Posts Tagged: iphone 3gs

advertising / creative / strategy — 11 Comments
7
Dec 09

Droid plays the testosterone card

[Sorry, the commercial referenced here has disappeared from YouTube]

Enough of the teasers. The first real ad in the Droid assault is now among us. And assault turns out to be a pretty good descriptor — because everything about this spot is amped to extremes, from strategy and script to images and editing.

What this effort probably needed most, however, was some adult supervision.

Every agency wants to start with the most unexpected, out-there ideas. Nothing’s taboo. The theory is that you can always pull creative back, but you can’t amplify something that isn’t there. But then you start developing. And when you’re about to enter the world’s hottest category, battling the much-loved iPhone, risking market share and millions of dollars, you’d think that some responsible person might have politely raised a hand and said: “are you nuts?”

It’s as if the agency, followed by Verizon, Google and Motorola, developed this ad in an alternate reality —  where design doesn’t matter, women want to be men and writers are paid by the adjective. What we get is a whole fleet of runaway trains.

It’s a male-only strategy in a category that’s 50% female. It’s a spot that attacks iPhone for the very reason it’s succeeded — great design. It’s a script that is so desperately cool, it’s juvenile. Worst of all, it’s a launch that presents a smartphone without any smart — offering no benefit other than speed. In that sense, it’s actually less of an ad than the teaser was.

I’m all for chipping away at iPhone’s armor. But allowing your inner pubescent to attack iPhone as “a tiara-wearing, digitally clueless beauty queen” or “a precious porcelain figurine of a phone” reveals a disturbing cluelessness.

It’s hard to imagine any woman outside of the WWE who’d appreciate this ultra-male tone. At the DroidDoes.com website, the slide continues: we get mechanical design presented by a flesh-and-blood android so smarmy, you want to slap him. (Extra points for integration!)

The good news for Droid is, misguided marketing isn’t always fatal. Maybe the device will sell well by its own merits and the superiority of the Verizon network. Who knows, maybe Droid will ultimately cut through iPhone’s lead “like a circular saw through a ripe banana.”

advertising / creative / strategy — 16 Comments
25
Nov 09

Apple gets a little tetchy

Uh oh. I’m sensing a disturbance in The Force.

This is one of two new spots that just started running for iPhone. Both are doing something iPhone has never done before: they’re responding to an alarm. It seems that Verizon is scoring points with their relentless pounding of the widely disliked AT&T network, and it’s getting hard to ignore.

These commercials put up a decent defense but, unsurprisingly, they feel a bit defensive.

The network vs. network argument is actually a distraction for Apple. Because when they talk about the network, they stop talking about their truly monstrous advantage — 100,000 apps. They’re reduced to claiming simultaneous voice and data capability. In this sub-debate, whose advantage would you really prefer? Apple’s simultaneous thing, or Verizon’s vastly larger network that doesn’t drop calls?

Both of the new iPhone spots give us examples of AT&T’s “superiority,” then deliver the punch line: Can your phone and your network do that? The challenging, inelegant tone actually feels more like Verizon than Apple.

To be honest, I find it odd that Apple is even suiting up for this fight. The crummy network is AT&T’s fault. If the ship is springing a few leaks, I’d expect Apple to fire off a note to AT&T: “If you really love me, you’ll go beat up Verizon for me.” Who knows, maybe they’ve gone back and forth on that one.

Whatever their mission, Apple’s creative standards can’t be compromised. If they feel it’s important to go toe-to-toe with Verizon on the network issue, they have to find an Apple-like way to do that. They’ve pummeled their foe masterfully in the Mac vs. PC campaign. Surely they can find a way to slap Verizon around — and entertain us along the way.

advertising / creative / naming — 16 Comments
12
Nov 09

Nokia scares up some interest

Latest contender for a chunk of iPhone’s share-of-mind: the Nokia N900 running Maemo software. (Don’t get me started on the naming.)

Nokia has created a video that’s dark and twisted enough that you feel slightly deranged for enjoying it. If you enjoy it, that is. I suspect the reactions will range from “hate it with a passion” to “greatest video ever.”

Personally, I like it. In that deranged kind of way. It’s unexpected, well-produced and fun. I went from bored to “huh?” to holy cow in the span of two minutes — then I went back for more. I love the moody hum, the quick cuts, the glitchy video, the casting/acting, the sheer shock of it, the gritty reality. Never did I imagine I’d see creative brilliance in a neck brace.

Love it or hate it, give Nokia credit for being fearless. We ad guys are forever whining that our clients won’t take a risk, and here’s a client who actually took one.

What’s most interesting to me is how the players have switched positions in this market. Apple, leading in presence if not market share, suddenly finds itself in the ubiquitous PC role — while the Nokias of the world get to play the feisty Apple-like challenger. In this upside-down world, Apple amuses us with mass-friendly, non-daring iPhone commercials, and the upstarts reach deep into the creative well trying to gain traction.

Does that mean Nokia’s creativity will make a dent in iPhone’s armor? Well … let’s not get carried away here. There are 100,000 reasons — the iPhone apps — why Apple will hold onto its lofty position.

