Running head: ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD

Truly Magical: Advertising, Rhetoric, and the iPad

Ryan S. Eanes
University of Oregon

Author Note
This paper was presented at the International Association for Media and Communication
Research 2013 Conference in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2013.
Some elements of a previous version of this paper were presented as a refereed talk at the
Tablet Symposium at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England, in April 2013.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Ryan S. Eanes, University
of Oregon School of Journalism & Communication, 210 Allen Hall, 1275 University of Oregon,
Eugene, OR 97403-1275.

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD2

Abstract
From the moment that it was introduced by Apple in April 2010, the iPad has been
marketed as more than just a tablet computer. Apples press release touted the device as magical
and revolutionary (Apple, 2010), with the late Steve Jobs making headlines by parroting this
language (Sutter & Gross, 2010). The hyperbolic language surrounding the iPads introduction
could simply be dismissed as a clever marketing ploy, particularly in light of critics initial pans
of the device, calling it nothing more than a big iPod touch (Fox & Albro, 2010). Despite these
criticisms, which called the iPads technological sophistication into question, the notion of the
iPad as magical has persisted more than three years after the introduction of the original
model. But what, exactly, is magic about the iPad? This paper explores the religious,
anthropological, and psychological origins of the Western notion of magic, and proposes that
Apples marketing campaign carefully deployed rhetorical advertising devices in the form of
traditional television commercials and appeals from authority to differentiate the iPad as magical.

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD3

Truly Magical: Advertising, Rhetoric, and the iPad
In 2010, Steve Jobs took the stage at an Apple press conference where he introduced the
first generation iPad. The public got its hands on the device three months later, and since then,
the iPad has become the most quickly adopted Apple device ever manufactured, with more than
84 million sold by the fall of 2012; indeed, retailers clamored to stock the device shortly after its
release, seeing it as a sure-fire way to prop up drooping consumer spending in the wake of a
recession (Learmonth, 2010). Based on sales figures alone, it is fair to say that the iPad satisfied
a demand for a consumer-grade tablet that previous devices had failed to fulfill.
Jobs and the Apple marketing department shrewdly positioned the iPad as more than the
sum of its parts, despite the fact that technologically speaking the device was relatively
underpowered, particularly when compared to Apples full-fledged laptop and desktop
computers. Some critics were unfriendly to the device, mocking it as nothing more than a big
iPod touch (Fox & Albro, 2010). Despite these criticisms, both Apple, in a press release (Apple,
2010), and Jobs, in his keynote at the iPads introduction (Sutter & Gross, 2010), referred to the
experience of using the iPad as magical. Jobs also used a dozen or so other hyperbolic
adjectives to elevate the iPad and to set it apart from all other computing experiencesthe iPad,
Jobs was saying in so many words, created a new paradigm in portable computing. The
following year, when Jobs introduced the iPad 2, once again both he and the Apple marketing
team lauded the upgraded device as magical (Apple, 2011).
In a short time, magic had become part of the mystique and lore of the Apple brand,
thanks in no small part because of Jobs repeated use of the term, and also because Apple hadnt
hesitated to use the term magic prior to or following Jobs keynote addressesindeed, the
company decided to call two of its revamped input peripherals the Magic Mouse and the Magic

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD4

Trackpad, despite the fact that critics were not terribly impressed with either offering
(Bangeman, 2009; Topolsky, 2010). Apple marketing experts were also likely aware of
journalists willingness to use language referencing magic in stories on technology (Stahl, 1995);
sure enough, many technology columnists and journalists did indeed parrot this language
(Kennedy, 2012; Richmond, 2012; Van De Bogart, 2012).
Referring to the iPad as magical was a calculated decision that took advantage of the
widespread popularity of magic-themed media, including the wildly popular Lord of the Rings
films and the Harry Potter books and movies. Indeed, Hill notes that media channels become a
resource for identity work in the maintenance of paranormal beliefs and disbeliefs (2011, p.
88); that is, media can guide our formation of ideas. By referencing, and therefore activating, the
schema for magic repeatedly in marketing contexts, Apple created a connection between the iPad
and the magic schema. The stickiness of the terminologyin other words, the effectiveness of
the messagecan be crudely measured by examining the Google search history for the phrase
magic iPad, which has steadily climbed since the launch of the device in 2010.
A simple demand-based explanation of the iPads introductionthat the device filled a
niche in the market in a way that prior tablets had failed tois not enough to explain why
individuals continue to describe the iPad as magical. How do Western audiences conceive of
magic, and how did Apple manage to associate the iPad with those conceptions?
Conceptualizations of Magic
A review of the academic literature pertaining to conceptions of magic results in
strikingly few direct hits, with most results coming from the anthropological tradition. However,
a closer examination of these sources reveals rich interdisciplinary interaction; religion,
anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, and communication all come into play, particularly

