Talk:iPod advertising/Archives/2012

Bullet point discussion

• Why was the article reverted without explanation to a mucher poorer written and punctuated version? Nohat 29 June 2005 04:40 (UTC)
• Reverted to restore picture that was inadvertantly deleted. Was on a hurry and forgot to edit. Do apologize for this. --Arbiteroftruth 30 June 2005 06:53 (UTC)

• The iPod commercial with The Vines' "Ride" that I know of wasn't a dancing silhouette one. Was it also used in a silhouette commercial? Also, adding a couple of songs that I know were silhouette ads. Chatoyant 15:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Chatoyant, that was a dancing silhouette, but it is different than the ones made later, with music from Gorillaz and The Caesars. The silhouettes were dancing in the posters that was put up on the city streets. Arbiteroftruth 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Does anyone know about the posters of the abu graib prison torture pictures in Ipod silhouette style with iRaq under it? It was an art piece by a protester. I would like to know more about that. --Sirkeg 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How did they do it

How did they make these ads? Like how did they make the actual ads... thanks!

Perhaps you could ask the people at Logan ;) I've just added info on the producers of the colourful dancers ads. Ahmedbadr3 17:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

in references in pop culture what about david chapelles spoof on itunes and apple in an episode of the chapelle's show.

Non-Silhouette Ads

Why are the the ads for iPod/iTunes that don't have any silhouettes also listed here? For example, the one with the buildings made of album art that form a tornado to the tune of "Cubicle" by Rinôçérôse. It's especially confusing when on the Rinôçérôse album page it says "The song Cubicle was used in an Apple iPod Silhouette Commercial." I thought it was an error, but the ad is listed on this page. --Muéro 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be about iPod ads in general, instead of being exclusively about the silhouettes. There was an early ad for the first generation iPod [1] featuring "Take California" by The Propellerheads. -Gordeonbleu 03:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As the person who originally created the page, I have never imagined the changes in the commercials in two years. I move to change the title of this page to "Apple iPod commercials" or "Apple iPod promotions", so that we can reflect the other campaigns better. Aye or nay? Arbiteroftruth 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

original style used again

so i saw that they had a new commercial again which used the original style again and realized this probably wasnt updated yet so i did,

james purdy, 69.255.63.86 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Support The Article content will not shange if it is collaborated with other apple campaigns - it will only become easier to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.112.101 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Move to strike the vote made by 203.59.112.101.- IP users cannot vote in elections. Only registered users can. Arbiteroftruth 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is an actual policy. Can you point me towards something that supports this view? --C S (Talk) 10:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if we were to allow the vote, whose voice does it represent? IPs recycle, and it is hard for me to believe that whoever made that vote is still using that IP. Therefore, I move to strike. If that user wants to vote under a REAL user account, then it is different. Arbiteroftruth 11:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is different. I have no idea who the ip is, but neither do I know who you are. Even if you had stopped using your account, your comments would still be valid, and I see no reason why the same can't be true for the IP. Also, your comments on "move to strike" are misguided. There's no such thing. Somebody determining consensus after some period of time may choose to disregard some comments (e.g. as coming from possible sockpuppets or not compatible with policy), but you don't get to "vote" to invalidate someone else's comments. This is an open discussion forum...comments are countered with other other comments, not parliamentary procedures. --C S (Talk) 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chan-Ho, what I mean to say is that when an IP votes, does it represent the opinions of User A, or other users whose opinions might (and more likely than not) differ from User A? With a username, the opinions of, say, me, still represents me in all circumstances until I retract them. This is why I believe if that IP user wants to vote with a username, I will allow it, but for now, we should disregard his opinion on the grounds that we don't know who the opinion speaks for. Arbiteroftruth 16:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: There is a separate article for the recent "Get a Mac" ads, and this should be no different. Arbiteroftruth 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: I saw what the Apple commercials page looked like after everything was put on it. It was incredibly long. I think having short summaries of the major campaigns in that article, while having main articles separate is a good decision. Also, the iPod advertising campaign has a cohesiveness about it which makes it suitable for its own article; some will only be interested in the iPod advertising and want the level of detail an individual article can provide. --C S (Talk) 10:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Each distinct campaign should have their own article and there should be one summary advertising article that covers all of Apple's products. No need for a specific iPod or Mac advertising article outside of specific, notable campaigns. Paul^C/_T+ 22:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds more like an oppose than support merge. My reasoning above is very similar to yours. The iPod commercials thus far have been part of a systematic campaign and just as worthy for its own page as the "Get a Mac" campaign. I personally thought the old title for this article was fine, as Apple has not deviated too far from the "silhouette" idea. What is being proposed is that all this stuff get put into the general Apple commercial page, or that some of it does and the rest cut. And I think that would be a shame. --C S (Talk) 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

