Mashable's Lance Ulanoff raises the question of whether Apple should have advertised during Super Bowl XLVI. He points out that 28 years after the debut of the "1984" commercial that Apple sat on the sidelines and allowed its rivals to mock it during the most-watched show in U.S. television history.
"By not appearing at the Super Bowl, Apple is letting its competition frame the discussion. Founder and former CEO Steve Jobs, who died months before the Samsung ads started airing, would likely have wanted to create some sort of counter attack. He was, after all, the chief architect of the Macintosh and the remarkable first ad promoting it," Ulanoff argues.
Jobs also knew when to back away and let the buzz build.
Right before the Super Bowl, Tested posted a look at the same sort of ads that aired during the game from the iPhone's competitors, as well as other offerings. The ads are fun to watch, Ryan Whitwam points out, but they don't represent the product well. Even in the much-touted Super Bowl ad, the Galaxy Note spends seconds on screen. Instead, you get a huge street party with a chorus and dancers.
Apple's iPhone ads, by contrast, show off how the phone works. This is what makes people want one, Whitman said.
I agree with Whitman. The ads are eye-catching in the way that Apple's "1984" ad was 28 years ago, but times have changed and people are a lot more savvy when buying tech now. Apple now has the winning strategy of showing off what their devices can actually do, and that pulls in the sales. Plus, Apple particularly isn't hurting in the sales department. They needed the Super Bowl in 1984. They don't need it now.
|Yes, they needed to be right up there by Clint Eastwood.||168 (12.2%)|
|No, they didn't need to run an ad.||861 (62.7%)|
|I wouldn't have minded one way or another.||344 (25.1%)|