Also, one teaser does not a campaign make. Searching the web, including Nokia’s site, I don’t see anything that syncs up with this concept. Who knows what the real marketing plan is. But I do think Nokia deserves kudos for getting creative and taking us to a new place. Even if this particular place is dark, dangerous and a bit disturbing…

Update 11:14am 11.18.09. Thanks to Cat for providing the following credits: Agency – Jack Morton Worldwide; Director – David Masters; Producer – Michael Richards; Original Concept – Matt McConaghy; DOP – Adam Hall; Editing House – Bravo Post Production; Editor – Brin; Post Production – The Mill; Post Production Producer – Luke Colson; CG Artists – Fabrice Le Nezet, Francois Roisin and Jules Janaud; Sound Production – Fitzrovia Post Production.

advertising / creative / strategy / technology — 3 Comments
28
Oct 09

Shootout at the smartphone corral

Lore has it that when you’re the top gunfighter, there’s always some young buck dreaming of taking you out. So it is that Verizon lurks around the next corner for iPhone, armed with its Android-powered device. While no blood has yet been spilled, Verizon is out there baiting Apple with a teaser. Who knows how #1 will fight back, but for now one of the townsfolk has stepped in to defend Apple’s honor. It’s a fun little exchange.

Here’s the Verizon teaser:

Here’s the Apple fanboy comeback:

One creative note: I have to hand it to the Apple guy for the way he uses self-deprecating humor at the close. Most advertisers are so busy attacking competitors or bellowing their own advantages that they rarely employ this tone. It’s a far more human way to go, as you can see just by watching these two spots side by side.

advertising / creative / strategy — 2 Comments
10
Sep 09

Going where someone has gone before

How do you sell an okay smartphone like Palm Pre when you’re up against a certifiable revolution like iPhone? Not so easy. So let us exude warmth and empathy for our advertising brothers up north, doing this work for Bell Canada. Then let’s slap them around a bit for violations of the creative code.

We could file this under “imitation is the greatest form of flattery.” But we’ll instead file it under “imitation.” Look at this spot (one of three I see on YouTube) and see if it reminds you of anything. In theory, one valid form of attack would be to turn Apple’s weapon against them. However — if you’re going to use that technique to somehow call attention to your own product, surely you could add some distinguishing mark of your own. A clever ending, perhaps? An unexpected twist? A stylish vest? (Oh, right, they tried that.) If not for brand-building reasons, there’s always professional honor.

I think there’s a valuable lesson here for every student of our craft. The quality of voiceover and music in this spot are not excruciatingly bad — they just seem that way. And they seem that way because we all play back the Apple spots in our minds — and, sorry, Apple got there first. That’s the danger of imitating. You’re not dealing with absolutes, you’re dealing with human perception. Personally, this spot just makes me want to hug my iPhone a little harder.

I couldn’t find any current references to those responsible for Bell’s work, other than some older news releases referencing “The Dream Team” of four agencies working together on behalf of Bell, “led by an elite trio of creative directors collaborating in a new and innovative client-agency model.” Note to PR department: stop it.

naming — 9 Comments
11
Aug 09

The not-so-simple art of naming

3GS? 3G S? 3G-box-S? Make up your mind!

3GS? 3G S? 3G-box-S? Make up your mind!

You’d think that by now, most companies would understand that it’s a consumer’s world, and being normal folk, we like things clean and simple — starting with the names of the products we buy. I will be the first to admit that it is getting better. Slowly. Now we have Pre, Slingbox, even Zune (though it hurts to utter the word) that give us a name we can hang onto. But then there’s always the Samsung HT-BD7200 to bring us back down to earth (no kidding, it was one of the “best in show” at CES this year). And every so often, a company that really knows better gets caught up in its own nomenclature. Just so you don’t think I’m an unrelenting Apple apologist, take a look at what they’ve done with the new iPhone 3GS. Or is it the iPhone 3G S. Or the iPhone 3G S-in-a-box. Hard to tell even by reading Apple’s own website. See Exhibit A above: they can’t even get it straight between headline and copy.

What surprised me about this is that Apple normally employs terrific common sense about such things. When the super-thin iPod nano radically changed to the “fat” iPod nano a couple of years ago, the new name was: iPod nano. And when it dramatically changed form yet again last year, the new name was: iPod nano. Apple has always believed it’s kind of like buying a car. Every year, Audi makes a different A4, but it’s always called the Audi A4. We’re all smart enough to figure out that when we go to the showroom, we’ll get the newest model. This logic does fly in the face of some stone-etched laws of retailing, but Apple has never cared much for those laws. Of course there are times when the new product has a distinguishing feature that really sets it apart or would add some great value if it were to appear in the name — like iPod touch. That’s nice and easy. So why the S on top of the 3G? Apple says it stands for “speed” — which, strangely, has not been a big part of the advertising, and I doubt that more than a small handful of people will ever make the connection. But I suspect people would get it in a nanosecond if it were called it the iPhone video — since that feature opens up an incredibly huge new world to iPhone users. Somehow, I think we’d all have quickly “gotten it” if Apple told me that the newest iPhone was also the fastest. And we wouldn’t be left to decipher meaningless letters and numbers in a decidedly non-Apple way.

You might say I’m splitting hairs here. And I certainly am, in the sense that when your product is white-hot and the industry’s #1 object of lust, it’s hardly an issue. But principles are principles, and even the master of product naming can stumble from time to time. Fortunately, it’s easy to forgive a company that does so much cool and smart stuff, which only goes to prove the power of a great brand. You get a hell of a lot more leeway as long as you keep making us happy.