A wise man in advertising once said that 90% of the world’s ads failed before the creative team even got the assignment. Not enough time was spent first honing the strategy.

Fair enough.

However, one can’t diminish the importance of the creative execution. Because there are a hundred ways to bring a strategy to life, and it takes talent and smarts to do this well.

With its newest commercial for iPhone, Apple (or, I should say, agency TBWA\Chiat\Day) provides a wonderful demonstration of the power of creativity — the ability to take a simple idea and turn it into a stunner.

Some say this might be the best iPhone ad ever made.

What this commercial does so well is capture the human side of technology. It’s a reflection of daily life, and it’s easy to see ourselves in it. The ad shows us how essential our phones have become, enabling us to capture the people, places and images we don’t want to forget.

I say this is a great example of the power of creativity because …

Well, you feel pretty great about iPhone when the spot ends — even though it provides no distinguishing reason to buy one.

The spot is based on emotion rather than any features that set iPhone apart from its competition. Just about every phone on earth has a built-in camera these days, many of which offer quality similar to iPhone’s.

The voiceover wraps it all up by saying: “Every day, more photos are taken with an iPhone than any other camera.” By comparing to individual competing models, Apple gracefully eludes the reality that there are a ton more Android phones out there, taking a ton more photos.

I don’t say these things to diminish the commercial. I’m a huge fan of it. I’m simply pointing out the power of great creative. Without relying on a single technology-based advantage, Apple successfully creates a commercial that wins your heart.

When we talk about Apple being “the most human technology company,” this is exactly what we mean. Taking the emotional route, and doing it with class and quality, can be at least as effective as screaming about new features.

Also, it’s important to note: great creative work often looks easy — when in fact it is anything but. It’s difficult to get everyone to sign off on an ad that’s purely emotional. It’s super-hard to come up with so many realistic scenarios with believable actors, and then edit them together to make sense. The use of repeated flashes in this spot is particularly artful.

And this is a 60-second commercial. Most companies aren’t willing to invest in longer spots when they can get “more for their money” with a 30-second spot. They’re willing to give up the greater emotional impact to get the spot on air more often. When you value creativity, you’re willing to spend more to do it right.

Steve Jobs didn’t believe in cutting corners when it came to creative work. To me, this spot is reassuring proof that his values are alive and well at Apple.

As competing devices mature, and their differences become less obvious to the non-experts, a company’s ability to create provocative and memorable advertising becomes all the more important.

In this measure, Apple has an advantage. And it’s an advantage that’s not so easy to copy.

It happened to iPod — time for iPhone to get the family treatment?

For months, we’ve heard that Apple isn’t the innovator it used to be.

iPhone has fallen behind. Samsung is now the real innovator. iPhone 5S is an also-ran before it’s even launched.

Of course, Apple’s “problems” are more perception than reality. But perceptions do fuel momentum, and the negative buzz about Apple has been (a) tarnishing the brand and (b) driving the stock price lower. So what’s Apple to do? Will we really have to wait until 2014 to see a major upgrade to iPhone?

We can’t predict the future. However, we all know the past — and you’ll find some important clues there.

Back when the very first iPhone was about to launch, it was assumed by many inside Apple that iPhone would follow the path of iPod before it. The first year or two would be devoted to evolving and perfecting the device — and then the iPhone line would be expanded to address various types of customers.

iPod’s biggest years came after it had expanded into a family of products.

Given that history, and given the growing demand for certain variations on the theme, there’s a good chance that the next iPhone will actually be a family of iPhones:

iPhone Mini — the most affordable iPhone
There has been much anticipation about a cheaper iPhone, primarily targeted at developing countries. Yet it’s extremely hard to believe that Apple will ever follow the “cheap” path. Cheap is a blatant violation of the company’s divine teachings. No scrimping on quality allowed. What Apple can easily do, and remain true to its values, is create a slightly smaller iPhone (the pre-iPhone 5 size), perhaps in a plastic case (like iPhone 3GS), driven by a less-powerful processor. It wouldn’t be “cheap” to the degree that some are theorizing, but it would be a lower-cost alternative. This would keep quality high and have greater appeal to the more price-conscious.

