people to wonder why. Maybe it's because Samsung Galaxy is actually inferior overall? So these ads may simply backfire.
They aren't trying to turn iPhone users into Galaxy owners. They're preaching to the choir, reinforcing reasons to stay with Samsung, and particular attention paid to the under-30 somethings.
It's much like some of the new iPhone ads which aren't directed at non-Apple users as much as they are at keeping the faithful, well faithful. And some of those Apple ads are also aiming for the younger users instead of the ones who have been with Apple for years. Apple doesn't worry so much about the 50+ crowd, the long-time fans, since they're pretty unlikely to switch to the other side anyway.
Retention is a good point. I didn’t get into it with my comments because it’s almost always a part of the marketing with established and popular companies. Still, I probably haven’t gone a month without hearing someone wonder why Coca-Cola and other entities advertise at all.
Obviously being a product in use is its own advertisement, but Apple has taken this to the next level. White headphones are kind of a gross idea and yet even when they’re knock-off earbuds I’m reminded of Apple.
Apple has great momentum; even in the PC market where MS had a failed “anti-switcher” campaign (or whatever they called it) trying to keep people from buying Macs despite their desktop OS dominance. Recently I've seen a Chromebook ad that goes after Windows and macOS, but I think that leans more to legitimizing the platform, and for what most people use PCs for these days I think it makes perfect sense. I even recommended the Chromebook over a WinPC a few weeks ago.
First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
These apps make fun of Apple people, not of iPhones. The Android fans look like the "salt of the earth" no-nonsense working class people who know the value of the money. The Apple lovers come across like mindless followers of a cult. The Samsung message is directed at the lower class. Be smart and buy a Samsung unless you want to look like these Apple fruitcakes.
This is a battle for the market share - pure and simple. Samsung wants to prevent low earners from switching to Apple. Samsung is not going for high earners, knowing full well that the efficacy of their commercials with that audience is extremely low. There's a reason both Android fans are minorities. It's actually sort of racist of Samsung to do this.
First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
Are you factoring in how bad their smartphone PR was with all the fires, flight bans, and recalls? Sometimes, it's not about increasing your sales so much as slowing a decline. For all I know Samsung is predicting a slowdown of the market for their higher-end devices (which I would think would be targeted first, just like higher-end WinPCs were hit first once the market was saturated).
First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
That's one way they could do it, but how would that be more effective action for the Android-focused audience with the number of vendors that are on the market; making fun of Apple is the one unifier for the anti-Apple crowd.
Again, like with political ads, they can completely not mention who they're promoting until the very end with the "approved by" statement but spend the entire spot trying to teardown someone else. Simpleminded people respond well to attack ads.
These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
You’re reaching. And you aren’t using appropriate metrics to argue these are effective ads. Only Samsung could know, by measuring against appropriate metrics and against other marketing messages they are putting out there, whether these ads are effective. They could be a waste of money relative to other messaging they are testing against. It’s hubris for you to suggest you know that these are effective ads.
First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
That's one way they could do it, but how would that be more effective action for the Android-focused audience with the number of vendors that are on the market; making fun of Apple is the one unifier for the anti-Apple crowd.
Again, like with political ads, they can completely not mention who they're promoting until the very end with the "approved by" statement but spend the entire spot trying to teardown someone else. Simpleminded people respond well to attack ads.
These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
You’re reaching. And you aren’t using appropriate metrics to argue these are effective ads. Only Samsung could know, by measuring against appropriate metrics and against other marketing messages they are putting out there, whether these ads are effective. They could be a waste of money relative to other messaging they are testing against. It’s hubris for you to suggest you know that these are effective ads.
That would be like saying Apple's Get A Mac ads can't be deemed effective simply because "only [Apple] could know, by measuring against appropriate metrics and against other marketing messages they are putting out there, whether these ads are effective." Being effective doesn't even imply the most effective, and yet that seems to be your weird interpretation of something as basic as marketing foundations.
