The nice thing about dictatorships is that they get things done. There is no “in between” with a dictatorship like there is with a democracy, no compromise. In a way, this is what makes Apple great. Under Jobs, the direction of the brand has had a singular focus on producing his vision of great experiences for their customers. If it was an experience you liked, you could fill your life with perfectly designed, high-functioning, well integrated products. If you didn’t, you could move to something more democratic, say, Microsoft or Google, Sony or IBM.
The bad thing about a dictatorship is that once the leader looses it, the whole thing starts to come undone. And they always lose it. There’s always something, some person, some event, that starts to place seeds of doubt and in the end, that single point of vision becomes a tyrannical mess of paranoia and irrational behavior. It’s clear Jobs hates Google. Not in a competitive way, but in some deep, personal and increasingly irrational way. For a guy who seems to have never made much of a bad decision, this target fixation has seemed over the last months to begin to take him off his game.
iAd is, for me, the first real manifestation of this unraveling.
Thursday morning, I tried to get out of the house early so I could stop by Voodoo doughnuts on my way into the office. One of the advantages of having your own agency is that you can declare any day that Steve Jobs is on stage as a company holiday. I had made it known early in the week that we’d be taking the morning off and taking over the conference room to project various tech blogs, eat doughnuts, and talk about Apple magic as it happened. For most of the presentation, for 6 “tent poles”, thats exactly what we did. Then came tent pole 7, iAd.
Here is my fundamental problem with iAd: It’s make no sense from a brand strategy point of view. It’s irrational, and philosophically counter to nearly every previous decision Apple has made under Jobs. To be clear, it’s not crazy in the way that most people will ever notice, after all, most of us have spent the last 15 years being trained to expect display advertising as just a way of life. But advertising is fundamentally user hostile. That’s the core nature of it, it’s why it works. It makes you stop whatever you were doing and look at something else that you didnt choose to. While it probably seems histrionic to take something so seemingly small and blow it up to this size, I do believe this marks a fundamental change in motivation for Jobs and Apple.
What Id like to do is agree with people like John Gruber that Apples motivations are to preserve the overall user experience of the iPhone, and honestly up until iPhone 4, that has always been what I believed. But iAd negates that premise on fundamental level. This is the first time I can think of Apple has chosen to make money at the direct expense of it’s customers product experience. People can, and have, argued for a long time that those of us supporting Apple and its draconian control of it’s platforms we’re just begging for this to happen. But I think it’s critical to consider that until iAd, the goal was to create a specific notion of quality user experience. For many of people, it wasn’t the experience they wanted, but that it was customer focused is hard to deny.
Of course there are already ads in applications so it could be argued that iAd doesn’t really change much. Or, to Jobs’ point in the presentation, this is a chance to make those ads better. This line of reasoning doesn’t seem to hold water though either. For a company allegedly so focused on preservation of good user experience that they’re willing to through Adobe under a bus, why would they invest so heavily in making intrinsic to the iPhone experience a system that would invite what is arguably the worst aspect of user experience on the web into their device? I can’t think of a reason. But the real difference here is that with iAd, Apple has actual financial motivation to have the iPhone/App UX degraded. Previously, Apple could take no position on in App advertising, but now, with a 30% cut of each ad, the more ads that go out, the better Apple does.
One could argue that Apple introducing iAd is better for their customers in that it allows more developers more opportunity to create applications and make a living off them. And this is true. But if Apples motivation were bring more developers into the fold, why on the same day they announce iAd would they choose to proactively lock out Flash as a development platform. Gruber’s take on this, as it has been from the start, is the Flash is simply not capable of producing a user experience at a level Apple feels is on par with the overall device. Fair enough. But if UX is the central issue, it’s hard argue that in app advertising, ads Apple will not be vetting, produce any better UX than Flash. After all, iAd gives huge amounts of iPhone user experience control to ad agencies, people with no track record of being able to produce anything other than bad UX and no motivation, monetarily or otherwise, to do anything other than throw away work.