The new iPhone — now in colors
Obviously, a new iPhone will have a raft of new features. But if there’s one thing in Apple’s history that can be counted on, it’s the introduction of color to jazz up a maturing product. It happened to iMac (although it was ultimately re-jazzed to no color at all). It happened to iPod with several models. And there’s every reason in the world it should happen to iPhone. Color is personal, and our phones are more personal than iPod ever was. Color will make the new iPhone instantly recognizable as something new — even if it comes in the same old body. (Hedging my bet: if color is in iPhone’s future, it could come in this model, the more affordable model, or both.)

iPhone Max — bigger is better
No way! Apple will never make a bigger iPhone! Uh, right. And Apple will also never make a smaller iPad. Sure, Apple has made a big deal about keeping iPhone perfectly hand-sized. But it is extremely market-savvy and more than willing to expand when it sees a trend. The fact is, a lot of people are responding positively to the larger screens offered by Samsung and others. Apple can either watch as its competitors peel away a significant chunk of its business, or it can make an Apple-quality product and give customers a choice of different screen sizes within the iPhone ecosystem. Just as it expanded the iPad line.

The smartphone audience has grown exponentially in recent years. The simple reality is that different people have different needs. Creating a family of devices would widen iPhone’s appeal as it squelches the perception that Apple is somehow losing touch.

Creating a new family of iPhones would also allow Apple to stage a supremely buzz-worthy event. No symphony orchestra required.

Expanding the product line was the right move at the right time for iPod. This is feeling like a highly appropriate time for iPhone.

[Sorry, but it seems that jcpenney has destroyed the evidence. The ad discussed here has been yanked from YouTube. Fortunately, they can't censor the news story containing the ad — so I'm publishing that here instead.]

Whether you love or hate jcpenney, whether you love or hate Ron Johnson, this commercial gives us a good, juicy topic.

jcpenney is in a sorry state. Literally. It is now running this public apology, admitting mistakes and begging its old customers to come back.

This ad definitely defies conventional wisdom. To many, it feels too much like an oil company apologizing for spilling a few million gallons of gunk into the environment.

Most marketers in jcp’s position would be sensitive to sounding desperate and take a more positive approach. There are many bold and happy ways to send out a similar message of change.

So this move by jcpenney is either unexpectedly brilliant or astonishingly dumb. I think this is open to debate, and would love to hear your opinions.

Is jcpenney in such sad shape, on the edge of extinction, that it must do something extreme? Or have its marketing skills crumbled under the pressure and sunk to an incredible new low?

One thing jcpenney does not intend to apologize for is further muddling its own identity issues. In 2012, the company changed its logo for the third time in three years. That logo is now gone. The number of recent ad campaigns will now exceed the number of logos, as the well-received “Yours Truly” campaign also appears to have bitten the dust — just two months after it debuted on the Oscars.

jcpenney now seems laser-focused on getting back to the day before Ron Johnson entered the building. The previous CEO is back at the helm. The sales and coupons are flowing freely. They want the old customers back.

That may sound great to some. But back before Ron — with all the sales, low prices and house brands — the old customers weren’t responding so well. The company was in serious decline. That’s why they hired Ron Johnson in the first place.

jcpenney should be extremely wary about returning to the “good old days.” Because the truth is, they really weren’t very good at all.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. An ad associated with Microsoft is making people laugh.

Not that this hasn’t happened before. The difference is, this time viewers are laughing with Microsoft — not at it.

It’s remarkable, because for many years Microsoft has been the older guy at the party trying to prove he’s cool or funny. Mostly, it’s turned out awkward (the Gates/Seinfeld buddy series), lame (“I’m a PC”) and/or befuddling (Surface dancing ads).

Given this track record, I’m assuming that the creative spark in this ad originated with Nokia. (Although Nokia hasn’t exactly behaved like a creative powerhouse in the past either.) But the branding here is heavily Microsoft, which has obviously opened its wallet to put the concept of “Windows Phone” front and center.

In this commercial, Microsoft and Nokia do to iPhone and Android what Samsung has so successfully done to Apple. It seizes the moment and makes its competitors look silly. And it does so by taking the silliness to an extreme.

It ridicules the features that have been touted by the smartphone leaders, from Siri to the idea of “bumping” phones to share photos.

