observatory

apple store / iPad / observatory — 5 Comments
16
Mar 12

Apple’s momentary lapse of reason

As we all know (and Wall Street knows), Apple is a well-oiled machine these days. Unfortunately, there seems to be a screw loose down in the shipping dept.

This is the story of my friend Sam in Tucson, who was anxiously awaiting the scheduled March 16th delivery of his gorgeous new personalized iPad.

On March 14th, just two days before his delivery date, Sam received the above email from Apple. Even after he read it a few times, he was scratching his head.

For starters, it was riddled with typos. Not one or two, but six. Given Apple’s perfectionist standards, surely someone’s head would roll as a result. (Just three hours later, Sam received another email owning up to the errors. See that one below.)

But the content of the message was equally surprising. Apple was informing him that his personalized iPad would arrive on March 20th instead of March 16th — a four-day delay. But to make sure he was happy, they were offering an alternate arrangement.

If he could respond to the email in four hours, they would send him a non-personalized iPad right on schedule. They would also send him a prepaid FedEx label so that when his personalized iPad arrived four days later, he could send it back to Apple.

Uh, what?

On the 20th, Sam would have two iPads in his possession: one personalized and one not. He would then have to send the personalized iPad — the one he really wanted —back to Apple.

Obviously, someone was trying to be nice. But it ceases to be nice when the offer (and the quality of the email containing the offer) makes you wonder if there was an adult in the room when this brilliant idea was hatched.

For a mere four-day delay, Sam would have been happy with a simple apology. If Apple insisted on a public display of affection, it would have been vastly better off saying “Sorry, your order is delayed for four days. As a thanks for your patience, please accept this $20 gift coupon for the Apple Store.”

Even if that cost Apple $10 in real money (which it probably wouldn’t), that’s still much cheaper than two FedEx charges, removing and replacing the engraved back and turning a new device into a refurbished device that would have to be sold at a discount. (The rules forbid Apple from selling any product as “new” once it has been returned for any reason.)

Sam decided not to take Apple up on their offer. He would wait the extra four days for the personalized iPad he ordered. And then yesterday his story became just a little more absurd. His UPS tracking info changed to indicate that the personalized iPad would actually arrive today, right on schedule. Then, early this morning, it changed again, indicating a stop in Alaska and delivery on Monday. (Just three days after his originally scheduled date.)

You know what this story means, right? Sell your stock! Apple is imploding!

Well, no. Remain calm. In the scope of things, this is but a tiny ripple in the pond.

I always advise people not to judge any company by one person’s tale of woe. Far more meaningful are the customer satisfaction surveys that poll tens of thousands of people, comparing all the technology companies. And in those measures, Apple is consistently #1. Remember, Apple is only human — which happens to be one of its best qualities.

If I were to put money on it, I’d bet that Apple has already made sure that this type of silliness never repeats. I’m also sure that the moment Sam receives his iPad (whenever!), he’ll forget this ever happened.

observatory / strategy — 2 Comments
13
Mar 12

Jony Ive nails the Apple difference

The London Evening Standard published an interview with Jony Ive yesterday. It was filled with Jony-speak (and I mean that in a positive way), but one section in particular stood out.

Jony pointed out that what separates Apple from many of its competitors is its motivation. Apple has “a sincere, genuine appetite to do something that is better.”

He says that many are “interested in doing something different, or want to appear new.” They focus on “price, schedule or a bizarre marketing goal to appear different… with scant regard for people who use the product.”

Bingo.

I’ve long believed this to be true. I made a similar point in a 2010 article about Google taking this approach with Android — going out of its way to be “different” even if that wasn’t better.

It’s not hard to figure out why this happens.

Going up against products like iPhone and iPad is an enormous challenge. (And that’s an understatement.) CEOs, product designers and marketing groups are duty-bound to focus on differentiating their product from Apple’s. Otherwise, they’d just be selling an imitation.

The problem, of course, is that most really are selling an imitation. They wouldn’t be selling a product at all if iPhone or iPad hadn’t blazed the trail before them.

So it’s a juggling act — they’re compelled to be different, but not so different that they lose the interest of the customers they’re trying to attract.

