Ad companies say Apple is taking a 'slow roll' in promoting Apple TV+

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2019
Figures for television and online advertising show Apple typically spending around half as much on promoting Apple TV+ as on the iPhone.

Apple TV+ is now available on iOS devices, Macs and Apple TV hardware
Apple TV+ is now available on iOS devices, Macs and Apple TV hardware


According to the New York Times, Apple's marketing of Apple TV+ has been "muted" compared to how Disney+ is being promoted. While there are no details for Disney's spending, on figures available for September and October, Apple spent around twice as much advertising the iPhone than it did Apple TV+.

In September, Apple reportedly spent $28.6 million on iPhone television ads, compared to $14.9 million for Apple TV+

As might be expected, that figure went up in October as the service's November 1 launch date approached, but the proportions were approximately the same. In October, Apple spent $19.9 million advertising Apple TV+ on television, but it spent $38.6 million on iPhone adds.

The figures are closer for online ad spending and in September, Apple TV+ promotions actually cost more. Apple paid an estimated $3.8 million for online Apple TV+ ads, compared to $2.4 million for iPhone ones.

However, in October, online iPhone ads cost Apple $2.3 million, while it is believed to have spent $1.7 million on Apple TV+ ones.

The New York Times quotes analyst Dan Rayburn of business consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, saying that Apple is right to hold back on its advertising.

"Consumers are just drowning in content right now," he told the Times, "and all of these services are competing for our time. But they're all approaching the market differently. This isn't some race for Apple. It's a slow roll."

However, analyst Daniel Ives of Wedbush Securities told the NYT that he believes the Apple TV+ marketing has been unusually "aggressive" for Apple.

"This is a pivotal juncture for Apple to be successful," he said. "They cannot trip over their shoelace. They were late to the game, they've underinvested in content, and they have a lot of room to make up."

The New York Times report was first spotted by 9to5mac.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,597member
    Of course they spent twice as much on the iPhone as on AppleTV+. The iPhone took in $142 billion this past fiscal.   At $60 per year, it would take 2.3 billion TV+ subscriptions to equal that revenue.   That's basically the number of households on the planet.   AppleTV+  revenue will NEVER equal iPhone revenue.   One could argue that they've already spent too much promoting AppleTV+ based on the potential revenue stream.

    Nielsen says there's about 120 million TV homes in the U.S.   If Apple got 20% of them, which would be huge, that's 24 million homes = $1.4 billion once everyone starts paying the full $60 per year.  AppleTV+ is not there to make a lot of money.   It's to keep people in the Apple eco-system.   IMO, the only thing it has going for it is that it's only $5 a month which might get over the usual objection of "I don't want another subscription bill every month".   


    bageljoeyyojimbo007curtis hannahcaladanianCloudTalkinwatto_cobraStrangeDaysgilly33
  • Reply 2 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,031member
    zoetmb said:
    Of course they spent twice as much on the iPhone as on AppleTV+. The iPhone took in $142 billion this past fiscal.   At $60 per year, it would take 2.3 billion TV+ subscriptions to equal that revenue.   That's basically the number of households on the planet.   AppleTV+  revenue will NEVER equal iPhone revenue.   One could argue that they've already spent too much promoting AppleTV+ based on the potential revenue stream.  
    If you remove all the free year subscriptions of TV+ for having bought a new Apple device that number drops, and since those are the most likely candidates for trying out a new streaming service from Apple they primary revenue falls off right at the front. However, since these are also people who are most likely to try the service there's no need to advertise to these people except to add a badge to let them know it's available.

    Nielsen says there's about 120 million TV homes in the U.S.   If Apple got 20% of them, which would be huge, that's 24 million homes = $1.4 billion once everyone starts paying the full $60 per year.  AppleTV+ is not there to make a lot of money.   It's to keep people in the Apple eco-system.   IMO, the only thing it has going for it is that it's only $5 a month which might get over the usual objection of "I don't want another subscription bill every month". 
    Maybe, but I have a feeling this will be available on non-Apple devices like other streaming services.
    edited November 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 37
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    The New York Times report was first spotted by 9to5mac.
    Amazed that AI reveals their source, props to you!

    Soli
  • Reply 4 of 37
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member

    Soli said:
    Maybe, but I have a feeling this will be available on non-Apple devices like other streaming services.
    That would make sense, with their Music app available on Android. (plus Beats and Move to iOS)

    Soli
  • Reply 5 of 37
    dws-2dws-2 Posts: 268member
    Up until recently, as a cord-cutter, I've had it pretty good. Netflix and Amazon Prime together provided me with plenty of good stuff to watch, and I got the sports I wanted from broadcast TV (with a TiVo). Now the services are splintering, with content from Netflix going to other platforms. I guess this sort of makes sense from a business perspective, and as long as I don't have to watch commercials, I'm pretty happy. However, if feel like the last couple of years are probably going to be remembered as the golden age for good content at a good price.
    cy_starkmanentropyswatto_cobrapmcd
  • Reply 6 of 37
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,878member
    “Late to the game”. Apple TV plus arrived before Disney plus. Is Disney late to the game too?
    cy_starkmanwatto_cobraStrangeDayswilliamlondon
  • Reply 7 of 37
    This article shouldn’t exist. Why would Apple spend more on advertising a relatively small service like AppleTV+ than on their number 1 product (iPhone)? 

