Emails Show Phil Schiller's Displeasure with Ad Agency's Efforts for Apple in Early 2013

[unplugme71]

Because those two industries aren't successful without Apple's push....

Did they INVENT the rounded rectangle? No....was the smartphone a successful product before Apple? No. Same with the tablet. Now look at how ubiquitous they are.

To a certain extent, he's overstating - but not nearly as much as some people try to claim. Fact of the matter is, the iPhone and iPad have dramatically changed personal and mobile computing. Despite the fact those form factors existed before Apple, they weren't successful until after Apple.

Honestly, I don't think Samsung would be as innovative in the smartphone business without Apple.

For example, lock down Apple campus for 5 years. No one at Apple can see what new phones are being created by the competition. Apple employees can only follow advances in chip design, cell networking, etc. Only components that are included in the phone.

I bet you any money within those 5 years, Apple will have something amazing to release for a new iPhone model and put Samsung back in time again.

They did it with the first iPhone. It can be done again.

 

[jrswizzle]

not claiming they weren't widely succesful or influential at making these form factors easily accessible and something that lots of people wanted.

But they didnt invent either product category. Smartphones did exist before. Tablets did exist before.

I hate schiller. Everytime I read something form him, it's full of misleading FUD like that. He could very easily have said "products that changed the markets" and i wouldn't have even questioned it. But when he claims that they invented these markets, it's purely that Reality distortion field. And sadly when people in positions of Power make comments like this, People, especially HERE will repeat it as fact, isntead of bothering to look up the facts on what was happening around Apple before and after.

But that's the thing - those markets existed for a limited portion of the population. For many people (mostly the average consumer - which makes up the vast majority of the population), the smartphone and tablet industries (as we know them today) DID start with Apple.

I'd argue the devices we know today as tablets, and the tablet industry prior to Apple are very different.

 

[apolloa]

Meh - I'm talking about successful across all consumer categories. You're right - smartphones were successful in some sectors.

Smartphones were a niche product before Apple came along. While I agree the original iPhone was far less than smartphones at the time, most people had no idea because they didn't USE smartphones. The iPhone took the smartphone concept and made it work for everyone.

Actually you don't know your smartphone history, they existed for years before the iPhone and had become quite popular, they were advertised on TV as multimedia computers even.
Outside America the majority were spoilt with smartphones for quite some time.

 

[rp2011]

Image

Phil complementing Samsung's ad. This is enough to make MR fanboys burst into flames.

Good to see that Phil can see this.

 

[jrswizzle]

Ads are supposed to (among other things):
1. Capture the attention of the consumer.

2. Make the consumer want to purchase the product.

When my friend said he almost fell asleep when the ad was running shows that the ad never captured his attention and worse didn't move him slightly into wanting to buy the iPad.

Therefore it's ineffective. At least where he is concerned. (And me too).

Hmm - I understand. When I see Samsung ads, it makes me want to fling something at the TV because of the ridiculous portrayals of the "non-Samsung device user".

I don't find the ads boring - though I've gone on apple.com and read the stories behind the campaign. I find it fascinating and interesting the things people do with their iPads.

 

[LordVic]

But that's the thing - those markets existed for a limited portion of the population. For many people (mostly the average consumer - which makes up the vast majority of the population), the smartphone and tablet industries (as we know them today) DID start with Apple.

I'd argue the devices we know today as tablets, and the tablet industry prior to Apple are very different.

right, but the market did still exist.

its like the Roku thread.

you have hundreds of posters who said "Roku who?". Just because they don't recognise, or know of a products existence or it's market, doesn't mean that product and it's market didnt exist.

 

[Richardgm]

Emails Show Phil Schiller's Displeasure with Ad Agency's Efforts for Apple in...

Hmm - I understand. When I see Samsung ads, it makes me want to fling something at the TV because of the ridiculous portrayals of the "non-Samsung device user".



I don't find the ads boring - though I've gone on apple.com and read the stories behind the campaign. I find it fascinating and interesting the things people do with their iPads.

They just released a new one - http://www.apple.com/your-verse/bollywood-vision/

As for the ads showing what people use the iPad for, yes! That's what a good ad should do. Except these are or very specific (niche) cases. Not the broader, everyday man.

I'm not a wind farm technician. I'm not a Bollywood choreographer. I'm not a hockey coach!

They don't appeal to me. I can't relate, therefore I don't need the iPad.

 

[jrswizzle]

Actually you don't know your smartphone history, they existed for years before the iPhone and had become quite popular, they were advertised on TV as multimedia computers even.
Outside America the majority were spoilt with smartphones for quite some time.

Ok? So outside the world's largest economy and largest consumer base.....

How many smartphones existed before the iPhone. What do you mean by "popular"? Were there 10,000 smartphones in the world....100,000? 1,000,000?

