Adidas Pulls iAd Due to Approval Process?

[samcraig]

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.

I don't have to. Unlike you - they understand business 101.

And you just wrote "set to appeal it its other (REAL) customers. Using the word OTHER means (finally) that you agree that Adidas IS a customer. At least subconsciously you do since you typed it. Only took several posts - but you got there. Good for you.

Unfortunately then you lost it with "all of it's revenue" - as if there's no revenue from the iAds.

 

[lPHONE]

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

I can see that Adidas is their customer, yes...
Do we know if they are an unruly customer or not, yet or is that information yet to be released? Because if not, people need to stop speculating until the facts are clear.

 

[mccldwll]

I don't have to. Unlike you - they understand business 101.

And you just wrote "set to appeal it its other (REAL) customers. Using the word OTHER means (finally) that you agree that Adidas IS a customer. At least subconsciously you do since you typed it. Only took several posts - but you got there. Good for you.

Unfortunately then you lost it with "all of it's revenue" - as if there's no revenue from the iAds.

Yes, like I said, you're missing the forest for the trees. If you want to consider adidas a customer because it pays aapl $, go for it. But aapl certainly doesn't consider adidas a customer and it's certainly not aapl's REAL customer, which is and always has been the consumer/end user, for whom it tailors the entire iOS experience.

 

[samcraig]

Yes, like I said, you're missing the forest for the trees. If you want to consider adidas a customer because it pays aapl $, go for it. But aapl certainly doesn't consider adidas a customer and it's certainly not aapl's REAL customer, which is and always has been the consumer/end user, for whom it tailors the entire iOS experience.

So what is iAds then? A hobby? A gift from Apple to it's consumer/end user?

"is and always has" LOL - you're funny.

 

[*LTD*]

So what is iAds then? A hobby? A gift from Apple to it's consumer/end user?

"is and always has" LOL - you're funny.

Adidas is not the end-user. The "customer relationship" Apple has with Adidas is necessarily far different from their relationship with Joe Consumer. If you want to call Adidas a "customer" or whatever else you like, then go ahead. Just make sure you make the correct distinctions between the two. Joe Consumer is very different from a large corporate entity such as Adidas. Adidas is looking to run ads. Joe Consumer wants to buy a great device. I'll concede that it's possible that the kind control Apple exercises that is (clearly) good for Joe Consumer might not necessarily be good when it comes to an advertisement submitted by Company X. Though we have yet to see his play out over the long term.

 

[mccldwll]

So what is iAds then? A hobby? A gift from Apple to it's consumer/end user?

"is and always has" LOL - you're funny.

You really don't know that much about aapl, do you? The purpose of the iTunes Store was to offer music in order to sell more iPods. The purpose of the App Store was to offer apps in order to sell more iOS devices. The purpose of iAds is to make the app store even more attractive to apps developers who can share in iAd revenue, resulting in better/more apps, and sell even more iOS devices. It's all about the sale of devices to consumers. That where the revenue is, always has been and always will be generated. That's the customer.

 

[samcraig]

Adidas is not the end-user. The "customer relationship" Apple has with Adidas is necessarily far different from their relationship with Joe Consumer. If you want to call Adidas a "customer" or whatever else you like, then go ahead. Just make sure you make the correct distinctions between the two. Joe Consumer is very different from a large corporate entity such as Adidas. Adidas is looking to run ads. Joe Consumer wants to buy a great device. I'll concede that it's possible that the kind control Apple exercises that is (clearly) good for Joe Consumer might not necessarily be good when it comes to an advertisement submitted by Company X. Though we have yet to see his play out over the long term.

Even LTD gets it. And I agree - time will be the arbiter of iAd's success..

And MCC - give it up. You're wrong. You admitted it. And now you're flailing around desperately trying to assert statistics you know nothing about. It's quite sad. But let's assume you're correct. Answer my question. What, then, are iAds. Are they serving the end user? Are they being used to sell more devices?

I'll help you - the answer is no. iAds do not service the end user. They service Apple (to make money) and the advertiser (to reach the consumer). But you keep me laughing - so at least there's that.

