Limbaugh is wrong, they are not the ad agency for Samsung. However, they are also not some independent third party with no affiliation with Samsung.
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.
Apple's 'Designed by Apple' TV Ad Scoring Poorly with Viewers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Limbaugh is wrong, they are not the ad agency for Samsung. However, they are also not some independent third party with no affiliation with Samsung.
People need to say USA instead of Tennessee, it would be better. It's as if they are trying to disassociate from the rest of the country......in a way I wish it would sink to the core of the earth and burn in hell. Personally I hate Tennessee as a state and don't like how they think they are some how better than the rest of the states.
How does that feel Jesla? Hate much?
1) Name a product that you have bought that say's Designed/made in Tennessee on it without USA?
2) Maybe you are unaware, but Hell doesn't exist at the earth core ..It's exist in your head .now do you really want Tennessee in your head .forever?
3)Suits me if you hate Tennessee ..we live in the free part of the country, not the Peoples Republic of California, where we can think what we want.
I feel fine .but you made yourself look Stup ..err Silly ..and no, I don't hate much, just California.
of course none of this changes the fact that the ads SUCK!
Limbaugh should learn the cardinal rule of the internet for newbies: check out whatever you read, before blindly repeating it.
Ace Metrix is not an advertising agency. They're an ad reviewer and surveyer. They actually review every national ad in their target categories. Companies hire them to get that info.
IF they were the only ones saying that the "California" ad didn't do so well with viewers, then that might be suspect. But they're NOT the only ones saying that. Other reviewers and many forum posters think the same thing.
The plain fact is, it was just not a great ad, as seen by the general public. There's no need to conjure up a conspiracy to try to explain that away. Ditto for the "Genius" ads. Sometimes Apple's ad agencies stumble, that's all.
art in advertising
I agree this is a good ad. The full, 2 page print ad of the woman in the car appeared in my local paper today. It is a beautiful photograph that draws me in, makes me wonder who is she with? I think the car is a buick lesabre from the '60's - maybe there's a car enthusiast out there who knows. Who drives a car like that these days-her grandfather? It tells a story, one that's easy to relate to. It's a photo that rivals any art photo in any gallery.
The photo is perfectly composed-the look in her eyes, the placement of the phone, revealing a part of her smile. She is very happy, capturing a moment she wants to remember.
As for the tagline "Designed by Apple in California," I don't think that has a negative connotation to people outside the US (including myself). Just like the beautifully designed American car in the photo, this is a product people around the world love, and the fact that it's designed in California enhances the value in my mind.
I agree this is a good ad. The full, 2 page print ad of the woman in the car appeared in my local paper today. It is a beautiful photograph that draws me in, makes me wonder who is she with? I think the car is a buick lesabre from the '60's - maybe there's a car enthusiast out there who knows. Who drives a car like that these days-her grandfather? It tells a story, one that's easy to relate to. It's a photo that rivals any art photo in any gallery.
The photo is perfectly composed-the look in her eyes, the placement of the phone, revealing a part of her smile. She is very happy, capturing a moment she wants to remember.
As for the tagline "Designed by Apple in California," I don't think that has a negative connotation to people outside the US (including myself). Just like the beautifully designed American car in the photo, this is a product people around the world love, and the fact that it's designed in California enhances the value in my mind.
This is exactly my feeling. Rather than the anti-Big Brother, pro-empowerment "1984" ad, this ends up communicating a very "Consumerist" and frankly materialistic message. I don't like it. And I don't like Apple's direction- even before Jobs passed away.
I like the message in the ad since it displays what Apple actually does without displaying really anything at all. The one that they showed at the beginning of WWDC was the one that really hits home. The TV ad on the other hand is not very good since it tries too hard to relate to people. It's just not an ad that the general consumer will like because it makes Apple products seem trivial and integrated with too many people. It also reminds people that even though you are now connected, you are isolated in the world. Just look at the different scenarios and you show people "blocking out" the world around them.
For the first time, I think Apple is making a very old statement about who they are: "Designers" and I think it doesn't sit very well with the consumers that buy their product. When Jobs was running the company, it was understood that "Design" was what people purchased but his way of marketing "Design" was done very subtly and had a lot of pull. He never said that what people were buying was "Design", he just said that people were buying ideas, concepts, and products to enrich their lives. That's what was so honest and straightforward about how he presented everything. Now that post-Jobs Apple has issued their new "Designed in California" tag, they are pretty much saying: "You're paying more for the design." While that is true in many ways, Apple was never so obtuse to actually say it out loud.
