Marketing the iPad

January 28th, 2010

Overall, I think the iPad is an interesting device and once the dust settles I think the price point will be attractive for a supplement to our “main” computers. The iPad will fill a spot for people who consume more than they create – a large audience, for sure, and one most of us fit into depending on context and day-part.

One criticism I have is the name. Many, many others have criticized the name because of the associations it brings to mind. There was a trending topic on Twitter called “iTampon” that sums it up.

Apple is smart, though, and a Wednesday release means the “iTampon” reactions will be old, lame, and boring by Monday.

No, the reason the name iPad bugs me is more subtle, and more of a long-term marketing problem.

My gripe: the name is differentiated from the iPod by one letter – a soft vowel. It’s an almost meaningless distinction, and crams the iPad into the same cognitive bucket occupied by the many iPod releases.

Why is that a problem? Because the strongest (non-tampon) negative reaction I saw was that the iPad seems like a slightly larger iPod Touch.

If Apple is ok with that comparison, and with these products being differentiated only by size…well, fine.

But I think the iPad will take on a life of its own if it can get footing, and that life will always be anchored, from a marketing perspective, to the iPod.

A more inspirational, open-ended, and differentiated name would have been Canvas. No “i” prefix. New cognitive space. New brand trajectory.

Instead, we’re stuck with (an image of) the iPod that won’t quite fit into our pockets. After the more immature associations fade, that is.

  • ddurst
    (heh, looks like < and > aren't escaped -- since baggage still lingers with the canvas element -- <canvas>, above)
  • ddurst
    I still call the iPod Touch the "iTouch" -- shorter, easier, accurate.

    And the concept that name implies pretty much has squatter's rights over iAnything they could come up with.

    I agree that Canvas would be a great name for something that is a new brand direction (though perhaps too much baggage still lingers with ) -- which, so far, this is not. Giving them time, I expect things to be added to this concept (both because it makes sense based on recent company actions as well as the notion that this launch felt like something was pulled at the last minute); but by then, as you say, the connotative damage has been done.

    The biggest concern, as a co-worker pointed out, is that the home button enforces a side as reference for interaction; not technically limiting, but aesthetically, emotionally so.

    All in all, I agree with mihow -- seems they just didn't care this time.
  • Adam
    i actually didnt really get it, i got to say (yet)

    the main question i ask myself, when

    when am i going to use it

    otherwise, at home i have my large screen imac
    at the office i got my mac pro
    on the way i use blackberry for emailing, etc'
    on planes i use my mac pro

    the one thing that is nice is the at&t; package you get, for $14.99. that's pretty revolutionary (but that has nothing to do with the ipad actually, apple could have got it for ipod touch users beforehand)

    given the amount of apple things i have, i must be missing something

    my 2c
  • "The iPad will fill a spot for people who consume more than they create"

    While I agree that they could have done better than "iPad", I think that calling it "Canvas" would have implied creating over consuming.
  • This is precisely how I felt upon hearing the name.

    Having let it sink in a bit though, I think that it does make sense for Apple to extend their existing brand equity rather than go with something completely new. Apple is taking a risk in creating this new product niche. Many have tried and failed before and the current economy doesn't help, so it makes sense to play safe in this regard.

    It's clear that this is v1 of a much grander vision. There's nothing to stop Apple doing the re-badging down the line when the juggernaut truly is unstoppable.

    Finally, (while I too would welcome a break from i-everything, and would have loved Canvas), I think that a generic name like Canvas would always require the "Apple" prefix, IOW, "Apple Canvas". Note that this is not a requirement with any of their other brands - iPhone, iPod, Macbook.
  • larke
    I'm really looking for some points of integration. I think that our iPhones should be able to "hook into" the iPad and offer a larger screen for video conferencing or, interactive calling where you and your calling partner are both looking at a yelp review or the movie listings. This would be an extension of the ability to "surf" while already in the middle of a call. If we're going to build a full "i" life, there needs to be some intersection between all of these devices.
  • I think what frustrates me the most about this was that Apple has intentionally just shrugged off the female consumer. I am not one to get annoyed by stuff like this, so I'm a bit surprised that this bugs me even a little bit. But the whole decision with the name, as well as that marketing video—it just screams men were behind this.

    "We market to men."

    And that pisses me off to some degree.

    I know that someone will suggest that I'm overreacting, which is why I made it clear above that I am so not usually one of "those" type of gals. But, seriously. They screwed up with this one up. I'm irritated by not their ignorance—I don't believe that they are—but by their arrogance. They really, really just didn't care this time.

    Thing is, I do. At least for now.

    (But I'm sure it will pass.)
blog comments powered by Disqus