 

[marksman]

I really don't understand how so many people in this thread can be so ignorant on this issue.

This is not about Apple. This is specifically about iAds. Someone using a phone or ipad and viewing an iAD is NOT a customer of iAds. Never will be. I am not sure why people do not understand that. It is very basic. The advertiser is the customer of iAds. Not the end user. Not the end user. NOT THE END USER. nOT tHE eND uSER. The advertiser is the customer of iAds, the advertiser is the customer of iAds, the advertiser is the customer of iAds.

That Apple happens to sell other things that people buy and are customers of them does not change that. Just because you buy a product from a company does not make you a customer for all products and services they offer.

Seriously... when I was in high school I taught Business Basics to elementary school kids... and they could understand this concept. It is not advanced. Being able to identify who the customer is, is about as basic as any business relationship/transaction will ever get.

In the scope of iAds, the people who use applications on the iPhone or iPad are equivelent to the toilet paper a grocery store sells. The iPad users = toilet paper, the grocery store = Apple, the charmin company equals the application developer, and the advertiser equals the customer who comes in the store and shop.

So let us go over this again:

iPhone/iPad user = Toilet Paper
Apple = Grocery Store
App Developer = Charmin
Advertiser = Store Customer

The store customer (the advertiser), goes to the store (Apple), and asks to buy the toilet paper (access to the users). The store (Apple), has received toilet paper (access to the users), from Charmin (the app developer).

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.

Like SamCraig said, follow the money is exactly right. The money flows from the advertiser to apple to the app developers for iAds.

I think you don't understand that iAds is a business unto itself. That Apple has other businesses, is not relevant to that analysis and why YOU continue to miss the mark.

What are your qualifications and experience to even keep going on about this in such an erroneous manner? Your line of thinking in this thread does not track at all yet it seems you and HLDan won't drop it for whatever reason.

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.

I bet your insurance business is boffo since you don't treat the people who pay you money as customers. Good job.

There is no line to blur between client and customer, so I am not sure why you are trying to create one. For succesful business people they are the same thing.

 

[samcraig]

From Apple's iAd Press Release (for the educationally challenged)

SAN FRANCISCO—June 7, 2010—Apple® today announced it will debut its iAd mobile advertising network on July 1 on iPhone® and iPod touch® devices running its iOS 4 software platform. iAds combine the emotion of TV advertising with the interactivity of Internet advertising, giving advertisers a dynamic and powerful new way to bring motion and emotion to mobile users. iAd will kick off with mobile ad campaigns from leading global brands including AT&T, Best Buy, Campbell Soup Company, Chanel, Citi, DirecTV, GEICO, GE, JCPenney, Liberty Mutual Group, Nissan, Sears, State Farm, Target, Turner Broadcasting System, Unilever and The Walt Disney Studios. Apple has iAd commitments for 2010 totaling over $60 million, which represents almost 50 percent of the total forecasted US mobile ad spending for the second half of 2010.*

If Addidas is 10 million. That makes it 1/6th of the revenue. It also means it's a good chunk of that 50 percent forecasted. I'd say that's a significant loss to iAds. Repeat - to iAds.

ETA: And when Stevie speaks to stockholders - I don't think he's going to say anything about how good iAds are for the end users. And Apple's iAd Sale Staff is concerning themselves with how they can deliver the end user to the advertiser. And how much value they bring so that the (get ready for it.. here it comes) the advertiser spends lots and lots of money trying to seduce the end user. Apple's iAds sales execs are wining and dining large companies to spend lots of money. Why? So that Apple can help the end user? FUNNNNNYYYY

 

[mccldwll]

If Addidas is 10 million. That makes it 1/6th of the revenue. It also means it's a good chunk of that 50 percent forecasted. I'd say that's a significant loss to iAds. Repeat - to iAds.

Not bad math for someone in advertising. Here's another one for you: $60,000,000 (given projected iAd revenue for second half) / $45,000,000,000 (projected aapl revenue for second half). $10M is lunch money. iAds is a platform for ecosystem support. Advertisers who can't understand that can take a hike.