Rather than spending their time and resources to update the App Store, something thats been asked for from nearly day one, iAd seems to be an investment by Apple in a race to the bottom. Tying application developers’ livelihood to the same display ad system that has left huge parts of the content creation industry on the web in shambles. Why not instead invest in making structural updates to the actual purchasing process to help elevate the developers doing the best work, and then help them find a way to actually charge a living wage for their work? Why not take the same, revolutionary approach Apple always has and find a way to free developers from having to find ad real-estate in their applications so they can focus on continuing to make their, and Apple’s, products even better?
The only logical answer is clear: To beat Google.
But given that a company whose name has always been tied to changing the game, such an investment in playing someone else’s game leaves me wondering: does Apple have the cultural and organizational underpinnings to manage a system that is both open to outside development and the clear frontrunner in a category, while maintaining their history of a clear focus on user experience? If iAd is any indication, the answer is no.
With Mac, Apple has always been able to be the contrarian second place. Making huge profits while catering to a smaller, but vastly more loyal base of fans. The iPod on the other hand is clearly the industry leading platform, but it’s closed. Apple has always had top to bottom control of everything that goes it save for the music. iPhone is something different though. It’s neither the plucky niche product of Mac, nor the highly controlled iPod.
In Apple’s seemingly desperate effort to control this rapidly expanding system, the strains on the dictatorial system are becoming evident, and it’s not clear Apple has the systems in place to stay sane. In fact, it would seem this new found position has resulted in increased paranoia and a fixation on beating specific competitors in specific ways rather than making revolutionary advancements. That they would try to lump iAd in with other user focused features is either completely disingenuous, or evidence of increasing detachment from reality. For whatever reason, Jobs has decided his mission now is to beat Google first, beat Adobe second, everything else comes third, including Apple user experience.
This isn’t to say that Apple will stop making good products, they’ll likely continue to for a long while. But as a post-Jobs Apple moves nearer, the questions of what drives the company without him become more important. iAd is a strong signifier of the kind of brand confusion that I think is beginning to emerge, and without Jobs in place, the “do what it takes to make money” path is now just viable as the “make great products” one. We’ve all seen “money at any cost” Apple of the 90′s, and it wasn’t pretty.
The good news is this: if you do manage to punch the monkey, you’ll win an iPad.
Justin,
Brilliant post. Truly.
At the heart of it is your clear disgust for the standard banner ad. While I mostly agree, it seems slightly grandiose to read such depth into what iAd is today. Could this not be the beginning of the “Apple-ization” of online advertising starting on their own platform? Could they not be taking a page from Google (in an effort to crush them) by quickly converting a purchased asset into a new product offering in an effort to learn and revolutionize on the fly?
As you suggest, it could possibly be an Apple TV-like effort — half hearted, or it could be a toe dip into an area where they seem to be dedicated to the long haul (mobile). Also, mobile advertising is another massive revenue stream, elegant or not.
Again, brilliant post. I’m glad to know you : )
Marko Z Muellner
Director of Marketing Programs
Webtrends
@markozmuellner
Hey Marko – Im glad you liked it. So, could this be the Apple-ization of online advertising? I suppose it could be, certain Jobs seems that it is. I’d love it if turned out to be true. But, as you’ve pointed out, I’m not a huge fan of display advertising to start with. Given this, I’m not sure there IS an Apple version of display advertising, and what was shown at the iPhone 4 preview certainly wasn’t it. At least not to me.
My suspicion, and I’m not sure it’s that far of a stretch, is that iAd has nothing to with improving things for developers or Apple customers, and everything to do with making sure no one else (Google) is making money serving ads on their devices. While this is the type of ham handed business tactic is pretty common, it’s a new, and for me, troubling direction for Apple. For the last almost 15 years Apple has been winning by making great products, this is the first time I can think of they’re trying to win by playing someone else’s ugly game.
