Apple is the most successful brand in the world, according to an international online poll of marketers. The Mac maker topped the majority of categories in the poll, which asked marketers which brands they would most like to be associated with, and which brands they thought would be the most successful in the future. The 2,000 …
Depends on the defined parameters I suppose. I use Apple products and am, on the whole, very happy with them but Apple is a large multi-national like any other and I cannot understand why people should be 'inspired' by either a computer or a soft drink – it's just a product sold by a huge organisation that wants to make a profit. I only think about it if I am not happy with what I have purchased if and my concern has not been properly addressed. If Apple did not exist I suspect I would continue to live and use another computer platform - so, I suspect, would the respondents to this silly survey. Sheesh!
I come across anything that comes from the lips of anyone involved in either marketing or advertising I tend to get riles.
But then I remember the words uttered by the late great comedian, Bill Hicks... and I feel calm again.
What is successful?
I suspect that this may be a somewhat limited survey. I have a funny feeling that more people under the age of 11 have heard of a certain fizzy drinks company or a certain chain of fast food restaurants than have heard of Apple (unless 'A is for Apple' now has a different illustration from the one I remember). Never underestimate the buying power of the young.
But it still reads as "Clit Bang" to me.
It's the dirty mac...
Sounds like a load of rubbish to me. I'll acknowledge Apple is successful and a big player, mainly thanks to the iPod/iPhone, but the most successful company?
How many millions of burgers must the clown-fronted fast-food joint shift every day? How many pairs of 'swoosh'-labelled trainers have been sold over the years? How many billions of gallons of fizzy, fruit-based brown sugary drink supped in the past century or so?
Maybe the Church of Jobs is having it's rennaissance at this moment in time, but I wouldn't use that as the basis to say that they're more successful than McDonalds, Nike, Coca-Cola or for that matter a whole host of other companies. Surely companies/brands like Ford, Hotpoint, Ariel, must be more successful due to the number of units sold, the timescale over which they appear at the forefront of their particular markets, and most likely their revenue and turnover year in and year out.
At the risk of starting the ubiquitious pro-anti Apple fanboi war (which seems to be the prevalent battle on El Reg), it does sound rather like a bunch of iPod/iPhone/Mac Air lovers may have put a slight spin on these results.
2.1% want to be BMW?
I looked at the original article and was amazed that 2.1% wanted to be BMW. Isn't that the car for junior managers going nowhere? They created the one series because they realised most BMW customers can't count to 3!!!!
re: Not convinced
i think the point is that the survery was asking for people's perceptions, not actually counting units sold
this survey merely shows that people think Apple is a better brand than Ford, or Hotpoint or Ariel
if you like, it's a measure of the marketting success then - the companies you refer to are probably considered by the masses as generic and therefore boring
the top 4 in this survey are the ones people find more interesting
Not getting it?
I'm impressed many here don't understand 'marketing' people (see Bill Hicks for advice, if you're in Marketing) and their love for 'Brand'.
They're not talking about the company or its success; they're talking about the Brand: The value of the presence, name and concept of Apple, not the company or its products. It's Marketing wank, but it matters to them.
Brand is one of those things people who don't pay for stuff put value on.
Paris because ... she understands marketing wonks.
This is a survey of people who work in the branding industry and it's what they consider to be the most successful BRAND not COMPANY. Two different things.
It's totally pointless anyway - these are all graphic designers and the like, who are all Mac addicted, so who cares what they think.
Having said that, there's no denying Apple have got it going going on when it comes to their branding... I have a stack of empty Apple boxes I just can't bring myself to throw away.
Just a few year ago, there was an episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer goes into a music shop and talks about a festival (OZ?) sponsored by "Apple Computers" and the young guy behind the counter goes "what computers?"
Just look at El Reg...
...and the number of articles they print referencing Apple and you'll see it's a hugely succesful brand. And they don't even like Apple very much!
Is that a dirty Apple Mac (TM)...
Apple hit on a thing called an ipod that was essentially small, pretty and played mp3's, and lots of american people bought into it saving a boring, balding man called jobs. Then they shuffled a load of things with it, like smaller size, bigger memory, films etc. and more silly people bought into the hype and got one, getting fleeced as others were now doing it and doing it better. Then itunes came along, selling DRM ridden music at low quiality to play on the ipods only, allowing americans a one stop shop. Something the other companies couldn't offer.
