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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adidas Pulls iAd Due to Approval Process?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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 act like their ad is going to break your device "Mess with my iDevice" It's an ad - not a virus
And you (and a few others) still haven't answered my question. Probably because it proves that you're wrong. But I'll ask again.
Who pays for the ad buy (who pays the bill when a company buys an iAd)
If a person or company pays for a service (iAd) does that make them a customer?
You're 100 percent wrong.
The end user is not the iAd customer. Are you saying that if I spend 10 million with a company that I am not a customer? Seriously? You're going to tell me I'm NOT a customer if I spend 10 million with you or some other business?
I think people are confusing customer and client. I think in many ways they are the same.
Company A pays apple $10mil to distribute their ad. Apple approves and then implements the ad. Me as a customer, will see the add... its is being delivered to ME. Apple is a middle man to the whole process so, I would say company A is a customer, as well as myself or other iOS device holders.
I agree. But I also think you have some people here who (frightfully) believe that the advertiser is NOT a customer.
Look, it's quite simple. These people believe iAds is a service to them, as iOS users, and not to advertisers. That is how Apple marketing operates and that is how they can manage to push something negative like ads as something positive to the user base, by making them think that in the end, it's all about them.
Educated people know that's not it. Advertising is rarely about the end user from an ad agency's point of view. It's about the paying customer, the advertiser. The end user is the product they are selling.
TV stations operate under the same principal. You, as the watcher, aren't the customer, you're the product they are selling. They are selling this product to who ? To advertisers.
This is why you're seeing so much resistance here. People don't like being branded "products". They don't like the idea that they are being sold off as mere cattle. Hence they will spin things until iAds is a service for them. They forget that if it was, there would be an iAd icon on their iPhone and they could click it to see specifically iAds, all of them.
Let's rephrase this, you're quite close. The truth is more akin to this :
iAd is a seperate product from iOS. That's the important distinction. You're not a customer of iAds, you're not intended to be, unless you want to become an advertiser yourself.
Paying for services in and of itself does not make one a customer. Customers are the principal income source for businesses. Consumers/end users are the income source for aapl. Customers come first to businesses. The consumer/end user comes first to aapl. Consumers/end users are aapl's customers. Record companies, movie companies, apps developers, and authorized resellers (Best Buy, Target, etc.) are all involved in commercial relationships in which they pay aapl money, but they certainly are not the customers in aapl's business model.
It's a shame that you've spent many posts putting people down with rude remarks and off-color insults when you're the one that's been wrong all this time. I'll spell it out for you in definition since it's obvious you know zero about business in terms of who is a client and who is a customer?
Attachments
It doesn't surprise me a bit that the 2 of you share the same DNA on this forum. Ha ha, I should've known that you didn't comprehend what I meant when I said you proved MY point about you. It's over your head.
Here's some homework for you, study the differences between "Buying" and "Using".
I'd like to credit you with more intelligence to realize that nothing went over my head. I simply (and completely) disagree with your failed assessment.
iPhone users USE the iAd platform and are delivered ads. The advertiser pays Apple and is their customer. If an Apple didn't accept money for their SERVICES - then you might have a point. But they do. It's clear we'll never see eye to eye on this. You want to believe that a company that pays for services is not a customer. And I disagree.
Let me ask you this. If I'm selling my house and I hire a broker and I pay him/her a commission to do so - am I a customer? Forget it - don't answer. This conversation - like I said is futile. Have a great day.
If you read his comments FULLY intead of cherry picking points. He is saying that people in this thread, primarily LTD and otheres, where saying that Apple is customer centric(iOS Users), which is WHY they are vetting iADs with extreme standards. Sam was sayign that they ARE NOT treating there customers right because Adidas is a customer also... and by them being TOO TOO nitopicky they are losing customers(companies).
Apple doesnt, or shouldnt care, if a few iOS device customers leave for android or winmo. That pot is extremely big with 300+ million people just in the US.
Apple shouldc are if companies dont want to use iADS tho. They are not as numerous.. and the ones that advertise in mobile space are even fewer.
Apple doesnt, or shouldnt care, if a few iOS device customers leave for android or winmo. That pot is extremely big with 300+ million people just in the US.
