What does Apple’s acquisition of Beats mean?
Tom Dougherty, CEO – Stealing Share
12 May 2014
Does Beats get rolled into the Apple brand?
The word that Apple is purchasing Dr. Dre’s Beats headphones and streaming services is a bit befuddling. Basically, what does Apple need Beats for? What is the state of the Apple brand and what does the potential acquisition mean?
Beats is a successful brand and has led the revolution of music lovers using headphones instead of earphones. The use of the Apple earbuds and those of their competitors have dropped while headphones made by Beats and others have risen.
“Is Apple going to sell the headphones as Beats? Do they become iBeats? Is the Beats brand scratched?”
I get that part. Apple has brand permission to include Beats into its family because both have the feeling of high-end, simple and thinking differently.
But here’s one of the strange things about this union. Is Apple going to sell the headphones as Beats? Do they become iBeats? Is the Beats brand scratched?
Apple does not have any sub-brands in the conventional sense, with the iPhone, iPad and iPod all serving as a family of product brands that fulfill the umbrella brand and are easily understood. How Beats will work within that framework is one of many questions I have about the state of the Apple brand.
Another: Why does Apple need a streaming service? It already has one with iTunes Radio. My suspicion: Nobody is using it. Instead, listeners are using either Spotify or Pandora, or both. The Beats service will serve as a direct competitor to those services.
Why isn’t iTunes Radio working? It’s a strange question because there really isn’t much difference between the iTunes service and the rest. Spotify has certainly upped the game by allowing users to basically listen to whatever they want, while iTunes Radio and Pandora have limitations.
So, basically, Apple is purchasing a streaming service that can compete because its own service isn’t working. That’s a disturbing event for possibly the greatest brand in the world. Or, at least, a brand that, gulp, may be slipping.
The easy thing to say is that Apple has never been the same since Steve Jobs died. If you read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Jobs, that would be the natural conclusion because Jobs was involved with everything.
Something has been amiss at Apple in recent years. Its only new products have just been updates to its current ones and even its marketing has become to look like its competition. (Too many shots of flying kites and walking on beaches for my taste.) It used to be you knew an Apple spot within the first few seconds. (Remember PC vs. Mac?) Now, you wait for the end just like everyone else’s ads to know who it is for.
I’m not here to say that Apple is in trouble. Not by a long shot. It is still the richest company in the world and it is still coveted brand. But the potential acquisition of Beats has me wondering. What’s happening with the Apple brand?
State Farm Advertising Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 18 September 2019 The new State Farm advertising makes no sense There is some bad advertising and then there is State Farm advertising with Patrick Mahomes and Aaron Rodgers. The ad makes no...
Retail branding Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 17 September 2019 The irony of much of today’s retail branding Here’s an example of irony in retail branding. Cost Plus World Market, or as we generally coin it, “World Market,” stands at the peak of my...
Rebranding basics Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 16 September 2019 Ignore rebranding basics and you end up with the expected Even after all these decades of marketers discussing their profession, I still don’t understand how so many of them get...