iPod Consumers don't know iPods are from Apple?

[Doctor Q]

I noticed this in a MacNN article:

Forrester [Research, Inc.] also found that the results showed a disconnect between the "Apple Computer" brand and the company's popular iPod. Forrester found that iPod owners did not appear to identify with the "Apple Computer" brand, which it said could mitigate the so-called "halo effect", which has been cited to help drive Mac sales.​

I know people who have heard lots about iPods and don't know how they are related to Macintosh computers, but are there really a lot of people who don't know that iPods are from Apple?

When you see the word "iPod" in newspapers and magazines and formal news sites, the word "Apple" is always in the same sentence. iPod ads don't make much mention of Macintoshes (except to sometimes say "PC or Mac"), but they always mention Apple. Is it really true that so many consumers don't know who makes iPods, despite Apple's widespread name recognition?

Or do people know the company name is Apple but don't realize it is Apple Computer?

 

[Applespider]

I can believe it. I had a conversation with someone last week who said that they couldn't switch to a Mac because their iTunes and iPod wouldn't work

Now what's the bets that Apple have rushed these results to the High Court to show Apple Corps that using the Apple Computer logo isn't really an issue?

 

[Peyton]

Strange, some people didn't believe me when I started this

I started it for the same exact reasons. Don't know how you could just not know that, but then again some people don't believe me here either...

 

[SC68Cal]

I don't understand how this could be possible in my area, since we have a very big Apple Store in our mall.

 

[Jaffa Cake]

I seem to remember some famous musician type (Bruce Springsteen maybe?) commenting on the U2 iPod a while ago, and saying he needed to speak to Bill Gates and Microsfot about producing a special edition iPod of his own. So no, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there are people who don't know Apple are behind the iPod.

Anyway... isn't MAC the company that makes the computers?

 

[thedude110]

But don't people like, see the Apple logo when they turn their 'pods on? I mean, if there's one thing we're good at these days, it's identifying our corporate logos.

 

[emw]

I think that iPods are essentially the Kleenex and Rollerblade of MP3 players.

That is, how many people ask for a "facial tissue" as opposed to a "kleenex"? Or ask for a pair of "inline roller skates" as opposed to "rollerblades"? (Perhaps these are US-only references, but I'm sure other countries have similar ones)

People say "iPod" to mean digital music player.

Now, as to how this impacts the recognized connection between Apple Computer, Inc. and iPod, I'm not sure. Other than I have no idea who makes Kleenex.

Perhaps it doesn't matter. I'd be curious as to how many of the 4700 consumers interviewed actually owned an iPod. I'd think that owners of the iPod would be more likely (not completely) to know it was made by Apple Computer, even if those that just know of "iPods" may not make the connection.

 

[joepunk]

But don't people like, see the Apple logo when they turn their 'pods on? I mean, if there's one thing we're good at these days, it's identifying our corporate logos.

I would think so but some don't apparently.

Example. I have seen flyers and other material all talking about the DDR club on campus. My first reaction was "DDR? As in East Germany? What?" Took me months to find out the meaning of Dance Dance Revolution.

Other than I have no idea who makes Kleenex.

I think it is still Kleenex Corporation. A band in the early 80's called themselves Kleenex for a while but the actual Kleenex Corps. (?) got them to change their band name to Liliput.

 

[Chaszmyr]

I've talked to a few people who own iPods and didn't have any idea they are made by Apple. I wonder why they thought that Apple logo is engraved on the back...

Some people seem to think that "Mac" is a company, "iPod" is a company, and "Apple" was a company.

 

[Applespider]

But don't people like, see the Apple logo when they turn their 'pods on? I mean, if there's one thing we're good at these days, it's identifying our corporate logos.

Depends if they listen to it every day? Listen often enough and you'll rarely see the iPod boot logo.

Then again, I wonder how many associate the Xbox with Windows?

 

[Peyton]

Depends if they listen to it every day? Listen often enough and you'll rarely see the iPod boot logo.

Then again, I wonder how many associate the Xbox with Windows?

Um, I see your point, but Xboxes don't come with a PC connection cord, or software to load your comp full of music. So slightly different.


So since this is happening do you think Apple should make all this more clear? Different commercials? Or do you think they've done just as well as if everyone knew apple is ipod is mac?

 

[Doctor Q]

I think that iPods are essentially the Kleenex and Rollerblade of MP3 players. ... People say "iPod" to mean digital music player.

Which is a danger to Apple, because people will hear somebody say "This stupid Sandisk iPod I bought at the flea market doesn't work!" and blame the real product.

 

[hulugu]

Consumer just don't pay much attention to anything. A friend of mine bought a Mazda Tribute and several days later complained about how horrible Ford was, when I pointed out that the Tribute was actually a rebranded Ford Escape he got really upset and argued with me for an hour about it.

So, I'm not all that surprised that some people don't make the connection between Apple and the iPod, although those who do this while in an Apple Store are a little sad.