A few cheesy gimmicks aside, the production quality is good. I can only imagine how much fun it was to be on the creative team for this one.

The big question is: will this ad have any effect in Microsoft’s quest to carve out a place for the Windows Phone platform?

Well, let’s start with the good news. People will watch it. It is legitimately funny. Who knows what kind of budget is being put behind it, but as Samsung has demonstrated — humor can be a deadly weapon when generously financed.

However, one can’t help feeling that Microsoft and Nokia went with this strategy for one simple reason: it’s one of only strategies left to them. This is what happens when your product comes along several years after the leaders have already divvied up the pie.

In effect, this ad screams “Hey! Over here! We’ve got a phone too!” There’s precious little here to suggest why Lumia might be a better choice than the phones we know so much about. This phone simply wants to be noticed.

But never dismiss the power of creativity. An ad doesn’t have to be deep to be effective.

This particular ad will be watched, and it will be watched repeatedly — because it’s loaded with new details to enjoy with each viewing. It’s entertainment with a message: there’s a new phone in town.

I wouldn’t count on a stampede of Lumia customers rushing into the phone store as a result. But there are a lot of people smiling. And when you’re trying to get noticed, that’s a good start.

Ron Johnson’s exit at jcpenney this week wasn’t exactly huge news to those who’d been watching the company fall off a cliff in 2012. Boards tend to notice when the losses start approaching the one-billion-dollar mark.

Now we get a deluge of analyses from retail experts and amateurs alike. I would only remind you of one basic rule of life:

Don’t believe everything you read.

I’ve been surprised at how many articles either misunderstand the retail industry or conveniently misplace the facts about the challenges facing jcp.

So what the heck, I’ll throw in my two cents as well. I didn’t work for jcp, but as some of you know, I was involved in the jcp advertising that ran on the Oscars this year and last.

To better appreciate how and why Ron failed, you have to go back to the beginning.

Ron became CEO of jcp after a long period of courtship. He was being recruited to be on the board by investor and board member William Ackman. Ron’s great successes in retail (Target, Apple) and fresh point of view were seen as a breath of fresh air. And boy, did jcp ever need that.

Under its previous CEO, Myron “Mike” Ullman, jcp was clearly on a downward slope — yes, even with hundreds of sales each year and its Sunday supplements filled with coupons. It was still profitable, but the writing was on the wall. American shopping habits were changing dramatically. Big department stores were losing their appeal as more people were either shopping online or moving toward the specialty shops in the malls. Despite a core of loyal customers, and despite that “big sale” mentality, the store was fading in the public consciousness.

Concerned about its future, jcp needed to replace Ullman with someone who could reinvigorate the brand. The stores had to continue appealing to old customers, to be sure, but if the company were to thrive, it would need to attract new customers as well.

Ron Johnson seemed to be exactly what jcp needed. Wall Street vigorously approved, and jcp’s stock price rocketed at the news of his hiring.

Just a few months later, Ron unveiled his vision for the “new” jcp at a flashy NY event for retail industry analysts and journalists. jcp would be turned into a collection of a hundred shops, featuring great quality brands. And, instead of artificially inflating prices at the start just to have a big sale later, jcp would offer honest low prices every day. Again, the stock price jumped. People who lived and breathed the retail industry loved what they saw — even as they heard Ron estimate that it would take 2-3 years to complete the company’s transformation. Re-making 1,100 stores is a mammoth undertaking.

So what went wrong? Well, that’s where all the expert opinions come in. Many of which I believe are overly simplistic or just plain wrong.

Here are The 5 Big Mistakes That Led to Ron Johnson’s Ouster at JCPenney as described by Brad Tuttle at Time.com. I have seen others link to it as “a good analysis.” I disagree.

[Ron] misread what shoppers want.
Tuttle says that despite the trickery involved, shoppers love sales. Obviously there’s some truth to that. It’s also true that people love great quality at great prices, which is what Ron planned to offer. Given the right mix of products that people love, low prices, gorgeous stores and a great marketing campaign, it’s hard to say the plan was doomed to failure. Remember again, most industry experts thought it was a winning plan when it was first unveiled. Since Ron’s vision was never realized, it’s sheer speculation that people wouldn’t have loved the new jcp. But there’s a more important reason to dismiss Tuttle’s reason #1. Even with the neverending sales and barrage of coupons offered by jcp before Ron arrived at the scene, jcp’s numbers were dwindling. Catering only to the mindset of the traditional jcp shopper was not an option. Something had to change.