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD5

when considering the possibility that Westerners, particularly Americans, may carry fairly
sophisticated schemata pertaining to magic. Schema theory posits that our knowledge and
experiences are organized into cognitive structures called schemata that serve to simplify
reality people use schemata to organize current knowledge and provide a framework for future
understanding (Honeycutt, Mapp, Knasser & Banner, 2009, p. 325). Schemata are employed to
reduce cognitive load; rather than having to create new associations every time we encounter
new information, an individual can instead access relevant pre-existing schemata and add to
these structures (Mandler, 1984). As cultural influences, human biology, and pure-and-simple
hearsay can hold sway over the development of schemata just as easily as factual information
can, it is critical to consider as many influences into the development of an archetypical Western
magic schema as possible.
Because of the role that Christianity has played over the course of American history, and
because a majority of Americans still identify themselves as Christians (Kosmin & Keysar,
2009), Abrahamic conceptions of magic are relevant to a culturally loaded schema and should be
considered. The Abrahamic tradition is based upon a belief in the Israeli living god known as
YHWH. The creation myths of this tradition indicate that YHWH was perceived to exist without
any limit to His sovereignty or power, having created the universe ex nihilo. The Abrahamic
tradition stresses that YHWH deliberately left a chasm between Himself and man, while
simultaneously prescribing monotheistic worship as the primary means for man to commune
with Him. In other words, the Abrahamic, and therefore Judeo-Christian, moral code was Godimposed (Tambiah, 1990). Indeed, the Pentateuch, or Torah, contains a great many regulations,
prohibitions and restrictions that YHWH issued to the Israelites. These included a prohibition on
magic, sorcery or divinity (Deut. 18:9-14 New International Version), not because magic was

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD6

actually effective in reaching beyond YHWHs sovereigntyinstead, divination was viewed as
an attempt to circumvent God, or to impose mans will on God, which was forbidden (Isa. 55:8-9
New International Version). The act of divination was an assault on YHWHa sort of rhetorical
weapon in the form of a command issued against the uncommandable.
The Christian traditions prohibitions against magic persist even today. Consider, for
example, the outcry of Christian leaders over the popularity of the Harry Potter books and films.
A vocal number of Christian leaders sought to ban the books from libraries, with some ministers
going so far as to desecrate copies of the bestseller, arguing that J. K. Rowlings fictional
volumes would entice children into dabbling with the occult (Associated Press, 2001; Coss,
2002; Doyle, 2001; Hollenbeck, 2009; Ishizuka, 2003; White, 2000). The Christian religion
continues to demand an unwavering faith in God, just as the earliest Abrahamic traditions did.
Objectors to the Potter franchise view magic and the occult as violations of that faith; indeed,
Christians are expected to understand their place as human beings is in a position of submission
to God. The simple belief that one can circumvent Gods will is problematic; going so far as to
take some sort of action against God (previously described as commanding the
uncommandable), regardless of the success or failure of the action, is blasphemous (Holahan,
2002).
Anthropologists, however, do not accept that religious ritual and belief can fully explain
the concept of magic, especially amongst those cultures that do not practice monotheistic
worship. Tylor conceived of magic as primarily an erroneous association of ideas, describing the
development of magical thinking as mistaking an ideal for a real connexion [sic] (1920, p.
116). For example, a member of a primitive culture might notice that the sun rises at the same

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD7

time a rooster crows; a mistaken inference can resultthat the crowing of the rooster actually
causes the sun to rise (Tambiah, 1990).
I hasten to point out that the so-called primitive man is not the only member of
humankind susceptible to this kind of erroneous thinking. Human beings, as mentioned, are
cognitively lazy; we seek out patterns and often see them where they do not actually exist. Such
a mistake is known as a false positive, a Type I error, or, more formally, a pareidolia. Most
individuals are susceptible to pareidolias from time to time, though their occurrence is largely
unpredictable. It seems, however, that random patterns of data can occasionally trigger unrelated
thoughts, which results in everything from seeing a duck-shaped cloud to selling a tortilla that
allegedly bears an image of Jesus (Stollznow, 2008; Voss, Federmeier & Paller, 2012). Indeed,
the pareidolia is but one of many types of perceptual errorsand cataloging all of these errors is
well beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that the brain is prone to a variety of
perceptual errors, both large and small (Norman & Rumelhart, 1975; Soltis, 1966).
A simple neurological explanation of thinking errors is hardly satisfactory in explaining
experiences that truly seem magical or paranormal. Indeed, psychologists define paranormal
experiences as those that individuals believe deviate from everyday lived experience and
ordinary explanations for reality (Cardea, Lynn & Krippner, 2000). In other words, paranormal
experiencesmagical experiencesare those that challenge our beliefs. When we cannot readily
explain something that we encounter, it is often easiest to assume that an unseen power or
mysterious force is responsible.
The iPad as Manifestation of Magic
The aforementioned theories and models all contribute to a conceptualization of a schema
for magic that is made more complete through individual experience as well as shared cultural