BTW, you're on an Apple -focused forum that wrote yet another article about Samsung ads yet you're claiming they're not effective. Not only is that hubris, that's fucking denial. Not being the target audience for an ad doesn't mean it has no effect.
First rule of sales. Never knock your competitor(s)
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Not following here. If the target audience is already decidedly not-buying-Apple, then there is no reason to focus the ad on Apple, when instead it could be focused on Samsung over one of the other knockoffs. That's why these are ineffective ads -- they don't persuade why Androiders should go Samsung. It's already a given they're anti-Apple, so why focus the ad on Apple?
These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
Are you factoring in how bad their smartphone PR was with all the fires, flight bans, and recalls? Sometimes, it's not about increasing your sales so much as slowing a decline. For all I know Samsung is predicting a slowdown of the market for their higher-end devices (which I would think would be targeted first, just like higher-end WinPCs were hit first once the market was saturated).
Uh, the Note 7 fiasco is long gone. Since then Samsung has released the S8, Note 8 and S9. The S9 did poorly compared to the S8, which came out right after the Note 7 disaster. If anything, the S8 should have had dismal sales because of its proximity to the Note 7.
I find these Samesung commercials a sign of desperation. Sales from this new Note will be poor. For similar reasons as their $9, but throw on crazy high price. All they have is attacking Apple. The commercials are so lame and just more free advertising for Apple. They absolutely nothing to sell their phones.
Apple should continue to ignore everyone and continue to do commercials that only show off their own devices like is the only thing in the world.
Comments
2) That's not only not the first rule, but not a rule at all. Look at the Get A Mac campaign for a subtle and clever examples, and political ads for ham-fisted examples for dumb people.
3) Apple is not Samsung's direct competitor with smartphones. They're already preaching to anti-Apple crowd, and these are just giving them reason to buy Samsung over some other Android-based vendor. That is why these are effective ads.
Again, like with political ads, they can completely not mention who they're promoting until the very end with the "approved by" statement but spend the entire spot trying to teardown someone else. Simpleminded people respond well to attack ads.
These are good (i.e.: effective) ads so expect a lot more of them.
I can't quite put myself in an Androiders head, but this sounds plausible.
It's much like some of the new iPhone ads which aren't directed at non-Apple users as much as they are at keeping the faithful, well, faithful.
Obviously being a product in use is its own advertisement, but Apple has taken this to the next level. White headphones are kind of a gross idea and yet even when they’re knock-off earbuds I’m reminded of Apple.
Apple has great momentum; even in the PC market where MS had a failed “anti-switcher” campaign (or whatever they called it) trying to keep people from buying Macs despite their desktop OS dominance. Recently I've seen a Chromebook ad that goes after Windows and macOS, but I think that leans more to legitimizing the platform, and for what most people use PCs for these days I think it makes perfect sense. I even recommended the Chromebook over a WinPC a few weeks ago.
Given how many of these ads have ran this year, and the dismal sales of the S9, I’d say they were quite ineffective.
This is a battle for the market share - pure and simple. Samsung wants to prevent low earners from switching to Apple. Samsung is not going for high earners, knowing full well that the efficacy of their commercials with that audience is extremely low. There's a reason both Android fans are minorities. It's actually sort of racist of Samsung to do this.
BTW, you're on an Apple -focused forum that wrote yet another article about Samsung ads yet you're claiming they're not effective. Not only is that hubris, that's fucking denial. Not being the target audience for an ad doesn't mean it has no effect.
Uh, the Note 7 fiasco is long gone. Since then Samsung has released the S8, Note 8 and S9. The S9 did poorly compared to the S8, which came out right after the Note 7 disaster. If anything, the S8 should have had dismal sales because of its proximity to the Note 7.
Apple should continue to ignore everyone and continue to do commercials that only show off their own devices like is the only thing in the world.