 

[samcraig]

Samsung has done a remarkable job copying Apple products using a Google OS and using American agencies to create anti-Apple ads. When you really look at it, their level of innovation has been minimal compared to those of Apple. They were never able to design even a half-decent interface for even a TV before this. Yet now they are a market leader on the backs of everyone else's innovations.

I'm starting to resent Samsung. Not for competing - I think that's good for the overall market and will force Apple to admit that people want larger screens. But the anti-Apple bent in their ads is really annoying considering that Apple busted the whole thing open. It would be like Brahms bad-mouthing Beethoven.

Not excusing Samsung - but you realize that Apple, itself, became a market leader due in part to the backs of everyone else's innovations.

Some people have short memories and can't see beyond 2007. Apple wasn't able to create the iPhone without millions (probably billions) of dollars in R&D, innovation, etc that was created by other manufacturers for years before. Technology, infrastructure, manaufacturing, evolving the market, etc.

I give Apple a lot of credit. Not all of it.

 

[jrswizzle]

right, but the market did still exist.

its like the Roku thread.

you have hundreds of posters who said "Roku who?". Just because they don't recognise, or know of a products existence or it's market, doesn't mean that product and it's market didnt exist.

But the Apple TV was released first wasn't it? March 2007 versus 2008 for the Roku?

A portion of the market existed - but the industry was realized until the whole market was exposed and developed. Apple started that.

 

[nukiduz]

I hope Apple doesn't work with this agency anymore. That was so an amateurish email response.

 

[69Mustang]

Most of the posts so far in this thread remind me of "form over function". People seem to be concentrating on the grammatical errors (form) instead of the content from Schiller (function). On this forum we love to create narratives of what Apple would do, what Apple is thinking, or what Apple means. Most of what we say has no relation to the truth. Information from the horses mouth gives us true insight and we get a thread filled with grammar police. Come on MR, you people are much better than that. I've seen it in the past.

 

[na1577]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I overheard a friend if mine commenting on the ad, "I almost fell asleep."

Boring yes. Even worse, they're pretentious. I can forgive Apple for the sappy Christmas commercial, but gosh, these ads really suck.

Actually, I think "your verse" is pretty good.

Agree to disagree.

What specifically is so awful about it? Stories about how REAL people utilize the iPad in their REAL lives is awful compared to actors complaining about pixel counts in fake life?

Would love to hear your thoughts....

Stated above. I think the idea of showing unique real world uses for the iPad is cool, but the ads are bad. The overly dramatic music, the tacky voice-over and the lousy tagline make for a poor commercial. Apple's ads have always been pretty good, but these totally miss the mark.

 

[samcraig]

But the Apple TV was released first wasn't it? March 2007 versus 2008 for the Roku?

A portion of the market existed - but the industry was realized until the whole market was exposed and developed. Apple started that.

Well the 2007 Apple TV was far from "successful"

So now that begs the question to you. Why does Apple get credit for "starting" this market - but yet all the OEMs with smartphones before Apple don't. Oh I know you revised your response - but the point remains.

I would argue that both Apple and Roku really made streaming boxes popular to the general public around the same time.

 

[winston1236]

The problem with the advertising is the agency is just too comfortable. Writing a letter to a high level executive with the capitalization of a 5 year old shows immense disrespect. Now I agree they have a tough job since Apple refuses to do a redesign of the IP.

 

[jrswizzle]

They just released a new one - http://www.apple.com/your-verse/bollywood-vision/

As for the ads showing what people use the iPad for, yes! That's what a good ad should do. Except these are or very specific (niche) cases. Not the broader, everyday man.

I'm not a wind farm technician. I'm not a Bollywood choreographer. I'm not a hockey coach!

They don't appeal to me. I can't relate, therefore I don't need the iPad.

Meh sure I see your point - but I still think they are fascinating. I know what I use my iPad for since I have it with me all the time. And if you actually read the stories, you'll see that a lot of the features used by these people are things that everyone can find a use for.

Are they perfect? No. But a heck of a lot more compelling than Samsung's "little brother complex" ads.

I HATE that Drama Shot one with little Timmy.....there are probably about a thousand apps that can do that on an iPhone and how about I stream the pic to my 60" TV instead of viewing it on a dinky little 5" display......

That's the type of stuff that bugs the heck outa me. What about that commercial tells me the Samsung device is better?

 

[MacHiavelli]

The agency's grammar is awful. I'd bin it for that alone. Shoddy and incompetent.

 

[DFierce]

Most of the posts so far in this thread remind me of "form over function". People seem to be concentrating on the grammatical errors (form) instead of the content from Schiller (function). On this forum we love to create narratives of what Apple would do, what Apple is thinking, or what Apple means. Most of what we say has no relation to the truth. Information from the horses mouth gives us true insight and we get a thread filled with grammar police. Come on MR, you people are much better than that. I've seen it in the past.