A few quick points:
-I think Jobs’ beef with Google isn’t so much out and out hatred. I think it’s more inline with his beef with Microsoft in the 80′s and 90′s: How did a company with zero taste get so successful. It offends him that the masses will settle for “good enough” instead of demanding elegance.
>For a company allegedly so focused on preservation of good user experience that they’re willing to through Adobe under a bus
(I’m going to assume this is about the lack of Flash in Mobile Safari, not disallowing cross-compiled apps in the App Store)
The phrase “throw Adobe under a bus” seems to imply that Apple *could* have put Flash in Mobile Safari, but chose not to, in order to win.
I think we’re seeing from Adobe’s current attempts to put Flash on mobile devices that it’s about power and efficiency: mobile devices just don’t have the power, and Adobe is incapable of writing efficient plugins for low-power devices.
However, from a UX standpoint: how does a device without a permanent keyboard and mouse interact with a plugin that expects a keyboard and mouse to always be available?
>ads Apple will not be vetting
Apple will be vetting ads:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/08/steve_jobs_admits_apple_tried_to_buy_admob_warns_of_porn_on_android.html
> The only logical answer is clear: To beat Google.
Mobile advertising is going to be a giant space. A space Google has barely touched, but is poised to dominate. Apple is in a unique position to get there first. Considering how the vast majority of Google’s revenue comes from search ads, I don’t see how Apple can really stand by and allow Google to gain a massive strategic advantage (not to mention gobs of revenue) on their own platform.
On the Google vs. MS thing, I’m not sure I agree with you there. From where I stand, Jobs seems fixated on Google.
As for the Adobe comment, I actually WAS talking about cross-compiling, as that’s the aspect that relates directly to the app store and thus, iAd. For the record, as an Apple customer, I don’t care about Flash on mobile Safari, or as a tool for app development. If it doesn’t perform well, then keep it off. That said, the way Apple handled this did leave a bad a taste my mouth. It seems clear that there was no communication between Adobe and Apple that Apple would be locking them out of the app dev game based on the public feedback from Adobe. Not that Apple has any requirement to do so, business is business, but given that Adobe had been very public about the upcoming cross-compiling feature of CS5, I can’t see another way to view Apples move than a quick shove in front of that bus. Again, this is an ethical point, so take that for what it’s worth.
More to the point of the post though, it seems flatly disingenuous for Apple to claim the ground of user experience when talking about about Adobe; and at the same time take an active, financial position in the degradation of the app user experience by not just enabling, but encouraging in app advertising. Maybe it’s me, but I cannot reconcile these actions in any logical way.
As for the vetting – here is the man himself: “11:12AM Q: Will there be an ad approval process? A: (Jobs… super long pause) Um… well there’s going to be some process… but these people are paying to run ads. So, I’m not sure it’ll be anything other than a light touch.”
The added punch here that I left out of the main post is that while Apple has seen fit to exert draconian and often bizarre control over the apps in their store, the fundamental reason iAd can even exist, they seem all but ready to cash in on shitty display ads.
As for the last point, it sounds like we agree then? iAd is a Google beater. It’s not a feature, it’s certainly not user experience enhancement. As I said, I would have liked to see Apple make an investment in helping developers get paid for what they do instead of become just the latest bucket into which we pour advertising. They’re smart enough to do it. They’re rich enough to do it. But doing that doesn’t beat Google.
Any way, I’m not about to claim this wasn’t shrewd strategic business move on Apples part. They will likely make even more cash than they already do. But I think my fundamental question stands: Does Apple possess the cultural underpinnings to maintain a front-running, open device while remaining fundamentally Apple? To me, recent actions suggest no.
I agree with your initial assessment, but I disagree that this work stems from Apple hating Google. Apple hates most web advertising, at least how it has been done so far. Apple sees advertising not as hostile, but something to look forward to when done well. Something to talk about. They see ads as an art form. Their own TV ads are often linked to and viewed on the web because they are entertaining. They see all brands capable of achieving this level of value with their advertising.
