Adidas Pulls iAd Due to Approval Process?

[dgree03]

Client is just a more professional way of saying customer. its just that simple...

I run a recording studio, people who come in for a session are my clients. Thats what I would call them.

Theya re still paying me for a service/product, they give me music, I turn it into something that can be listened to on the radio. When I am finished i give the client a CD and they can do whatever they want with it.

Substitute The word customer in my example, and the point remains the same.

 

[AtariKee]

The sales people are almost the same too... (Clueless and absolutely convinced that the (shoe you are holding or the car you are looking at) is 'you' and that you can't be a real human being without it...

That is, IF you let glossy, cynical marketing affect your purchasing decisions. Unfortunately, human beings are the worst sort of cattle and the majority of them do such a thing. Hell, people even discuss how "cool" certain ads are, like they're television shows!

Not that I'm complaining, since my living revolves around such behavior. Gotta love the simple mentality of the general public...

 

[mccldwll]

?.... As someone who's been in the industry for over 20 years I'm quite content in my minority on this thread. Thanks though. Have a great afternoon...

Perhaps it's your 20 years in the biz that preventing you from understanding the new advertising relationships. Perhaps you stubbornly persist in thinking of advertisers as customers, whereas to aapl you're more similar to apps developers/partners. Aapl's customer will always be the consumer/end user.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tec...ad-partners-happy-with-early-iad-results.html

 

[samcraig]

Perhaps it's your 20 years in the biz that preventing you from understanding the new advertising relationships. Perhaps you stubbornly persist in thinking of advertisers as customers, whereas to aapl you're more similar to apps developers/partners. Aapl's customer will always be the consumer/end user.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tec...ad-partners-happy-with-early-iad-results.html

You're so hip. Even the way you refuse to use Apple when you write - instead of opting to use it's ticket symbol. Off to lunch...

 

[a cat *miaow*]

And of course nobody questions the quality of the adds Adidas presented?

I know it's so stupid! Adidas were only spending $10+ million –*they probably only spent 2 minutes thinking of a concept and 5 minutes producing the creatives.. the ads would have been terrible!! Apple were right to reject them.

 

[Veri]

I know it's so stupid! Adidas were only spending $10+ million –*they probably only spent 2 minutes thinking of a concept and 5 minutes producing the creatives.. the ads would have been terrible!! Apple were right to reject them.

As someone who, like 95% of Windows users, hasn't been taken in by the Mac vs PC ads (and found them obnoxious and empty), I wonder what Adidas is doing right in becoming the world-leading football brand, with 34% global marketshare? What does Adidas have to learn from Apple about advertising to its market?

 

[marksman]

Perhaps it's your 20 years in the biz that preventing you from understanding the new advertising relationships. Perhaps you stubbornly persist in thinking of advertisers as customers, whereas to aapl you're more similar to apps developers/partners. Aapl's customer will always be the consumer/end user.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tec...ad-partners-happy-with-early-iad-results.html

What are you talking about? Do you understand how Advertising works?

If Apple chooses not to treat advertisers like the customer it will be a massive fail, because they are the customer and they are the one with the money. Never be mistaken, if you ever think the person with the money is not the customer you are doomed.

So Apple can't just change the dynamic, because at the end of the day the people who are paying for things have to come first.

It would be like Apple taking all the external buttons off the iPhone because third party case manufacturers said it would be easier to make cases. That would be ridiculous.

One...more...time.....s.l.o.w.l.y. With...aap ...the....end....user....is....the ...customer. That's for whom the program is tailored, not for the advertiser. When push comes to shove, which prevails? Someone in marketing/PR/spin should be able to grasp that.

You are 1000% wrong. The customer for iAds is the advertiser.

We are talking about iAds. iAds SELLS advertising inventory. Advertisers buy it.

Have you ever been charged to pay to view an iAd? Didn't think so.

On Google Search the people who pay for the advertisements are their customers. The people who use the search engine are NOT Google's customers. They are users of their service. Their customers are the ones who pay and support the service. This is how advertising has worked for years. When you watch a show on ABC you are not a customer of ABC. Budwiser and Nissan and GoDaddy are the customers of ABC.

There are cases where revenue is double-dipped and advertising based products are also purchased. That does not make the advertiser any less of a customer.

