I opened the Boston Globe (yes, I still read a print version of the news!) earlier this week to a new, full page spread from Apple. There is apparently an accompanying broadcast campaign, which I have thus far only seen online: http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/11/apples-new-ad-campaign-focusing-on-branding-and-enriching-lives/
The trade reporting on this campaign is around Apple’s
strategy to defend itself against losses in market share to Android devices. As
the title of this post suggests, I have no insider knowledge about the accuracy
of this. But I am interested in the choice to focus on “brand appeal.”
Apple appears to be making an effort to help customers
connect more deeply to the product and to the people who make it. The ads are
signed, as the products are (if you look), Designed
by Apple in California.
I should note that these ads make no mention of what has
distinguished Apple in the past: technical excellence, product innovation, and
distinctive design. Of course, these three combined to create the cool factor
that nobody else could touch. So what does this new direction in marketing
communications mean, and what does it suggest about the future of Apple?
A colleague whose opinion I respect suggests that the new
campaign is Apple’s way of acknowledging that the company, and its market, have
changed. iPhones apparently appeal to baby boomers, not millenials and whatever
comes after that. So, he says, this campaign is designed to appeal to the soft
edges of the aging hippie generation. It’s not edgy, just as Apple has become
not-edgy.
To be certain, the brand has aged. All brands age. They develop a patina, or they don’t. They bow to
the past and create a new present and future, or they don’t. I am closest to
IBM, a company that stopped building computers—once the mainstay of the
business—and changed its focus to services and software. IBM evolved its brand,
leading with innovation in what it actually did. There were bumps in the road
to be sure—but IBM prevailed. From this and many experiences of companies and organizations
that have believed otherwise, we have learned that branding can’t lead as a
strategy; it’s not credible.
As I have written before, communications campaigns and
tagline without real change confuse, disappoint and ultimately alienate
consumers. But, for better or worse, this ad doesn’t even exactly suggest change … it suggests more of the same;
that Apple doesn’t really have anything new to say. What’s more, as another colleague
notes, nothing about Designed by Apple in
California has to date compelled anyone to buy the products. We already
know they’re designed by Apple and that’s why we consider them. Some of us prefer American-made products, but that's not specific to Apple (or, actually, part of the value of Apple products that the ad copy suggests).
So doesn’t this strategy seem risky?
Here’s the ad:
And here’s the thing that jumped out at me: the first Apple
evangelists were members of the creative professional community. Nothing about
this image suggests that this is a market they want to defend. So that’s
another strange thing about the strategy as represented in this first ad: it ignores the company's most loyal customers.
Again, isn’t that risky?
If my colleagues are correct, and if my
observation/hypothesis is at all credible, then this feels like Apple prefers at this point to draw in an aging population (but note that the woman depicted in
this ad is a good 10-15 years younger than the boomers, which is a bit
confusing) with little hope of retaining, or re-capturing, a market that will
always expect—no, demand—more as the ways in which it communicates, and works,
evolve. The campaign suggests something solid, but not something innovative.
The Apple brand experience that I know is a phenomenon. When
you buy an Apple product the very act of unpacking it is a treat. You know that
you’re paying for it, but you sense the thinking and care that goes into what
you’re buying. You may not be thrilled that you’re paying so much for it, but
you’re willing to deal.
The branded retail experience (Apple stores) is impeccable,
as is the service quality that goes along with it.
And, Apple products are easy to use. They’re easier to use
than other products, and over time they have become more reliable than other
products, because their platform is better. (Full disclosure: I use multiple
platforms.)
Most of these ideas are captured in the ad. But what’s
missing is energy. If this is positioning, it strikes me that we are seeing
here the part of Apple that is caught up in itself and not in the value of the
Apple experience as we once knew it.
Which was the explicit vision of Steve Jobs: to make things that you don’t
necessarily know you need until you see them, and then once you have them your
life, personal and professional, is changed for the better. That, in essence,
is what has in the past created Apple bigotry. Or evangelism.
It may not matter to everyone, but it matters. This is where
Apple leads. Nobody has touched them yet.
Are they giving up as easily as this ad suggests?
