Talk:Apple Inc. advertising/Archives/2012

needs work
This is a new page and needs alot of tuning.

I'm not knowledgable enough to add much, but some suggestions for direction: --Nemo 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * iPod advertising shouldn't be first. imho, Apple is still mroe famous for the 1984 ad
 * 1984 ad should have it's own section.
 * chronological review of advertising of the good (1984, iMac, iPod, mac/pc guys), as well as the bad and ugly (the 1985 'Lemmings' is already cited as a failure.
 * Note the advertising firm Apple uses (I believe they've used the same firm ever since the famous 1984 ad, possibly earlier?)

Ok, I will make those changes - good ideas. I have just been studying at school advertising (especially apple advertising) so if you have any questions, just ask them here

symode09 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Failure
Main Page
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

I think the last sentence from the paragraph, Think Different, feels a little out of place.

Think Different was an advertising slogan created by the New York branch office of advertising agency TBWA\Chiat\Day for Apple Computer during the late 1990s. It was used in a famous television commercial and several print advertisements. The slogan was used at the end of several product commercials, until the advent of Apple's Switch ad campaign. Apple currently does not use the slogan, and their commercials usually end with a silhouetted Apple logo and sometimes a pertinent website address.

I feel that the main article is not sourced enough. Please add more sources to this page (you may want to use the sources on the subarticle pages as apporate). If we are just evaluating the main page I must fail it for references and I do not feel that 15 days is enough time to call an article stable. Additionally it relies upon information from subpages which are not well sourced themselves.

Additionally, I must fail it for the reliance upon the Think Different page which I would rate as follows.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The subtitle "Text" is not very informative and must be changed to something else; perhaps "Apple's Website during this ad" and expand upon it. Either way this section is poor in quality. I must fail this for its complete lack of sources.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

These articles are a good start but they need to be sourced better and need a little work on their formatting and presentation. Next time, I suggest that you get a peer review before you attempt to nominate this for a GA since they will be able to help you improve this more easily. Don't worry, I have tagged your article with the appoporate work group and they should be able to help you. Andrew D White 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Repetition...
The descriptions of many of the adverts are repeated in the adverts' own pages. I therefore suggest that we remove the summaries from this page and leave them on their more fleshed out pages. It might be ok to leave a single line for this page, but it seems stupid to repeat text (that then gets altered on only one page and one entry becomes superior).CtrlC CtrlV 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

One NPOV line
From the article: "In 1995, Apple responded to the introduction of Windows 95 with both several print ads and a television commercial demonstrating its disadvantages and lack of innovation". This is clearly POV. I can't at the moment see a good way to make the last part of the sentence NPOV, so for now I'll truncate it at "both print ads and a television commercial". Simxp 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit: Sorry, forgot to sign this when I first posted it. Simxp 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Allegations (with evidence) of stealing ideas
As seen here. Should this be included under the Criticisms section? -- Fire 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems pretty well backed up. I'd say it should be included. -- Arathon 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please do this then?
 * I started an article in my Sandbox. If you see anything in there you want to use or would like me to add anything, let me know.  -- Silverhand Talk 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let me clarify that. If you want to use it, go for it.  If you want me to add it, let me know. :) -- Silverhand Talk 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone else has added a smaller version of this, but I like Silverhand's writeup. I think you should add it, Silverhand. -- Fire 06:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

LOCK needed?
engadget has linked to this article on the front page asking the contents of their article beincluded here. There will be /are  lots of edits adding original research from said article. http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/apples-little-problem-with-ripping-off-artists/#comments

No lock should be instituted
especially with the engadget article, many changes will be made, but isn't that the point of wikipedia? i'm surprised it took this long for someone to post something this substantial on some of the intellectual property "thefts" that apple has commited. Infact, how can this article be considered neutral without some mention of the contents of this engadget page?

BrassBawls 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias
The "I'm a PC" set of ads are actually straw man ads. It isn't biased to say as such. It's arguing with a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.86.27 (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello
"Hello" has been used to introduce many Apple products over the years. Newton, iMac, iPhone, and the original Macintosh to name a few. It would be great if someone could put together a separate section on this.Paul C/T+ 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ipodrecreated.JPG
Image:Ipodrecreated.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)