Apple's "Think Different / Change the World" ad was a brilliant piece of marketing. But it doesn't seem that really stuck as the core value of their brand. If Nike's message is "we hang around great athletes," Apple's message today is "we hang around the young and hip," [1] which is different than "we hang around people who change the world."
You could argue that these are somehow related, that the young and hip would be attracted by the Think Different ad. I don't dispute that. But the later ads of kids jamming with their iPod ear buds communicate a message that is much closer to the general perception of Apple as a brand today.
--
[1] In the clothing industry, this type of positioning wouldn't be noteworthy or distinguishing. But in consumer electronics, advertising more like Abercrombie & Fitch and less like IBM has worked out brilliantly for them.
[2] The pre-2000 perception of Apple's brand was also somewhat tangential to the idea of changing the world. Their core message was "we're not IBM." In the talk, Jobs mentions this shouldn't be their core message, but clearly it was. The 1984 ad reinforced this, and even the 1997 Think Different ad retrenched this ground by riffing off of IBM's motto.
[3] Edit: The idea that Apple's core customer is someone who "values their time" and is not a computer geek is meaninglessly broad. Every customer values his or her time, and in any mainstream industry, the vast majority of customers are not computer geeks.
[4] Edit: Was it the success of the iPod that made Apple hip, or was the perception of the iPod being hip part of what made it such a success? Clearly it did become a fashion accessory. The product's clean design was congruent with this message.
The strategy behind both Nike's and Apple's branding is much further expounded on in a great film called Art & Copy. I highly recommend it.
Nike's message is "just do it". It isn't about hanging out with athletes, it's appreciating aspiration and athleticism of all stripes [1]. Nike is a dominant enough clothing brand that they benefit from encouraging general athleticism. Their products are barely present in their branding, if at all.
Apple's message is (and has been) to "think different" and "we're here to help you change the world for the better". Sure, it appeals to the rebellious youth in people, but it also appeals to scientists, artists, and philosophers in search of new paradigms to overturn the status quo. The "think different" commercial isn't about their computers. It's a public service announcement sponsored by Apple.
1. Even when Nike puts Michael Jordan in a commercial, it isn't about "hanging out with him", but about overcoming fear of failure, and "just doing it": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mMioJ5szc
PS: Just searched for "nike michael jordan commercial" for more, and found another brilliant piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBxcunGc_nA (again, I'd argue this is about appreciating the beauty of athleticism more so than "hanging out with Jordan").
> You could argue that these are somehow related, that the young and hip would be attracted by the Think Different ad. I don't dispute that. But the later ads of kids jamming with their iPod ear buds communicate a message that is much closer to the general perception of Apple as a brand today.
The Think Different ad was about Apple, the company. Kids jamming with their iPod earbuds was about the iPod. The Think Different ad was about revitalizing the Apple brand, and Jobs points out how the Nike ads aren't even about the product to explain the logic behind that ad, not to suggest that Apple was going to take that approach forever like Nike does. It makes sense that after they'd established the values they wanted associated with Apple, they'd return to product-centric advertising.
In 2008, ten years after the Think Different campaign debuted, six years after the slogan was mostly retired, and well after the earbud ads hit their peak, there was a study on whether flashing Apple or IBM logos faster than could be percieved could prime people to be more creative. The results suggest it's not really necessary for them to keep playing up that angle.
I won't say the restrictive policies governing iOS hasn't dampened the message somewhat for people like us, but you have to remember that a lot of it is about empowering people who aren't super great with computers and don't feel they have the freedom to use them the way anybody here does, because of their complexity and vulnerability. Remember that thread a little while back, where HNers were sharing stories about how some family member would write long lists of instructions just to do something like check their email?
The success of the iPod made the Apple brand young and hip, but their core customer has been (and may again become with the iPhone and iPad) people who value their time and are not computer geeks per-se. That's a difficult thing to say in a crowd of computer geeks, but may contextualize the iOS/Android debate around here.
We shall see how well it works out for them to be the brand for people who aren't fond of rules...computer geeks excepted. Computer geeks who want to change the world seek platforms with fewer rules.
> We shall see how well it works out for them to be the brand for people who aren't fond of rules...computer geeks excepted. Computer geeks who want to change the world seek platforms with fewer rules.
Geeks are such a small fraction of the market that they only matter as a function of influence. The success of desktop linux shows the "power" of said influence.
In other words, Apple can do just fine by telling non-geeks that choosing Apple means that they're technically advanced.
FWIW, geeks do like Mac laptops more than the market as a whole. The "geek cred" ad can leverage that if need be.
We shall see how well it works out for them to be the brand for people who aren't fond of rules...computer geeks excepted.
