It will be the only phone with one of these:
And that alone is enough to sell millions of them.
Posted on 03/29/2007 10:54:25 AM PDT by The_Victor
BERKELEY (MarketWatch) -- The hype over the unreleased iPhone has actually increased over the past month despite the fact that nobody has seen or used the device. This, if nothing else, proves the power of branding and especially the power of brand loyalty.
It's the loyalists who keep promoting this device as if it is going to be anything other than another phone in a crowded market. And it's exactly the crowded-market aspect of this that analysts seem to be ignoring.
Apple Inc.'s past successes have been in markets that were emerging or moribund. Its biggest hit has been the iPod. But let's examine what happened here.
First the MP3 player business was segmented and unfocused with numerous players making a lot of cheap junk and not doing much to market any of it.
Apple does what? Advertise. Gosh, what a concept.
It advertises on TV, on billboards and on the Internet. Within no time the company takes over the business that would probably still be languishing without Apple.
Thus Apple does what it does best. It produces a jazzy product and promotes it like any good business should do. And in the process manages to get a high margin.
This is nothing more than the fundamentals.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Will you settle for configuring for different Wi-Fi networks one time as you come into contact with them?
That's admittedly a very good deal, and quite a lot less than it's offered from my service provider.
http://www.vzwshop.com/?ZipCode=24555&ProgramCode=buytreo
The cost of the thing is where I drew the line, when I was considering waiting to upgrade my phone. The iPhone is something like $499 to $599, depending on memory. I have a Cingular 8525, which is a pocket PC, plays songs from iTunes on my 2G memory card and is a phone. It cost me $350. I guess if you don't already own an iPod or MP3 player and want to upgrade your cell phone to the iPhone, it may be a bargain.
"It's the loyalists who keep promoting this device as if it is going to be anything other than another phone in a crowded market. And it's exactly the crowded-market aspect of this that analysts seem to be ignoring."
It's 1978 again and I think personal computers are just a fad. They will never take off....
It will be the only phone with one of these:
And that alone is enough to sell millions of them.
I feel extremely confident in saying that Apple will do precisely as you prescribe. The degree of Apple's success will remain to be seen, but Apple isn't going to lose money on the iPhone. The pod people will assure Apple's profit.
Brand chic aside, unless this iPhone does something new, better or easier than what we have now, it'll sit on store shelves............
Cool but not a new technology. My digital camera (Canon SD630 elph) does that. Of course, I can't call anyone on my digital camera.
The thing is they're really gunning after a new consumer market.
The question isn't what they think, it's pretty rare that management actually thinks a new product line will fail, the question is what's actually going to happen. 10% is actually a pretty big chunk of market, especially for something running twice the cost of the competition.
I think Apple's margin is actually going to be pretty high (at least to start), they tend to maintain a high margin on stuff. The question becomes will they be able to keep the traditional Apple margin in a tooth and nail industry.
I was addressing the notion that the iPhone would be "a coast" like the iPod.
Nobody thinks that will happen, not even Apple.
I've looked at Apple's presentation of features, http://www.apple.com/iphone/phone/ , and it seems to me that, once again, the major difference is in the intuitive interface. There's a market for this feature alone. For example in the ease it promises in checking messages, making calls, call conferencing, etc. It looks like a major improvement in UI. Just a better device in normal use.
However, I'm not a cell phone junkie, I have a 150 dollar two year old phone and a pay as you go plan. I'm mostly proud of only paying about 9 bucks a month now for my limited mobile needs. I just want a phone that works. So I'm not their market.
However, I do know that there's a sizable number of mostly younger folks to whom a cell phone is a major accessory and status symbol. They get new ones pretty much every year, like a fashion. If the iPhone has this cache, if Apple continues its knack here, I think it will be quite profitable for them.
It also leverages well with iTunes and with their new tv offerings. The question mark I have about the whole enterprise is the Cingular piece of the deal.
 |
This is not about a rational appraisal of the thing's features! Apple's zombie horde of loyalists only care about Apple's name! |
And how does a name become a Name? It's branding.
thanks for your reply. I do get the satire, however..
Do you think people like Apples, therefore buy anything named Apple?
