|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OCTOBER 1st, 1997 What's NeXT? ARLEN BRITTON (abritton@webintosh.com) It is happening, again. Sunday was a bad day. There wasn't much to choose from on television, and my normal choice, "The X-Files" was a rerun. Add to this the fact that the football game was blacked out and you're left with "Toy Story" for your viewing pleasure. OK, I'll admit I caved-in and watched it, but only because I was curious to see what all the fuss was about regarding the new Apple ad campaign; the one that was going to revitalize the Mac platform as the platform of choice for the discerning customer; the one that brought together again the legendary Steve Jobs and the firm of Chiat/Day to create the new Apple "Think different." brand advertising campaign, the first such campaign in years. As the commercial aired, I watched and...I wasn't impressed (actually, that's an understatement); I was depressed! A black & white montage of various celebrities, both living and dead rolls by, including Einstein, John Lennon, Amelia Earheart, Gandhi, Richard Branson, Ted Turner and Picasso, as Richard Dreyfus provides the voice-over: "Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes, the ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things, they push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do." It goes on a bit after that, fades to black, then the Apple logo fades-in at the bottom of the screen. It left me wondering what Apple hoped to accomplish. Never mind the supposed magazine ads in non-traditional media or billboards that have been promised starting in October, I want to know what the point of this ad was. Millions of people who haven't got a shred of insight into what makes the Mac better than Windoze saw this ad and are likely just as confused. It's as mediocre and uninspired as the ads that Apple and their previous ad agency were doing. Total Recall It's not that I disagree with the aim of the campaign or its message; what I disagree with is the way that message is presented. In its current form, it just doesn't work. There is nothing to draw the viewer into the ad, much less inspire them to feel good about their products, because no products are shown or mentioned. And the placement of the Apple logo at the bottom of the screen isn't exactly a winning idea, either. The whole thing is just too marginal, which is how the rest of the world sees Apple in the computer industry. It's as though they haven't decided whether or not they want to be noticed. If you look at some of the best brand ad campaigns, the overriding element that is common to a successful campaign is that people remember it! Not necessarily every detail, but they remember parts of specific commercials: the music, the images, the ideas expressed in the ad, the spokesperson, whatever. Once they can do that, they associate those elements with specific brands or products, and you have brand awareness and goodwill. There's nothing memorable about the ad that aired Sunday night, except that it was forgettable. But it didn't have to be that way. When Apple dumped their previous agency (really, the agency resigned the account rather than be dumped or have to compete against other firms vying for the account) they should have gone through the usual competition between agencies to find the one with the best ideas for their goals. Instead of doing this, Steve Jobs contacted Chiat/Day and essentially handed them the account, and we now know part of what they got for their money. Two of the most successful brand advertising campaigns are from Nike, and Coke. In the Nike world, we have the Swoosh logo and images of famous athletes wearing Nike shoes, performing amazing feats. With Coke, we have their famous bears, in a number of humorous settings, always drinking a refreshing Coca-Cola. The Nike campaign has been handled for years by Weiden/Kennedy in Portland, Oregon while the Coke campaign has been a combined effort of multiple agencies and creative types, including CAA (Creative Artists Agency) and Fallon McElligott, based here in Minneapolis. In each, the logo is prominently shown, even if no specific product is mentioned. These are memorable campaigns, and they're effective. People look forward to the holidays to see the newest antics of the Coke bears, and Nike continually serves up new athletes and images to promote their brand. It's stupid to think that by teaming up with your ad agency from 1984 without a review of how other agencies would approach the problem is going to work. For an $8 billion corporation, it's arrogant and irresponsible. That the Board of Directors would actually approve something like this would seem to show that they are nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever Steve Jobs wants to do, regardless of how it turns out. I'm not ready to write off the whole campaign based on one TV ad. But Apple needs to help itself by getting their name and logo prominently displayed in any future TV or print ads. Make it bigger. Show some products. Make us want to buy those products. Make it memorable. Once they do that, the actual sale will be easy. © All information presented on this site is copyrighted by The Mac Observer except where otherwise noted. No portion of this site may be copied without express written consent. Other sites are invited to link to any aspect of this site provided that all content is presented in its original form and is not placed within another frame. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||