Many of the brands that have launched apps in the app store are faced with a problem, “How will an iPhone/iPad user discover my app and install it?” Look at Gap. They have an iPad application that explores the world of Gap Jeans. Right now, if I’m on an the iPad, the only way to discover that application is by accessing iTunes and searching for The Gap. If advertising relies on some element of interruption, then locating something in iTunes will not work to promote brand apps. What iAds provides is a way for brands to create an entry point into installing an app for the brand outside of iTunes exploration. Each example Jobs demo’ed with iAd (Nike, Toy Story, and Target) had a link to an actual app to install. What Apple solved or is attempting to provide with iAds, is for users to be introduced to and install more apps created by brands.
Hey Justin – thanks for the thoughts. So, here is my thinking right now on the points you bring up:
I think one of the fundamental issues with brands/agencies moving into the app space is that there is a fair amount of confusion on the relationship between distribution channels and awareness channels. When one speaks of traditional methods of advertising, they’re the same. But with digital, and with the app store specifically, they’re quite different, and this is something most agencies haven’t been able to conceptualize.
How this manifests itself in your example of the Gap application is that the app itself is presented to the client as an awareness driving mechanism, when in fact it much close to product development, and as such, it requires awareness driving all its own. One might compare it to the Gap opening a new store, it is a brand effort, but it’s not advertising, and in fact may require advertising of its own. The app store in this metaphor is the mall. It enables the creation of the store, but does nothing to be a traffic driver, save for drawing in people by virtue of other stores. So, to some extent, iAd could be seen as people walking around the Gap store wearing sandwich boards advertising the local movie theater. Except I think iAd takes things one step further: because I’m actually buying the application thats housing the advertisement, it would be as though the Gap had somehow attached advertising the jeans I bought and could display that while I’m trying to wear them.
I like your mall metaphor. In this case, it is a mall with hundreds of thousands of stores. That is a usability challenge for anyone tasked with developing a virtual storefront that is fair to all.
What Apple did with iAds is to give the brands with budgets the ability to advertise in the free non-Brand apps. Your example of sandwich boards walking around the Gap is not quite accurate. However, it could work the other way around. The local movie theater might allow Gap sandwich boards, or better yet, for Gap to advertise during “the twenty”.
I have to thank Nate for making most of the points I was going to make.
I also have to emphasize the idea that Apple can’t afford to stand by and do nothing. So, they come up with the iWork of mobile advertising: it looks better, it might work better, and if advertisers have to intrude to support apps, it should suck less, right?
Reading your post reminds me of John Sircusa’s Ars article, “Apple’s wager,” as it echoes the themes that if this works, it could help them expand and have more success, but if it fails, they’re painting themselves into a corner. In both the case of iAd and the developer agreement constrictions, the gamble has been played, and now we get to see how it will play out. Will iAd offer *any* semblance of the iPhone app gold rush, or will it be only slightly relevant, and not worth pouring time into to get better customer engagement and possibly better customer satisfaction from the intrusions we’ve all been conditioned to expect or be “on guard” for?
To quote the Shakespeare of our era: “I for one welcome our new alien overlords.” – The Simpsons
Man – you and Nate…geez…
Any way – Indeed Apple, or any brand, can never afford to stand by and do nothing. But, when viewed specifically from the perspective of the iPhone/customer relationship, building an ad platform to combat an ad platform is about as close to doing nothing as they could have done. It does nothing to rectify the challenges of developers who want to make solid, legit applications and who can neither charge a living wage for them, nor get them elevated above the sea of “look, its like Im holding a beer, but its NOT a beer, its my PHONE!” applications. In fact, it makes the situation far far worse for them in that iAd only serves to build a better garden for people who are looking to make those disposable applications as a container for ad sales. And it certainly does nothing to make the iPhone a better experience for Apple customers.
