Super Bowl Commercial
- Thread starter reb422
- Start date
Yea, we were very hopeful that VZW would use the Super Bowl to announce the TB; but apparently Android is being coming the redhead step child of the family since they adopted the iPhone. The HTC commercial didn't picture the TB, I don't believe. I thought I saw the TB on the NFL Digital Media commercial though, however upon reviewing it this morning I am wrong (looks like a DInc).
So yes, a strike out all around.
So yes, a strike out all around.
It was folly to think VZW as going to spend huge money to announce a phone. I think we are giving VZW too much credit that they believe this is truly an important device release for them.
It is for us, but they have demonstrated time and time again they have other priorities.
It is for us, but they have demonstrated time and time again they have other priorities.
Sadly, follow the $$$$.
iPhone pre-orders went bananas and that was for the CURRENT CUSTOMERS, not new ones. You'll never see that happen for Android anything, sadly.
Yup... Iphone preorders went like gang busters! I got my preorder for the TBolt at the end of the day and I was 3rd on the list... granted it was day one but obviously there not going all out on this one and I cant help but think that Apple payed them to down play this phone.
HTC - You | SPIKE
Yeah you're right, it's near the end using the FFC for a sec. Guess that's better than nothing!
vzwuser76
Well-known member
And it happens everday. Call it kickbacks or incentives, but it is basically a semi legal way to get a retailer to push one product instead of one of the others it sells. They're not saying you can't sell the others, but if you do, you lose out.
That's illegal. It's fine to add incentives to make your products more lucrative for the business, but it's illegal to pay a company to sell your product over another -- either implicitly or explicitly.
That is not illegal. It happens in contracts everyday. Several examples for you. One is the iPhone itself. ATT paid Apple for exclusivity in the US. Yes, VZW initially turned it down, but after it was released, VZW would have offered the iPhone years ago. The reason they couldn't? The ATT exclusivity contract. In this case, ATT paid to explicitly deny others the right to sell the phone.
Second example is your local grocery store. Think that display on the endcap of XYZ product is there by accident or because the store decides to push more of it? It is there because the manufacturer or distributor paid to put it there. Ever get frustrated that your favorite Product A is at the bottom of the shelf, forcing you to bend over uncomfortably to get it while its competitor, Product B is at eye level and easy to reach? The maker of Product B paid the store to put the product at eye level, and the store is implicitly promoting one product over another. This is called product placement, and is alive and well in every retail chain.
Check out your local professional stadium. Chances are that the stadium only sells Coke or Pepsi products, but not both. Why? Coke or Pepsi pays the stadium operator to offer their beverage products only. Ever wonder why you can't buy a John Deere product at Home Depot but you can at Lowe's?
The reasons for all of these are that one organization is paying another to promote one product or service over another. It happens every day, and is not illegal.
+1 to everything atakin just said. The only thing that is in the same ballpark as this that's illegal is with the new FCC guidelines which prohibit an ISP from denying access or throttling your internet in favor of another service or customer. Otherwise, "payoffs" to push products or feature products are perfectly legal.
I was hoping for a TBolt ad featuring Kim Kardashian and something to do with the vibrate function on the phone... but there was nothing.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
Battery life isn't great- Started by Snareman
- Replies: 26
-
-
-
-
Pictures taken with the Pixel 9 Pro and XL- Started by jamezr
- Replies: 43
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram