Apple Debuts New 'Shot On iPhone' Ad Celebrating Mother's Day

[bpeeps]

Ah, NO ... it's either ... Centre on or Revolve around.

Correct terminology would be "centered on a collection" but this site doesn't have editors.

 

[admob71]

Really? You could of fooled me

Cough "could have " cough..
[doublepost=1462207869][/doublepost]

Brilliant! Just bought another 3 Iphone's because of this commercial... one of the most revolutionary and innovative commercials I've ever seen.

You sir are my new favourite poster ;-)

 

[Howyalikdemapls]

Anyone know the name of the song?

"Because You Are Who You Are" by K.S. Rhoads.

(I asked Siri)
[doublepost=1462209829][/doublepost]

A week ahead of Mother's Day, Apple has launched a new commercial centering around a collection of images and video of mothers interacting with their children. The spot continues Apple's "Shot on iPhone" advertising campaign, with each piece captioned by the amateur iPhone user who captured the moment.

Apple began its "Shot on iPhone" campaign early in 2015, showcasing images collected from both professional and amateur photographers around the world. More recently, Apple's iPhone campaign has focused on portraying the features of the device, like Touch ID and Siri.

Article Link: Apple Debuts New 'Shot On iPhone' Ad Celebrating Mother's Day

I like the ad, but why did they choose such grainy photos? I know they wanted to take actual amateur photos, but still... It's got a great camera and these pictures are not an accurate representation of the photos you can take with a current iPhone.

 

[thirteen1031]

android and such can take decent pics/video as well.

I'm sure they can. But they aren't offering commercials or billboards that demonstrate this. Apple smartly has put into everyone's minds that they are *the* photo phone. Which is to say, your protests about the comparable photo taking abilities of other smartphones is moot. True or not, their photo abilities are not what the public associates with them. It DOES, thanks to commercials like this, associate it with Apple.

 

[LordVic]

I'm sure they can. But they aren't offering commercials or billboards that demonstrate this. Apple smartly has put into everyone's minds that they are *the* photo phone. Which is to say, your protests about the comparable photo taking abilities of other smartphones is moot. True or not, their photo abilities are not what the public associates with them. It DOES, thanks to commercials like this, associate it with Apple.

This is the power of good marketing.... or ANY marketing, And Apple has always been absolutely top tier in their marketing. You can follow this lineage back to the 80s.

They focus their commercials on emotional responses, instead of facts / figures. Emotional marketing tends to be the most affective.

 

[thirteen1031]

I still can't understand how a new commercial is considered news.

How is not news on a forum that is dedicated to talking about anything new that comes out from Apple?

 

[wanderinghome]

Did they have to ask your permission to use it first or did it just show up in the video? whats the process for this? Its kind of really cool to see your own work officially published in some form. Something I've always dreamed about with my photos

I can't discuss the process, and yes, since it's commercial use permission is always necessary.

 

[thirteen1031]

Apple cheapen these images because they are used to elict a positive reaction to their company that is unjustified.

Completely wrong and backwards. Art speaks for itself and cannot be brought down (cheapened) by being in an ad. It's why people hear songs in ads and buy the albums more often than they buy the product the song was used to sell. And keep in mind that the photos used in this ad would not have been seen by so many people. Now millions will see them--maybe capture them and keep them. So, art is given greater exposure and can enrich those who see it.

The ad doesn't cheapen the art, the art elevates the ad. And the art (a certain picture or image) is what will remain in peoples minds or on their computer screens after they've forgotten where they saw it or what product it was being used to sell.

 

[uid15]

Love Apple's marketing! Gotta Remember Mom!

One would sincerely hope that Mum would never be forgotten!

 

[tw1ll]

If you think Apple exists to enrich its shareholders you haven’t been paying attention.

Enlighten me.
[doublepost=1462255757][/doublepost]

Completely wrong and backwards. Art speaks for itself and cannot be brought down (cheapened) by being in an ad. It's why people hear songs in ads and buy the albums more often than they buy the product the song was used to sell. And keep in mind that the photos used in this ad would not have been seen by so many people. Now millions will see them--maybe capture them and keep them. So, art is given greater exposure and can enrich those who see it.

The ad doesn't cheapen the art, the art elevates the ad. And the art (a certain picture or image) is what will remain in peoples minds or on their computer screens after they've forgotten where they saw it or what product it was being used to sell.

Sorry, but none of the stills and videos in the ad qualify as "art", thy are snapshots which may have meaning and value to the individuals concerned but are way too cliched and commonplace to be art. I doubt very much that those particular images will remain in anyones mind for long.

 

[thirteen1031]

Sorry, but none of the stills and videos in the ad qualify as "art"...I doubt very much that those particular images will remain in anyones mind for long.

Sorry back, but you're wrong. While it's true that a gallery or museum would not call these "art," most framed photos hung up in offices, shops, or appearing as computer wallpaper are exactly what you say these are: "cliche." And they are regarded by those who view them as "art." So, essentially, you're nitpicking for no good reason—other than to nitpick. My point stands. Some of these photos will be captured by viewers to be used as screensavers, or to send to mom as a e-card, or might appear later as a poster with a caption below.

Will they be put up in museums for people to see a hundred years later? Probably not. But the fact that they are being seen by more people then would see them now is still huge. And that they are photos/videos that people find moving, beautiful, or just charming still allows them to "elevate" the ad as a form of art if not high, museum quality art.

 

[tw1ll]

Sorry back, but you're wrong. While it's true that a gallery or museum would not call these "art," most framed photos hung up in offices, shops, or appearing as computer wallpaper are exactly what you say these are: "cliche." And they are regarded by those who view them as "art." So, essentially, you're nitpicking for no good reason—other than to nitpick. My point stands. Some of these photos will be captured by viewers to be used as screensavers, or to send to mom as a e-card, or might appear later as a poster with a caption below.

Will they be put up in museums for people to see a hundred years later? Probably not. But the fact that they are being seen by more people then would see them now is still huge. And that they are photos/videos that people find moving, beautiful, or just charming still allows them to "elevate" the ad as a form of art if not high, museum quality art.

How quaint that you mistake schmaltzy for artistic..........