Apple doesn’t bear this burden. It doesn’t have to worry about differentiating itself. It sets out to do one thing only, and that’s “make a better product.”

Motivation is the ultimate differentiator.

observatory — 13 Comments
8
Mar 12

iPad gains features, loses its number

Always fun to see who was right and who was wrong with all those pre-event predictions.

And, of course, always entertaining to read all those articles to the effect of “Apple’s new iPad fails to impress.”

People didn’t buy the iPhone 4S in record numbers because of its revolutionary features (though Siri qualifies). They bought it because it was the newest, best version of the phone they already wanted. That’s why the new iPad will likely sell in record numbers as well.

I only have a few issues with the new device. They’re not deal-killers, just observations.

First, especially coming after Tim Cook’s ramp-up yesterday about the “post-PC” world, I wish this iPad had an SD card slot. iCloud gave us the ability to use our iPhones and iPads without ever connecting them to our computers. But if you want to work with higher quality photos than those you get with iPhone and iPad — you need to connect to your computer. Not a very post-PC solution.

Given that the new iPhoto app offers such tremendously cool ways to enhance photos, and having fun with photos is a #1 consumer activity, it’s sad that we can’t go directly from camera to iPad without buying Apple’s $29 Camera Connection Kit. Should be built in, just as it is with iMacs and MacBooks.

Second, I really expected Siri to make her debut on this model. Seems like the next logical extension after iPhone. Maybe that happens only when Siri has her Beta status removed.

Last is the name. For all the predictions about what the new iPad was going to be called, nobody saw this one coming. No iPad 3, no iPad HD — just “the new iPad.” We all believe in simplicity, Apple more than most. The question is: does removing the number from the iPad name make things simpler or more complicated?

Actually, this move shouldn’t be all that shocking. It’s perfectly consistent with the way Apple names iPod, iMac, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro. One could argue that the simplest form of product naming is to remove the model number. It’s all branding.

However, we can’t let Apple off the hook quite so easily. I can’t remember a time when Apple changed naming horses midstream. iPhone has faithfully often followed the numbered path (with some letters thrown in along the way), and iPad seemed to be following suit— until this abrupt about-face. (Correction: only iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4 and 4S had numbers.)

I was surprised to see Phil Schiller’s explanation in a Wall Street Journal article about the new iPad naming yesterday. Phil says Apple did it “because we didn’t want to be predictable.” Honestly, I would have expected Apple to either be silent on this matter, or just talk about it being yet another form of simplification.

Somehow, making decisions of this magnitude just to be “unpredictable” feels a bit flimsy.

All that said, naming experts know that the initial reactions to product names are mostly irrelevant. Remember how laughable the name iPad was at first, becoming instant fodder for late-night comedy. Not so funny anymore, is it.

So I think we’ll all recover from not having a number with which we can identify our chosen iPad. The new model will sell by the zillion.

Just don’t be surprised when iPhone loses its number with this summer’s new model. At that time Apple won’t be doing it to be unpredictable — they’ll be doing it to be consistent.

advertising / creative / observatory / steve jobs — 2 Comments
6
Mar 12

Putting the wrong spin on “1984”

When I saw the headline on the Ad Age article, I stopped in my tracks:

 Apple First Marketing Guru On Why ’1984′ Is Overrated

Yikes. Blasphemy!

Even worse, that “overrated” word is attributed to the great Regis McKenna, longtime friend/advisor to Steve Jobs and Apple’s original advertising/PR man.

What a story — except for the fact that it isn’t true.

The editor of this story either misses Regis’s point or is just out to snare some cheap clicks.

Regis never once says that 1984 is overrated. He says that the attention created by some ads can be a problem because it raises expectations. Apple went into decline in the years after 1984.

At that point, the interviewer tries to put the o-word in his mouth: ”Are you saying that the ad industry overrates the 1984 ad?”

But even then, Regis doesn’t take the bait. He says that the ad was more successful than the Mac itself. It “set an attitude of rebellion against the status quo.” “It probably continues to serve Apple today.”