He didn’t test ideas in advance.
Okay, I’ll give Tuttle partial credit for this one. Obviously, knowledge is a good thing. But let’s not forget the support Ron had for his pricing vision. The man has his expert advisors. Wall Street bought into it. And the renowned brands that Ron was bringing into the store were super-eager to be part of what they saw as a winning plan. “Oh yeah?” you say, “well, they were ALL wrong — that’s why testing is so important!” Well, my answer to that is that Ron and all the experts weren’t wrong. The vision was a great one. What wasn’t so great was the road map to get there. Hang with me for a bit.

He alienated core consumers.
This is actually part of the previous point. No further comment.

He totally misread the JC Penney brand.
This is totally silly. True, jcp has a brand. True, that brand has meaning for its customers. But very few brands remain motionless as time goes on — especially when that brand is sliding toward irrelevance. Tuttle pooh-poohs the idea of creating a collection of cool shops, saying that people don’t want “a fun place to hang out.” The reason jcp was dying is that people were less interested in going there. Despite its sales, it was boring. Ron’s plan to transform jcp into a place people might actually want to go was absolutely right on. No matter where you shop, there’s a little thing called “the shopping experience.” It dictates whether you go back to that store anytime soon. To be blunt, the shopping experience at the old jcp sucked. Ron’s plan to turn jcp into a place you’d want to visit — with cool shops staffed by specialists, free wi-fi, fast checkout, etc. — was very seductive. I believe it would have built a bigger, better and more relevant jcp brand. Ron would have been pleasing the core customers as he attracted a wave of new customers.

Overall, he didn’t seem to like or respect JC Penney.
Could not be further from the truth. jcp has thousands of employees, representing thousands of opinions. Part of the CEO’s job is to get employees to rally behind his vision. There were plenty of people at jcp who were excited about Ron’s path to the future, and there were those who were “old school” and resistant to change. No doubt one can dig up plenty of quotes from those who might question Ron’s love of jcp. Unless you hear it coming from Ron himself, it’s all hearsay.

What I heard directly from Ron was a deep, unwavering love of jcp — the brand and its people. He studied the writings of the founder, James Cash Penney, and often quoted him. And here’s a little shocker for you: good old James Cash hated sales and gimmicks. He didn’t believe in “marking up prices just so we can mark them down.” He believed in total respect for the customer — and that’s what Ron played back at every opportunity. Ron did not have a “distaste for the company” — he had a profound sadness that the brand had fallen to such low levels. His greatest goal was to restore jcp to its former status as “America’s favorite store.” Tuttle also notes that Ron had a “disdain” for the customer base, which again is absolutely 100% untrue. The creative team heard one thing from Ron consistently from our very first meeting, that our mission was to “put a bear hug around Middle America.” That’s the jcp customer. With his every idea, Ron was trying to win the love of his customers. He wanted to make their money go further, give them great merchandise and have them enjoy the shopping experience.

So — if Ron was so right about everything, why did it end so spectacularly bad?

In my opinion, there is one very simple reason. I don’t mean to minimize it, because it’s a horrific miscalculation, and I can understand why Ron would be dismissed because of it:

Ron failed because he changed the prices long before he could visibly change the stores.

He did a basic cleanup of the selling environment (eliminated junk and switched to whole-number pricing). Then, before he could widen the appeal of jcp, he took away the one thing traditional customers were hanging onto: sales and coupons.

As noted earlier, jcp sales had been sloping downhill for quite some time before Ron arrived. However, the patient was not yet in critical condition. What Ron should have done is keep the existing pricing policy in place while he more quietly built the “new jcp” in the background. He could have been bringing in exciting new brands and renovating stores more progressively, without forcing customers to go cold turkey on sales and coupons.

He ripped out the old before the customers could really see the new.

That, very simply, is why Ron’s plan didn’t work. There may be other contributing factors, but they weren’t store-killers on this level.