    I just clicked in to hopefully already see my comment written. 
    bb-15watto_cobraStrangeDayswilliamlondonphilboogie
  • Reply 8 of 37
    AppleTV+ will promote itself globally.
    A free year for purchasing a device is all part of advertising.

    AppleTV+ totally rocks!  It will will the world over.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 37
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,938member
    jungmark said:
    “Late to the game”. Apple TV plus arrived before Disney plus. Is Disney late to the game too?
    Apple has to create all their content. Disney has Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar and...Disney. PLUS all the content from their TV channels. They have been in the game for 100 years even if their streaming service is new...
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 37
    irelandireland Posts: 17,760member
    It's on the homepage of Apple.com
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 37
    The way I interpret this article is a bunch of companies are complaining they won’t be getting Apple’s money as they had been hoping.
    entropyswatto_cobraStrangeDayswilliamlondon
  • Reply 12 of 37
    I’ve seen dozens of Apple TV+ ads and saw dozens of iPhone ads when the new ones came out, not much a difference.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 37
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Apple TV+ has been all over the internet.

    As with many of its products and services, Apple gets a huge amount of PR for free.

    Almost everybody is aware of Apple TV+ by now and many are aware that Apple is giving away a year of free service when purchasing certain products. People like my mother are probably not aware, but anybody who is interested in purchasing any of the products are aware.

    The other day I saw a thread on slickdeals about an Apple TV 4k being sold by AT&T for $90. The thread had over a quarter million views last I saw. I managed to pick up one of those Apple TV 4ks for myself, so I guess I'll now have Apple TV+ for a full year for free.

    Going into the holidays, this is going to be a killer quarter for Apple, with the recent launch of the AirPods Pro, the continued selling of iPhone 11s, Apple Watch, Mac, Macbooks, iPads, iPads Pro, the regular Airpods and everything else that Apple has to offer.

    It's going to be a bad holiday season for the serial Apple haters and the serially wrong, as they will be even more miserable than they usually are.

    edited November 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 37
    “Own inventory” strategy 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 37
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 283member
    From the article; “They were late to the game, they've underinvested in content, and they have a lot of room to make up."

    A misread of the situation. TV+ is part of a bundle.
    In some ways it is like Amazon Prime. You buy the faster shipping & you also get Prime Video. 
    - With TV+, you buy certain Apple devices & you get a year of TV+.
    * Like Prime Video, TV+ is a bonus for getting something. With Apple it is their hardware. 
    For instance my wife & I bought iPhones in October & now we have a year of TV+ added to our streaming services (Netflix/Prime Video). 
    We will be watching the Jason Momoa series soon. 
    It’s a win win for us & I imagine that’s also true for a lot of people.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 16 of 37
    RhythmagicRhythmagic Posts: 63unconfirmed, member
    Maybe i can play some apple arcade and watch some apple tv if people weren’t giving me problems. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 37
    GabyGaby Posts: 179member
    They absolutely don’t need to nor would they be sensible to do so currently. With recent hardware sales earning Apple users 1 year of free viewing they already probably have north of 80million viewers as of launch. This gives them time to produce and acquire further talent and content while closely assessing the situation. I’m sure that within that year of the Apple faithful ‘beta testing’ the service and their adding more and more content they will begin to make a larger push. Apple doesn’t compete in a race, like anyone with a brain will understand, its more a matter of chess. One must be patient, deliberate and calculated. By this time next year things will be markedly different. 
    watto_cobraJapheybb-15
  • Reply 18 of 37
    dws-2 said:
    Up until recently, as a cord-cutter, I've had it pretty good. Netflix and Amazon Prime together provided me with plenty of good stuff to watch, and I got the sports I wanted from broadcast TV (with a TiVo). Now the services are splintering, with content from Netflix going to other platforms. I guess this sort of makes sense from a business perspective, and as long as I don't have to watch commercials, I'm pretty happy. However, if feel like the last couple of years are probably going to be remembered as the golden age for good content at a good price.
    I’d say it’s the next couple of years that will be remembered as such, leading by TV+ ($5 a month) and Disney+ ($8 a month). 
  • Reply 19 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,252member
    Soli said:
    zoetmb said:
    Of course they spent twice as much on the iPhone as on AppleTV+. The iPhone took in $142 billion this past fiscal.   At $60 per year, it would take 2.3 billion TV+ subscriptions to equal that revenue.   That's basically the number of households on the planet.   AppleTV+  revenue will NEVER equal iPhone revenue.   One could argue that they've already spent too much promoting AppleTV+ based on the potential revenue stream.  
    If you remove all the free year subscriptions of TV+ for having bought a new Apple device that number drops, and since those are the most likely candidates for trying out a new streaming service from Apple they primary revenue falls off right at the front. However, since these are also people who are most likely to try the service there's no need to advertise to these people except to add a badge to let them know it's available.

    Nielsen says there's about 120 million TV homes in the U.S.   If Apple got 20% of them, which would be huge, that's 24 million homes = $1.4 billion once everyone starts paying the full $60 per year.  AppleTV+ is not there to make a lot of money.   It's to keep people in the Apple eco-system.   IMO, the only thing it has going for it is that it's only $5 a month which might get over the usual objection of "I don't want another subscription bill every month". 
    Maybe, but I have a feeling this will be available on non-Apple devices like other streaming services.
    It is.
  • Reply 20 of 37
    Almost all TV-MA content? I know some ppl just LOVE that stuff, but for me it’s pointless, trashy, and not Apple like, so like they say on Shark Tank “and for that reason I’m out.”
Sign In or Register to comment.