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.
Yahoo CEO Claims Apple's Demand for Control Will Be iAd's Downfall
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep, I do that every time, it was bad enough with people using phones in the elevators, but, I never expected iAd's, but I forgot that all of Job's decisions are revenue based...
You don't know that. You have no idea what Apple is controlling vs what they aren't controlling in regards to iAds. You want to give Apple the benefit of the doubt - fine. But clearly SOMETHING is "wrong" at this stage or there would be more iAds in circulation.
And say what you want about Yahoo and the company as it is NOW - but if it weren't for Yahoo - you wouldn't have Google and other advances in search technology and user portal development. But feel free to ignore history.
Advertising online is what I do for a living, and I agree 100%. Advertisers are not going to let Apple have that kind of control over their advertising. It is not possible for Apple to properly manage and correctly market to hundreds and thousands of different segments. The marketplaces can be so different, that it is not possible for them to have that kind of knowledge.
I was always skeptical from the beginning on iAds because one it is extremely expensive for the advertiser, which makes it likely much less cost effective than other avenues, and the control issue with Apple being so involved.
Sure it is a fun toy, and companies are trying it out and going along with it, but for the long run, big companies who might actually overpay for iAds will not cede the control, and the smaller companies who are more bottom line oriented will never see real value from advertising in iAds because it is simply way too expensive.
As for people saying advertisers will pay for results... that is the problem. With online advertising that is true. Television and radio has gotten away with charging for advertising with no real correlation to results for most advertisers. The internet allows for real results to be tracked, even for such things as pure image advertising the advertisers are going to have a price per view that they must meet.
By the way Microsoft and Yahoo! are merging their search engines, and it will be run my Microsoft. Should be totally meshed in October some time, I think. They have been migrating advertisers off Yahoo! to Bing! for about 6 weeks now.
I don't really care what the Yahoo! CEO has said in the past, and I do think he is a bit of a chucklehead, but he is pretty on point here. As someone who spends very large amounts of money, all of my own, every month advertising on the internet and on mobile I can say that iAds is not something the advertising community is just dying to jump on board.
Most advertisers, myself included, would love nothing more than a real challenger to Google to exist. Google treats most of its advertisers very poorly... but wishing Google had real competition and actually having it are two different things, and I think Apple is currently off course. Does it mean they can't correct things and change things and become a big influence? I think they can. They really can't fail given their install base, but I suspect prices for ads will drop dramatically over the next 6 months.
I was always skeptical from the beginning on iAds because one it is extremely expensive for the advertiser, which makes it likely much less cost effective than other avenues, and the control issue with Apple being so involved.
Sure it is a fun toy, and companies are trying it out and going along with it, but for the long run, big companies who might actually overpay for iAds will not cede the control, and the smaller companies who are more bottom line oriented will never see real value from advertising in iAds because it is simply way too expensive.
As for people saying advertisers will pay for results... that is the problem. With online advertising that is true. Television and radio has gotten away with charging for advertising with no real correlation to results for most advertisers. The internet allows for real results to be tracked, even for such things as pure image advertising the advertisers are going to have a price per view that they must meet.
By the way Microsoft and Yahoo! are merging their search engines, and it will be run my Microsoft. Should be totally meshed in October some time, I think. They have been migrating advertisers off Yahoo! to Bing! for about 6 weeks now.
I don't really care what the Yahoo! CEO has said in the past, and I do think he is a bit of a chucklehead, but he is pretty on point here. As someone who spends very large amounts of money, all of my own, every month advertising on the internet and on mobile I can say that iAds is not something the advertising community is just dying to jump on board.
Most advertisers, myself included, would love nothing more than a real challenger to Google to exist. Google treats most of its advertisers very poorly... but wishing Google had real competition and actually having it are two different things, and I think Apple is currently off course. Does it mean they can't correct things and change things and become a big influence? I think they can. They really can't fail given their install base, but I suspect prices for ads will drop dramatically over the next 6 months.
An online advertising expert who doesn't know Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz is a woman? You must follow the industry very closely indeed...
Clipped because I didn't want to quote the whole passage there. And anyone who's been around long enough, knows that Marksman and I do not get along at all...
But he's 100 percent spot on here.
Are agencies actually excluded by design of the program? It seems to me that every medium exercises control over the content that advertisers (whether done in-house or through an agency) place on their medium and that control obviously limits the advertisers options.
What are some practical examples of Apple's rules unreasonably restricting an advertiser?
Oh no, I wasn't being sarcastic, sorry if you thought that.
And I'm not ignoring history, I'm an older, I've used everything from AltaVista, HotBot, Yahoo! to Metacrawler a long time ago, even when Google arrived, I stayed with the others for a while. I just give my truly belief about Yahoo!'s fear.
I hope Apple isn't goofing on the people's add creativity, I don't know, nobody here can possibly know (that's Apple for you), I thought this was evident, therefore I didn't mention it, but you're right, something's wrong. I mean, I'm not even in the US, there's no iAds here yet, se yeah, that's crap for the add developers.
YPN? Yeah, sure.
And we should listen to Yahoo because YPN was such a great success. </sarcasm>
Sure, Yahoo has zero credibility in their consistency and success of the Yahoo YPN program.