That the original Macintosh wasn’t successful by business standards is well known. That the 1984 commercial had people standing in line the next day, defined the revolutionary spirit of Apple and transformed the Super Bowl into an advertising showcase is also well known.

It’s actually amazing that the 1984 commercial “continues to serve Apple today,” a full 28 years after it ran. Especially when you consider that most commercials are forgotten in a matter of months.

To me, an overrated ad is one that isn’t as creative, or doesn’t have as much impact, as is widely believed. 1984 was wildly creative. And its impact has been almost beyond description — not just to Apple, but to other advertisers as well.

Did it turn Macintosh into the world’s favorite computer? Nope. But that’s hardly the responsibility of a single ad. Every commercial has a mission by which it should be judged. 1984‘s mission was to generate interest for a whole new kind of computer. The fact that we’re still talking about it today says a little something about how well it succeeded.

If you look at 1984 on its own merits, and assess whether it did what it was supposed to do, it’s hard to call it overrated. It’s easy to call it one of the greatest commercials of all time.

I can guarantee you, most other companies would line up to pay millions of dollars to run an ad as “overrated” as this one.

(Thanks, CB, for the tip.)

Follow me on Twitter @ksegall.

advertising / creative / observatory — 9 Comments
6
Feb 12

2012 Ad Bowl: more of the same

Looks like Super Bowl advertising has officially settled into a pattern. Though we cling to this romantic notion that the night will be filled with amazing ads, the reality is that we usually get a couple of good ones and a bunch of forgettable ones.

But before I get into the ads themselves, I’d like to lodge a complaint. Part of the fun of watching the Super Bowl ads used to be that it was a night of surprises — on the field and in the ads. This year, a ton of the ads were released days earlier. I count 28 that I saw before the Super Bowl.

Message to whoever is responsible: cut it out. You’re seriously letting the air out of the balloon before the party starts. Thanks.

So on with the reviews. As I’ve done in the past, I’ll just call out the ads that struck me as comment-worthy. Don’t be offended if I didn’t choose the one that you loved most. I’m flawed that way.

Toyota Camry: It’s Reinvented. Had its moments, but felt like it was trying very hard to be funny. When a 60-second spot feels longer than 60 seconds, that’s not a good sign. (The 2001 soundtrack made it feel longer too.)

Pepsi: King’s Court. This one has everything you could ask for in a Super Bowl spot: major celebrity (Elton John), big production values and some neat effects. Kind of fun — but due to the formula, managed to feel a bit old-school.

Chevy Silverado Apocalypse. With its grand scale, well-done effects, dark humor and a message delivered with absolute clarity, this was my favorite spot of the night. Love the idea of having the Chevy truck survive a convergence of disasters (Mayan prediction, giant robot, flying saucer and meteor), and putting it all against the hopeful “looks like we made it” soundtrack. And I don’t think I’ve ever heard a competitive line delivered in quite the same spirit as “Dave drove a Ford.” The offer of a Twinkie immediately afterward beautifully minimizes the man’s demise.

Chrysler Halftime. Last year, Chrysler created a magnificent two-minute ode to Detroit featuring native son Eminem. It really moved me, and I thought it was best-in-show. This time, Chrysler talks about the whole country, using Detroit as an example, and Clint Eastwood tells the story. I have a feeling I’ll be in the minority on this one, but I didn’t love it. The spot starts like a political ad, painting our current state in a very negative light. “We’re all scared because this isn’t a game,” says Clint. (Actually, I’m concerned but not scared.) Somber organ music throughout adds another level of doom. Creatively, I was turned off by the shadowy narrator at the start. That only tells me there will be a surprising reveal at the end. It would have been more surprising — and less tricky — if we simply heard Clint’s voice throughout and then saw him at the end. Last year’s spot was a wonderful tribute to a city in dire need of a positive image. It was effective because it was so authentic. That authenticity isn’t there this time. Maybe it’s because Chrysler is borrowing Clint’s tough-guy image, maybe it’s because the spot is speaking for a whole country and not the city. All that said, I do appreciate Chrysler’s willingness to spend this kind of money to say something important while its competitors are running more conventional spots on the game.

