iPhone 3GS Advertising Advert FAIL
I always bang on about the iPhone ads as they are the perfect example of the product being the idea. Apple didn’t really need to add an advertising idea to the iPhone communication – they just needed to demo the experience. An experience that good doesn’t need an advertising idea to sell it, it sells itself.
Here is the new iPhone ad “Break In”, directed David Fincher, with an (albeit pretty rubbish) ‘advertising’ idea:
I guess the good people at Apple have decided that the ‘show-em’ format is done? Perhaps they have realized that it doesn’t actually matter, the thing will sell so why not make an ad with David Fincher? Whatever the reason I am not at all convinced by this new approach. If anything it reverts the messaging back down into the ‘our-phone-is-better-than-yours’ playground type area, without actually giving me any solid reason why. This ad could easily have been for Nokia or Android – there’s very little actual Appleness compared to the previous work.
As if by magic – here’s an example. Introducing the new W+K ad for N97:
Based solely on these ads, what differentiates the two pieces of technology? Very little I’d say. If I took these two ad’s at face value, I think I’d probably go buy the N97 – relatively, it’s a better ad.
So not only (by adding an advertising idea to a perfectly good idea) has Apple managed to lessened the impact of their communication, they have also totally cocked up the cunning iPhone ‘experience-is-message’ argument.
Double FAIL.
Comments
10 Responses to “iPhone 3GS Advertising Advert FAIL”
Leave a Reply
awful.
If you’re the prettiest girl in school you don’t need to tell anyone.
If you do, you look like a bitch.
(I was never the prettiest girl in school)
It’s a shame. I think apple’s ad have been a good example of how to do great advertising. Sometimes it’s better to get out of the way of the product. A product demo is sometimes the best way to sell, even if it doesn’t ‘seem’ *creative*.
As the Ad Contrarian has pointed out. Apple has built a brand through great products, and product-led (not brand) advertising.
Lets hope they revert back to what they do best.
i don’t know, i do think there’s something behind it.
they’ve introduced a new phone, which looks just like the old phone, which is now half price.
they know some people are going to buy the new phone, despite the fact most people won’t be able to tell that they’ve spent a lot more on it (and lets face it, the iphone is about status, not being a great product necessarily.. its a bit sucky as a phone IMO).
so, maybe they just decided the job they needed to do was to give the apple fan boys that were going to shell out for the new one some comfort that they were doing the right thing.. that yes, some people might not notice its different but those people don’t count (e.g. the emperors new clothes).
i’m not saying the idea, or the execution, are great, but i am saying i can see a strategy behind it that makes sense.
Sean,
I kinda agree, while it makes sense – does it work?
ps Sean,
You’re a ECD now, stop with the strategy already!
I’m with sean
the new phone looks exactly the same, so you’ve just got to let all the numbskulls know the new phone is here – with a dressed up product shot and VO
all the usual product demo stuff will be along in a few weeks… Apple know what fook they’re doing.
ok, but surely there’s a way to communicate that stuff without the “ha – everyone wants a peek, we’re so awesome’ undertone.
Did Weidens really do that N97 ad? I assumed it was some backwards regional agency.
Hmmm, i gotta be honest, the people I know don’t have an iPhone for status, just for how it works, and what you can do on it.
And they want the new one because of what it can DO. Hence why I think the ‘product/feature first’ type of advertising has always worked well for them.
Of course the way they’ve been done has always been pretty good too, which is important.
yeah strategy aside, the ad sucks dogs cocks. how much did they pay fincher for this?