Adidas Pulls iAd Due to Approval Process?

[wikoogle]

First off, no one knows what actually happened. It could well be possible that the Adidas ads are highly obstructive and annoying and Apple opted to turn down 10 million dollars rather than annoy their users and lower the quality of iAds in general.

That's great.
I like the fact that many are afraid of entering iAd.
Google ads are annoying and invisible.
Youtube ads are disturbing and obstrusive.
Other ads are just there to steal space.

Apple doesnt' want the user be disgusted again.
They want the user to love ads too.

Exactly.

If apple can make it so all iAds are highly entertaining, more of their customers will go out of their way to click on iAds, rather than ignore as they do with google ads or youtube ads.

In the long term, that strategy makes a lot of sense. Make the customers like the advertizements, and you get a much higher yield overall.

 

[samcraig]

No, I don't believe I missed the point. Maybe your point was not clear to me. Or maybe I just disagree with you. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. I just believe that Apple is not losing much by rejecting Adidas' ad. If you notice, it's Adidas that's complaining, not Apple.

I'm not trying to pick an argument with you. However, I just don't get it when people predict that because of Apple's restrictive ways, Apple will eventually fail. I think quite the contrary, because of Apple's restrictive ways they have been a great success. Why would they mess with a successful formula.

With all that said, if I offended you in anyway, please accept my apologies. After all we are all on this site just voicing our opinions.

At the core - you missed the point that I never said APPLE would fail. I said that potentially the iAd platform COULD fail. iAd <> Apple.

 

[japanime]

Who cares. Runners where Asics!!!!!!!

Not just runners. Walkers, too! I've logged 12,000 miles in three years. Burned through about a dozen pairs of Asics in that time.

Back on topic — I really wonder if the rejection of these ads might have something to do with Apple's cozy relationship with Nike.

 

[CP123]

At the core - you missed the point that I never said APPLE would fail. I said that potentially the iAd platform COULD fail. iAd <> Apple.

I don't believe it WILL fail because of this. I hope you see my point.

 

[darylj]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; Sprint APA9292KT Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Now i am curious what was rejected. Maybe an ad about a shoe \"running\" android?

 

[mccldwll]

Why in the world would anyone swallow whole something written by Frommer for Henry Blodget (Google Blodget)? What a steaming pile. A $10M ad campaign? Anyone believe that was something placed entirely at iAds? Its a campaign. Multiple-media. Coordinated. If there's a grain of truth to Frommer's rumormongering, it's very possible that the part of Adidas's campaign that was targeted through iAds just didn't work--for whatever reason. Wait for a few facts.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Apple to Adidas: "We are controlling transmission."

 

[nitro912gr]

Normally I'd be upset when Apple does its control freak thing. But for all we know, these were annoying, obnoxious ads, and Apple probably doesn't want these on their platform.

If that's the case, then go Apple. I have to run adblock because so many ads on the general web are annoying as hell. Apple probably realizes this, and put in measured to keep iAds from being that obnoxious as well.

QFT, just that.

I use as well flash block to keep annoying ads away, and this hurt both the site the ad is on, and the one who is been advertised with it.

There must be quality control over ads, and yes even companies with high profile like Adidas can have stupid and annoying ads.

 

[napos]

I don't believe it WILL fail because of this. I hope you see my point.

I work for a major advertiser in media & advertising. Apple cost of entry/ROI and the approval process definitely can impact the future of iAd. Heck it takes 3-6 rounds of creative just for us to approve an ad and then Apple gets to review it too? Do you have any idea the cost in agency fees for all those revisions on top of the media investment (the $10mm referenced)? Just agency fees alone can be hundreds of thousands of dollars for this single project for the advertiser. That's the whole picture folks...

 

[mccldwll]

Here's a different, and much more thoughtful perspective, than Frommer's:

http://benjaminmayo.posterous.com/iads-and-ad-rejection

 

[napos]

First off, no one knows what actually happened. It could well be possible that the Adidas ads are highly obstructive and annoying and Apple opted to turn down 10 million dollars rather than annoy their users and lower the quality of iAds in general.




Exactly.

If apple can make it so all iAds are highly entertaining, more of their customers will go out of their way to click on iAds, rather than ignore as they do with google ads or youtube ads.

In the long term, that strategy makes a lot of sense. Make the customers like the advertizements, and you get a much higher yield overall.

Yes and no. Unless you're selling Nissan Leafs or other high end item, the value of engagement with a pair of sneakers or workout gear from few million iPhone users for a $10MM investment is an extremely horrible CPM. Major advistisers are look at iAd so they can show their execs they are innovative in marketing/media NOT because it's a better media investment.

In that case, the one who will continue to churn our billions because the $ spend is worth it is Google....

Apple is in the media business to make a few bucks, it will never be more than a few single digit percentage of Apple's revenue. They are a device + software company. Google on the other hand is first an online media company (source of revenue) then a technology company that makes more sources of online media revenue....

