A gold smart watch is an interesting experiment, but it’s also marketing and positioning - a way to shift perception away from the ‘nerd wart’ image of wearable tech and turn it into a lifestyle product. Whether people buy it is less important than whether it stops people calling these ‘gadgets’Read More
Whatever you think of this spot, you certainly can't accuse Apple of playing things safe. Advertising is a good lens to see how a company thinks about its products and the market (and sometime, to see that it doesn't understand either).
The interesting thing about this spot is how closely it links to Apple's selling points without dwelling on them. Low-light works. Slow-motion works. Sending it to the TV works. Everything is as it should be and nothing is difficult - there's no 'hang on a moment while I make this work' - the experience we've all had trying to show something 'technical' to a non-technical audience.
In other words, this is not a branding spot, it's a pure feature-led spot, but it approaches those features as part of an experience such that the technology just fades away. This is the point of Apple. You're not supposed to know your camera's aperture, just that it can take a video of a baby in the dark.
A nice piece of brand advertising from Apple, talking about what they're really trying to do. All the better for being pretty much sincere, regardless of whether you think they succeed.
Interesting that both Apple and Nokia are running campaigns around the camera. For Nokia this is a real point of differentiation: the Pureview camera tech is very good. For Apple it's part of the broader lifestyle positioning: don't worry about widgets, just enjoy your phone.
The poignant thing, of course, is that Nokia doesn't have Instagram, or many of the other photo-sharing services: it had to launch the new 925 with Hipstamatic (remember that?)
Both, incidentally, are doing good advertising at the moment, unlike some others in the space. Although I'm not sure about the wisdom of a close-up on the ISO settings in the Nokia spot...
It should be pretty obvious that Samsung (or even just Samsung Electronics) is a much larger company than HTC, with much more financial firepower. But it's interesting to look at some of the ways that scale affects things. Marketing is a good example.
Both companies disclose a 'sales and marketing' line. For Samsung this includes activities for the TV and domestic appliance divisions, but the way the spending has grown in recent years suggests that the great majority of the spending is for mobile - and of course the brand is the same anyway, so advertising for TVs will also bleed across to phones.
Where is this money going? Well, Samsung discloses a split in the 'sales and marketing' line - around 40% is advertising and the rest is 'sales promotion expenses' - a lot of which is sales commissions.
In Q4 2012 Samsung's budget was 13 times HTC's. Samsung hasn't disclosed the Q1 number yet, but if it dropped to, say, $2.5bn in Q1, the same proportionate shift as at the beginning of 2012, it would be about 19 times bigger. It's actually a little hard to see given the scale, but HTC's budget is down 40% year on year, to just $130m, a tiny amount. And given their operating profit was zero in Q1, they can't afford to spend much more.
In the handset market today, having a lovely product is necessary but insufficient. This chart ought to show why.
Incidentally, Apple doesn't break out a sales and marketing line (it only gives the advertising spend): in 2012 Apple spent about 25% as much as Samsung Electronics directly on advertising, some of which was obviously for iPads as well. However, it has contracts requiring mobile operators to spend money on advertising as well, so this isn't a direct comparison.
I lack the relevant perspective to say whether this might be effective in the India market. But it's very funny. Especially when he takes his jacket off.
A reminder: this company has a $14.7bn marketing budget, and a $600m PR budget.
Worth watching the whole video. Especially 'good' at 10:20 and 44:00
Apple has eight stores in China, compared to seven in Japan, which generates 2/3 the revenue of China and hardly has the same potential. To be fair, it also has four hundred premium resellers there and of course sells iPhones mainly through the mobile operators (but not, obviously, China Mobile), meaning that iPhone points of sale were up from 7k to 17k in the year. Even so, more effort here seems like an important priority. Tim Cook himself said he saw retail as crucial to sales of the iPad (since it allows you to explain why you might want one).
Apple's own job site only has about two dozen open retail positions in China (though I'm not sure how meaningful those listings are), but also has open spots there for retail recruiters and, most relevantly, a bunch of retail real estate analysts.
On the basis of its planned $1bn retail capex, Apple will probably open 40-50 new stores this year around the world. Four of the 40 opened in 2012 were in China - I wonder how many there will be in 2013?