Anyways in the iAds world, the user is removed a level anyways. The user uses an application and are a customer of that application. The application developer contracts with Apple to supply iAds for their application. Apple sells that inventory space to their iAds customer. The end user and apple have no direct relationship at all when it comes to iAds. The user has a relationship with the App developer, who can choose to charge for their app, use advertising to subsidize it or anything else. Whatever it is though, the end user has NO relationship with the advertising company, and thus it is impossible for them to even be a customer of iAds.

It should be pretty obvious when you have to constantly try to prove your point here against many others who are telling you, you are wrong, that you are truly wrong. Let it go while you're not ahead, each time you post you keep proving many people right here about you.

I have SC on ignore, but I agree with him 100% here. What is he wrong about? Addias is the customer here. It seems many people here are simply clueless in that regard, and you repeating it over and over or people trying to beat SC down does not change that reality.

The customer for iAds is the ADVERTISER. They are the one paying Apple money to receive a service.

It is not hard to understand, yet it seems many people here struggle with it.

LOL. Your image of a customer proves you are wrong. Addidas was buying advertising service/inventory from Apple. They are the customer for iAds. The person with the App where iAds appears is getting paid, and not buying anything. The person using an app with iAds in it is not buying any good or service from Apple as it relates to iAds either. When it comes to iAds the only one buying anything is the advertiser, in this case Addidas.

This is a dumb argument as it is obvious those of you taking this ridiculous position have no actual business experience. I own a marketing and advertising company. I spend tons of my own money advertising online, I know who the customer is...

Yes. It means exactly that your prior argument was wrong. Not every person or entity who pays money for commercial goods or services is a "customer", either specifically or in the overall general understanding of a business plan. Not for one minute did Adidas/its agency ever consider itself to be aapl's "customer" either in its business operation or in aapl's business plan.

What is wrong with some of you? Seriously... In what scenario is someone who is buying advertising from someone else not the customer? Give me one single example. Some of you should just bow out of this thread because you are way out of your depth.

When you sell something to someone they are your customer. ALWAYS.

In this case, Apple was selling advertising space to Addidas. So they were the customer. ALWAYS.

 

[JAT]

I wonder what Adidas is doing right in becoming the world-leading football brand, with 34% global marketshare? What does Adidas have to learn from Apple about advertising to its market?

Made business deals with the right companies, forcing pros to wear them. Then they can say, "look who's wearing our stuff!", and convince other people to buy them. Pretty much the same kind of stuff every company does, like Apple. (of course, Apple is evil when they do it, right?)

They don't seem to make shoes my size, pretty hard for me to be a customer. Maybe if I was an NBA star they would.

 

[davidcarswell]

Blah blah blah

This is neither a forum for a pissing contest nor is it a place for comparing sizes to find out or probe that you have the bigger one. Exchange phone numbers and work it out with some txt messages. Really!

 

[KnightWRX]

This is neither a forum for a pissing contest nor is it a place for comparing sizes to find out or probe that you have the bigger one. Exchange phone numbers and work it out with some txt messages. Really!

Uh ? Why ? This forum has a perfectly good implementation of private messages.

Kids and your SMS messages...

 

[HLdan]

I have SC on ignore, but I agree with him 100% here. What is he wrong about? Addias is the customer here. It seems many people here are simply clueless in that regard, and you repeating it over and over or people trying to beat SC down does not change that reality.


This is a dumb argument as it is obvious those of you taking this ridiculous position have no actual business experience. I own a marketing and advertising company. I spend tons of my own money advertising online, I know who the customer is...

Very odd that you'd have him on ignore especially after that post you wrote so nicely on his behalf.

Take a good look at that definition you posted. A customer "buys" goods and services, a client "uses" the services of others or business entities. Don't make yourself into some bigshot by making it seem that you're the only one that has a business. I run my own insurance business and my clients are certainly not customers.

I guess in your words, a doctor's patients are his "customers", the people a lawyer is fighting cases for are his "customers"? Yeah, and you say you're in business and you're fighting people on this issue? Now let me find that ignore button so I can put YOU on it.

 

[dgree03]

Very odd that you'd have him on ignore especially after that post you wrote so nicely on his behalf.

Take a good look at that definition you posted. A customer "buys" goods and services, a client "uses" the services of others or business entities. Don't make yourself into some bigshot by making it seem that you're the only one that has a business. I run my own insurance business and my clients are certainly not customers.