 

[CP123]

I work for a major advertiser in media & advertising. Apple cost of entry/ROI and the approval process definitely can impact the future of iAd. Heck it takes 3-6 rounds of creative just for us to approve an ad and then Apple gets to review it too? Do you have any idea the cost in agency fees for all those revisions on top of the media investment (the $10mm referenced)? Just agency fees alone can be hundreds of thousands of dollars for this single project for the advertiser. That's the whole picture folks...

I see your point with respect to how long it takes to get an ad ready. However, maybe the advertising agencies need to be more cost effective. As someone close to the music industry, I know there's a lot of fat to trim in that industry. Probably the same in the advertising industry.

 

[napos]

I see your point with respect to how long it takes to get an ad ready. However, maybe the advertising agencies need to be more cost effective. As someone close to the music industry, I know there's a lot of fat to trim in that industry. Probably the same in the advertising industry.

Trimming the fat as you say is actually my job. I couldn't agree more, ad agencies need to continue to evolve and become more efficient. But on the flipside, if you were them (or running one), would you want to keep hearing from clients "keep getting more efficient"? A Madison Ave exec can hear that to be "lower your margins". Most advertisers like us can pass on the efficiency in the form of our product costs to consumers.. ad agencies sadly can't sometimes.

Either way, iAds are cool but Apple can't repeat what happened with the App Store approvals or it will never get off the ground.

 

[HLdan]

At the core - you missed the point that I never said APPLE would fail. I said that potentially the iAd platform COULD fail. iAd <> Apple.

But I'm not going to sit here and argue with armchair quarterbacks (with the exception of Marksman) about the industry. I'll just watch amusingly.

But yes - it's Apple's platform. But it will be a failure if things continue the way they are. So there won't be a platform to discuss....

Uh, you did say Apple iAd's WILL fail....
HA, armchair quarterbacks? Interesting way to describe yourself as well.

Anyways, I like the fact that Apple is not showing greed (as some of the idiots say about them) by not accepting $10mil just because it's a lot of money. Do it right or we won't accept it. Great attitude. Sounds to me like Apple is thinking of their customers and how they get put off by ads in the first place.

 

[ranReloaded]

It goes both ways. Apple is promising a better ad-experience with iAds. So you would be ok if they accepted flashing "punch this monkey" ads as long as they were paid enough money?

arn

...or the obnoxious "Quiz: Who's the president of the United States? Win a Green Card!" (radio buttons for W, Hillary and Obama).
Most likely none of you with US IP addresses has ever seen it though...

 

[samcraig]

Uh, you did say Apple iAd's WILL fail....
HA, armchair quarterbacks? Interesting way to describe yourself as well.

Anyways, I like the fact that Apple is not showing greed (as some of the idiots say about them) by not accepting $10mil just because it's a lot of money. Do it right or we won't accept it. Great attitude. Sounds to me like Apple is thinking of their customers and how they get put off by ads in the first place.

Reading comprehension must not be your forte. "if things continue..." doesn't mean I think it will fail definitively. And given that I'm in the industry makes me less in the armchair. Have a great night.

 

[spillproof]

Aww, I like Adidas stuff. I've been eyeing some of their running shoes.

Oh well, Apple likes New Balance and Nike anyway.

 

[TMay]

see Rodimus' post. I've been in PR/Marketing and Advertising for over 20 years. So I'll assert again - it cost the ADVERTISER more than the medium when a deal goes south. And if you keep pissing clients off or have the reputation of being difficult to work with - your business will suffer. I'm not talking Apple - I'm talking the iAd division.

And given how new the iAd division is - they should be making it the best experience for BOTH users and advertisers. Or they should get out of the game.

If a client is going to spend 10 mil - they are a customer. Just like your iPhone users. Treat them with respect.

What people in this thread are doing is praising Apple for looking after their customers. But if I pay for an Ad - that ALSO makes me a customer. And Apple should treat THEM with the same respect.

PS - do the math. A 10 million ad buy is a lot of "end users" profits on apps. The ecosystem should be good for all that enter into it.

Could it be that your industry has been doing it wrong for all of those years?

Think Different.

1984

The Ad that changed everything.

Apple only paid for one showing. The rest was on the world.

I'll reserve judgement.

 

[lilo777]

iAds is user-centric, and purports to maintain a high-quality experience. That's the point of iAds. That's what differentiates it from the other lameness that infests the internet.

There is an approval process, and no, companies can't post whatever ads they like and require Apple to accept them. That defeats the entire purpose of iAds. You want to reach the top-tier of users? You want to give your ad exposure to the highest income-earning bracket(s) (people with with most disposable income to spend on tech)? Then ensure your ad is up to Apple's standards, ergo, up to my standards. Apple users are a cut above. We kinda expect the whole ad experience to stay in line with that, thankyouverymuch.

For now, we don't know *why* Apple pulled the ad. Let's wait and see.