Acura NSX with Seinfeld: It’s coming. Good to see Seinfeld on his game again. Ending the spot by bringing in Leno as his nemesis was a nice touch, but only if you’re aware that both men are avid car collectors — which I was not. I suspect this one will be rated highly by many.

GoDaddy Body Painting. Never failing to disappoint, GoDaddy goes as low-brow as you can get. Please don’t remind me how successful they’ve been with these ads over the years. It  makes me fear for the future of mankind.

Teleflora Adriana Lima. Like GoDaddy, Teleflora goes the sexual innuendo route. But at least they give it two things GoDaddy does not: a coy sense of humor and good production values.

Kia Dream Car. Good one. Lots of effects, but well done. Fresh creative idea in the notion that even the Sandman can screw up — he drops an overdose of sand on a sleeping man, which triggers a testosterone-laced dream sequence. Kia has done a good job of creating a personality, considering where they started not too many years ago.

Cadillac Green Hell. Boring. If their goal was to outdo the BMW 3-Series as they say, they probably shouldn’t have used a bunch of driving footage that looks like a tired BMW ad.

Hyundai Think Fast. Some ads start with a great concept. Others start with a funny punch line and work backward from there — like this one. The whole ad exists to pay off the last line: “It’ll get your pulse going.” Funny, but in a superficial kind of way.

Century 21. Smarter. Bolder. Faster. And stupider. I’m sorry, but it’s very hard for me to enjoy an ad that features Donald Trump — especially when his joke is so weak.

H&M: David Beckham Bodywear. Let’s put it this way: I’m not even remotely tempted to buy any new underwear today. Though I’m thinking seriously about the tattoos.

Bridgestone Performance. Give them credit for finding a way to make tire commercials not feel like typical tire commercials. They ended up with more of a “heh heh” than a “ha ha,” but I imagine they’re dancing in the aisles at Bridgestone today.

Honda CRV: Get Going. Another celebrity spot, this one featuring Matthew Broderick doing a takeoff on his classic Ferris Bueller. One problem with reprising a 25-year old role is that the star looks 25 years older. This ad probably felt much funnier back at the agency than it turned out on TV.

E-Trade Fatherhood. Am I a bad person if I’m sick to death of talking babies?

MetLife Everyone. Here’s an idea — bring together a whole bunch of cartoon characters that never appeared together before. Oh wait. Didn’t Roger Rabbit do that 24 years ago? That aside, this spot should have been far more charming than it was.

Audi Vampire Party. I liked this one a lot. Great solution from the creative team. The new LED headlights are as good as daylight, so how do they demonstrate that? Well, daylight kills vampires, right? And vampires are a pretty good trend to tap into. Favorite moment: the clueless vampire who tries to get in a “hello” wave before he’s turned to ash.

Coca-Cola Polar Bears. Now I’m just getting cranky. Please add Coke’s polar bear commercials to the list of things I’m sick of. They were terrifically charming when they started out many years ago, but these spots just weren’t very appealing. The Catch was the only one that seemed at all interesting. Time to freshen up your Super Bowl presence, Coke.

Hulu with Will Arnett. Hulu has a cool product, and they’ve been doing some smart and fun advertising. I like Will Arnett. Made me laugh.

Droid Razr. To be honest, this is a spot I would have left out of this article, but some are making a big deal of the product so I feel bad ignoring it. If the RAZR is really that cool, it deserved a more interesting ad. A robotic assembly line, spraying colors onto the RAZRs? Pretty lame.

Hyundai Rocky. When a frustrated Hyndai employee indicates he can’t solve a problem, the entire facility breaks out in an a cappella version of the Rocky theme. I thought it was one of the most awful and embarrassing spots of the night. I can only imagine how they felt when they were filming it.

Hyundai Cougar. Marginally better.

M&M Chocolate. M&M characters meet The Full Monty. Never imagined it would happen, but there it is. Got some laughs in my house.

Best Buy Innovators. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever liked a Best Buy ad before, but I do like this one. Offering a tribute to people who have changed the world is a nice way to put your own values on display (like Apple did with Think different).