Then they brought a phone out that was more hype than anything else and after months of speculation and simple adverts it was released and america got it first bought into it and yet again saved apple.
Two factors I think caught on, PR campaigns and the american public. Both give it great credibility when perhaps others out there are better, faster, prettier etc.
The question is irrelevant anyway as you can't compare a drink or a burger to a high profile rapidly changing market like technology.
Burgers are burgers, soft drinks are soft drinks, cars are cars. Not much innovation to be had on those anymore.
I can't wait
For Apples PR bubble to pop. As proven by security researchers they are more interested in 'image' rather than the customer. Please let Apples market share increase massively in Europe. When that happens, they will suddenly be hit by the recycling directive that makes all manufacturers responsible for disposal of their used equipment. 12 months after the boom, Apple will have to spend a fortune getting rid of all the crap people don't want anymore as 'image' will no longer be able to prop them up anymore and people will see them for the pieces of shit they are, instead of a fashion accessory.
Fashion is fickle anyway - remember when fruit of the loom was the brand to have? What happened to them?
They only polled the marketers
So says the story. They didn't poll any real people.
I also suspect, but can't prove, that the poll was conducted in english (well, 'merkin). So given their normal definition of "the world", that means the US. (Sort-of reinforced by the top 4 winners).
Plus there's no information about what "categories" or choices there were: were these pre-defined from a list of the 5 named cpmpanies, or free-form: enter anything you like?
Sounds like a great bit of marketing in itself. Creates lots of publicity, didn't cost much, contains no useful information and gets other media to promote it. Wonderful!
Just wait for the latest...
.. release from the above named Apple. The iDiot - an automaton that is designed to buy, without question, any iTem which has a lower case "i" as it's first letter followed by any CAPITAL letter.
But how can you take marketing seriously that pitches access to Facebook as a reason for getting an iPhone ??? (The latest TV ad campaign with it's feel good music) Surely this is one very, very LARGE reason NOT to buy one of the little pieces of shiny plastic and metal !!
It's the green, apple (sorry Apple (TM)) scented mac near the door....
Not surprising because...
Apple is ALL about Marketing and presentation, not substance.
And so is Paris.
Marketing to marketing consultants
Look at it this way; Skoda recently won a recent large-scale owner satisfaction survey for all cars. Does anyone think that a poll of marketing men would put Skoda at the top of their most important car brands? No chance - the winner would probably be Aston Martin, and I doubt Skoda would get on the list at all.
If you did a survey of which brand in the UK played the most important part in everyday life for most people, the winner would probably be Tesco. Apple do what they do very well, but they don't feature very much in most people's lives.
Really, people need to learn how to read, and more importantly, understand what this survey is about.
The survey isn't about individual products, or sales figures, or the size of the company, or how successful a product is... it's about the BRAND! Burgers, soft drinks and cars are PRODUCTS, not brands.
And anyway, your 'argument' is flawed as Apple sell as many iPods etc. outside of America as they do in. So its nothing to do with sales in America.
Apple didn't need saving 'yet again' when the iPhone was released - it was already doing better than at any time in its history.
Your post is so full of flaws it's laughable. I'm surprised you could find the 'Post Comment' button.
@alastair millinggton: "Then they brought a phone out that was more hype than anything else"
Have you actually used an iPhone? I had three 3G phones before mine, yet the iPhone is the only one that is even vaguely functional and usable from the first touch. Innumerable tedious calls to Orange tech support couldn't make my Nokias and one SE do much useful beyond making calls, and what I did get working was poorly designed, clunky, convoluted and slow. iPhone may be expensive, but it is truly revolutionary. Imagine how Pepsi felt when they saw the results of "the pepsi challenge" - there's nothing quite like the market's wholesale approval of your product to boost your brand.
It's not as if Apple had much to do with the DRM other than providing an implementation - it was a requirement of the RIAA and labels who back then were far more unenlightened than they are now, and the general reduction in DRM has largely been due to pressure from Apple.
Somebody needs to check on Webster
He's been beaten up and is lying tied up on the floor while somebody posts in his name
@Anonymous Coward - "Huh?"
I hope and pray this is irony.
Although Orange tech support are as much use a a chocolate teapot, and more expensive per minute than said teapot if it was made by Lindor
Lie, Damn Lies and Statistics.
