I think that this post is in the same vein as the last — specifically, what makes a good experience and do brands that preach it really understand it. The previous post gave us the Axe brand and its campaign to brand "authentic" subway buskers. This one concerns Apple and its offer to spruce up and brand a run-down L-stop in Chicago.
In exchange for advertising and naming rights, The City of Chicago has agreed to let Apple renovate a dilapidated train station at North and Clybourn. The rehab will cost Apple approximately $4 million, according to Thomas Corfman of AdAge.com, who broke the story. The plan coincides with Apple’s new store slated to open in the area.
Both brands — Axe and Apple — are known for forward-thinking marketing and a deep appreciation for creating experiences for their customers. But what do these campaigns do for their brands? Certainly they are experiential, but what makes one good (no opinion here….hehehehe) and the other not? And do you know which one is and isn't?
In other Apple news, how's this for marketing an App without paying for it?
For its November 16, 2009 issue, New Yorker magazine featured an image of the New York skyline at night, with one unusual twist: the image was created not with brushes, pastels, or pencils, but on the iPhone. Jorge Colombo, an artist, drew the cover using Brushes, an iPhone app.
Now that's forward-thinking marketing, folks. Apps are the new experiential touchstone.
Can anyone doubt that the App Store is more valuable to the brand than iTunes?