Apple senior VP of marketing Phil Schiller was so concerned about Samsung’s Next Big Thing ad campaign, in which the company poked fun at Apple customers, that he emailed Tim Cook to suggest a change of ad agency to fight back – according to a claim by Samsung lawyer Jon Quinn.

The Verge reports that Quinn made the claim in his opening arguments in the patent trial in which Apple is accusing Samsung of violating five of its iOS-related patents.

Quinn says Schiller became “obsessed” with the campaign, writing CEO Tim Cook to suggest the company look into using another ad agency instead of its mainstay TBWA\CHIAT\DAY. That even led to Apple board discussions over the issue, Quinn added …

Quinn claims he can prove this using internal Apple documents that haven’t before been made public. The documents were likely to have supplied to Samsung by Apple as part of the discovery process in which each side must make available to the other materials which shed light on the dispute.

It’s an interesting tack, suggesting that Samsung may attempt to argue that Apple’s patent claim is motivated by concern over Samsung trying to out-cool Apple. A one-line email by Phil Schiller in reference to a WSJ piece entitled Has Apple Lost Its Cool to Samsung reads simply:

We have a lot of work to do to turn this around.

Apple is claiming that copying the iPhone was part of Samsung’s development process. Schiller is scheduled to be Apple’s first witness once opening arguments are complete.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

17 Responses to “Apple so rattled by ‘Next Big Thing’ ads, it almost changed ad agency, claims Samsung”

  1. aeronperyton says:

    Apple: Samsung broke the law and here’s the evidence to prove it.

    Samsung: Your suit looks tacky. And your breath stinks.

    It can’t be said enough times, every single person in charge of running Samsung is as stupid and self-absorbed as they are guilty. And they probably don’t even realize it… including the being guilty part.


  2. Samsung doesn’t have any rope to pull so they have to come up with theories like this which is totally ridiculous.


  3. Marketing campaigns should be creative and attractive, not reactive.


  4. rettun1 says:

    “They almost copied our ads when we copied their ph- er I mean, when we innovated our phones. Innovation. Innovation.”


  5. I’d have to see the entire email chain, but this seems like a pretty big stretch. Of course, we are talking about the same Phil Schiller who wanted to emulate Sony in the late ’90s. Admittedly, Phil seems like the type of bro that could get a little tweaked out about a competitor’s ad campaign.


  6. greenbelt2csp says:

    “We have a lot of work to do to turn this around.” This is not evidence at all. The next sentence may as well have been

    “First they copy our stuff wholesale, then they make it look like our loyal customers are idiots for not using their stuff, which is basically a copy of our stuff!”

    When I first saw those ads, I thought to myself, “Oh crap, Samsung is going for the low blow” But there’s one single truth when it comes to “normal” people who watch ads like this. If someone is spending their ad time bashing a competitor, neutral people generally don’t read into it, and instead consider the competitor since they must be doing something right if this guy is spending $1 million dollars to tell me they are better than them.” The ads only reinforce those who have already chosen, and rarely recruit new customers. This is why years ago the “leading brand” comparison was adopted. They don’t tell you who is the leading brand, just try to prove to you that they are better than them. Since you don’t know who the benchmark is, the logical conclusion is, well, I’ll buy this one since it’s better than the most popular brand.” But the moment the benchmark is exposed, people will choose the benchmark.

    Another perfect example is Microsoft’s Surface. They’re basically ads for iPads…


  7. It needs to create campaign or ad about who was first – iPhone (year) vs. Galaxy phone (year) – Apple ad (year) vs. Samasung (year) …. open eyes for newbie or who forgot this.


  8. darylayala says:

    Yeah. That’s why carriers just recently stopped selling iPhone 4 (2010 phone) in 2013 and stopped selling the s2 (2011 phone) in 2013 on top of all it’s ‘next big thing’ specs. Give me a break.


  9. vkd108 says:

    Non-fashion victims do their computing at home on their iMacs and use a simple phone just for talking and sending SMSs. :)


  10. herb02135go says:

    Too bad this website doesn’t delete useless comments!

    This trial is interesting to watch on many levels. And it’s fun to read the fanboy comments.

    I think this email is excellent insight into the thought prices of Apple management. It did, and still does, view Samsung as competition in global dominance (which Samsung is winning).

    Why do those of you who have such insight about patent law and courtroom strategy hide behind fake username? You mean you’re not really an expert?

    “Samsung’s butt-ugly phone copied Apple!” Whaaa!


  11. scumbolt2014 says:

    And this has anything with ScamScum breaking the law by stealing Apple’s intelectual property how? Fuck them.