Apple shouldc are if companies dont want to use iADS tho. They are not as numerous.. and the ones that advertise in mobile space are even fewer.
No. You really should educate yourself instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting that you're right, ad nauseum.
"As used in this Code of Ethics, "client" means the person(s) or entity(ies) with whom a REALTOR® or a REALTOR®'s firm has an agency or legally recognized non-agency relationship; "customer" means a party to a real estate transaction who receives information, services, or benefits but has no contractual relationship with the REALTOR® or the REALTOR®'s firm; "agent" means a real estate licensee (including brokers and sales Associates) acting in an agency relationship as defined by state law or regulation; and "broker" means a real estate licensee (including brokers and sales Associates) acting as an agent or in a legally recognized non-agency capacity. (Adopted 1/95, Amended 1/99)"
Perhaps the analogy is poor. That doesn't mean my prior argument is wrong. You keep insisting that Adidas isn't a customer. I think, nay know, they would argue otherwise.
Hal
The very core of my point is that Adidas is Apple's customer. And the reason I've posted several times to make that clear is because there are those people here who don't seem to understand that when they say that Apple cares about its customers - they are ignoring the fact that Adidas is a customer. I can't be clearer on that. Why do I care? Because the lack of understanding of this concept leads to the perpetuation of information that's false. And when possible, I prefer to educate rather than ignore. Ignoring people who spread fallacies (knowingly or not) won't help those who don't know any better or follow blindly. And no - I'm not being a martyr or anything of the like. But if you kept reading information which you knew to be false, I am sure you would want to correct that information as well. If not - then so be it. But that's my explanation.
The very core of my point is that Adidas is Apple's customer. And the reason I've posted several times to make that clear is because there are those people here who don't seem to understand that when they say that Apple cares about its customers - they are ignoring the fact that Adidas is a customer. I can't be clearer on that. Why do I care? Because the lack of understanding of this concept leads to the perpetuation of information that's false. And when possible, I prefer to educate rather than ignore. Ignoring people who spread fallacies (knowingly or not) won't help those who don't know any better or follow blindly. And no - I'm not being a martyr or anything of the like. But if you kept reading information which you knew to be false, I am sure you would want to correct that information as well. If not - then so be it. But that's my explanation.
Emphasis mine. And important, because the idea that a contractual relationship means someone necessarily stops becoming a customer is absurd in general usage. I'm sure even REALTOR(R)s (can't you call yourselves estate agents or land trolls like in the rest of the world?) would find it silly to stop calling their regular customer of glossy brochures a customer just because today he's also buying a house.
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.
False. We can go around this concept all day if you'd like. Adidas is Apple's customer.
You seem to have difficulty with comprehension in context and are completely missing the point, which is that the realtor-seller relationship is that of agent-principal, not agent-customer. And no, I'm not a realtor.
You seem to have difficulty comprehending my previous post where I said it was perhaps a poor analogy. That doesn't dismiss my original statement. Adidas is Apple's customer. And this conversation, as predicted, is futile. So there's no point in either one of us continuing. At least - I know I won't be as it's a waste of time and bandwidth.
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.
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.
Really? That's your logic? I must be wrong because so many other people THINK they are right. Talk about illogical. 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...
Though I agree with your entirely on this issue, and the discussion may be a huge waste of time, it's hardly a waste of bandwidth. Compared to all the other waste of bandwidth out there, this is a drop of an atom into the universe of bandwidth.
I have Adblock doing that for me right now in Firefox. Ads are only interesting if they are funny, and I can get funny elsewhere. Otherwise, they are just legalized lying to consumers. Very sad that our entire entertainment industry is based on them. All they accomplish at my house is to make the kids chorus, "can I have that?". Quite frankly, our over-zealous govts would have blocked this system years ago if they actually wanted to help their citizens.
I disagree. It isn't a computer virus, it is a societal virus.
You were supplying me with definitions explicitly As used in this Code of Ethics. You tried to generalise them outside the document, and I was simply trying to help you out by pointing out how you missed the context. This is itself ephemeral, as AIUI whether particular non-agency REALTOR(CAPS) relationships have been defined as a "customer" or "client" relationship has itself changed over the decades. Of course, this silliness only applies in US law.
Perhaps you're just here for the argument, in which case, I suggest that Google has no customers, and carry on...