|
 Originally Posted by aero
LOL. OK, if you think so. Everyone in marketing noting the thing was release as competition for the first iphone, complete with planned point by point advertisements, and then had to face the new iPhone which debunked the advertisements is wrong and you are right. sure. They had to pull the add campaign because they got caught with the pants down.
The only spots that ever directly compared the two were not only NOT pulled, but were updated to contrast specifically against the iPhone 3G. The rest of the campaign for print, TV, and theaters never was going to feature iPhone 3G. NEVER. Why would Sprint spend 100 million to remind people of the iPhone 3G launch and partially advertise for it?
Almost all of the advertising of handsets is done by carriers. They define the handset. The carriers define it with marketing and advertising, specs don't. maybe .01% of the people knows the processor of their handset. The thing most of the buyers of the only other major competing pleasure/business handset, iPhone, know is memory, like 8gb or 16 gb.
Sorry, but this is demonstrably false. Not only does Apple do pretty much all iPhone marketing, much like Palm does the majority of marketing for the Centro, but their ads focus on everything that defines an iPhone (e.g. apps, games, finger usage, OS) EXCEPT the memory.
The point of the instinct was not to sell instincts, it was to keep people from leaving Sprint for ATT/iphone.
Again, demonstrably false. The point of the Instinct was to get more users on Simply Everything plans and drive up ARPU. Hesse confirmed it publicly.
Not sure where you get these ideas...
|
|
|