 

[samcraig]

Not bad math for someone in advertising. Here's another one for you: $60,000,000 (given projected iAd revenue for second half) / $45,000,000,000 (projected aapl revenue for second half). $10M is lunch money. iAds is a platform for ecosystem support. Advertisers who can't understand that can take a hike.

you keep comparing apples to oranges. I pray you don't own your own business...

This thread is not about Apple as a whole company but the iAd division. You know that right? Because ever since you lost the whole customer issue - you've been diverting your energy to this whole other failed tactic.

 

[CP123]

You advertising geniuses better get in touch with Steve Jobs really quick, because you two know what everyone else doesn't know or understand - this iAds platform will fail if they continue to reject $10 million dollar ad accounts like Adidas. I'm kinda surprised that Apple and Adidas did not hire you. They must not read MacRumors to see how much y'all know.

 

[charlituna]

Apple at the very least owes it to their customers to explain why their ads are being rejected so that they can strive to meet certain standards instead of having them just spinning their wheels which undoubted costs money for clients like Adidas to remake said ads.

Who says Apple didn't do exactly that, but Adidas didn't like the reason etc and said forget it.

We have no information about what occurred behind closed doors to know who was or wasn't told whatever

 

[marksman]

Who says Apple didn't do exactly that, but Adidas didn't like the reason etc and said forget it.

We have no information about what occurred behind closed doors to know who was or wasn't told whatever

According to the rumor they resubmitted twice more after the first submission. Knowing what I know about this process because having dealt with the same exact thing with a dozen plus companies, I can tell you that if that fact is indeed true, then Apple had to fail on their ability to communicate what exactly was wrong or needed to be fixed.

This is a problem across the advertising spectrum online. The companies that place ads feel like providing specific and precise feedback is some kind of national secret. The main reason is because when the next guy comes along and disapproves an ad after they were told what to fix specifically, the customer then gets very upset because they specifically fixed exactly what the company told them to fix and they still declined it.

This is status quo for the online advertising world, and it is the same kind of procedure Apple has used for most of its App store history in terms of approving Apps. They have gotten better with it, but before recently all they provided were vague rules and cryptic rejections. The reason for this behavior and for why this is how all these advertising companies work is like I said... they cover themselves.

I would love for Apple to set the online ad world on fire and provide their customers (us advertisers), with consistent and clear guidelines, absolutely precise feedback and correction procedures for issues, and more importantly precise and accurate feedback and communication if and when there is a problem.

We do not have all the facts here, so we are all speculating. Again though, knowing what I know about online advertising and Addidas and what is reported to have happened. The mostly likely scenario leads me to believe Apple provided poor feedback and information to Addidas. I cuss out Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and others every day because of the way they handle online advertising. I would nothing more than love for Apple to change things... Heck I would love for them to become a competitor in the search business... but it is going to take a lot more than the Status Quo, and it is going to take a lot more than just trying to have "pretty ads." Like I said earlier, pretty or entertaining have very little to do with what equals a successful ad.

I hope Apple spent a lot of time talking with advertisers of all shapes and sizes about iAds before they started up. From what I have seen and heard this did not happen. They may have consulted with a handful of fortune 500 companies, but that is not enough. The ad market is way bigger than those companies. Seeing as how they have App developers advertising in iAds, I want to know how many App developers were involved in the development of iAds BEFORE it was launched.

 

[chatin]

Adidas is a Nike competitor. Nike has a branded Apple relationship. Throwing ten million in the mix probably led to some petty politics better known as creative differences.

 

[Hal Itosis]

OMG... what a boring thread.

 

[tigress666]

OMG... what a boring thread.

And yet you bothered to waste your time posting to it. If it was that boring, why are you reading it?

 

[Veri]

Adidas is a Nike competitor. Nike has a branded Apple relationship. Throwing ten million in the mix probably led to some petty politics better known as creative differences.

This was my suspicion from the start, shame we have no evidence . Obvious conflict of interest, though.

Also when I went into the Apple store to buy a video adapter cable I was not a customer of Apple, because they only make a tiny amount of total quarterly profit from selling video adapter cables.

