sugoll (sugoll) wrote,
sugoll
sugoll

Apple vs Ann Summers

metamorphosa asked about Apple vs Ann Summers, and the likely outcome.

Well, I haven't seen any announcements, but I suspect it's already been settled: it (the product) is on the Ann Summers front page, but the imagery's changed completely - it just shows the product itself. Ann Summers doesn't really have the legal clout to take on Apple Inc. They wouldn't stand a chance ("why, no yer Honour, we haven't seen those adverts before. The product naming and presentation are purely co-incidence"), and besides, this is a win-win case for both companies. Ann Summers gets the kind of promotion they could only dream about (nation-wide), and Apple get the kind of promotion Steve Jobs is good at arranging (free). This is, after all, an iPod add-on. Yes, you can use it with any other MP3 player, but with the naming and presentation, everyone's going to be linking it to iPods. Literally. More sales for Apple.

The interesting thing is how this'll play in the US. I have no idea whether Ann Summers has a US presence. Over here, it wouldn't hurt Apple's sales to have some connection to young, sexy, sexual women; the US is much more strongly against implying women are allowed to enjoy any kind of sexual activity. The iPod generation won't care, but maybe the MacBook-carrying business market might. I doubt it, though.
Tags: apple, ipod
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 4 comments