Merlin Mann had a great tweet today:
“Relying on ads alone for revenue is like quitting school to join Creed—sure, you’ll make SOMETHING, but it won’t be anyone’s favorite thing.”
That concept may not be important to a lot of brands, but it used to be important to Apple.
As for iAd making ads better, I’m not sure there is a ton of reason to be hopeful about that. HTML5 doesn’t have anything built into it that would make a CD at any agency suddenly care about making good user experience. This is something I would love to be wrong about, but I would bet a lot of money right now that what we’ll see will no better than online advertising is now, and ultimately a lot worse because it will be harder to escape.
Since I’m pulling other peoples tweets, this sums my position up nicely:
Advertisers don’t care about your experience. They care about your attention. If your exp gets in the way of your attention, guess what?
And this is what is so disturbing to me – for a brand that was built around great customer experiences, Apple suddenly has a lot of financial incentive to not care about us.
I can’t help but jump back in.
Justin S is right, it’s unlike the Apple overlords to cede creative control to anyone, especially not the broadcast-obsessed brands and their rich agencies. The hypocrites do so at OUR expense.
BUT, shitty ads, with shitty experiences with shitty offers WILL under perform and MAYBE Apple can figure out a way to keep the crap out (doubt out).
In my opinion, the most important insight here is that as Marketers become Publishers (one of my favorite evolutions) the ones that have a user-centered obsession will win, and win big — regardless of what Apple does.
Interesting point Marko. Let me offer up an alternative outlook – marketer as product designer. eh, eh? Did I just blow you mind or what?!
At any rate, it’s something I believe in, and something I think digital actually demands. Getting away from the crutch of “narrative” and focusing on building positive user experiences are key, especially as you’ve pointed out, when you’re on an Apple device.
As for bad work under-performing, I certainly hope so, but I think you indirectly raise another important aspect that differentiates iAd from other ad platforms: Because these ads are just as likely to be placed in productivity software (god I hope I’m wrong about that) as they are in “fun” apps, poorly executed ads threaten not only the advertiser, but the perception of the application developer. Imagine a mortgage rate ad popping up every time you wanted to use the camera. That Apple isn’t placing ads in their own apps I think says a lot about the risk here.
At any rate, because I’ll likely still be getting another iPhone (still, sadly, better than anything else I’ve seen) I really hope solid devs offer up ad free applications. I would (and do) HAPPLY pay for great applications that aren’t handicapped with advertising.
Very good piece Justin. What irks me to no end is how Adobe is effectively shut out of the walled eden while everyone else (ad creators) is now let in to post interactive, bandwidth and processor intensive ads all over users’ apps. True, Adobe is trying to cash in on all this app craze and that opens holes in the garden walls, but saying it’s all about UX while on the other hand giving incentives to annoy users shows they are indeed going overboard. Maybe they think they’re allowed to do anything they fancy now, who knows. And the prices asked for delivering those ads are 4-5 times regular advertising rates too!!!
I like your mall metaphor. In this case, it is a mall with hundreds of thousands of stores. That is a usability challenge for anyone tasked with developing a virtual storefront that is fair to all.
What Apple did with iAds is to give the brands with budgets the ability to advertise in the free non-Brand apps. Your example of sandwich boards walking around the Gap is not quite accurate. However, it could work the other way around. The local movie theater might allow Gap sandwich boards, or better yet, for Gap to advertise during “the twenty”.
Hey Bruce – thanks for the feedback.
Sure, we could flip the example around, but in either case, the end customer experience is non-ideal. I don’t want a guy walking up and down the aisle shilling for the Gap while I’m watching a movie and more than I want I to be sold on Avatar 2 while I’m trying to buy pants.
In the end, of course it happens. As you point out, movie theaters sell ads in the twenty. Other companies do partner marketing. The difference is that Apple has built their brand on creating great experiences for their customers. If I wanted average, I’d buy a Dell.