Apple's iAds Vs. TV Spots
July 8, 2014
You may have seen this article in Advertising Age.
The headline says: Apple, Campbell's Say iAds Twice as Effective as TV.
Couple of points to consider...
- The minimum cost to create an iAd with Apple is $1 million.
- Guess who paid for the study that "proved" iAds are twice as effective as TV spots?
I don't own Apple stock, so I don't really care if you spend a few million dollars for them to create and run spots for you on iPhones and iPads.
Radio has long been the cheapest -- and I use that word purposely -- of all media when it comes to ad creation.
Local spots are rarely written by professional writers, nor voiced by professional voice actors and from what I hear in most markets, we get what we pay for.
Apple could have thought as Radio always has, especially since they created a new form of advertising, for mobile consumption, and it was untested. They could have gratefully accepted anything submitted by advertisers, or made the cost of production as inexpensive as possible to build up the business.
But that has never been Apple's way.
Setting a minimum cost of creation at $1 million sent a powerful message, not only to advertisers, but all other media on which those advertisers could spend their money.
It's a message of quality, of value.
It says "Even if you don't value your brand enough to care how it is perceived, we value ours and we won't accept advertising that makes our brand look cheap. We won't accept advertising that has little chance of working because in the long run, that will hurt our brand, and our ability to continue asking for a premium to link your brand to ours."
Isn't it well past time for your NAB and RAB dues to be spent proving radio ads work?
We fund studies to tell us "What Women Think" and how HD radio is perceived. We make a big deal out of studying how "normal" people listen to radio in their bedrooms.
Why don't we spend some money to prove our ads work?
They do work, don't they?
Because cheapest is only an advantage if they still work.