For the first time, I think Apple is making a very old statement about who they are: "Designers" and I think it doesn't sit very well with the consumers that buy their product. When Jobs was running the company, it was understood that "Design" was what people purchased but his way of marketing "Design" was done very subtly and had a lot of pull. He never said that what people were buying was "Design", he just said that people were buying ideas, concepts, and products to enrich their lives. That's what was so honest and straightforward about how he presented everything. Now that post-Jobs Apple has issued their new "Designed in California" tag, they are pretty much saying: "You're paying more for the design." While that is true in many ways, Apple was never so obtuse to actually say it out loud.
Enhancing lives? Distracting from life?
Seems like every scene displayed - while it may well show products enhancing lives - they are also distracting from life - the devices get in the middle of human interaction.
Seems like every scene displayed - while it may well show products enhancing lives - they are also distracting from life - the devices get in the middle of human interaction.
We recently had dinner in the city, and at a nearby table were 4 twenty-something women.
Instead of conversing with each other, most of the time they were poking at their phones. Sometimes they'd take a picture with the phone, then poke at the phone some more. One of the women never put the phone down - even when the food arrived she put the phone on the table beside her plate. And she'd frequently pick the phone up and poke at it a bit, then go back to eating.
This is not enhancing lives....
Conversation is becoming more and more a lost art, at least here it is. In HS and early college years, students talked to each other when class was not in session, well in HS everyone talked to each other while class was IN session also lol. Today, I still register for a class every now and again at the Community College here that looks like it may interest me, just for personal enlightenment, and no one talks to one another. Everyone is buried in their technology. Even trying to break the ice in group activities is like pulling teeth. It's really quite sad, especially when you've experienced socializing before the "post PC era" came along and seeing it's effect after.
I don't think so. When I first started going to JC it was nothing like it is today. Same JC, there are students there that were my age when I first started attending, and today they're glued to their phones while waiting around the halls for the classroom door to unlock. This was not the case 10 years ago.
People were glued to their phones and laptops when I was in grad school ten years ago at about the same rates my students are glued to their phones and laptops now. They may not have been surfing the internet on their phones but they were checking their emails, BB messaging, and talking. They're still socializing now, just via different ways, and not with strangers. But people weren't milling around mingling with strangers ten years ago, fifteen years ago in undergrad, or even more than twenty years ago in my high school.
What has changed in that time span are the ages of my students and the number of them who have to maintain full time work while attending school.
You're entitled to your opinion but We will have to agree to disagree. My eyes and ears tell me differently. If youre seeing the same rate if technology use today as 10 years ago, you were either in an environment WAY ahead of its time a decade ago or WAY behind the times now.
Yes, they are socializing in different ways, but when the "new" way is supplementing instead of complementing the "old" way, the art of conversation/interpersonal communication with a physical body is lost or severely degraded. I'm not really sure how you can blame work and family. People have been working and starting families for thousands of years and haven't had a problem socializing with actual people so I don't see the correlation there. I see a very clear correlation between today's social skills and the rise of technology.
Sure, we can agree to disagree if you'd prefer. For anyone else interested in this topic, however, I'm going to establish some facts:
1. Myspace launched in 2004. It certainly wasn't the first social networking site (sixdegrees was in the late 90's along with chat services like AIM) but should be well known enough to illustrate the point that people were already well tied in to what you're calling the "new" way of communicating.
The things you're claiming now, that people are losing the ability to communicate in social spaces and the loss of literacy, were raised back then within and before your ten year time frame.
2. It's historically false to claim that young people have been holding down multiple jobs,raising families, and taking the time to socialize with strangers while attending college for thousands of years.
Yes, humans have been raising families for thousands of years. That part is true. And they also have been "working" in some form or fashion. But it's relatively modern that families moved off their farms and started working away from one another.
The actual timeline is:
US workforce moved off farms and into factories less than 200 years ago
While women started to enter colleges in the 1800's less than 10% were enrolled in colleges in the mid 1900's. Compare that now when women outnumber men
(http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98)
Both men and women are increasingly working at multiple jobs. This is related to a number of economic realities that the US has been contending with for the past 40 years.
In that same time frame women have increasingly had to manage households without male income earners.