Doritos. Doritos has established itself as a reliable laugh-getter, and did well with Sling Baby and Man’s Best Friend. Just keep in mind that squeezing comedy out of a tortilla chip is a bit easier than some of the other products on the game last night.

Camry 7 Million Stories. A few one liners from people talking about their Camry. Then “There are 7 million Camry stories out there. Tell us yours.” Another spot that feels about 20 years too late in idea and execution.

The Voice promo, featuring Betty White. I was wondering if we were going to get through the night without an ad that used Betty White. Nope.

Ford, with Derek Jeter. I’m a much bigger baseball fan than football fan. Still, I couldn’t help but feel like Jeter was crashing the party here. One of the spots featured a bunch of video clips of him playing baseball too. It’s like asking me to watch basketball clips during a baseball game.

Samsung: Galaxy Tablet. Apparently they made enough of a splash with their first Apple-mocking ad that they spent the big bucks to do it again here. Fine with me. Two things, however, made me gag. First is Samsung presenting a stylus as a “feature.” Second is the big concluding line: “The next big thing is already here. Again.” Huh? I guess I missed the last next big thing, because as far as I can tell, nobody has yet put a dent in iPad’s stranglehold on the category. We may have to wait for the next next big thing.

There’s another honorable mention here, but it’s an ad that apparently only ran in the Canadian broadcast. Take a look at Budweiser Canada Flash Fans when you can. It’s a fun, feel-good kind of spot — an interesting idea executed well.

Now, on to the Oscars…

advertising / apple / creative / iPad / iPhone / iPod / observatory / strategy — 22 Comments
1
Feb 12

Where have Apple’s headlines gone?

Driving around LA with colleagues recently, we were greeted by iPad billboards just about everywhere we went. All shared the same clever headline: “iPad 2.”

That got my merry band wondering: when was the last time an Apple billboard or poster actually had a headline. (At least a smart headline in the Apple tradition.)

Before the “iPad 2″ headline, the headline was “iPad.” The old iPod “silhouette” billboards had headlines that seemed like novels in comparison — they said “iPod + iTunes.”

I don’t mean this as an indictment. It’s simply an observation. In fact, if I were so disposed, I could rationalize both ways of thinking.

Say no to headlines!
Apple makes things simple. What could be simpler than a beautiful image and a product name? Brevity is its own form of cleverness, and a minimal number of words makes Apple stand out even more from its complicated competitors. Apple has transcended the need to explain things. If you really want more words, there are plenty of them at apple.com.

You’re blowing a major opportunity — repeatedly.
Steve Jobs himself once told me that every single ad is an opportunity to build the brand. Every time you fail to do that, it’s an opportunity lost. Now Apple is missing what its smart headlines used to add, and therefore not connecting at the same level. Those headlines are what originally gave Apple its public personality — they put Apple in a class by itself. Is it too much to ask for a few clever words?

So what gives? Has Apple lost the ability to craft a good headline? Or does it truly believe that an image and a product name is the ultimate act of advertising minimalism, and therefore a perfect representation of the Apple brand?

One argument against the latter is that the most recent images Apple has given us don’t exactly come from the adrenaline-pumping school of photography. The current iPad 2 billboard (above), in which we see a side view of Mr. Fingers picking up an iPad, is about as sleepy as it gets.

So what do you think?

Personally, I miss the little smile that used to come with seeing a great Apple ad. I get that the products are cool-looking, and the visual reminder is helpful. But those three or four words that made you think, “Damn, those guys are good” really did add another dimension to the ads.

Clearly Steve Jobs came to believe that the headlines were no longer necessary. It will be interesting to see how Apple’s creative work evolves now that others have full responsibility.

advertising / apple / apple store / creative / observatory — 70 Comments
25
Jan 12

Ron Johnson tries the Apple magic at JCP

When Ron Johnson left Apple several months ago, there was an audible gasp from the Apple community.

After all, Ron was one of Steve Jobs’s most important hires — the man who created the Apple Stores from scratch and led their amazing growth. It’s not like that was his first gig, either. Before that, Ron was the guy who gave Target its cool.

So it was a big blow to Apple when Ron left after 11 stellar years. And it was a big wow for JCPenney when Ron signed on as their new CEO.