 

[cheesymogul]

Not being able to launch their ads within the planned timeframe is the most likely reason why Adidas has dropped the iAds experiment.

As an advertiser I'm not the least interested in a platform handicapped by endless approval procedures atop of several months of production time. Such production "speeds" are ridiculously slow for our fast-paced advertising industry.
And handling over my creative control to a supplier is an absolute NO GO!

iAds are usually just ONE SEGMENT of a huge campaign package, consisting of accompanying print ads, tv commercials and/or other media, perfectly timed for a product launch at a GIVEN TIMEFRAME.

If Apple is unable to deliver and meet even the most basic deadlines, the advertisers' attraction for the new platform will melt faster than snow in the spring sun!!!

Do you think Adidas can wait till after Xmas to finally get their winter collection ads approved by the turtlenecked overlord himself?


As a consumer I say: Good riddance!
The last thing I want in my apps are stupid buttons that will launch distracting ads if I accidentally touch them.
Soon these things will bore users to death anyway. Especially since Apple's slow output and approval procedures are limiting the variety of ads as well...

Bury i(F)ads already and move on to better and greater things!

 

[mccldwll]

Also when I went into the Apple store to buy a video adapter cable I was not a customer of Apple, because they only make a tiny amount of total quarterly profit from selling video adapter cables.

The $ amount is only related to the impact of the dropped campaign. It is irrelevant as to whether someone is considered a "customer". You really should look at the etymology of "customer". The concept really isn't that difficult and perhaps you'll be able to understand the differences between the various relationships when money changes hand in business. This is not simply semantics since the legal label attached to the relationship impacts/governs the legal remedies. Apple has myriad business relationships in which it receives $ from other parties for goods and services, but its customers are the end users of its hardware, software, accessories, etc.. Under aapl's business model, resellers such as Best Buy and Target aren't aapl's "customers", even though aapl sells to them. Think customer "service", "satisfaction" and "loyalty", and maybe you'll understand.

 

[maflynn]

one thing I don't get is people's love affair with iAds, I mean the consumer. I see so many people posting with excitement about seeing an iAd or seeing more companies embrace iAds. Personally, I prefer to avoid commercials/advertisements, be they on TV, on the computer or on my phone.

 

[samcraig]

The $ amount is only related to the impact of the dropped campaign. It is irrelevant as to whether someone is considered a "customer". You really should look at the etymology of "customer". The concept really isn't that difficult and perhaps you'll be able to understand the differences between the various relationships when money changes hand in business. This is not simply semantics since the legal label attached to the relationship impacts/governs the legal remedies. Apple has myriad business relationships in which it receives $ from other parties for goods and services, but its customers are the end users of its hardware, software, accessories, etc.. Under aapl's business model, resellers such as Best Buy and Target aren't aapl's "customers", even though aapl sells to them. Think customer "service", "satisfaction" and "loyalty", and maybe you'll understand.

You're so far behind on this argument you should really stop posting. Sincerely. Because with every new post you create you open yourself up to sounding even more silly.

 

[OllyW]

one thing I don't get is people's love affair with iAds, I mean the consumer. I see so many people posting with excitement about seeing an iAd or seeing more companies embrace iAds. Personally, I prefer to avoid commercials/advertisements, be they on TV, on the computer or on my phone.

I'm glad there's some other normal people around.

 

[mccldwll]

You're so far behind on this argument you should really stop posting. Sincerely. Because with every new post you create you open yourself up to sounding even more silly.

Get a lawyer to explain it to you. Someone with your personality and intellect must have had more than one opportunity to interact with one.

 

[samcraig]

one thing I don't get is people's love affair with iAds, I mean the consumer. I see so many people posting with excitement about seeing an iAd or seeing more companies embrace iAds. Personally, I prefer to avoid commercials/advertisements, be they on TV, on the computer or on my phone.

Oh it's simple really. It's because they are Apple Products. Meaning - they are 100 percent Apple approved experiences and "some" people live and die by the company.

/end painful eyeroll