hellosamdwyer

One would imagine that the Obama team would want this story to die ASAP. Pick up the phone! Let my buckies go!

I disagree with each and every point this blogpost makes, and I'll tell you why.

1. They don't show the product, because they're not about any one particular product. They're about how the holistic quality of the entire product and OS ecosystem extends far beyond superficial appearance. QED: If I buy a slick PC from Lenovo, Sony, etc, will it be able to edit video and music right out of the box? Lots of critics here are forgetting that Apple includes iMovie and Garageband the way Microsoft used to bundle Mindsweeper...

2. They don't explain the product, because, if you have questions, going online or into a store is a much better place to have the product explained to you, than in a 30-second ad, which is better off conveying social information (cool, not cool) and emotion.

3. "They make the target audience feel stupid." No, they make fun of people who are purchasing superficially similar goods because they believe them to be of equal quality.

4. "Genius' unsupportive etc etc." Not really. The audience knows that it's not Apple's job to support or validate a non-Apple purchase.

5. There's no clear call to action because this is a brand ad, not a product ad. The author of this article has a degree in marketing from Wharton -- presumably he knows that there are different goals that can be achieved by advertising. (For a breakdown, see this helpful link: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/goals-objectives-advertising-...)

Let's see... the NYT article was the cover story for the New York Times magazine, a high-quality long form read with a circulation of 1,623,697/week [wikipedia]. The high quality of these long form articles are one reasons why people pay to read the Times. Presumably, the Forbes post will not be in print.

The NYtimes.com has 16.3m monthly US visits, Forbes has 10.5m. [Compete] The NYT article has 435 comments (sign of high engagement) v. Forbes' 155.

I'm not sure how he pulled the total FB share data for the NYT article - they don't display that sharing information in the same way Forbes does.

In short, despite the validity of Nick O'Neil's main point - that a more descriptive title and a synoptic treatment can travel well - his rhetoric is more than a little overblown. Details matter, and what the Times article includes is deep context, originality, and above all, diligence.

As far as a regurgitative blog post making anyone's career... ha, I guess? Only if you want your career to be limited to that activity. The Forbes writer knows it - that's why she includes 6(!) links to the original article, as well as a plug of the original writer's upcoming book. Careers are built on respect, and the most valuable quality a writer or article can have is credibility. Otherwise, it's rubbish, no matter how many people buy it.

And, ultimately, the people who you want to respect you will know you make rubbish.

Oh yes, I remember it like it was yesterday.

My dad used to take me to the carnival to see the geeks. I was always horrified and begged him not to, but dear old dad really just loved to see the guy with no arms biting the heads off chickens, or the bearded lady who would put a nail up her nostril.

Later in life, when the geeks I'd seen long ago were in a punk band featured regularly on MTV, I would brag about having seen them when I was a child, though. Sometimes I even invented stories about having been a geek myself. It wasn't a total fabrication - there was a period of time where I was really considering a career in unicycle.

You know what I mean?

All you can do is keep fighting.

The quickest, healthiest way for our society to put people back to work is to develop decentralized agriculture.

A carefully planned network of farms around every urban area will drive the cost of eating good food down while providing an almost endless source of baseline employment.

Everybody fits into a role somehow.

or, rather, they paid a ton of money for the rights awhile ago, and are locked into using a rapidly aging song.

their logo is looking great though, lately