Couldn't help it. That's what caught my attention.

Going on content though, I reiterate everyone's shock to the 1997 comment.

 

[apolloa]

Ok? So outside the world's largest economy and largest consumer base.....

How many smartphones existed before the iPhone. What do you mean by "popular"? Were there 10,000 smartphones in the world....100,000? 1,000,000?

Oh I'm sorry... I forgot that America is the friggin centre of the universe! And no you are not the largest consumer base because then you would have to have more population than the rest of the planet, and are you even the biggest economy still? Hasn't China overtaken you yet?

Your being incredibly naive, the Ericsson R380 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericsson_R380 (bet you've never heard of that right?) was launched in 2000, a full fat 7 years before the iPhone, the R380 was the first phone in the west at least to be advertised as a smartphone, and they went from strength to strength to strength.

All Apple did was manage to reignite a stagnant market, it did nothing to create it. Loads of people had smartphones from Nokia and Sony Ericsson and HTC and other Windows mobile makers before the iPhone.

I'm not going to list every single smartphone launched from 2000 to 2007 on here as their are far too many, go and Google it.

But to try and state Apple invented the smartphone market, or even the smartphone is just flat out wrong and ignorant.

 

[fxapple]

Samsung has done a remarkable job copying Apple products using a Google OS and using American agencies to create anti-Apple ads. When you really look at it, their level of innovation has been minimal compared to those of Apple. They were never able to design even a half-decent interface for even a TV before this. Yet now they are a market leader on the backs of everyone else's innovations.

I'm starting to resent Samsung. Not for competing - I think that's good for the overall market and has forced Apple to admit that people want larger screens (shame on Apple for denying this for so long). But the anti-Apple bent in their ads is really annoying considering that Apple busted the whole thing open. It would be like Brahms bad-mouthing Beethoven.

I agree the ads are in professional bad taste using childish tatics rather than showing technical aspects of the product. They can't do that because the iPhone is technically superior, so instead they take Apple's lines and turn them into a scarcastic dialogue. Talk about using your own words against you. Unfortunately their immature advertising method worked especially considering the target age group.

 

[samcraig]

I have to believe - right or wrong - that Samsung is loving all of this evidence hitting the press. Far more impact than the ad Apple had to print in the overseas paper about the lawsuit.

I mean - when you have Phil commenting on your ad campaign in a positive way - there's no downside.

 

[Lionel Messi]

That agent probably had a broken caps lock.

How's PC on the last line capitalised? He is a lousy, dirty agent.

 

[jrswizzle]

Well the 2007 Apple TV was far from "successful"

So now that begs the question to you. Why does Apple get credit for "starting" this market - but yet all the OEMs with smartphones before Apple don't. Oh I know you revised your response - but the point remains.

I would argue that both Apple and Roku really made streaming boxes popular to the general public around the same time.

Sure, I agree with you. I'd argue this particular market hasn't actually developed yet and we'll be talking about the starter of the REAL streaming boxes industry in the near future.

Its also an industry more dependent on the content providers than the actual hardware innovations. Things like simplicity of the OS/UI, touchscreen controls etc made the iPhone what it was and in turn changed and created the smartphone industry we know today.

At this point with streaming media boxes, they all act similarly provide roughly the same content and are designed roughly the same way. I think Roku and Apple are co-creators of this market as we know it today - but I also think a bigger boom is coming and someone will radically change it ala Apple with the iPhone and iPad.

Ditto for smartwatches/wearables. These "markets" for all intents and purposes don't exist because they are niche products. At this point, I'd credit Pebble as the creator of the wearables industry - I also believe we haven't even scratched the surface of wearables.

 

[sracer]

But the Apple TV was released first wasn't it? March 2007 versus 2008 for the Roku?

The Apple TV released in March 2007 was nothing like the Apple TV of today.
One could claim that Apple rushed it to market to beat Roku. It wasn't until the 2nd gen Apple TV released in 2010 that it was a viable alternative to the Roku.

As for "What's your verse" ad campaign. I find it to be highly pretentious... trying so hard to be "above it all" that it fails to connect with how the products are used in boring every day life. In advertising there's "selling the image" and then there's selling "navel gazing".

In contrast, I appreciate that Phil Shiller understood the hook of the Samsung ads even though the Apple faithful could not.

 

[jonnyb098]

As a marketing professional, I think the agency they are working with now has ZERO clues about how to leverage Apple as a brand anymore. Apple has some really great products right now and this idiot is comparing the 2013 Apple to the Apple of 1997?????????????????????? That response would have let me to fire them as an agency right then and there. They don't get it and that email proved it.