We all know it's not what you ask, but who you ask.
Ask a bunch of Chav's they will say Buuurrrburry is the best brand
Ask a bunch of middle management, it will be BMW
Ask a bunch of grossly obese people, it will be McDonald's
Ask a buch of overpaid. fluffly, self obessed, luvvie darling sweeties, it will be Apple.
Damn! Stu Reeves Got Here First
There is no real news here. Stu's comment tells you what you need to know about this "survey".
A load of marketing drones were asked what got them going. Big fat hairy deal. Why even bother to give this non-story space?
Apple doesn't inspire me and I can certainly live without it as well. Guess I'm an Apple free zone.
Nice to see a couple of mentions of Bill Hicks' wise words on people who work in advertising and marketing. Having worked for a marketing company in a different life I can agree with him wholeheartedly.
This isn't the story you're looking for. You can go about your business.
Nothing new here
Hey, this shite happens in plenty of other markets also. Bose, BMW, Nike, ... .
Paris, because she's empty and shiny too.
On this US BrandPowerRanking list Microsoft has dropped, like a stone, to position
59 since 2004 with -21 positions since 06.
But Apple is not in the list (100) at
Search for BrandPowerRanking.pdf and have a look.
And just 12 short years ago....
THE FALL OF AN AMERICAN ICON
Microsoft could win if...
Microsoft could win if they renamed themselves to "Evil Empire".
The name Microsoft means small software. Evil Empire is more descriptive and stands out from the rest.
Who paid for the survey?
And chances are they are the ones who bought the statistics... My guess is Apple Marketing is behind this, regardless how "independent" the results may be touted. When someone mentions the term "Personal Computer", I still think of IBM & Compaq. But, yet again, marketing is targeting younger and younger demographics.
Very interesting to see Webster P. actually posting something coherent and reasonable in response to anything Apple -- hang on to the feeling, man.
Meanwhile, I agree that brand ≠ product, and this poll was about brand _awareness_, i.e., how the respective brands are received in the brains of (in this case) marketeers.
Given that today's marketeers try to give us ideas like French cars turning into Transformers(TM) soon as the owner looks away (and I still wonder: who is going to buy a car that'll start prancing around the city, presumably burning a lot of fuel in the process, soon as he leaves sight of the bloody thing?), this poll only really tells us that Apple marketing seems to work pretty well.
Which one could have sort of known before, given their sales development of the past few years. *shrug*
Mine's the tux...
*shrug* No matter who is behind it, Personal Computer still means what it says -- for me and most people I know who have been in IT since the late 70s/early 80s, it's just a _personal_ computer, as opposed to a dumb terminal or thin client depending on a mainframe.
The Amiga was a PC. So were the Atari ST and the Apple II. Heck, so was the C64. Half of those mentioned were on the market long before IBM's so-branded PC.
Don't confuse brand names with concepts. That can be misleading...
"Burgers are burgers, soft drinks are soft drinks, cars are cars. Not much innovation to be had on those anymore."
All the action is behind the scenes.
It's actually the same with computers. The vast bulk of the innovation and important technology is all manufacturing that lets computers become continually smaller.
Design, ideas, concepts? Those are just a long list of features on big, ancient UNIX systems that gradually find their way into cheaper and cheaper systems thanks to the manufacturing mentioned above.
I see Apple finally got a desktop pager. Took 'em long enough.
OS X also has other innovations like:
*A command line with a Bourne shell clone
*Simple, intuitive key sequences like Control+Shift+Apple+3+Space+Mouseclick so that three armed men can take screenshots.
*A menubar at the top
*Multiuser, multithreaded, protected memory core based on........UNIX.
*Scrollbars, buttons, windows, tabs, menus, context menus, more key combinations to access the context menu...
*An Intel integrated graphics chip
Oh, and a really pretty case to make people think the parts inside aren't commodity bits.
As for BRANDing, yeah it'd say they did a pretty good job. Somehow they have everyone thinking they spend all their time innovating and crafting brilliant masterpieces with only the highest quality parts.
Is it a bad computer? No. I love this little Mac Mini. But it's nothing special.
Haha, me too...
And I don't think I'm dyslexic
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Android engineer: We DIDN'T copy Apple OR follow Samsung's orders