Of course not. Apple made it's name valuable by it's development of good user interface and by its high value for design. And of course by advertising and marketing its brand well.
I agree the name now has sales power, that's the whole point of branding. But branding is more than just a name.
So, if the iPhone is not a level above in user interface and in design/packaging, the brand will suffer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Writer Naomi Klein is a leading critic of branding, especially Apple's. Klein, author of No Logo, argues that companies like Apple are no longer selling products. They are selling brands, which evoke a subtle mix of people's hopes, dreams and aspirations.
Klein notes how Benetton used images of racial harmony to sell clothes, while Apple used great leaders -- Cesar Chavez, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama -- to persuade people that a Macintosh might also allow them to "Think Different."
"People are drawn to these brands because they are selling their own ideas back to them, they are selling the most powerful ideas that we have in our culture such as transcendence and community -- even democracy itself, these are all brand meanings now," she told the Guardian newspaper.
...
The "1984" ad began a branding campaign that portrayed Apple as a symbol of counterculture -- rebellious, free-thinking and creative. According to Charles Pillar, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, this image is a calculated marketing ploy to sell expensive computers.
"Expressions of almost spiritual faithfulness to the Mac, although heartfelt, weren't a purely spontaneous response to a sublime creation," he wrote. "They were a response to a calculated marketing ploy to sell computers that cost much more than competing brands.
"I'm not making this up. Members of the Mac's original engineering and marketing team told me all about it. They did it by building a sense of belonging to an elite club by portraying the Mac as embodying the values of righteous outsiderism and rebellion against injustice. It started in the early '80s with the famous '1984' TV commercial that launched the Mac, and continued with 'The computer for the rest of us' slogan and several ad campaigns playing on a revolutionary theme."
Steve Manning, co-founder of Igor, a brand consultancy in San Francisco, California, said even a seasoned professional like himself is seduced. "Even though I understand this stuff, I’ve bought into it," he said. "I own four Macs. They’re more expensive, but the advertising and marketing works."
[Apple: It's All About the Brand, Leander Kahney, 12.04.02, WIRED]
People like stuff that works the way it's supposed to. Their loyalty is based on experience. Duh! Describing brand loyalty as "almost spiritual faithfulness", or a computer as a "sublime creation" is about as pompous and silly as it gets.
"I own four Macs. They’re more expensive, but the advertising and marketing works."
So do the computers. If they didn't he wouldn't own any. He's just hyping the power of marketing because he sells marketing.
ah, shades of Vance Packard's "Hidden Persuaders"..
There really is little new under the sun, only different ways of describing and naming it.
What they're referring to here is image advertising. As opposed to product advertising. Image advertising's beginning is usually traced to a famous beer taste test in which a very large number of subjects couldn't tell the difference between major brands.
If taste had little to do with it, then what to we tout? Image, identification, group membership. "Be young, be goodlooking, be popular, be sexy, buy..."
Though image and image advertising has become a piece of all branding, it is most effective in similar markets where there is little difference in key product attributes. There are some famous examples where image was key, but these are rare and fit the requirement that no major underlying product difference exists. I'm far from identifying with Cesar Chavez, yet I've used Macs for thirty years as my main work machines. I'd switch to MS in a heartbeat if I could be more productive.
So you have a point, albeit one exaggerated by marketing hype about marketing hype.
And like all magic bullets, image advertising really doesn't work all by itself. And it doesn't work on all target audiences. If Apple did not do the work to make their product truly different and the design were clunky, it wouldn't have worked for them. Think about it. "Think Different" also fits it's branding in more ways than rebellion. And the product delivers on the deeper promise.
There's no dearth of folks willing to believe that product buyers are robots subliminally manipulated by puppet master advertising experts. And no lack of marketing "gurus" ready to sell an old idea as the latest magic way to sell anything to everybody. It fits many people's low view of humanity and it sells a lot of books.
thanks for your reply..
A little levity:
Apple Computer announced today that it has developed a computer chip that
can store and play music in women's breast implants.
The iBreast will cost $499 to $599.
This is considered to be a major breakthrough because women are always
complaining about men staring at their breasts and not listening to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.