Someone here commented that SJ is a "control freak." Thank God for that. I don't want to be using the kind of garbage the "competition" shoves out and calls "new and improved." We've got Windows and Android for that and the rest of the also-rans. SJ's nature is the very reason Apple leads this industry, and part of that is the ability to say "no."

Apple users are a cut above? What exactly? The statement like this by itself shows that some Apple users are full of it.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

This is not good!

 

[Brometheus]

iAds is user-centric, and purports to maintain a high-quality experience. That's the point of iAds. That's what differentiates it from the other lameness that infests the internet.

There is an approval process, and no, companies can't post whatever ads they like and require Apple to accept them. That defeats the entire purpose of iAds. You want to reach the top-tier of users? You want to give your ad exposure to the highest income-earning bracket(s) (people with with most disposable income to spend on tech)? Then ensure your ad is up to Apple's standards, ergo, up to my standards. Apple users are a cut above. We kinda expect the whole ad experience to stay in line with that, thankyouverymuch.

For now, we don't know *why* Apple pulled the ad. Let's wait and see.

Someone here commented that SJ is a "control freak." Thank God for that. I don't want to be using the kind of garbage the "competition" shoves out and calls "new and improved." We've got Windows and Android for that and the rest of the also-rans. SJ's nature is the very reason Apple leads this industry, and part of that is the ability to say "no."

Well said! My exact thoughts. People who don't understand this don't get the whole point of iAds.

 

[marksman]

In the iAds business model the advertisers are the customers, and apparently apple does not understand that. The users are the commodity they are selling.

People keep talking about Apple protecting the customer.

In iAds the advertisers are the ONLY customers. Cryptic feedback and aesthetic denials if happening, will hurt their ability to capture customers. People who use iPhone and iPods and iPads are not the customers for iAds. Seems many people don't understand that. In this case Addidas is the customer, and it seems possible that Apple has treated this particular customer poorly. As someone who has the potential to be an iAd customer, unlike most people here, I find this story disconcerting.

Also there is a lot of ignorance here about how advertising works. People say things here like "Apple wants to make the ads entertaining or interesting." First of all I am not sure Apple ever said that, second of all that is not really a core reason to a successful ad campaign. A humorous or entertaining ad can completely fail. Advertising has a lot of voodoo in it, and tiny little imperceptible changes that the average person would never pick up on in 100 years could change an ad campaign from a complete flop to a rousing success. That is why if Apple is making subjective judgments on ads from a quality standpoint they will likely fail. The people qualified to do that work for Apple's advertising department, and nobody who works in Apple's department is qualified to make that judgment call for every kind of company and marketing campaign in the world.

If Apple's main goal is to make iAds not annoy IOS consumers, they are likely to fail. Their main and really only goal is to maximize advertiser revenue for their publishers, and in turn maximize revenue for themselves. Sure part of that strategy can be to try and take a higher road in order to not turn off people to iAds, but Apple will soon find out that there is no real high road when it comes to that. You can't make ads that are interesting to everyone, and you can't make ads unobtrusive, or else they become invisible all on their own. There are a lot of balls in the air here, and Apple is trying some different things... I don't really blame them.. I just know that some of these things will not work out for them and they will have to change course.

One thing I do like is iAds seemingly is moving away from the keyword-centric model that has strangled the internet for a while now. So much advertising online is keyword centric it is ridiculous. Advertising can be targetted but it does not need to have everything targetted to keywords. People who like to play golf also might be the same people who are prone to buy luxury sedans. So sites that cater to golfers should also show other kinds of products, and not just golf tees or the latest shaft technology.

 

[bruinsrme]

Well said! My exact thoughts. People who don't understand this don't get the whole point of iAds.

apple users are a cut above?

Above what exactly?

The iphone is readily availble at upscale stores like wal-mart and the ipad at target, surely not on the same upscale store as Nordstroms or Macy's.

The iphone is mainstream, its no more expensive or cheaper than any other smart phone. Do iphone users get access to a different internet or something?

If the advertisement is what sets the iphone apart from the rest, all I can say is the conception of being a cut above has entered a whole new category.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

You make a good point...

I strongly suggest you both read the article instead of prove to be mindless fanboys here.

It stated Apple never told Adidas why they were not approving the ad. Instead gave back disapproval and never really told why. Anything in the 6+ figure range much less than 8 figures range Adidas was going to spend should of had Apple making phone call and explaining exactly why they were disapproving it. Not just these blanket disapprovals. This is the same crap from the Aps store all over again....

Standard Apple BS here.

You do make a valid point. 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.

 

[dernhelm]

True. However, companies have only so much patience, time is money - re-work is money. If iAds consumes too much resources then its not in the best interest of a company to keep pursuing.

Apple need to find a balance - at the moment it appears Apple are exerting too much control for the likes of its customers.

I'm one of Apple's customers and I have no problem at all in their stance against inappropriate, annoying, or just plain lame content. I have no issue at all in Apple saying "no" to money to keep junk ads off their platform. In fact, I applaud it.