Which I don't understand. All their stuff has such a hipster aesthetic. I'm not knocking the hipster aesthetic (I don't like it, but that's a whole different conversation), but it's certainly not an everyman aesthetic, which I would think one would want for an advertisement which is supposed to appeal to a wide audience. I'm sure other industries have put a ton of research into this and I assume this is why people in most ads are so ultra-generic. So, why go with these guys? Path of least resistance? Do people in SF not realize that the rest of the country is not like them? Do they think the rest of the country wants to be like them? This isn't snark, but genuine curiosity.
1. These guys have produced numerous videos for businesses that have gone viral and spread to millions of people. That's not to say that others can't do the same thing -- just that these guys have a history of success, which suggests that not possessing an "everyman" aesthetic may not be such a bad thing.
2. Most companies that use Sandwich for their videos are early stage startups looking for early adopters. Lots of early adopters work in tech and live in the Bay Area. So at this stage, making a video that would appeal to this niche of people makes perfect sense.
"It's easy to think that the ads are designed to draw in the demo shown in the ads, but that's not the way advertising works, and consequently that's not how America works. If you're watching it, it's for you. These ads play heavy during late and late late night talk shows: the target is boring middle aged white people. Blackberry isn't targeting gays and limber blondes, it's pretending they are already on board so you don't feel like a dork without a touch screen."
While not ideal, they could register a new Twitter app for the released, for sale version of Tweetbot. Everyone would have to reconnect to that app (just as they originally had to do on the beta), but it should get around the issue as the new app would have zero used tokens.
Is that allowed? I figured all the TapBots apps were tied together somehow within Twitter (like separate apps on the same account) and Twitter would enforce that on new apps (since the limits would be meaningless otherwise).
> We’ve been working with Twitter over the last few days to try to work around this limit for the duration of the beta but have been unable to come up with a solution that was acceptable to them.
That tells me that they've already tried the obvious stuff people are suggesting in this thread and Twitter simply won't allow them.
For abuse, which seems somewhat reasonable. And for the other people, they offered their money back, which is probably the best way to solve this kind of thing.
Many debit cards can be processed as credit cards and then don't require a pin. My bank actually encourages using the debit card as a credit card by offering more points per purchase when you do it.
It would seem logical in that downloading the app it shows intent to purchase eventually and the structure of iOS allows for less distractions than browsing via the web.
If I'm using an iPad app, it occupies my entire screen and has my full attention (minus alerts that may arrive) and therefore I'm less likely to pulled away by something else (twitter stream, messages from friends, links, etc.).
Also, if I'm launching a shopping app, it's also done with intent to shop.
Any downside for the company would be so short-lived it wouldn't be worth it. Like most ragefests, it'd die down at the next controversy and be forgotten.
They're not naming names because they value the lesson more than the temporary shaming.
I actually feel the exact opposite of this. I recently rewatched both and thought Jurassic Park held up amazingly well (at least the first one) and Ghostbusters looked far worse (as it should being that it's nearly 10 years older than Jurassic Park).
