An ad exec says Apple is a less interesting company to work for than Coke or Pepsi

Caption/Description: A man walks by an ad for the Apple iPod on Ellis St. in San Francisco on Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004. In the past month, five companies have unveiled their latest iPod challengers _ portable music players with hard disks that can store anywhere from 1,000 to 1
(AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Apple, whose advertising campaigns over the decades have generated both critical acclaim and commercial success, is starting to bring more marketing functions in-house. Under CEO Tim Cook, the company is “madly building an internal agency that it’s telling recruits will eventually number 1,000,” Ann-Christine Diaz and Maureen Morrison wrote for Advertising Age.

But despite Apple’s reputation for excellence and potential spending power, there are skeptics. One “top agency exec who was approached” by Apple tells Advertising Age, “The revolution has come and gone, and I’m not sure a job at Apple would be a creative opportunity. If I were going to go brand-side, there are a lot more interesting companies I’d rather work for, like Coke or Pepsi.”

Why might someone feel that way? A couple guesses: While Apple still spends heavily on offline, outdoor, and television advertising, it hasn’t done much interesting work in digital—yet. And its famously sparse product line doesn’t offer much variety in the work.

As an aside, Pepsi’s mention brings to mind a funny connection: Steve Jobs famously lured John Sculley from Pepsi to be Apple’s CEO in the 1980s with the line, “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?” Perhaps the answer to that question depends on your line of work.

home our picks popular latest obsessions search