Believe it or not there have been a total of 84 ads for the Apple iPhone produce by TBWA a top ad agency since 2007. But let's backtrack a little...
We've all seen the "Get a Mac" campaign starring Justin Long and John Hodgeman. You can watch all of them in the following youtube video: This campaign, which lasted four years and consisted of 66 videos, was "the best TV ad campaign of the last decade, and the best advertising comedy series ever," reports Tim Nudd in AdWeek in this article. Now there is a new TV ad extraordinaire coming to town, or rather hunkering down and setting up shop.
The iPhone ad campaign is entering its sixth year. The ads are cleverly designed to be mini product demonstrations of how new and upcoming features of the iPhone are going to work. Though the iPhone ad campaign may lack the charm that the "Get a Mac" campaign had, it is more varied and simply shows the audience what they're going to get from purchasing the phone.
Do you think that Apple's ad campaigns make their products sound better than they are? Or do you think that the iPhone is better than say the Droid and the Mac is better than a PC?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
In Response to Aislynn Sherry
Look, no hands! The driverless future of driving is here
How do you feel about a driverless vehicle? Would you be an advocate for this type of technology?
I think that too much technology is bad because people become lazy and rely on technology to do everything for them. I don't think this technology would be beneficial to society. So going with that I think that a driverless vehicle is not necessarily a good thing. Yeah I think it would be pretty cool to basically sleep while I drive, but wouldn't that be a downfall? Personally, I love to drive, so I would never buy a car that drives me.
Also think of what would happen if the technology crashed. Say if there were too many cars that your car was trying to interact with at the same time, like on the highway or in a big city, and your car's system crashes... This means that you are going to crash and if that's the case and we've moved away from the safety protocols and features of cars, then you're in more danger if you crash than you would be today.
Do you agree or disagree?
How do you feel about a driverless vehicle? Would you be an advocate for this type of technology?
I think that too much technology is bad because people become lazy and rely on technology to do everything for them. I don't think this technology would be beneficial to society. So going with that I think that a driverless vehicle is not necessarily a good thing. Yeah I think it would be pretty cool to basically sleep while I drive, but wouldn't that be a downfall? Personally, I love to drive, so I would never buy a car that drives me.
Also think of what would happen if the technology crashed. Say if there were too many cars that your car was trying to interact with at the same time, like on the highway or in a big city, and your car's system crashes... This means that you are going to crash and if that's the case and we've moved away from the safety protocols and features of cars, then you're in more danger if you crash than you would be today.
Do you agree or disagree?
Friday, February 24, 2012
In Response to M-Blog
John Smith
Should John Smith sell the names? (Be sure to answer the poll to the left of this post.) Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? Go to the AMA website (American Marketing Association) and look at their Statement of Ethics. What in the Statement relates to John Smith's dilemma?
John Smith should NOT sell the names because there are other options besides laying off employees to cut costs. Also, the poll did not necessarily ask if the poll takers were interested in buying the cars, only if they would want the car. Just because a person wants a new car doesn't mean that they are going to buy a new car or even if they plan to buy a new car it can still fall through and not happen.
I think that the America Marketing Association's Statement of Ethics does address this situation because it includes core values of honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, transparency and citizenship. There could be many reasons why John Smith's business is not doing well, but selling people out is not the way to go about fixing his problems. Plus the $8000 will run out but if he ups his marketing or some other part of his business, then the money could start coming in more and will continue to rather than running out.
Are there any other factors which should play into Smith's decision to sell the names or not? ...Ethical or otherwise?
Should John Smith sell the names? (Be sure to answer the poll to the left of this post.) Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? Go to the AMA website (American Marketing Association) and look at their Statement of Ethics. What in the Statement relates to John Smith's dilemma?
John Smith should NOT sell the names because there are other options besides laying off employees to cut costs. Also, the poll did not necessarily ask if the poll takers were interested in buying the cars, only if they would want the car. Just because a person wants a new car doesn't mean that they are going to buy a new car or even if they plan to buy a new car it can still fall through and not happen.
I think that the America Marketing Association's Statement of Ethics does address this situation because it includes core values of honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, transparency and citizenship. There could be many reasons why John Smith's business is not doing well, but selling people out is not the way to go about fixing his problems. Plus the $8000 will run out but if he ups his marketing or some other part of his business, then the money could start coming in more and will continue to rather than running out.
Are there any other factors which should play into Smith's decision to sell the names or not? ...Ethical or otherwise?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Groupon Controversy - Is it a Spoof?
Groupon is a company which has special deals every day with businesses so that if a set number of people buy the product or service they all get a discount. You can learn more about it in this video. During this past Superbowl, Groupon aired a very controversial ad that cost 3 million dollars: Save the Money - Tibet:
This ad starts out by showing scenery in Tibet, saying that the country is in trouble. Then it shifts to a man in a restaurant saying that they make good food and that he got a discount because he and a whole lot of other people all bought on Groupon.com.