Apple (the Hong Kong IFC store) and Detroit (image via Shorpy).
Always worth noting that Apple Retail, for all its visibility, only accounts for 12% of Apple sales and a rather lower proportion of iPhone sales. It's a self-financing marketing operation.
On the basis of (the not-entirely-reliable) Google Trends, it looks like the Samsung Galaxy brand is starting to overtake 'Android' in consumer awareness.
'Samsung galaxy' itself is some way behind Android, but 'galaxy' alone has equaled it, and I can't offhand think of another reason why that term would have shot up (suggestions gratefully received), while the spikes in the line are clearly correlated with 'Samsung' and 'Samsung galaxy'
US data shows much stronger iPhone share (which is unsurprising) and flat to-declining Android search volume.
EDIT: Google Trends seems to have broken, and is claiming there's no data for any terms for the USA. That's the last time I get clever and embed the chart instead of taking a screenshot.
This reflects a couple of dynamics. First, Samsung has around 50% of Android unit sales (outside China), so one would expect it to be strong. Second, given the lower price points at which most of its smartphone volume sells (the GS3 is less than half Samsung's Android volumes) one might expect a slightly less tech-savvy buyer, perhaps with more interest in the phone brand than the ecosystem.
Third, and most interesting to me, though, is the fact that Samsung really doesn't talk about Android at all in its marketing - which now has a $14bn run-rate budget (around 13-14x Apple). A lot of Samsung marketing for Android devices doesn't even mention Android.
You can see this very clearly in the new Samsung Superbowl ad. This has got lots of attention by (depending on your point of view) mocking Apple for trying to patent basic concepts or brazenly flaunting Samsung's systematic copying of Apple's innovations. But to me, what's striking is that it doesn't show the phones or any features, let alone mention Android.
The subtext, of course, is: 'the UX is a commodity, the apps are a commodity, the stuff Apple talks about is a commodity that's absurd to patent - we're going to compete on hardware features'. That's a natural angle for a hardware company with no control over the platform, of course. For now.
It's fascinating to watch the original iPhone launch ads from 2007 today. Everything they show seems somehow boring, obvious and generic, yet this was all totally new at the time. Now, of course, it's been copied into banality.
Plenty of discrete parts of this had been done earlier (I bought a SonyEricsson P800 in 2003 with a touch screen and apps, and indeed brought a camera phone back from Japan in 2001), but it had never been made to work like this before.
Also worth noting: no celebrities, jokes, fireworks or exciting visuals. They just tell you about the product. That was enough.
Spotted in London: Huawei's current marketing. Very early days, clearly.
Samsung spends some of that $12.5bn marketing budget: platform takeover for the Note in Oxford Circus tube
Nokia’s promo videos for the new products are 100x better than the frankly awful material they produced for the original Windows Phone launch. They’re actually trying to communicate that they have a good product.
Localisation in Apple advertising.
Apple runs the same advertising around the world, sort of. The on-screen content shown being invoked by Siri is carefully localised, obviously. But look at the actors.
Launch ad for Orange, 1993.
Hard to realise how groundbreaking this was at the time:
- Mobile as an actual consumer brand
- Mobile as an innovative, sexy, disruptive industry
- Orange as a great company
- And, of course, the idea that normal people would have mobile phones.
Ugandan mobile money ad from MTN (no, I have no idea what they’re saying)
Google has recently got religious about ‘design’ - or what it thinks is design. All the sites have been made-over. Subtle greys and anti-aliasing are everywhere. All of Google looks easier on the eye.
For example, ‘Google Play’, the new umbrella content store that combines apps, movies, music and books, has a ‘pretty’ logo with a careful font selection:
That logo is most often seen on third-party websites (and indeed posters and print ads) for that content providers to promote their content as being available on Google Play, so Google (and Apple) need to create a ‘button’ graphic for those third parties to use.
So how have Google and Apple addressed this requirement?
Apple’s graphic is clear, readable and works well at many sizes. Google’s graphic is almost unreadable.
Clearly, Google has learnt that ‘design’ matters, but hasn’t learnt that there’s a difference between making things look pretty and good design.