Right next to the state which must have a huge marketing budget, LOUISIANA.
Yup. And I doubt they'd change that for what would be a new product line. Maybe if it was an unmistakable image of an iPhone or AirPods or something, they could experiment with ditching the logo, but for the vague outline of a smartphone? I don't see it.
Pretty effective, considering. I mean, I’ve seen it and I live nowhere near NY.
You’re being pretty shortsighted. “They always put their logo” is not much of a slam dunk as you seem to think it is. Shaking things up is a possibility, and that is what we’re seeing here IMO.
So it is effective if it’s not Apple, but not effective if it is Apple. Got it. Choose one.
I hear you and I keep going back and forth. The shape of the device, or case, or whatever it is, screams Apple to me. But at the same time, even they tell people it's them when they're showing off their stuff. Has it all been digital billboards so far? Like someone else mentioned, I supposed they could throw their logo (or more info) up once the tease makes more sense, as opposed to a static billboard. I want to say it feels like something kinda big, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.
It appears like it's all been digital billboards, but they could just as easily add logos to physical billboards as well, especially for the kind of money they have to spend on this stuff.
OK so this confirms that the post yesterday wasn't photoshopped at all.
No, it’s pretty long-sighted to take a quick look at ALL Apple advertising available online, and recognize that they’ve never not included their logo.
It’s effective, period. Because they got noticed. Because, whomever they are, were able to do a good enough job to get folks, who likely know how Apple does things (including always including their logo), to take pictures, post multiple threads (some which were coalesced back into one) and tell OTHER people about it. They’re getting folks to do a part of their jobs for them for free, viral marketing in a nutshell.
And even looking at companies that do famously omit logos (e.g. McDonalds) — the imagery in the ads is unmistakably their product. This could be an iPhone, it could be a Samsung, it could be a Xiaomi, it could be anything.
I agree it’s effective. I was making the point against the other poster that no one is paying attention/it’s not effective.
There are some logical fallacies at play here lol. Fallacy of hasty generalization and appeal to tradition are two that come to mind. I’ve said before in this thread that shaking things up seems like a real possibility with how this ad is being presented. Ad campaigns CAN vary over time. Apple is labeling this product as new and innovative. As such, it stands to reason their approach to announcing this CAN be different than any other typical Apple ad.
Yeah, changing the style can be a possibility especially running this TV ads on TS and penn station is not that expensive for the sake of trying and market research for apple researchers afterwards. Even the left out childish notes (freshman bachelor student of marketing) looks like controlled leak - this is another marketing of something left at the cafe when in fact might be intentional.
A post on MacRumors doesn't mean something is effective, especially given that no one even knows what the ad is for. And even once we do find out, unless it results in device sales, it's not effective.
If you look at this ad and don’t think Apple, you’re fooling yourself. It’s as effective as it needs to be for a company like Apple. Thousands of people in Time Square are seeing this - it will do the job Apple wants it to do.
I’d say it’s “effective” in the weakest definition of the word. It’s essentially tricking someone into communicating their message, and then depends on that person being effective in having someone else communicate the message they received. I didn’t see the ad first hand, so it was “effective” in getting to my eyes, but I’ve told no one in my circle of friends so, as far as it goes, that particular thread pointed in my direction dies with me.
Well one of the most greatly perceived movies is one with DiCaprio on an island with no definitive ending - so much buzz around it but you never get to know was he a psycho running from there or indeed a doctor who got crazy because of the place?
Yeah, I was wondering that, too. And how many were sent to Apple with Apple going “This is the fourth one of these we’ve gotten, why are people sending us this?”
inspiriaoutdoor.com
And for just a static image for 15 seconds? $40 a pop depending on were it’s being displayed!
This assumes it's an Apple ad in the first place. Lots of signs point to it not being one. And if it's not then a random company has just advertised a non-existant Apple product to you. Not a great use of money IMO.
That's not even close to being comparable. A movie isn't an ad campaign. The movie is the product, and, as a piece of narrative art, it doesn't need to have a firm conclusion or a definitive ending. If you're watching it, you've paid your money and the business objective is already met.