So what’s jcp’s future now? Personally, I’m extremely curious to learn what will happen to (a) Ron’s vision for the physical appearance of the stores, (b) his vision for the shopping experience, and (c) the relationships Ron had nurtured with some great brands (Michael Graves, Jonathan Adler, Terence Conran, Martha Stewart, etc.).

I hope jcp has the ability to right the ship. However, the company’s latest actions don’t exactly inspire confidence.

Ron was hired because the policies of the previous CEO weren’t working. He has now been replaced by that very same CEO. When it was announced that Ron was out, jcp stock rose 10% in after-hours trading. When it was revealed that Ullman was taking the job, the stock dropped 6%. It appears to be a “who is less bad” situation, rather than “who would be great.”

According to this article, Board member Ackman said last May that under Ullman, jcp was “chronically mismanaged.” This week he said Ullman is “the right guy at the right time.” Spin is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

And what becomes of Ron? If I were him, I’d take a nice long vacation and look at the world of possibilities. Ron is one of the nicest, most inspiring people I’ve worked with. He loves retail, and he loves delighting his customers.

Hard to imagine he won’t be doing that again.

When Apple introduced the iPad 3 as “the new iPad” — dropping its number altogether — it gave Apple watchers something new to ponder.

Would the coming iPhone 5 simply be “the new iPhone”? Would Apple’s naming convention finally be applied equally across all product lines?

The answer, we soon discovered, was “no.” The new iPhone stubbornly held onto its number — even though iPod, iPad, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro were living in a world where numbers had become excess baggage.

There was good reason, of course.

iPhone is sold differently. Since two previous models are still available when a new model is launched, the number is needed to distinguish one from the other. Consider it a necessary evil.

But once you accept that iPhone models can’t live without a model identifier, the question becomes: what should that identifier be?

The press has already dubbed this year’s model “iPhone 5S.” Most experts see a narrative in which Apple only produces a major upgrade every other year, and in between we get the “S” model. This is the model that delivers only incremental improvements.

Whether that’s Apple’s intended message is unknown. But personally, I wish Apple never created a “4S.”

First of all, it’s an awkward moniker whether you speak it or read it. The Apple designers tried their best with the product graphics, but there is an inescapable reality: 4S will never be as simple as 4.

More important, tacking an S onto the existing model number sends a rather weak message. It says that this is our “off-year” product, with only modest improvements. If holding off on the big number change achieved some great result, I might think otherwise. But look what happened with iPhone 5.

This model brought major changes: bigger screen, better camera, greater speed, all on a thinner and lighter body. Yet its improvements were still dismissed by many as “incremental.” In fact, the perceived lack of innovation in iPhone 5 (deserved or not) is what prompted some to start writing about Samsung as “the new innovation leader.”

So what exactly is the point of going with numbers vs. “S” designations?

The simplest path is to give each new iPhone a new number and let the improvements speak for themselves. If anyone wants to say that the 7 isn’t as big a leap as the 6, that’s their business. Attempting to calibrate “degree of innovation” in the product name seems like a needless (and self-diminishing) exercise.

I think it’s safe to say that if you’re looking for a new car, you’re looking for a 2013 model — not a 2012S. What’s important is that you get the latest and greatest.

My (meaningless) vote is that the next iPhone should be christened iPhone 6, not iPhone 5S. If it’s worthy of being a new model, it’s worthy of having its own number.

Apple has an impressive track record when it comes to product naming, and clarity has always played a very big role.

I don’t know exactly what the “S” is supposed to mean. But I’m pretty sure that 6 is better than 5.

Wow, things really do happen faster in the world of Samsung.

Apple enjoyed a good 15 years of ever-increasing buzz before it finally took a hit. Samsung’s buzz has suffered a wound in just a fraction of that time.

What a difference a launch can make.

Samsung was on a tremendous winning streak over the last year or so. It way outspent Apple on marketing, effectively hitting the company while it was down. It had a monster hit with the Galaxy S III. It was hailed by many as “the new leader in innovation.” And it was all set to be anointed the king of smartphones with an epic unveiling of the Galaxy S4 at Radio City Music Hall last week.

But the next day, there wasn’t a lot of anointing going on. In fact, Samsung was taking hits on several levels.

First was the event itself. Even the Samsung fans were cringing when it was over. It felt like a third-world version of the Oscars, with not-so-funny comedy and a generous helping of sexism tossed in for effect.