Which is a danger to Apple, because people will hear somebody say "This stupid Sandisk iPod I bought at the flea market doesn't work!" and blame the real product.

Who cares? Someone who's buying an iPod at a flea market isn't exactly the target customer and moreso, people do generally begin to understand the difference between generic and brand-name products, oddly enough. Some people are hopelessly confused no matter how much information is out there.

 

[applebum]

Who cares? Someone who's buying an iPod at a flea market isn't exactly the target customer and moreso, people do generally begin to understand the difference between generic and brand-name products, oddly enough. Some people are hopelessly confused no matter how much information is out there.

The companies that own the name care for this very reason (from a post above):

I think it is still Kleenex Corporation. A band in the early 80's called themselves Kleenex for a while but the actual Kleenex Corps. (?) got them to change their band name to Liliput.

Ummm Kimberly Clark makes Kleenex (see here). If companies don't protect these names, they become generic. It is my understanding that is what happened with both aspirin and escelators - they were at one time brand names (someone correct me if I am wrong)

 

[Pistol Pete]

I have customers all the time who say lets "go to the ipod store" I want to punch them and tell them its the apple store...

they also say:

"does ipod make this?"

"why doesnt ipod" this and that

WOW this ticks me off....and not to stereotype. they are always women who know nothing.

 

[Pistol Pete]

Which is a danger to Apple, because people will hear somebody say "This stupid Sandisk iPod I bought at the flea market doesn't work!" and blame the real product.

i hate ignorant people.

 

[dornoforpyros]

who cares? Costumers are in general pretty stupid. It's really not hurting anything that they don't know apple also makes great computers. Not everyone is as obsessed with computers as we are.
I'm sure there are some people out there that are disgusted that people refer to all cola as coke.

 

[iMeowbot]

Or do people know the company name is Apple but don't realize it is Apple Computer?

That one. It's often more like "Apple still makes computers? Wow, I remember those!"

 

[iMeowbot]

It is my understanding that is what happened with both aspirin and escelators - they were at one time brand names (someone correct me if I am wrong)

Trademarks can fall into generic use, but those two aren't the examples you want

The Aspirin trademark (and lots and lots of other German IP) was taken away by the Versailles treaty at the end of World War I.

Otis lost the Escalator trademark on a technicality (they used "escalator" as a noun instead of an adjective in the wrong contexts in their product literature).

 

[Savage Henry]

So much for the Halo Effect™

 

[maxterpiece]

apple computers are irrelevant to most people's lives. The thought of not using windows has never crossed their minds. It is the only computer you could reasonably consider getting. iPods, however, are not. I think if Apple had pushed the iPod, Apple connection, IE saying "made by apple computer" somewhere in their ads, or advertising iPods with Macs, the mac's stigma would have dragged it down. It took apple a while just to get PC users to understand that the iPod would work with thier computer, so I think that's kind of why apple has dissassociated it's computers from the iPod a bit.

 

[student_trap]

apple computers are irrelevant to most people's lives

I agree with you here.

I think that it is important that we make a distinction between “apple” and “iPod” when considering the average consumer. I am sure that as the current youth who have grown up with technology come of age, this will become increasingly unimportant, as brand recognition (especially within the technological field) increases. However for the moment, I am still told by people that they have bought an iPod, only to see that they actually bought a Zen, or something similar. I also know people who have in the past failed to realise that you need a computer to use an iPod. Suffice to say, it would be foolish to cast the general public with the same brush used with the likes of us on this forum.

It is not a good thing for apple if the iPod brand name becomes synonymous with all mp3 players. If this were to happen (indeed the wheels are already in motion), apple would find a drop in their market share as the public buy products by other companies. The iPod name, which at the moment brings word such as “style”, “fashion”, “quality” into the consumers mind, would turn into a generic term for “mp3 player”, therefore ruining all the good marketing apple has been doing. A similar thing can be said with the “Walkman” brand, another victim of its own success.

For the success of the iPod to continue, apple need to work on preventing their product’s name from becoming generic. Especially as rival companies begin to firstly realise that it is design, not features, that the everyday consumer wants, (as some companies are already beginning to do, see links below), and secondly, how to capitalise on the name “iPod”, rather than fight it.

Maybe then they will stop marketing their products as “iPod killers”.

 

[Doctor Q]

It is not a good thing for apple if the iPod brand name becomes synonymous with all mp3 players. If this were to happen (indeed the wheels are already in motion), apple would find a drop in their market share as the public buy products by other companies. The iPod name, which at the moment brings word such as “style”, “fashion”, “quality” into the consumers mind, would turn into a generic term for “mp3 player”, therefore ruining all the good marketing apple has been doing.

Apple would then have to work on distinguishing "their" iPods from other "brands of iPods", which might be a tough uphill battle with consumers who can't retain much information.

 

[jhu]

it's similar to how when the miata first came out, many people didn't know it was a mazda.

 

[notjustjay]

I'm sure there are some people out there that are disgusted that people refer to all cola as coke.

I'll have a Sprite coke, please. With fries.