I think we see it pretty well already, no? People who think they can change the world aren't the kind who care whether or not Apple gave them permission to jailbreak their iPhone.
I think I can change the way the world tells its story with photos, and it bothers me that Camera+ and other 3rd-party iPhone apps can't write EXIF data; only the native app can. Yes, it sounds like a geeky objection, but it makes a difference to people's stories whether the photos can say when and where they were taken.
It's hard to find engineers who can work on products like iOS, so I think it's understandable if they can't get every nook and cranny of the API into v1.
It was recently that I heard somewhere that you couldn't write metadata to photos in the photoroll. I think the Camera+ authors have seen iOS4. So I wouldn't read too much into the existence of EXIF data structures in the documentation; it doesn't say what you can do with it.
Sure, but it doesn't mean they had time time update to use every of the 1000's of feature changes that came with it. This is why Flash as a competing platform is a terrible idea - it adds another stage of "rolling out <some feature> is blocked by <someone in another organization>".
> But it doesn't seem that really stuck as the core value of their brand. If Nike's message is "we hang around great athletes," Apple's message today is "we hang around the young and hip," [1] which is different than "we hang around people who change the world."
Sure, but Apple never hung around people who change the world, that wasn't their marketing message. Their marketing message was that people who change the world don't follow the pack, and at the time of this marketing message, the pack was Windows.
Also, the core value of the Apple brand is not "young and hip".
If you're nearing or over 30, ask yourself: have you made any fundamental scientific discoveries, conquered any world-wide empires, or founded any major religions? Many are called but few are chosen. And many of the young think they can. But as Steve covers himself, o cynical one, those are the ones who do.
An appeal to youth's vanity, yes; yet also the absolute true.
And let's not forget that there are people at Apple who actually are changing the world, with the "lame" ipod, the doubted ipad, and (the associated) pixar. That adds credibility; and the branding is also of Apple's identity to itself, for passionate workers, and to attract talent.
While watching the video, it was simple to agree on the analysis of Nike's brand/message. Then Jobs went to give Apple's message, and it struck me like as if he actually didn't know at the time. Compared with "honor great athletes" and "honor great athletics", the "we believe people with great passion can change the world for the better" seemed far too broad and general to be the actual message that people relate to with Apple.
I think Apple has actually made themselves several messages: they compare and contrast between the computer geek w/glasses to the normal person (computers for normal people), they target the "creative" crowd (cause rainbows and dancing is creative, numbers/math/text is not), and the combination of that brings the "popular" thing back to normal people (if you own Apple, you're not a geek, but you're still cool and not stupid).
Yeah, as soon as Apple removed "Computers" from their name they also stopped being a "tools for the passionate"-manufacturer. They now sell primarily media consumption devices.
Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the same core Jobs talks about in this video.
I thought an iPad was for consumption, not creation.
Then I found out it has not one, but two, complete office suites compatible with Microsoft Office. (Documents To Go, Pages, Numbers, Keynote).
Then I found out it could completely replace my guitar amp, with 5 different amps, 11 stomps, 5 cabinets, and 2 mics. (AmpliTube, AmpKit)
Then I found out it could do advanced photo editing. (PhotoGene, PhotoForge)
Then I found out it could create paintings for the cover of the New Yorker (Brushes, Layers)
Then I found out it could more quickly and easily do my homework than pen and paper could. (Penultimate)
Then I found out it could completely replace a DJ’s equipment. (Looptastic HD, AC-7 Pro, Pianist Pro)
These are just what I’ve come across in my relatively limited exposure to the iPad App Store, and even then only in my relative niches.
It’s still more than enough to tell me the invented dichotomy of “consumption vs. creation” for the iPad is completely false, yet somehow, it’s gained enough hold to generate just short of 4 million hits on Google.
So, next time some writer says you’ll need a non-existent PalmPad with a rumored stylus in order to do “real content creation”, or someone tries to equate a dedicated e-book reader to an iPad, or a competitor’s COO pretends their 9 year old “Tablet PC” initiative is somehow going to be better at content creation, using an operating system designed for a mice and keyboard, ignore it. They are relying on assumptions that aren’t born out from actually using the device and exploring the available software, or they are unaware of how young the platform is (it’s only been 7 months since developers were able to start programming for it, trust me, we’re only just starting to see real innovative apps released), or they are a competitor who is knocking on the iPad because they have to.
My iPad has replaced my notebooks, pens, paper, laptop, guitar amp, PS3, board games, and books. It will only be able to do more in the future.
After reading this comment, this is the first time I felt like I wanted an iPad. I never had a great personal use case for the iPad, but I'm starting to see what's possible with it.