Anyone who thought Apple went overboard during product launches (magical! revolutionary!) had to do some serious recalibration.

The fact is, Apple’s buzz has always started with the product, not a PR scheme. It gets its devices into the hands of key reviewers. It’s the countless journalists, bloggers and commenters who actually generate the buzz — not Apple.

Somehow I doubt that Steve ever considered a symphony orchestra.

And then there is the Galaxy S4 itself.

Remember how Apple proved it was no longer an innovator by unveiling iPhone 5? All it had was a slightly bigger screen, faster processor, better camera and numerous software enhancements. What a disappointment.

So here comes the all-new Galaxy S4 — with a slightly bigger screen, faster processor, better camera and numerous software enhancements.

Good lord, can’t anyone innovate anymore?

In a way, this is all Apple’s fault. (Remember, everything is Apple’s fault.) Through a series of genuine revolutions, Apple taught us that new products are the jaw-droppers. Incremental improvements are for losers.

Unfortunately, most critics haven’t read the record correctly. It’s the 1.0 product that has always generated the real excitement. Subsequent versions offer up some cool features, but are rarely considered “revolutionary.”

Siri, Retina display, FaceTime … none of those things have ever matched the initial buzz of the original iPhone. That’s just life in the technology biz.

So when Samsung announced a major event to unveil an all-new killer version of the iPhone killer it was already selling by the ton, and does everything in its power to jack up the expectations — it was really just asking for trouble. At least when it comes to the buzz factor.

Welcome to the club, Samsung. Better get crackin’ on something truly revolutionary. I hear HTC has been nosing around about the availability of Radio City.

Unfortunately for Apple, those days are now long gone. There’s no resting on past glories. For those comparing tablets today, it hardly matters who invented what. What’s important is what they see today — and it starts with the ads.

Let’s see how the ad competition is shaping up.

Apple has always spawned passionate reactions to its advertising, pro and con. But these days, it seems that the natives are restless.

For the most part, iPad ads have always worked like iPhone ads. They’ve been focused on the product and have demonstrated a wide range of apps. When iPad was crushing competitors in both marketshare and mindshare, there didn’t seem to be a downside to this.

But now there’s a question: is it enough anymore to say “iPad lets you do a lot of stuff”? As other tablets mature, what’s the shelf life for a message like this? (Alright, that’s two questions.)

Here’s what Apple’s competitors are doing, starting with Amazon.

The Kindle Fire HD, by most reports, isn’t exactly setting the world on fire. Looking at this ad, you can see that the message is a bit familiar. Basically, it says “Fire lets you do a lot of stuff.” Only at the end do we see Fire’s big advantage: it’s cheap. As in $199 cheap.

Of course Fire is missing certain important things, and that is why it’s so cheap — but all’s fair in love and marketing.

You’re up next, Google.

With Nexus 7, Google is eager to join the party. Or, I should say, they’re joining the chorus. Because the net takeaway from the Nexus commercial is also familiar: “Nexus lets you do a lot of stuff.” Imagine: you can check the weather, use a map, find a restaurant, translate a word and make a video call. These are all things we’ve lived with for years now.

On the positive side, Google plays up their strength here. They position the technology as connecting with our lives. Is that differentiation enough? You tell me.

And now Microsoft.

Damn, it’s hard to watch this. Surely a disruption in the space-time continuum caused Microsoft to reach back into the 70s, when a song-and-dance caused shoppers to pull out their wallets.

Give them credit for not just saying “it does a lot of stuff.” But latching onto the click as the big marketing idea has almost the opposite effect from the one they wish. It trivializes the technology they’re so proud of.

Last, there’s Samsung.

Samsung faced the same uphill battle all the others have faced. They were trying to get a slice of a market that was hugely dominated by Apple.

As discussed in a previous article, Samsung is doing what Apple had always been known for. They’re getting people to talk about their products.

That’s no easy feat when you start out with nothing. Unlike the others who tried in vain to claim the mantle of “chief challenger” to Apple, Samsung hit on an idea that resonated. It used humor to capitalize on the growing feeling that Apple has become too big and less innovative. Plus it put tons of cash behind its campaign.

