Brian Steinberg recently wrote a post for Ad Age titled "Apple's Rare Ad Misstep: Celebrity Siri Ads That Slice the Wrong Way," where he criticized two commercials—one with Samuel L. Jackson, the other with Zooey Deschanel—from Apple's recent ad campaign.
An incredibly smart guy, Steinberg frequently writes for Ad Age regarding big television networks. Fortunately for this blog, I feel he has made a rare misstep with his post. What follows is the ad in question and a quote-to-quote rebuttal.
Did Apple mess up?
Brian Steinberg: "I'd like to argue that the commercials mark a singular — and heretofore rare — misstep for the popular consumer-electronics company, which ought to be producing ads that appeal to the broadest possible crowd rather than a narrow class of wealthy, privileged or unique."
Evan VanDerwerker: I'd agree that Apple should produce ads that appeal to a large crowd; however, I think that's what they've done. Steinberg seems to misinterpret who Samuel L. Jackson and Zooey Deschanel are. Jackson is the highest-grossing actor to date, which says something about his ability to relate to this audience. Furthermore, Jackson comes equipped with an unexplainable stigma (at least for my demographic): What? Samuel L. Jackson is making risotto? That's pretty boss.
And, Deschanel relates in the same way—adorably awkward. Yes, both celebrities are wealthy, privileged, and unique, but that's why we like them. We admire them; though, admittedly not in the same way we admire our parents or our older siblings. We think they're cool. They are cool. What Apple has done has put a product in the hands of enigmatically cool people—a product that is well within the financial reach of many people.
I would also argue that all Apple products play to the only-for-a-select-few way of thinking. I don't use any of their products, but Apple is one of the only brands that compels me to purchase products because it's Apple. "Privileged" and "unique" are what Apple sells—along with capability, innovation, and Angry Birds.
B.S.: "And don't forget the recent series of "Mac vs. PC" ads that portrayed Microsoft as a fussy, bumbling, paunchy leave-behind when compared with the hip-but-straightforward Mac."
E.V.: Let's not forget that the "hip-but-straightforward Mac" was Justin Long, a quite wealthy, privileged, and unique celebrity. Would the ad campaign have been as effective if the Mac character was hip-but-straightforward nobody?
Are personal assistants unwanted by everyone?
B.S.: "The new spots basically position Siri as a substitute for the expensive and extraneous personal assistants and go-fers that seem so prevalent in the pampered culture of Hollywood."
E.V.: I would argue that the success of Siri is largely a result of how nifty it is. Sure, it is easier then popping online and doing a search, but who is really going to say "Siri, find me a bathroom" in public? Heck, I'd be uncomfortable having Siri find me a restaurant. (There's something about talking at my phone that feels a little Spy-Kids-esque.) Yet, I'm intrigued by the software, and I'd love to try it.
Furthermore, the advertisements do paint Siri as a personal assistant, and to that I applaud. Apple is supplying everyone who has a smart phone an "expensive" personal assistant who pampers them with mundane answers. Genius.
I understand Steinberg's point. He claims that people won't buy Siri because it seems unnecessary, it makes people seem lazy. For any other brand, I'd agree. Apple simply is not interpreted by consumers that way. Apple makes unnecessary technology seem necessary. Siri is another piece to the puzzle.
B.S.: "For millions of Americans facing unemployment and a lack of health insurance, or even the prospect of dwindling help from Medicare or Social Security, purchasing such a machine to help track down organic mushrooms is likely the furthest thing from their minds."
E.V.: But, smart phones are?
How are consumers watching ad campaigns?
B.S.: "But marketers can't usually rely on consumers to watch new ads in the context of prior ads. Today's customer is far too distracted and busy to do such a thing in the moment. Consumers don't remember ad campaigns; they just remember ads."
E.V.: Steinberg has ignored the concept of brand equity. Kia's hip-hopping hamsters, E-Trade's talking babies, Jared, Taco Bell's Chihuahua, or the Energizer bunny. These are all ad campaigns amidst other advertisements by the same companies. Steinberg is right. People take advertisements individually, and they remember ads individually. They will remember this advertisement because it has Samuel L. Jackson in it.
Even so, Apple isn't selling Samuel L. Jackson's life. Apple is selling Siri. You can't interpret an advertisement so literally. It's obvious that the commercial is an "advertisement," a quick celebrity appeal meant to improve awareness of the product. No consumers (and the sales numbers seem to agree) are thinking "Well, obviously I don't need that…I don't even like mushrooms." Instead, consumers are thinking "It talks back? Cool!"
In conclusion?
What I feel are my primary rebuttals include the following:
- Steinberg misinterprets what Jackson and Deschanel represent: Yes, they are filthy rich, but we like them.
- Steinberg applies old marketing techniques with the new media landscape, and seems to ignore the ever-changing nature of both.
- Steinberg ignores what Siri is for the common consumer. (Just the fact that it talks back is good enough.)
To read Brian Steinberg's post, visit Advertising Age. Use the comment box to further the discussion!
Related posts:
- Brian Clark Might be Wrong: Why People Do Want the "Real" You
- Jerry Chautin Might be Wrong: Why QR Codes are NOT the Next Big Thing