I guess in your words, a doctor's patients are his "customers", the people a lawyer is fighting cases for are his "customers"? Yeah, and you say you're in business and you're fighting people on this issue? Now let me find that ignore button so I can put YOU on it.

So when I walk into an apple store, they are not providing me with a "service" by having that store for me to walk into?

When I walk into a doctor office, am I not a customer? I came in and paid(either myself or my insurance) in order for the doctor to see me?

Client = customers

 

[HLdan]

So when I walk into an apple store, they are not providing me with a "service" by having that store for me to walk into?

When I walk into a doctor office, am I not a customer? I came in and paid(either myself or my insurance) in order for the doctor to see me?

Client = customers

You're getting client and consumer mixed up which is what a customer is, a "consumer". A client is not a consumer. Lucky for you and anyone else this will be my last post on this thread, it's stupid.

 

[a cat *miaow*]

Perhaps it's your 20 years in the biz that preventing you from understanding the new advertising relationships. Perhaps you stubbornly persist in thinking of advertisers as customers, whereas to aapl you're more similar to apps developers/partners. Aapl's customer will always be the consumer/end user.

Hahahaha the cult of Apple (or 'Aapl' hmmmm) is one thing but taking fanboydom to the extraordinary degree that you begin to redfine the English language to defend it's honour?? hahaha

 

[dgree03]

You're getting client and consumer mixed up which is what a customer is, a "consumer". A client is not a consumer. Lucky for you and anyone else this will be my last post on this thread, it's stupid.

Good thing, because nobody in this thread could tell me what the difference between a client and a customer is, save for one sounding more professional than the other.

 

[samcraig]

You're getting client and consumer mixed up which is what a customer is, a "consumer". A client is not a consumer. Lucky for you and anyone else this will be my last post on this thread, it's stupid.

A client is often referred to as someone that has built up a relationship with the vendor. As iAds is brand new - it's unlikely that a previous advertising relationship existed. So at first - the advertiser is a CUSTOMER.

One hopes that a customer evolves into a client as that is the next and better phase of the relationship.

That being said - in no way, shape or form is the end user a customer because the end user is NOT buying and goods or services from Apple. They are the AUDIENCE.

I doubt this last post I quoted will be your last. You insist that you're right over and over and yet you aren't.

 

[Compile 'em all]

As someone who, like 95% of Windows users, hasn't been taken in by the Mac vs PC ads (and found them obnoxious and empty), I wonder what Adidas is doing right in becoming the world-leading football brand, with 34% global marketshare? What does Adidas have to learn from Apple about advertising to its market?

Adidas doesn't make mobile phones. As simple as that. Just because they are a big name in "football" doesn't mean squat when it comes to creating an ad for a new platform.

If Apple tells them to do X, they should listen.

 

[mccldwll]

The customer for iAds is the ADVERTISER. They are the one paying Apple money to receive a service.

When you sell something to someone they are your customer. ALWAYS.

In this case, Apple was selling advertising space to Addidas. So they were the customer. ALWAYS.

You continue to miss the mark. Completely. This is not about what you call aapl and adidas wrt each other alone. This is about where adidas exists within the aapl business model which includes: 1) aapl; 2)partners/developers/ merchandisers/suppliers/resellers/etc.; and 3) consumers/end users. When you want to determine who the real customer is, just follow the money--from what source does the business derive its income. With television and most media, it's the advertiser. But all of aapl's energy is directed at satisfying the end user, not satisfying the advertiser. That's why aapl has the stringent rules/restrictions about which the trolls here (paid and otherwise) spend so much time posting. That's why it's silly for anyone to consider advertisers as aapl's customers.

 

[samcraig]

Adidas doesn't make mobile phones. As simple as that. Just because they are a big name in "football" doesn't mean squat when it comes to creating an ad for a new platform.

If Apple tells them to do X, they should listen.

Are you serious? Adidas as been around since 1924. They have boatloads more of experience creating ads - and they've been doing it MUCH longer than Apple. If you want to argue that Apple has created an ad platform and that on a TECHNICAL level - they should be the advisor - then I would agree with you. But on content? No. Not at all. Apple is a BABY in the marketplace.

