Apple’s momentary lapse of reason
Honestly, I never thought I’d hear today’s version of Apple say such a thing: “We missed the mark with this video and we’re sorry.”
Then again, the natives don’t usually show up at Apple’s door, pitchforks in hand. However forced the apology might have been, kudos to Apple for respecting customers enough to admit its error.
That said, given that Apple “missed the mark” by a few light years, it’s fair to ask: How the hell could this even happen in the first place?
Crush joins an elite group
Apple has a long and illustrious history of great advertising. Only twice in the past forty years has it received a public shaming for an ad or campaign.
In the 1985 Super Bowl, the Lemmings ad insulted the very audience it was trying to win. During the 2012 Summer Olympics, the Genius campaign was savaged for being embarrassingly unfunny. (Even I couldn’t resist joining the attack on that one.)
Now, once again, the welcome banners are up at Apple’s Advertising Hall of Shame, as Crush takes its well-earned place in this mini-pantheon of failures.
And so it began
It always starts with the creative brief. This one practically wrote itself: iPad Pro delivers the most powerful tools of creativity in the thinnest device Apple has ever built. So, strategy wasn’t the problem. Execution was.
Who knows how many storyboards were submitted by how many creative teams, but Crush emerged the winner.
From that point on, it was all about production values—and Crush was wonderfully produced by every measure. Its striking images and superb effects came with an unexpectedly perfect soundtrack.
But, there was one problem. A big problem. A fatal flaw. One that somehow, miraculously, escaped detection until the day the ad was released.
Crush was astonishingly tone-deaf.
Et tu, Apple?
Apple and creators have had a symbiotic relationship since … well, forever. Sure, the relationship has seen its ups and downs, but it has endured and expanded. Apple understands the creative spirit because it embraces that spirit itself.
If only AI hadn’t entered the picture.
AI is not driven by the creative spirit. It is driven by cold, hard cash. It is incapable of originality. It simply harvests the work of original artists and assembles it into something fake-original—without compensating the humans who create for a living.
Naturally, the world’s artists are fighting back. And, naturally, they assume they can count on Apple, champion of creativity, to be on their side.
But it’s complicated. Apple is lumped in with the “big tech” held responsible for the threats posed by AI. Tim Cook has publicly proclaimed that AI will play a big part in Apple’s future. Apple has to be careful in the way it communicates.
With Crush, Apple did not show much care. In fact, it didn’t show any care. The ad made it feel like the company was suddenly insensitive to the threat. To creators, it felt like a sucker-punch delivered by a old friend.
Surely Apple didn’t mean to insult the creative community. That’s just the unintended result. Which is the very definition of tone-deaf.
A haunting in Cupertino
I was under the impression that the ghost of Lemmings had been exorcized from Apple HQ decades ago. Apparently not—because Crush manages to alienate its audience in a strangely parallel way.
Lemmings was an ad for the “Macintosh Office.” It was meant to gain Apple entry into the business world, where it was virtually nonexistent at the time.
With zero self-awareness, Lemmings depicted its target audience as a line of businesspeople blindly walking off the edge of a cliff. Those poor fools better open their eyes to Macintosh! It was a shocker, for all the wrong reasons.
Similarly, Crush tries to win the hearts of creators by visualizing the destruction of their cherished instruments. Spooky.
Checks and balances
Crush was created by Apple’s in-house creative group, not by its outside ad agency. Apple has literally brought this upon itself.
This is surprising, because Apple (like any big organization) requires multiple levels of approval. The creative team sells the concept to the new creative director. The VP Marketing gives it his thumbs-up. It goes nowhere without Tim Cook’s blessing.
Which leads to the most important question in this whole sordid affair: What’s wrong with these people?
Knowing the customer is absolutely mandatory for Apple executives. It’s at the core of everything Apple does. As its leaders have maintained for decades, Apple and the creative community share a beating heart.
Yet somehow, amid the high-stakes scrutiny of a major product launch, at a time when creators need Apple’s support more than ever, it never dawned on the executive team that Crush might send the wrong message.
Inexplicable.
Cleanup on Aisle 6
Last, it’s interesting to consider how Apple has chosen to deal with this.
When the 2012 Genius campaign was maligned far and wide, it was yanked off the air in a matter of days and simultaneously deleted from Apple’s website and YouTube Channel. Instead of an apology, there was a whitewash. Apple PR said that the campaign was scheduled to run for only a few days all along. Uh, right.
Crush is getting a different treatment. It was the beneficiary of a quick apology (good) and Apple has removed it from broadcast TV (good). However, the ad remains visible in all other media (not so good).
In summary—the bank robber was caught red-handed, expressed deep regret, and returned half of the money. Not entirely satisfying, but probably enough to ease Apple’s pain.
Personally, I’d appreciate one more apology before the case is closed.
I’m forever scarred by the horrific squeeze-till-its-eyes-pop death of that adorable smiley at the end. How dare you Apple! Please pledge that you’ll provide a safe workplace for all emojis moving forward.
Apple owes the world no apologies. The world of snowflakes need to suck it up. It’s a commercial for Pete’s sake. As Arnold would say, “stop whining!”
Agree.
I do think this controversy will blow over quickly, but not because “it’s just an ad.” It’s because the Apple brand is so immensely powerful. Loyal customers are willing to give Apple a pass. But that’s no excuse for tarnishing the brand.
In fact, the same is true of of product failures, which we can agree are even more serious. (Think Apple Maps.) Again, loyal customers tend to forgive—and Apple has billions of them.
For this, we can thank Steve Jobs. He said it out loud—the brand is Apple’s most valuable asset. It attracts new customers, builds loyalty and insulates Apple from damage when bad things happen.
Thus his demand that we enhance the brand with every ad we make. No exceptions. I’ve been eyewitness to him killing an ad idea because “it just isn’t Apple.” Given the hugely negative reactions to the Crush ad, I’d say there isn’t a lot of enhancing going on.
I assure you, no one would dare invoke the “it’s just an ad” argument during Steve’s time. Times have changed, but values are supposed to be forever.
The thing is, eroding customer/brand loyalty doesn’t cost you, until it does.
Hollywood is arguably experiencing this now. After many movies that many people felt were “preachy” (and which also lost money), followed by blaming the fans for not liking them, now even apparently good films (like Furiosa) are bombing. People are done.
Eroding customer/brand loyalty doesn’t cost you, until it does.
It’s a bad commercial and would be better for the brand if they removed it, in a show of solidarity with their most diehard fans. Everybody shouting “it’s just a commercial!” is either obtuse or should be reading other publications, because yours is about advertising. So obviously it’s not “just a commercial” to us. Duh.
I was anxiously waiting your response – especially the answer to how could this possibly have gotten through all the approval levels with no one stopping to say it might not be a great idea. Totally missed the “know your customer” thing!
I thought the event contained two opposing and very different approaches, made by two very different teams. The first illustrated creative entrepreneurs in their small offices, which everyone can identify with. The second, the crush scene, didn’t fit with the rest. You could see it as an attempt to shake up things, walking on the edge, which is always a balancing act that can end in disaster.
If you never fail, you are not being creative. Being creative means failing sometimes. And creative marketing means something other than playing it safe.
Yes, I agree that the ad was bad. You can ask, “What’s wrong with a company where this can happen?”. But you can also ask, “What’s wrong with a company where nothing bad ever happens?”. Seen in that light, it’s proof that there are still humans at Apple.
I think the mistake of the ad is that the happy objects were not happy. They didn’t move into the iPad as their new home. Instead, they got destroyed, killed, and replaced. They don’t live inside the iPad anymore.
Interesting analogy with the Lemmings ad.
As soon as I saw the ad I wondered how Ken would respond, and his response is the same as my reaction. The ad is hugely creative and just as insulting. My wife loves to play piano and she has an iPad. She gets no joy from watching her instrument get crushed, just depressed. iPads are great but they are not replacements for those who paint, play music, or just about any other creative activity except maybe CG.
My immediate thought was that Apple could have released that ad a few years ago and no-one would have raised an eyebrow.
But I’ve felt for a while that they are in a similar position to Microsoft in the late 90s – making money hand over fist but blind to the growing swell of discontent beneath it. Just ask software developers how they feel about Apple at the moment.
This ad reflects that discontent becoming more visible and Apple needs to tread carefully.
Yep, Apple blew it. Not just tone deaf but not witty in the least. The ad fails a basic rule of advertising. In order for us to buy the answer (the tiny iPad) as a solution, we have to buy the problem. Piano, guitars, and analog tools of creativity are not a problem—most of us still use them. So the equation doesn’t work. There is no “that’s just what I was looking for” moment. We only feel like we witnessed a car crash to nice music.
The ad seems to come from a place Apple rarely occupies. They typically don’t justify or explain their awesome technology with clever metaphors. This ad feels like an act of desperation rather than inspiration—which Apple does so well. The sad truth may be that this very ad may be a result of the case it’s trying to make. Sorry Apple creative, that was one thin idea.
‘What did he say again about death being live’s biggest or best invention? To make way for the new bettered generation… ‘ Well the creative spirit surely is departing Apple and what remains is clever rational similar to AI devoid of love. Love from Jony – get it. He didn’t leave, he had to flee.
Play the commercial in reverse, and it works great.
But I thought all the pearl-clutching is a bit much. My wife read an article criticizing the commercial and had a very negative view before she saw it. When she actually saw it, she laughed and said, “This is what they’re upset about?”
Individual reactions always vary. So, the goal for any ad is simple—create more positive impressions than negative ones. By that measure, the ad failed miserably.
The backlash from the target audience (creators) was instant and widespread. Too many felt that Apple completely misread the thinking and emotional state of the creative community.
And we know for certain that the ad was generating way too many negative reactions, because Apple apologized immediately and pulled the ad off TV. You only do damage control when you see damage taking place.
Hey people!!!!!
Good mood and good luck to everyone!!!!!
Dear GOD/GODS and/or anyone else who can HELP ME (e.g. TIME TRAVELERS or MEMBERS OF SUPER-INTELLIGENT ALIEN CIVILIZATIONS):
The next time I wake up, please change my physical form to that of FINN MCMILLAN formerly of SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON at 8 YEARS OLD and keep it that way FOREVER.
I am so sick of this chubby, balding Asian man body!
Thank you!
– CHAUL JHIN KIM (a.k.a. A DESPERATE SOUL)