Apple iPhone 7 Headphones - When Simple Isn't So Simple

Reports recently surfaced that when Apple releases its new iPhone 7 later this year it will no longer include an industry standard 3.5 mm headphone jack. 

Instead, rumor has it, the phone manufacturer will design a new set of headphones that fit into the lightning cable port, which is the port that iPhones have historically used for power and data transfer. Consumers will also be able to use wireless headphones.

Apple will likely argue that this move allows the company to simplify the phone design and make the phone thinner. The notion of minimalism is at the heart of Apple's design principles - so this move is consistent with the brand's equity. From its products to its stores, Apple's simple design is as much about making the products beautiful as it is about making the usage experience as simple and easy as possible for the consumer.

However, in this case, Apple's quest for simple isn't so simple.

That's because the news, while seemingly minor, has unleashed a wave of consumer frustration with nearly 250,000 consumers signing a petition in a matter of a few days protesting the potential move. 

Many of these consumers are outraged that their existing headphones would be obsolete and they'd have to spend money to replace them. In this case, the simplest solution for consumers is continuing to allow them to use whatever headphones they want.  Other consumers, along with environmentalists, are also concerned about the environmental impact of the electronic waste from the disposal of obsolete headphones.

Simply put, while this move is inevitable in the long-term.  Apple may have to rethink the short-term impact of this design move or at consider including a free adapter.

Apple Pay Gets Rolling Via Bank Partners

I'm a big fan of how Apple has started promoting Apple Pay.

Apple itself has yet to run any televised commercials for the service.  Instead, Apple has been partnering with the largest credit card issuers to promote the product for them.  In fact, Apple recently claiming that Pay is supported by credit cards representing roughly 90% of U.S. purchase volume.

Recently banks such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, and Capital One have all aired commercials promoting Apple Pay . . .

Capital One:



Wells Fargo:



Bank of America:



While all of these advertisements are done by different banks, Apple has done a great job to partner with each to make them all feel relatively consistent and delivering on the same message.  Apple's influence is also clear in showcasing the product in use.  Since the launch of the iPhone, Apple has hands down had the best product demos of any TV commercials.

More importantly, the launch strategy of handing over the product promotion to business partners is successful because it accomplishes three key goals:

1. Helps generate a tremendous amount of product awareness
2. Simplifies the notion of mobile payments by making it just an extension of an existing credit or debit card
3. Creates credibility by linking the new technology with the financial institutions that consumers already trust for their banking needs

Now all Apple has to do is continue to enroll more retailers and start pumping out more iPhones.

Obama vs. Romney is starting to look like Mac vs. PC, a case of reverse branding

Anybody else notice how political advertising has usually the opposite objective of consumer product advertising?  What I mean is political ads are usually focused on trying to rebrand the candidate's competitor as something negative vs. trying to sell the benefits of their own candidates.  For example, Romney has branded himself as a job creator, but the Obama team is focused on branding Romney as untrustworthy.  

Like any good marketer their anti-Romney campaign keeps pushing 'untrustworthy' as the primary theme or essentially trying to develop a reverse brand equity, and the marketing campaign supports this benefit statement with several different platforms of reasons to believe that help reinforce the equity, such as:

1) Suggest Romney will say anything to get elected and switches viewpoints when its convenient

2) Suggest Romney was responsible for outsourcing US jobs while at Bain

3) Suggest Romney lied about when he left Bain and may have committed securities fraud by doing so

4) Suggest Romney is hiding his money in tax havens because he is refusing to show his historic tax returns

This effort has forced Romney to spend a good portion of his time denying these charges, which just makes him look defensive and less trustworthy, especially because he has stubbornly refused to show his tax returns - the only proof of his innocence.  While its unfair, Romney started his campaign with a deficit of trust, not only because he's running against an incumbent, but also because the reality working against him is that many American's have a mistrust of the Mormon religion because different scares many people even in this day and age.

While I will not openly support or condemn these attacks on trust, the execution of the campaign is brilliant from a marketing strategy standpoint and follows the perfect formula for reverse branding and ingraining the equity/benefit in consumer/voters minds. A clear benefit that strongly resonates, supported by a clear reason to believe, and then when that reason to believe's shelf life expires and it's impact/breakthrough starts diminishing, rotating to new reasons to believe that all ladder back up.

Outside of politics, marketers rarely get a chance to reverse brand a competitor.  Though the best consumer product execution of this strategy was by Apple in their infamous series of Mac vs. PC ads:

Is it just me or is Obama vs. Romney starting to look like Mac vs. PC?  Reverse branding works when supported by enough reasons to believe.

What Apple can teach marketers

Everybody recognizes Apple advertisements as some of the best in the business.  They grab your attention, they're distinct, and they entertain.  But more importantly, they flat out are some of the most persuasive ads you will ever see.  That's because Apple has the best product demos in their TV advertisements of any company out there, by far, hands down.  Nobody is better at taking a complex new technology and making it look both simple and relevant to everyday life.

The first 4 iPhone Ads:


A few iPad Ads:



The ads communicate one simple clear product benefit and then leverages a series of product demos as reasons to believe in the benefit.  The art of the product demo is in the story telling as the ads always show the product doing tasks that you'd never imagine phones or computers could do, yet doing them in such a simple fashion that it leaves the viewer wanting more.

Now the reality is that the advertisements are based on the same consumer insight as the brilliant product design - make it so simple a 3 year old can understand it.  It sounds crazy to design the latest technology with a 3 year old in mind, but Apple's on to something in making products so intuitive (If you've ever seen a 2 or 3 year old pick up an ipad and just start entertaining themselves its mesmerizing).  Too often consumer goods manufacturers try to over engineer products, when the majority of consumers will chose the simple option nearly every time.  To Apple's credit they've unlocked this better than anybody else both in their product design and advertising.

Without a doubt the discipline Apple displays in its advertisements to not only keep them simple and relevant, but more importantly staying true to the product's primary benefit deliver a persuasive sales pitch.