2 Oppose, 1 Support, and 1 invalid vote. Voting has closed on this matter, and the verdict is Oppose Merge.

Move: iPod advertising

I think that the word "Apple" in the title is extraneous and unnecessary, and the page should be moved to iPod advertising. There is a precedent: Apple Macintosh was moved to Macintosh.--HereToHelp 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that idea. Attempts to change the ipod article to apple ipod failed as well and I see no reason why it should be different here. There are no other ipods to confuse this with eiher so the use of the word Apple is not needed. --69.156.206.48 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Consistent with other iPod pages. 205.157.110.11 03:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page, and removed the listing at WP:RM. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another iPod ad

Is it worth mentioning the ad which reprised the 1984 Mac introduction ad, and added iPod headphones to the runner? Can't recall any additional details, so I'm putting this in Talk and not the article. Jeffr 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

U2 ad

The article says "iPods did not feature in the [U2] advert," but I remember seeing both iPods and white instrument cords. They may have been only in the extended version. Does anyone have the ad to check? Sdalmonte 06:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are iPods in that advert, not just the extended version. I just watched it. --Apple1976 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

origins

any possible mention of other places where silhouettes have been in music videos? i remember tribe called quest had a scene like that in their 'can i kick it?' video. possible inspiration? 72.70.3.235 05:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ipods

are all ipods made by apple86.142.129.119 21:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

unofficial "adverts"?

or inspirations? http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/39321/Reon_Kadena_iPod_Girl.html ipod girl...pretty famous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.76.229 (talk) 09:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Why links to my high quality videos are being removed ?

I escalated the problem about the user HU12 deleting my links one step further, i won't tolerate my links being removed without a VALID reason. My site haves no SPAM, you dont have to click on ANYTHING to watch the videos and i am providing a fair better quality source for this ( and other apple related ) video. Why is this user INSISTING in removing the links ?

Should we keep or remove video links?

The links to the video advertisements were removed and I reverted their removal. However, I believe that this should be discussed. Should the links be kept as they help demonstrate the advertising or deleted as they are copyrighted? --Apple1976 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• If it is just one link to a wider repository, that is completely fine, in my opinion. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple Plan's "When I'm Gone" Video

Does anyone see the similarities between it and the commercials for the second generation iPod Nano? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Apple-logo.png

The image File:Apple-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

iPhone?

Why is the iPhone commercials under this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.63.126 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion or Merge

Why does this this article exist? Should every ad campaign get an article? This seems more like a Apple fan page or an actual meta-advertisement, not an actual article. At the very least this should just be a section under the actual iPod article. 76.102.198.143 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

It was deleted but it still is good information to keep. If it shouldn't go here, where should it go? gujamin (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the information could be spread out elsewhere but not all in the section is really necessary. Hugahoody (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree that anything in the trivia section is useful. Locke'sGhost 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is interesting information if you're looking for information about iPod advertising and where it has been used and parodied. If you think this section is inappropriate for the information, please suggest where it would be better classified. gujamin (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who deleted most of the trivia, not least because the Great Backlog Drive highlighted this article as having the oldest Trivia Cleanup notice, first posted in 2009.

My justification was simple. We do not need dozens of examples of each and every time a cartoon or comedy show played a skit on the "shadow advert". Wiki is not a dumping ground for every little fact for every subject. It is enough to tell readers than modern television programmes have occasionally made fun of the shadow advert. It is too much to list each and every instance. If there is any need, then take it to a messageboard. doktorb _words^deeds 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Such trivia makes no valid contribution to this article. Too bad Geocities is defunct; you could have migrated it there. But otherwise, it should simply be deleted. Locke'sGhost 03:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)