Certainly people are capable of consuming information at much more accelerated rates than they could in previous eras. That would tend to undermine your position, however, since that would mean that people are exposed to *more* information (not less) and be exposed to *more* people (not less). People are capable of *increased* interconnectivity than they were able to do ten years ago, twenty years ago, fifty years ago, etc. They can interact seamlessly with their family, extended families, friends, and digital acquaintances. Perhaps it's true that they interact less with strangers but that's not evidence that they're losing their social skills.
Perhaps they don't want to interact with people in their forties...but I didn't have any particular reason to interact with 40 year old strangers twenty years ago...long before computers were ubiquitous.
Of course, the issue isn't whether people consume digital data faster than the past. The issue is whether people always maximize their ability to connect to those they know--no matter what the medium.
That is, students have iPads, iPhones, and MacBooks to disengage from strangers around them now but they certainly had access to blackberries and laptops in 2003 (at least in Orange County).
Since they aren't interacting with you it's difficult to understand how you know what they are or are not doing (other than talking to you and other strangers). They could very well be typing nothing more than "brb, omg, lol" into their phones but more likely, based on current economic and family structure trends, they are checking on their kids at home, juggling one or more job schedules, and keeping up to date with what their friends are doing.
When you were experiencing "socializing before the 'post pc era'' came along" students were younger, you were younger and had more in common with the students than you do now, and all of you had less responsibilities.
You keep bringing this point up even though it was addressed before your first reply to me. You realize that as people get older, there's a younger generation that starts attending that same school right? And I'm not talking about 18 year olds socializing with 40 year olds which is what you seem to be thinking.
You can provide all the facts you want, its pretty useless when you're misinterpreting them left and right. Like MySpace for another example. When MySpace launched you accessed it from your computer. When you left your home, you didn't have your mobile device that allows you continued access, you still interacted with the real world.
A 3rd example. When you're at work, you're at work, when you're at school you're at school. You seem to be under the impression that if you're a student with a job, you aren't suppose to socialize. You're drawing correlations where none exist.
There are some pretty basic concepts here that are going over your head, I don't know if its intentional or not.
I keep bringing it up because the median age for community college attendees has been rising over the years and they work more now.
"Community colleges also provide access to education for many nontraditional students, such as adults who are working while enrolled. The average age of a community college student is 29, and two thirds of community college students attend part-time."
--http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/studentsatcommunitycolleges.aspx
I know you aren't talking about 18 year olds socializing with 40 year olds. I'm pointing out to you that since by your own statements you are much older than the students around you they may have no desire to socialize with you based on your age and perceived lack of common interests. If they don't socialize with you that is only evidence that they aren't socializing with you. You are assuming the basis for their lack of interest in socializing with you.
A similar error in logic would occur if I posted to the board that students increasingly dislike their professors and used as evidence the fact that they don't talk to me when I'm walking across campus.
Laptops and wifi existed in 2004 and they weren't rare. And while mobile internet was less ubiquitous texting and blackberries were. We'd have to go back 30 or more years to find a time when students weren't blanketed with some level of things to take their attention away from socializing with strangers. I wasn't in college back in the 70s but I suspect that even then they coalesced into their own groupings and didn't spend much time branching out to strangers.
I never said anything about what students should or should not do. I pointed out that if a student does have a job (and most of them do now more frequently than they did in the past) then that student is less likely to have time to socialize, less energy to socialize, and less desire to socialize with strangers. They are using that time to socialize with friends and take care of home duties (many of which are also increasing from the amount and types of duties they managed in the past).
Anyway, I thought we agreed to disagree? Why are you still arguing with my points?
I never said they don't socialize with "me" I'm talking about socializing in general, with real people around them, plenty of which are their age. Again, I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp about this concept. Just sounds like you don't want to believe technology plays a part in this. I'm not here to convince you, the issue exists whether or not you want to deny it.
Laptops and wifi existed yes, but they are used inside the class room, rarely, even today are they used out in the hallways. Phones on the other hand are being used today when in years past they weren't. People actually talked to each other. Like I said, facts are rather useless when not interpreted correctly.
Laptops and wifi existed yes, but they are used inside the class room, rarely, even today are they used out in the hallways. Phones on the other hand are being used today when in years past they weren't. People actually talked to each other. Like I said, facts are rather useless when not interpreted correctly.
you don't know that. maybe without their devices those women would find sitting with each other unbearable.