For many, Ron’s move was a disconnect. Why would someone jump from the world’s coolest retail store to a stodgy department store chain?

Well, you’re about to find out. Today is the day that Ron, after less than three months on the job, unveils his plans to turn JCPenney into … well, I wouldn’t want to spoil the surprise.

Ron’s big day starts out with a two-page ad in major papers (above). This is his Think different moment, where he puts forth the philosophy that will guide JCPenney under his leadership.

The details will be revealed during a series of presentations today in New York. But from firsthand experience, I can testify that when Ron talks about what makes a great shopping experience, you start believing.

Either a bit of that old distortion field rubbed off on him, or he really is a retail genius. I’m thinking the latter.

If it sounds like I’m a Ron fan, you’re absolutely right. Ron is a genuinely good guy with serious smarts and a ton of energy. I didn’t want to taint this story up front, but I’ve been sneaking about in the background helping Ron’s team — starting with today’s “In praise of fresh air” ad. (Design credit goes to Michael Rylander, who, by the way, runs a really cool design-centric blog.)

So now, after I’ve critiqued many other people’s ads here, I am ready to be judged. Just try to keep it civil, okay?

advertising / apple / apple news / mac / observatory — 3 Comments
17
Jan 12

The man who gave Apple its voice

Attention: Apple fans. While you weren’t looking, one of your biggest heroes just retired. Steve Hayden left his position as Vice Chairman of Ogilvy in NY.

If you have to ask “Steve who?” you’re missing an important part of Apple history.

Steve Hayden is the man who created the modern voice of Apple. He started out creating many classic Apple II ads, before any of us had a clue why we’d want or need a computer. Then he worked on the launch of Macintosh.

With just one ad, Steve qualified himself for the advertising Hall of Fame. He’s the guy who wrote 1984.

1984, of course, is widely regarded as the greatest commercial ever made. Not just for Apple, but for anyone. It’s the spot that turned the Super Bowl into an advertising showcase. It also had people lining up at stores the following day to see Macintosh for themselves (since they didn’t see it in the commercial itself).

But the launch of Macintosh was much bigger than 1984. There were other great ads, like Manuals, that showed the stark philosophical difference between Macs and PCs. And of course Steve is the guy behind “The computer for the rest of us,” one of the most perfect theme lines ever written.

To write like Steve, one must be incredibly smart and incredibly funny. He was (and is) the master of “intelligent wit.” You couldn’t stop yourself from reading every word he wrote, whether it was a one-paragraph ad or a 20-page magazine insert.

When I started writing Apple ads, I had it easy. The tone and personality had already been established — and Steve was the one who did the establishing. From practically nothing, he created a personality for the young Apple.

Every writer who has created an Apple ad since is following in Steve’s footsteps. That intelligent wit is alive and well today in Apple’s TV ads, print ads, billboards, in-store posters, even its manuals.

Shockingly, Steve discovered that there was life after Apple. He moved back to the east coast to take on the marketing responsibilities for IBM at Ogilvy NY, and did remarkable things for that brand for over 15 years.

Those are the big things for which Steve will always be admired. He also did one vastly smaller thing that I will forever appreciate. He hired me. Despite the fact that I had done little to prove myself worthy, Steve thought it made sense to sign me up. Either that, or he desperately needed a body and figured I couldn’t screw things up too badly.

To this day, when people ask me who my favorite advertising writer is, my instant answer is “Steve Hayden.” Honestly, I never had the urge to write like David Ogilvy or the standard industry legends. I just wanted to write like Steve.

There’s one more thing that makes Steve’s career worth celebrating. On top of all his business accomplishments, he’s a genuine human being too. He always supported those who worked for him and never took credit for their work. There are way too few Steve Haydens in this world.

By no means have you heard the last of Steve. Personally, I’m hoping that he writes a few books. He could tell some amazing stories about the birth of Macintosh. (He’s already written some mesmerizing articles about those days, including this one about the creation of the 1984 commercial.)