You continue to miss the mark. Completely. This is not about what you call aapl and adidas wrt each other alone. This is about where adidas exists within the aapl business model which includes: 1) aapl; 2)partners/developers/ merchandisers/suppliers/resellers/etc.; and 3) consumers/end users. When you want to determine who the real customer is, just follow the money--from what source does the business derive its income. With television and most media, it's the advertiser. But all of aapl's energy is directed at satisfying the end user, not satisfying the advertiser. That's why aapl has the stringent rules/restrictions about which the trolls here (paid and otherwise) spend so much time posting. That's why it's silly for anyone to consider advertisers as aapl's customers.

iAds is funded by the advertisers not end users. Follow the money? I just did. Thanks for proving our point. the iAds customer = Advertiser. The end user is the audience. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[mccldwll]

iAds is funded by the advertisers not end users. Follow the money? I just did. Thanks for proving our point. the iAds customer = Advertiser. The end user is the audience. Thanks for the laugh.

You really are clueless. In two weeks aapl will report revenue for the quarter of around $20 Billion, with eps approaching $5. Next quarter will be closer to $25 Billion. How much of that is/will be from iAds, compared to sales of iPhones, iPods and iPads? Stay in advertising.

 

[tigress666]

I guess in your words, a doctor's patients are his "customers", the people a lawyer is fighting cases for are his "customers"? Yeah, and you say you're in business and you're fighting people on this issue? Now let me find that ignore button so I can put YOU on it.

Um... what?! Are you trying to say that some how a doctor's patients are not his customers? And that the people who pay the lawyer to fight their cases aren't the lawyer's customers?

I think you're pretty confused. The other guy is dead on, the person paying for the services is the customer. In this case, Adidas. The people reading the ads (us on our iphones) are actually the product (Apple is ultimately selling an audience for those ads. Our attention span is what they are selling).

 

[samcraig]

You really are clueless. In two weeks aapl will report revenue for the quarter of around $20 Billion, with eps approaching $5. Next quarter will be closer to $25 Billion. How much of that is/will be from iAds, compared to sales of iPhones, iPods and iPads? Stay in advertising.

Straw man argument and irrelevant.

We're not talking what percentage of Apple's revenues are from iAds and that doesn't dictate anything related to this thread.

You, as a customer buy a phone. You are apple's iPhone customer.
An advertiser buys an add and Apple delivers it on the iAds platform. THEY, not YOU, are the iAd customer.

Don't resort to name calling when you have nothing else to stand on. You're wrong. It's black and white and staring you in the face.

 

[lPHONE]

I'm usually the first to break Steve and Apple down, but in this case, I don't see Apple at any fault.

Apple says "We want our ads like this" and Adidas "ok, we want in" but then they turn around and submit 3 drafts that are not in compliance... Or am I missing something? Because that seems Adidas is the one that reneged.

Then again, I didn't sit here and read all 20 pages of replies.

 

[samcraig]

I'm usually the first to break Steve and Apple down, but in this case, I don't see Apple at any fault.

Apple says "We want our ads like this" and Adidas "ok, we want in" but then they turn around and submit 3 drafts that are not in compliance... Or am I missing something? Because that seems Adidas is the one that reneged.

Then again, I didn't sit here and read all 20 pages of replies.

No one is arguing that point really. We all know Adidas pulled out of the program. The debate started as to why and if Apple is being difficult to work with and if so - will their customers still support the platform. The debate going on for the last few pages is because some people fail to see that Adidas, in this scenario, is Apple's customer

 

[mccldwll]

Straw man argument and irrelevant.

We're not talking what percentage of Apple's revenues are from iAds and that doesn't dictate anything related to this thread.

You, as a customer buy a phone. You are apple's iPhone customer.
An advertiser buys an add and Apple delivers it on the iAds platform. THEY, not YOU, are the iAd customer.

Don't resort to name calling when you have nothing else to stand on. You're wrong. It's black and white and staring you in the face.

You and those of your ilk are missing the forest for the trees. Your perspective that anytime someone sells something to someone else, the buyer is a customer, is extremely narrow and irrelevant. The thread is about Adidas and aapl splitting the sheets because aapl refused after many attempts to approve adidas's iAd because it didn't meet some standard which aapl set to appeal to its other (REAL) customers, the consumer/end user from which it derives all it's revenue. I guess you should tell aapl that adidas is the customer.