Not only did Groupon air this ad, but the company also aired two other controversial ads: one which makes fun of saving whales and the devastation of the Brazil rainforest. But the CEO of Groupon, Andrew Mason, explained to The Wall Street Journal that the ads were only intended to be a spoof and that, in regards to the Tibetans, that the company takes the suffering of these people seriously and intends to raise money for them. More on this controversy can be read here on ABC News.com
After watching the advertisement, reading this post and the linked article, do you think that Groupon is unethical in their advertisement? Are they taking comedic advertisement too far?
This ad starts out by showing scenery in Tibet, saying that the country is in trouble. Then it shifts to a man in a restaurant saying that they make good food and that he got a discount because he and a whole lot of other people all bought on Groupon.com.
Not only did Groupon air this ad, but the company also aired two other controversial ads: one which makes fun of saving whales and the devastation of the Brazil rainforest. But the CEO of Groupon, Andrew Mason, explained to The Wall Street Journal that the ads were only intended to be a spoof and that, in regards to the Tibetans, that the company takes the suffering of these people seriously and intends to raise money for them. More on this controversy can be read here on ABC News.com
After watching the advertisement, reading this post and the linked article, do you think that Groupon is unethical in their advertisement? Are they taking comedic advertisement too far?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
In Response to Tanya Doran
PlayStation Vita
Do you think it is risky to have such a high budget for a device that may not have all the features someone is looking for these days. Example - the Iphone can play video, talk, text, and play games.
In my opinion, the PS Vita isn't that much different from the other hand held gaming consoles out there today. Yes, it does have Wi-Fi and cameras on both sides, a touch screen, duel analog sticks, etc. but these aren't necessarily things that would sell the device. I can agree that it makes the device pretty cool, but the sole purpose of the device is really to be an on the go type of gaming console. So why the huge marketing budget? I think that either Sony either thinks this device NEEDS the extra advertising and marketing or Sony thinks the device will market itself and wants to reap the profits from advertising it to more people. It seems to be an extreme marketing budget, regardless especially because the target market is males in their 20's who are already going to be all over this type of product as it is. I don't think it's necessarily a risky move, I just think that the budget is way out of proportion to how much the device is literally going to market itself.
Why is Sony spending so much money on something that practically markets itself to the target market?
Do you think it is risky to have such a high budget for a device that may not have all the features someone is looking for these days. Example - the Iphone can play video, talk, text, and play games.
In my opinion, the PS Vita isn't that much different from the other hand held gaming consoles out there today. Yes, it does have Wi-Fi and cameras on both sides, a touch screen, duel analog sticks, etc. but these aren't necessarily things that would sell the device. I can agree that it makes the device pretty cool, but the sole purpose of the device is really to be an on the go type of gaming console. So why the huge marketing budget? I think that either Sony either thinks this device NEEDS the extra advertising and marketing or Sony thinks the device will market itself and wants to reap the profits from advertising it to more people. It seems to be an extreme marketing budget, regardless especially because the target market is males in their 20's who are already going to be all over this type of product as it is. I don't think it's necessarily a risky move, I just think that the budget is way out of proportion to how much the device is literally going to market itself.
Why is Sony spending so much money on something that practically markets itself to the target market?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Product Placement in Movies
We've all seen advertising in movies, but I was thinking about it the other day and started wondering when it all started. Turns out, according to this youtube video, that it started back in 1919 in a silent film called The Garage, starring Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. No, I am not kidding you. It first started with Red Crown Gasoline company paying to place their sign on the wall indicated in the video above (toward the beginning of the video).
Product placement or embedded marketing is where goods or services are placed into a context where ads do not usually exist like movies. The trends in advertisement are shifting more toward product placement in place of ads and commercials. Let's be honest... we're all sick of seeing a billion commercials during our favorite shows, often times the same commercials over and over again. So, now instead of commercials, companies are gearing toward product placement within the shows themselves where the product or service even are being used in the content of the video. But product placement doesn't stop there. It's even being used in video games and books! It's all explained here: on HowStuffWorks.com
Do you think that the shift in advertisements from actual ads and commercials to movies, TV shows, and even video games and books is a good change or a bad change? Why or why not?
Friday, February 10, 2012
In Response to Alex Purdy
How do you think these large companies like Nike, Apple, and Disney could change their manufacturing and marketing strategies, so they did not have to go overseas to find workers?
Personally, I think that these corporations have enough money from their stocks and customers as it is and that they do not have an excuse for letting the manufacturers they use under pay workers and make them work in bad, unhealthy and unethical environments. Also because of how successful these corporations are, I think that they could pretty easily move their factories into the United States or away from Foxconn (in Apples case). Apple's products are already highly priced, so I don't think that they should raise their prices, but rather find a new company to do their manufacturing for them instead of Foxconn. This could be in the United States or overseas, but the manufacturing company would have to be reliable and rightly treat their workers. But it could be hard for Apple itself to monitor the working conditions, wages, etc of the workers in the factory as the factory would be owned by a manufacturer, and not necessarily by Apple.
How could corporations like Apple and Nike ensure that their manufacturers are treating their employees ethically?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)