And we should listen to Yahoo because YPN was such a great success. </sarcasm>
Sure, Yahoo has zero credibility in their consistency and success of the Yahoo YPN program.
In Bartz's view, Apple's demands for total control over the program will ultimately be its downfall, as advertisers eventually rebel against the non-traditional framework in favor of the greater flexibility offered by other channels.
So says the CEO of a company that gave up their main business model a year ago, operating basically as a glorified subcontractor to Microsoft.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2009/tc20090728_826397.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2009/tc20090728_826397.htm
Most people here probably agree with CEO but they still rush to shoot the messenger because the perception is that the message is anti-Apple (which it is not).
I don't know any fellow art director nor creative director who would be willing to give up their creative control and hand it over to a supplier or media platform provider!
Only fools would commit such professional suicide.
Sure, advertising agencies do hire a lot of film directors, photographers, web programmers and other external specialists. But these hired guns all agree to work under the tight creative leadership of the agency. Even big name artists have to comply.
Your story doesn't surprise me the least.
Apple simply doesn't have enough background nor experience in the advertising business for pulling off such a stunt!
If they had this kind of know-how Apple certainly would produce their own advertising in-house instead of delegate it to TBWA\Chiat\Day...
Exactly!
Creating great advertising that works takes a lot more than just a few cool idea and fancy programming.
Only someone who fully comprehends not only the product and company philosophy, but also its target audience will be able to create a strong and unique vision that seduces and nails the target.
This is almost an evolutionary process taking some time and effort.
I too have experienced desperate phone calls from clients who have hired and instructed suppliers behind our back to save a few bucks. Only to find out the hard way how destructive it can be when semi-creative hacks are messing with your vision or corporate identity they don't grasp.
Only fools would commit such professional suicide.
Sure, advertising agencies do hire a lot of film directors, photographers, web programmers and other external specialists. But these hired guns all agree to work under the tight creative leadership of the agency. Even big name artists have to comply.
Your story doesn't surprise me the least.
Apple simply doesn't have enough background nor experience in the advertising business for pulling off such a stunt!
If they had this kind of know-how Apple certainly would produce their own advertising in-house instead of delegate it to TBWA\Chiat\Day...
Exactly!
Creating great advertising that works takes a lot more than just a few cool idea and fancy programming.
Only someone who fully comprehends not only the product and company philosophy, but also its target audience will be able to create a strong and unique vision that seduces and nails the target.
This is almost an evolutionary process taking some time and effort.
I too have experienced desperate phone calls from clients who have hired and instructed suppliers behind our back to save a few bucks. Only to find out the hard way how destructive it can be when semi-creative hacks are messing with your vision or corporate identity they don't grasp.
Apple's control is a big part of what made it successful in its niche market place. People who like Apple's practices, most of us, buy their stuff. But I wonder as Apple's market share increases and more people start buying their products are they going to have to offer more options. More ways to customize things for each user. It will be interesting to see if there is any change the more they grow.
Ok Yahoo, let's see here - YHOO ($14) and AAPL ($272). A desperate person will say anything to save their butt.
I don't know any fellow art director nor creative director who would be willing to give up their creative control and hand it over to a supplier or media platform provider!
Only fools would commit such professional suicide.
Sure, advertising agencies do hire a lot of film directors, photographers, web programmers and other external specialists. But these hired guns all agree to work under the tight creative leadership of the agency. Even big name artists have to comply.
Your story doesn't surprise me the least.
Apple simply doesn't have enough background nor experience in the advertising business for pulling off such a stunt!
If they had this kind of know-how Apple certainly would produce their own advertising in-house instead of delegate it to TBWA\Chiat\Day...
Exactly!
Creating great advertising that works takes a lot more than just a few cool idea and fancy programming.
Only someone who fully comprehends not only the product and company philosophy, but also its target audience will be able to create a strong and unique vision that seduces and nails the target.
This is almost an evolutionary process taking some time and effort.
I too have experienced desperate phone calls from clients who have hired and instructed suppliers behind our back to save a few bucks. Only to find out the hard way how destructive it can be when semi-creative hacks are messing with your vision or corporate identity they don't grasp.
I'm still curious as to how Apple is getting in the way. What I'm reading from your note and others:
- Emotional response to change
- An example where it didn't work (without any details)
- Unrelated experiences stated as support for why it won't work (...went behind our backs)
I'm only curious to know the facts, not to support, defend Apple or advertisers. How are Apple's rules really impacting advertisers?
Secondly, Apple's platform is mostly paid for by the end-users, not by Advertisers. So, I feel this is a little different from Google, Yahoo, advertiser sponsored TV, and magazines largely subsidized by ads. The advertiser is not the primary paying customer (which I imagine one of the core issues here), the end-user is.
How is the end user paying for the ads?
Do you have any idea what the CPM is for iAds - it's HIGH - very very HIGH in comparison to other outlets. Advertisers are most definitely paying for the ads.
If you're trying to suggest that buy buying an app - you're paying for the ad - you're naive to the whole process (and I'm being kind here)
As to other responses in this thread...
"Ok Yahoo, let's see here - YHOO ($14) and AAPL ($272). A desperate person will say anything to save their butt."
The same could go for ignorant posters who have no idea how advertising models work. A desperate person who wants to throw in a sarcastic comment will say anything they "think" is clever... ::eyeroll::