When Apple took on Microsoft with its super-successful Mac vs. PC campaign, its goal wasn’t to replace Microsoft as the leader. It simply wanted to become part of the conversation. And this work got people talking about the Mac platform in places they weren’t talking about it before.

If you need proof that Samsung’s Apple-bashing humor draws a crowd, just look at the YouTube numbers. This anti-iPhone ad now has over 17 million views. Apple ads just don’t get those kinds of numbers these days.

Through its advertising, Samsung has succeeded in creating an umbrella personality for both its smartphone and tablet products. All of their ads now reinforce the same point (whether it’s true or not): Samsung is the company delivering innovation.

I hear all kinds of opinions about Samsung ads. Some think they’re stupid, or resent Samsung for ripping off Apple ideas. But these ads are doing what exactly what they are designed to do — they’re striking a nerve, and stoking the anti-Apple flames.

In Summary

Google, Amazon and Apple are all running commercials that play up the infinite things their devices let you do. Only problem is, “doing a lot of stuff” is now well-trod territory. That alone is not the message of an innovator.

What Apple does have going for it is that familiar tone of elegance and simplicity. However, this familiarity translates to some as boring, or simply more of the same. Which is not the personality of an innovator.

That’s an issue for a company that lives or dies by innovation — and it opens the door for marketing attacks. Remember, we’re talking about marketing here and not necessarily the technology reality.

When you look at all the ads together, it’s Samsung that has stepped out of the mold. (Microsoft stepped into a very old mold.) Samsung doesn’t focus so much on the devices; instead it creates a personality for them. Love or hate these ads, they’re not invisible. They’ve helped paint the picture of Samsung as Apple’s most dangerous competitor.

Historically, Apple has been pretty good at getting noticed when they face a far bigger competitor — as it demonstrated with the Mac vs. PC campaign, using humor to chip away at big, bad Microsoft.

With Samsung picking up even more buzz (note tomorrow’s unveiling of the Galaxy S IV smartphone), it will be interesting to see how and if Apple’s ads will evolve. Hard to imagine that it would ever directly address its competitor as Microsoft did with its pitiful “I’m a PC” campaign. But creativity can work in a thousand different ways.

As the technology playing field levels — in consumers’ eyes, that is — the spirit of the ads may well become the most important differentiator.

It’s been 15 months since Ron Johnson left Apple to become CEO at jcpenney.

If you go by the numbers, things aren’t going all that well. If you go by the vision, it’s a different story entirely.

During the Oscars, jcpenney ran six commercials that lay the framework for the transformation in progress.

(At this point, I must bare all and confess that I was part of the creative team for this work. But don’t let that stop you from blasting away at me if you disagree.)

The “Anthem” commercial above is a 90-second letter to America. Basically, it says that jcpenney knows who you are and what makes you tick, and is devoted to helping make your life a bit better — as it has been for over a hundred years.

This is jcp’s “stake in the ground,” much as Think different was Apple’s stake in the ground when it began its transformation.

The ads that followed put some flesh on the bones, showing how jcp is bringing some cool and unexpected brands into the store.

I’ve been dutifully reading the many expert opinions on Ron’s efforts for the past year, and I understand the pessimism. It’s not easy to revitalize a brand, especially when shopping habits have changed so drastically in recent decades.

But this is exactly Ron’s point. Shopping habits have changed in a big way, and the department store is an old idea. If the concept is to survive, it’s going to have to change — drastically.

The fact is, everything for sale in the Apple Store is available online. So why are Apple Stores mobbed all the time? It’s because those stores offer something that can’t be found online: a place to try things out, people who really know the products, and face-to-face help when you need it. Apple Stores offer an experience.

In the broadest strokes, that’s Ron’s approach to jcp. He gets that you can buy the same goods online (at jcp or elsewhere) without leaving the comfort of your home. So what will it take to get people into the stores? A unique, fun shopping experience.

Ron’s plan is to bring in high-quality brands and set up each one in a “store within a store.” Each store will be staffed by specialists who truly know what they sell. The junky stuff is gone. There will be wide aisles, places for people to relax and connect to the internet, and — you guessed it — “genius bar”-types of counters where you can get help with merchandise, design, food preparation, etc.

