The new-gen iPad Pro and iPad Air were meant to headline Apple’s Spring Event on 7 May 2024. Much to Apple’s dismay, it was the negative press around the iPad Pro launch video, 'Crushed!', that took all the spotlight in the aftermath of the event. I, for one, am not too happy with this situation.
The ad video in question shows a gigantic hydraulic press crushing a bunch of creative objects (such as musical instruments and art supplies). All these creative tools are compressed to reveal the wafer-thin iPad Pro, Apple’s thinnest device ever. The video garnered tremendous criticism from all sorts of noteworthy people, from tech journalists to Bollywood celebrities. Their argument - crushing creative tools makes Apple come off as insensitive and tone-deaf towards the creative community, the iPad Pro’s core demographic.
The uproar was so intense that Apple had to withdraw the video and issue a public apology. I wish Apple reacted the same way when I was complaining about them not killing off the Lightning Port in their computer peripherals, but that’s a rant I’ve already been on.
To add insult to injury, Samsung was quick to take a dig at Apple with a ‘Creativity Cannot be Crushed’ video that shows someone salvage a semi-broken guitar from the rubble (supposedly from Apple’s giant hydraulic press) and start playing it while reading notes from a Samsung Galaxy tab.
More power to Samsung for jumping on this opportunity, but as someone who loves technology and makes a living in marketing, I have 2 fundamental problems with this whole chain of events:
Problem 1: In the eyes of the beholder
Creativity, at its core, is a subjective endeavor. It’s the magical line where an artist’s vision meets the audience’s perception.
Even if flawed, Apple’s ad was also a creative product, subject to interpretation by its very nature. Apple likely intended the ad to demonstrate that their slim device can pack tremendous creative capabilities. Others might have perceived it differently, and that’s OK. It’s not the criticism that I have a problem with. Where I draw the line is bullying the company to withdraw the ad altogether. The likes of Apple buckling under the pressure sets an unsettling precedent, especially for us mere mortals.
Within the confines of legal and moral codes, I argue that companies and advertisers should be encouraged to push the envelope, lest we stifle the very creativity that we’re trying to defend. After all, the most memorable ads are the ones that stir strong emotions within us.
I would, of course, take a different stance if it were a sensitive socio-cultural issue that Apple’s ad supposedly mocked. That brings us to the next problem.
Problem 2: The society that cried wolf
Love it or hate it, online activism is a very powerful social tool. It has the reach and impact that can sway public opinion on even the most sensitive and important issues.
As a society, the onus is on us to use this weapon to fight the right battles. Are we collectively choosing a campaign against the crushing of pianos and paint buckets as the hill to die on? Are running the risk of trivializing the activism against more pressing issues such as wars, genocide, social injustice, and political divisiveness? Are we blunting the sword of social activism by overusing (or misusing) it?
I don’t know, but these are questions worth asking ourselves.
The social boycott and banning of one ad doesn’t spell doom for all things creative, but when it’s at the scale of one of the largest companies in the world, this whole situation warrants introspection.
I wrote this on my iPad for greater dramatic effect.
댓글