We all know that Apple rose from the dead because Steve Jobs had a unique mix of talents.

He had vision, he understood human behavior, he loved design and he was a gifted conductor of a complex orchestra.

My experience with him makes me want to add one more trait to that mix. That is—he relentlessly acted on common sense.

Trust me, this is more rare than it sounds. Working with other iconic companies, I too often saw common sense take a back seat to cost, timetables and opinions. The result was always something less than our original vision.

When I look at today’s Apple, I still see the company I love. I still see products that are beautifully thought-out. I still see the love of design.

But common sense? I worry.Continue reading…

Maybe I have a bad attitude.

I’d be quite content if I never again heard the Intel “bong” at the end of every PC ad.

I’d also be terminally depressed if I had to look at a gaudy Intel Inside sticker every time I opened my MacBook.

I get that Intel Inside is one of the most successful marketing campaigns in business history. It’s just that after 36 years, that logo starts to feel more like a pollutant than an advertising device.

Thankfully, Macs have remained 100% free of Intel branding since Apple adopted its processors way back in 2006.Continue reading…

For seven years, iPhone naming has ping-ponged between numbers and S’s.

Then, last year we got the iPhone SE, with a moniker that lives outside that naming scheme.

Combining the latest product rumors with what Apple has “trained” us to expect in naming, many expect the 2017 lineup to include an iPhone 7S, iPhone 7S Plus, iPhone 8 and iPhone SE.

Clever, Apple! Your master plan is working flawlessly!

Year after year, you ingeniously fed us those bad iPhone names, knowing that we’d come expect this level of complexity. Only then could you shock the daylights out of us with a stunningly simpler set of names that actually make sense.

[We now return you to reality.]

If you’re a regular here, you know my feeling about the whole “S” thing. It’s a perfect example of a company shooting itself in the marketing foot.Continue reading…

Seriously — an article about legal type in advertising?

Granted, the topic may seem a bit dry. But hang with me. Those microscopic lines of text often have their own sordid backstory, filled with intrigue, deception and blatant bending of the rules.

Even Apple gets into the act.

So, where to begin? Exhibit A, above, is taken from a Rate.com commercial now running incessantly on CNN.

We can all agree it contains a boatload of legal type, and that no earthly being will ever read more than a few words of it.

This may be within the rules, but clearly it is far outside the bounds of common sense.

Which leads one to ask: what are the rules anyway? Hard to say, but every TV network does have a screening process to ensure that ads meet their standards for ethics and accuracy.

Personally, I think common sense makes an excellent standard. To be fair to marketers and consumers, legal disclaimers should pass three tests.

1. Legibility
2. Honesty
3. Brevity

Rate.com grossly and obscenely violates two out of three. (Kudos for the honesty!)Continue reading…

Every election year, I am re-amazed by one of the more amazing things I learned in my advertising life.

That is, there is one set of rules for consumer ads and no set of rules for political ads.

Want to run a TV ad for your toilet cleanser? It will have to be cleared by the network’s “ethics and standards” group. No false or misleading claims allowed about your product or your competitor’s.

Want to run a TV commercial for your political candidate? No lawmen here, so have at it. Lies, half-truths and conspiracy theories are welcome.

While the networks act as a watchdog for consumer advertising, the Federal Trade Commission actually brings action against violators. They have a nice little set of punishments, including cease-and-desist orders, fines, frozen assets and compensation for those affected by fraud.

On their website, the FTC says,“The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks.”

Hmm. It’s not like a presidential candidate can affect our health or pocketbook, right?Continue reading…