Here’s the problem. Every Apple Store ever built has looked fantastic from day one. With jcp, Ron has to revitalize 1,100 existing stores — most of them being far bigger than the biggest Apple Store.

Transforming jcp is an ongoing process that will take another 2-3 years. The changes are going on now, shop by shop, across all jcp stores. But it’ll be a while before you can walk into a jcp store and say “holy cow, this is amazing.”

This brings me to my most important point.

Visionaries are a special breed. They’re the ones who bring true change to this world. Despite that, people don’t just line up to follow their vision. In fact, visionaries are often met with scorn — because what they envision is so unlike the reality of today.

Steve Jobs experienced this when he returned to Apple in 1997. Wasn’t he the guy who got booted from the company in ’85 for running the company into the ground? He was met with even more doubt when he decided to open a chain of retail stores. Retail experts looked at the idea with disdain — yet the Apple Stores went on to make retail history.

To turn a vision into visible change, you must be immune to the criticism. You must do what you believe in your heart to be the right thing. Only when the vision is complete and has proven itself to be a success, do the naysayers quietly go away.

Is Ron Johnson a visionary? He’s proven that with a truly imaginative plan for reinventing jcp. Is his vision one that America will respond to? Well, that’s the big question. And it’s a question that can’t be answered until jcp’s makeover is complete.

So sit tight and enjoy the show. It’s easy to have an opinion, but you might first compare your own experience to Ron’s. He turned Target into what it is today, then conceived and built the chain of Apple Stores. He has a passion for retailing that is equal to Steve Jobs’ love of technology — and a deep understanding of why and how people shop.

Turning around a chain of 1,100 department stores is a task that is almost beyond comprehension. But I’d think long and hard before I bet against Ron Johnson.

No one denies that Apple has been more successful than any other technology company on earth.

How that happened shouldn’t be a matter of debate, but we can always count on human nature to muddy the waters. Some Apple detractors put forth the theory that it’s not the technology; it’s all in the marketing.

Reasonably intelligent people can’t possibly believe that. However, there is one bit of truth to it. That is, Apple has always been amazingly good at marketing. It’s been the gold standard in marketing as long as most of us can remember.

No matter what brand I’m working with, technology or otherwise, it’s astounding how many times I hear marketing people cite the Apple example to make a point. Apple’s advertising history is as famous as its products.

But something’s changed.

While you can still argue that Macs and i-devices have a ton of appeal, you can’t argue that Apple is still untouchable when it comes to advertising.

The fact is, it is being touched — often and effectively — by none other than Samsung.

Samsung has made remarkable inroads in a very short time, for two big reasons.

First, it is spending a fortune to run its ads. According to this report, Samsung spends more than Apple, more than HP and Dell, and even more than Coca-Cola to get its message out. In marketing, as in political advertising, the bigger the budget, the bigger the chance of success. Assuming, of course, that the message is a potent one.

The big surprise is that Samsung’s message has proven to be tremendously potent. The company continues to bash away at Apple, delivering ads that are well produced, well written and seem to be striking a nerve.

In contrast to Apple, which has been sticking to its product-based ads, Samsung has been scoring points with its people-based ads — most of which play off some growing negative perceptions about Apple.

Apple has been the master of buzz creation going all the way back to the first iMac. It just isn’t buzzing quite like it used to. Momentum has been lost. Not all of that is Apple’s fault, but some of it certainly is.

Samsung invested in a two-minute Super Bowl ad; Apple chose to remain silent. Samsung created a new story for the Oscars, tapping the eccentric Tim Burton; Apple ran only a variation of its more traditional product-centric campaign.

The last time Apple tried to stir things up was when it unveiled a brand-new campaign during the summer Olympics. And you know how that turned out.

On this first day after the Oscars, there’s some buzz out there about the ads. But for the first time ever, Apple is struggling to get its share. Samsung continues to gain momentum, thanks to its double-barreled approach of creativity and big spending.

I imagine Apple is feeling a bit like Obama after his first debate with Romney. It deeply believes in its ideas; it just needs to express them more forcefully.

There are too many smart people at Apple and Chiat to take this lying down. I expect to see Apple do exactly what Obama did. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and it’s time to recalibrate.

Later this week, I’ll take a closer look at Samsung’s latest ads vs. Apple’s.