iRonic
I’m both an equal opportunity appreciator and hater on Apple’s iBranding and Steve Jobs as you can see from my past articles. It’s been such an iconic brand and has moved an entire market in a different direction. That’s why it’s so awesome seeing a company come out guns blazing with a commercial devoted to turning said brand into a farce.
You can see the amazingly popular video (860,000+ plays) embedded below:
[youtube dPYM-XTqcec]
Couple of really interesting facts about the Droid campaign.
- It wasn’t Google, it was actually Verizon behind this ad.
- At no point did it attack AT&T whose network performance has been one of the biggest pain points that iPhone users have complained about.
- Verizon had to license the trademark for the term Droid from George Lucas…. Star Wars is still paying dividends
- The ad felt more like a movie preview from Michael Bay than your usual commercial fair.
- The words Apple or iPhone were never mentioned in the ad.
Apple Created the Target
It’s pretty easy to target Apple as they have a singular vision of a device and expect users to move to it or skip the product entirely. The focus on high margins, crisp user experience, and the Apple vision has always driven Apple’s Product Development.
Why is Verizon Targeting Apple?
This, at first glance, doesn’t make a lot of sense; just a month back there was a lot of speculation about Apple abandoning the AT&T exclusivity to make a deal with Verizon.
The problem here is that it’s extremely unlikely Apple would ever transition to the Verizon as the carrier utilizes CDMA technology which is most common in the US. Not including a keyboard in the iPhone wasn’t just an aesthetics decision, but it also meant Apple could sell 1 device in every country by just changing some software. While CDMA has its advantages, it would mean Apple building 2 different devices 1 on GSM and 1 on CDMA then add in the additional hardware cost CDMA has over GSM and it becomes clear Apple would have to go against their usual mold to do a deal.
Why Not AT&T
Customers often are not savy enough to tell the device failures from the service providers. While the iPhone has impeccable loyalty, AT&T doesn’t. By targeting Apple, Verizon is focusing on the largest threat: customer loyalty for the iPhone.
Conclusion
Verizon’s execution on this commercial was spotless. Best of all, they never gave any awareness back to Apple. Giving a competitor air time is always a dangerous move. Can you send a message strong enough to displace the added brand recognition you are giving them? By focusing on the iBranding, Verizon could set the tone of the commercial while not bolstering Apple’s brand further.
The verdict is still out on Android’s ability to move past Apple in this market, but the commercial is a stroke of genius for Verizon and a big win for Google. Turning the ubiquitous definition of what a phone is that Apple has created in their thought leadership into a negative is the right move. I, for one, am eager to see what further commercials Verizon can come up with.
In the spirit of open and honest communication, I think you should admit that you have a very anti-Apple, anti-Google slant in everything you write. Give me an example of a time when you actually said something nice about one of these companies? It is completely fine to be a Microsoft fanboy, just be honest about it.
The droid campaign is classic, and I’m glad you mentioned it in your blog. It won’t destroy the iBrand, nor will it really damage Apple’s recent runaway sales, but it does bring attention to an unnoticed product. Microsoft tried to do that with the whole “I’m a PC” response, but they were unsuccessful. If I were Balmer, I would seriously consider hiring these marketing guys to help with my campaign. While you may remain hopeful, I feel the shock and awe from Verizon’s first commercial will be the last one. Clearly these guys have talent in marketing. I would rather see it applied to Window’s 7.
Speaking of which, did you happen to catch the new Apple commercial? Continuing their wildly successful slam on Microsoft, they have produced a commercial where PC says “things will be different in Windows 7″. It is proceeded by a whole series of “it will be better” loops mentioning things such as Windows ME and earlier versions. While I’m a HUGE fan of Windows 7, and encourage everyone to go out and try it, you have to admit that was good marketing!
And while I’m in the mood to slam Apple some more, where do you think they have produced one device that is everything to everyone? In fact, they have made a whole product line out of separate devices. There are things that the iPhone cannot do, but their computer can. Then there are things on the touch iPod that is not available in the phone. You buy songs from iTunes, but they cannot be used in their video software (without a hack) because of copyright issues. If they really had a vision of a single device, they would find a way to make the little iPhone everything and they would discount the cost of the other devices (second tier product line). Also, why can they not just go and produce a $500 netbook with touch screen ability? They would absolutely CRUSH HP and Dell’s offerings. As you can see Nick, there is a huge hole in your “one device” observation.
Maybe we should just throw all of this crap in the trash and buy a Lenovo. YES, I am a Lenovo fanboy.
This post is a case of where I can be not a fan of the company and still be unbiased in the reporting on and discussion of said company. In this case my post draws eyes to the Droid Phone which benefits Google.
My feelings about these companies have nothing to do about where I’m employed, I’ve always felt the same about these companies. I’ve just never liked their ways of doing business.
Then you see my post on messaging and positioning and you see that I respect the iPod’s branding and hold it up as a thing to aspire to.
The new Apple commercial pissed me off quite honestly. I’d like Apple a bit more if their Mac ads were closer to their iPhone and iPod commercials where they actually talk about and sell their products.
I’m just not that interested in seeing people who are so damn petty. I think being negative period is a bad idea, and felt my google adwords post was a bit unfortunate upon reflection for the same reason.
Two quick things. First, this is not a technical review… it is designed to catch eyes on MTV. Apple is doing a great job at that. If you are a 17 year old kid, the message you are receiving is that PCs are old and stuffy and Macs are young and trendy. You go to your parents and you have them buy you one. It does not matter that Blackberry makes a better phone, or perhaps Zune is technically a better product. Their marketing is completely working. For that alone, you have to admire their ad people. I’m not sure that Apple does their own commercials. Do you have any data on that?
Secondly, I find the droid commercials interesting in another way. If you are a techie, then you may know what the droid is. My wife saw the ad, and had no clue what they were selling. Furthermore, she was not able to connect the iBrand with Apple? She thought that the iBranding was simply shorthand for internet. Again, that would say their advertising is working very well when a non-techie associates something Apple with the internet.
I took this a step further. Walking around the floor, I asked some business people about it. None of them can identify the droid product or even remember seeing the commercial. Some of the techies could, but universally nobody could explain what it was. If we were in a Microsoft or Google, then perhaps such a thing would be common knowledge. From the limited survey that I conducted, it appears that a larger population would have no clue.
While you may not be interested in seeing pretty people, a vast majority of America is. That can be seen through the type of ads you see on television. Do they typically put the fat lady in the jeans, or the uber thin one? You may want to reconsider your view, especially on a blog that is focused on marketing and advertising efforts?