Yes, you can use it for creating but it's not its primary purpose. Just as you can use a laptop for reading books. The experience is just so much better on an iPad.
It's a "lean back" consumption device not a "lean forward" production tool.
Come to think of it, perhaps it's more like a "lean back" production device.
Actually, this is one interesting spot that netbooks fill in the PC ecosystem as well. I use Kindle for PC all the time on mine, but then can still write blog posts, touchup images, etc. I'm not saying it's better or worse than an iPad, but it is filling a unique need, and I'm amazed how much different a computer feels when you can carry it around so easily (10 in. screen and <1kg) and still use it for a whole day. It's the promise of laptops, portable computing, fulfilled. And yes, it's way more a content consumption device, even though it's a PC. So there :)
The iPad is a tool like a torx screwdriver -- when you need to do something specific then it's awesome. (Perhaps even a multi-screw set -- when you load up different apps)
The DJs at night clubs, the knob-twiddler guys in indie rock bands, and the film students at the local university are all using Macs to make their art. In fact, I'd say Apple's devices and the tools they create to publish to those devices have done a lot to make these creators' lives easier.
Think about how much more music people listen to thanks to the ubiquity of iPods. Would the indie rock movement have had as much traction if it weren't for all those college kids looking for something to fill their iPods?
Not to mention iMovie, GarageBand, and iPhoto, plus their professional-level counterparts in Final Cut, Logic, and Aperture.
The iMac update was a spec bump (and a particularly minor one at that). There's not a whole lot of marketing message there. They made a much bigger deal when the current enclosure was introduced and when they released the 27" iMac earlier this year.
Just kidding. Good question! I think it has to do with the fact that the natural home for a computer is the desk while the natural home for the iPad is the sofa or the bed.
iOS devices are still honoring the core value of "giving people a way to change the world" if you consider how Apple is bringing customers to developers through the App store. Apple changed what is possible for a developer by giving them access to millions of customers, distribution, and a simple payment method.
Is that not the same as Evian's slogan - live young, or pepsi's marketing way back to the younger people. Everyone wants to be young and perhaps hip, even really old people want to get into the beat. Not that many people really want to or aspire to change the world however. Let alone the older age group, say in their 40s.
I think reading Apple's marketing as being about hip and cool says more about the anxieties and insecurities of the hacker culture than it does about what Apple is actually doing. In the first place, coolness is way oversaturated in advertising, trying to project a cool image is the fastest way to get lost in the noise. Authenticity is a much more important brand value to project than cool, and Apple succeeds at that.
I agree. For example, many people view the "Mac and PC" ads as being about uncool vs. cool -- I think the actual marketing message is more about technology-that-does-what-I-want vs. technology-that-doesn't-do-what-I-want[1]. The Mac in the ads is portrayed as transcending the petty hassles and inconveniences the PC gets caught up in, and letting the user simply accomplish their task with ease. It makes the Mac appear aloof and cool, but really it's just that he's portrayed as being at the finish line while the PC is still tying its shoes.
[1]: I mean "does what I want" in the "my mom can make a photo slideshow without tech support" sense, not the "I can install Linux on my iPhone if I want to" sense
What explanation do you offer for why the PC guy was just some suit and the Mac guy was a well-known, kinda funny young actor (certainly never in a suit)?
John Hodgman (the PC guy) is pretty well known and certainly funnier than Justin Long (the Mac guy). I think part of the effectiveness of the ads is that PC is portrayed as sympathetic, if somewhat clownish.
You could argue that these are somehow related, that the young and hip would be attracted by the Think Different ad. I don't dispute that. But the later ads of kids jamming with their iPod ear buds communicate a message that is much closer to the general perception of Apple as a brand today.
--
[1] In the clothing industry, this type of positioning wouldn't be noteworthy or distinguishing. But in consumer electronics, advertising more like Abercrombie & Fitch and less like IBM has worked out brilliantly for them.
[2] The pre-2000 perception of Apple's brand was also somewhat tangential to the idea of changing the world. Their core message was "we're not IBM." In the talk, Jobs mentions this shouldn't be their core message, but clearly it was. The 1984 ad reinforced this, and even the 1997 Think Different ad retrenched this ground by riffing off of IBM's motto.
[3] Edit: The idea that Apple's core customer is someone who "values their time" and is not a computer geek is meaninglessly broad. Every customer values his or her time, and in any mainstream industry, the vast majority of customers are not computer geeks.
[4] Edit: Was it the success of the iPod that made Apple hip, or was the perception of the iPod being hip part of what made it such a success? Clearly it did become a fashion accessory. The product's clean design was congruent with this message.