The only downside is that if Steve writes a book, you’ll have to finish it in one sitting. Hard to imagine you’ll be able to put it down.

advertising / creative / observatory — 7 Comments
12
Jan 12

DirecTV: firing laser shots at cable

Every so often, someone steps up and demonstrates one of the more amazing things about advertising: you don’t have to say a lot to say a lot.

While many companies stuff their ads with reasons to choose their products (the “more is more” school of thought), DirecTV goes a simpler route. They take one idea and turn it into something people will watch. And pass around. And talk about.

The above ad is part of DirecTV’s latest effort to woo customers from the cable companies. As far as I can tell, it’s one of three ads in this campaign. Each ad starts with one simple reason why cable companies are bad, then creates an absurd cascade of events that “logically” follow, leading to the ultimate disastrous result — which, of course, you can avoid if you simply upgrade to DirecTV.

This makes each ad about 90% fun and 10% message. But the wise know that this is a perfectly acceptable ratio — as long as the 90% serves to help viewers better remember the 10%.

The truth is, we already know how the cable companies work, and the general feeling is not positive. They’re all lumped together in the public mind. We don’t need a whole lot of additional information. DirecTV’s campaign exists simply to let us know there’s a more-than-viable alternative.

With three commercials, the entire campaign says only three things about DirecTV: it’s cheaper than cable, it won’t put you on hold like the cable companies, and it will give you a more reliable signal. Pretty smart.

That being said, DirecTV has a pretty big hill to climb. I’d be curious to know how successful this effort is.

See the other two ads here and here.

(Kudos to the creative team at Grey Advertising.)

apple / iMac / iPad / iPhone / mac / observatory / technology — 7 Comments
6
Jan 12

Apple’s predictable unpredictability

First of all, welcome to 2012. Okay, so I’m a little behind the rest of the world, but I finally made it.

The new year actually makes a perfect topic for Week 1. As you probably noticed, this week we got a mini-flood of articles about what we can expect from Apple in 2012: iPad 3, iPhone 5, Apple TV, slim MacBook Pro. To which most of us would say:

Duh.

Of course that’s what’s coming. It’s hardly news. I’ll tell ya, secrecy just isn’t what it used to be.

Though Apple continues to be thought of as one of the most secretive companies on earth, the truth is, they’ve lost the ability to surprise us like they did in the good old days.

The products are still amazing. The announcement events are fun. We still get surprised by the details as they are unveiled. It’s just that we know in advance what the products will be.

It wasn’t always this way. When Steve returned to Apple in 1997, secrets were secrets. His onstage announcements were real surprises (for the most part). The look of iMac was a shock. You had no idea that Apple was going to enter the consumer electronics market with iPod. You weren’t sure which Apple technology would be the focus of each event.

Breaches of secrecy were a scandal. Several days before the introduction of the first multicolored iMacs, the official family photo of all five models escaped from a printing facility in Germany, where a version of the multipage insert was being printed. It took the steam out of Steve’s big announcement — which was a crime punishable by death. (Or something close to it.)

As Apple has grown, and more people are exposed to the deep, dark secrets at various stages of product development, that kind of secrecy doesn’t exist anymore.

People were talking about iPhone — and calling it by name — months before it appeared. The name iPad was a surprise, but the device wasn’t — it was also widely expected months before, and its features accurately predicted.

This isn’t a terrible thing. It’s just a different thing. The new “iTV” (or whatever it will be called) will get the same attention this year. There will be buzz for months ahead, because Apple shaking up a new category is a great story. Journalists will hang on every word at the announcement event, even if many of the details become known before.

The only difference between now and then is that we know it’s coming. At least in the broad strokes.

I do find myself wondering about one thing this year. What’s next for Mac Pro? While it has grown in power, no product in Apple history has gone this long without a major overhaul. Mac Pro can now be officially classified as a “workhorse.” We’ve come to expect internal improvements only, but no major conceptual rethinking.

Will Apple demonstrate a new commitment to the pro market? Or will Mac Pro get upgraded the way Final Cut Pro did? Does Apple still love the high-end pros, or is it really just focusing on different levels of consumer now?

While it may be easier to predict Apple’s hardware these days, predicting its intentions is a different matter.

Happy 2012.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →