What a strange way to start an article. Who would be reluctant to admit such a thing? Is there some interesting, counterintuitive story here? It's on the front page of HN so let's read on...
(a couple minutes later)
So the data [1] are that the Apple brand is at #1, Samsung is #8 and the Apple score is increasing faster than the Samsung score.
Let's correct that first paragraph to reflect the actual data the story is based on:
"Samsung is still trailing Apple in brand affection and the gap is widening - but this author is reluctant to admit it."
I don't give a fig about either brand. Both make great gizmos.
What is this article _for_? It appears to be making a claim that is obviously contrary to the data it is citing. Why would a Forbes article do that? Any media-savvy people want to enlighten me?
[1] http://www.interbrand.com/en/news-room/press-releases/2013-0...
I would take everything they write with a mountain of salt.
I saw that the address was forbes.com. Ok, Forbes, that's a legit publication. Then I clicked. First there is a full page advertisement with no content. The I clicked again to continue to the actual article. On the second page, the actual article is the bottom left corner of the screen- making up about 25% of the page.
Its time to get your paradigm shift on ya'll. This form of advertising is dying as its effectiveness is wearing off. Humans are immune. If you want to continue tricking people into buying things they dont need and cant afford, you are going to need to develop new methods.
Apple is #1, up 28%.
Samsung is #8, up 20%.
http://www.interbrand.com/en/news-room/press-releases/2013-0...