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD8

norms. Recall, however, that schemata are not static or stagnantnew information and
experiences can result in revisions to, and cross-connections between, our various schemata.
Apples marketing rhetoric, which deliberately employs references to magic, activates ones
magic schema; from there, the novel experience of using the device can actually alter this
schema, instantly elevating the iPad in certain ways above other electronic devices, simply
because it has been attached to the schemathe cognitive shortcutpertaining to magic.
Apples marketing rhetoric played a role in the addition of the iPad to the magical
schema. According to Craig, from the point of view of the communication researcher, rhetoric is
typically defined as communication designed to appeal to an audience and inform its judgment
(1999). In other words, rhetorical devices are strategic tools that are deployed to persuade an
audience. What, then, was Steve Jobs trying to do on stage at his companys press conference in
January 2010? He was simply trying to do what every good salesman doeshe was trying to
convince his audience that it simply could not live without the iPad. As mentioned previously,
this appropriation of language related to magic was clearly deliberate, as Apple had published
press releases prior to the iPads introduction that included the terms magic or magical.
What, specifically, is new and novel about the iPad? As mentioned previously, its
technical specifications are somewhat underwhelming when the device is compared to fullfunction computers. I would suggest, then, that the iPads multitouch display is the answer.
While multitouch technology was not new at the time of the iPads introduction, as it had been
employed for several years already as part of the iPhone (Selker, 2008), the scale of the device
was indeed novel. Consumers previously had no access to a book-sized tablet that successfully
utilized a multitouch interface. Indeed, the iOS operating system demands human touch; some
functions are simply impossible to perform without utilizing multitouch gestures, such as

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD9

pinching to zoom. The sophistication of this style of interface, particularly when contrasted with
the relative crudeness of previous touch-sensitive displays that demanded the use of a stylus or
that lacked any real precision, lent the device a certain level of novelty that enamored consumers.
The sense of novelty one experiences when first using an iPad was labeled magical, a much
richer schema than might normally be activated when interacting with a piece of technology.
There is one additional element of the iPad experience that must be considered. The
iPad is a device that, by design, is meant to be used aloneby just one person in a private,
singular context. To that end, the communion that one has with the device is deeply personal;
when an individual manipulates the iPads interface, the individual becomes the deitywith a
swipe of a finger, one commands the behavior of what would otherwise be an inert
amalgamation of glass, silicon and aluminum1.
Summary & Conclusion
Despite some initial critical pans of the iPad as nothing more than a big version of the
iPhone, Apples marketing department as well as CEO Steve Jobs repeatedly referred to the
experience of using the iPad as magical. This deliberate choice of words activates the
preexisting schema for magic, which contains a variety of culturally-derived conceptions of
magic.
From a religious perspective, magic can be simply described as an attempt to command
the uncommandable, while the anthropological literature advises that magic can be defined as
mistaking cause for effect. The field of psychology notes that supernatural or magical
1 Apple has long been known for its unconventional and sometimes startling approaches to
advertising. Consider the infamous 1984 television advertisement that announced the arrival of
the Macintosh computer; Scott identifies the ads theme as one of radical, individual action to
prevent homogenizing tyranny: a singular, individuated logic destroying an externally-imposed,
collective one (1991, p. 68). This concept is not dissimilar from the individual control that one
exerts over his or her own iPad.

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD10

experiences are those that are believed to deviate from the norm; neuroscientists would point out
that thinking errors are commonplace; we misattribute cause and effect automatically. The
experience of using an iPad meets all of these criteria. The iPad invites the user to exert control
over it using his or her fingers, and, to a lesser extent, by using voice commands. As these novel
forms of interaction were almost entirely absent from consumer-grade technology prior to the
introduction of the iPhone (and later, the iPad), interacting with the device is a multilayered
experience that stands apart from most other interactions with technology. The user is not truly
commanding the iPad; rather, the iPads hardware converts touch commands into software
commands, executing one subroutine after another. It is the software and the hardware working
in unison that makes the iPad actually work, and yet the novel multitouch interface conceals all
of the code and circuitry. What is left is the perception that the user is directly controlling the
iPad, a perception that the user is more prone to describe as magical thanks to Steve Jobs and
Apple marketing.

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD11

References
Apple. (2010). Apple launches iPad: Magical & revolutionary device at an unbelievable price
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/27AppleLaunches-iPad.html
Apple. (2011). Apple launches iPad 2: All new design is thinner, lighter & faster with FaceTime,
Smart Covers & 10 hour battery [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/03/02Apple-Launches-iPad-2.html
Associated Press. (2001, November 24). Harry Potter and his wizardry still anger some
conservative Christian critics. The Regina Leader-Post, p. G7.
Bangeman, E. (2009). You win some, you lose some: A review of Apples Magic Mouse. Ars
Technica. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/11/you-win-some-you-losesome-a-review-of-apples-magic-mouse/
Cardea, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (2000). Varieties of anomalous experience: Examining
the scientific evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Coss, S. (2002, January 12). An evil spell? Tampa Tribune, p. 4.
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119-161.
Doyle, M. (2001, November 16). Christian schools are wary of Harry. The Columbian, p. C1.
Fox, S., & Albro, E. N. (2010). No second coming: Apples iPad just a big iPod Touch. PCWorld.
Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/187888/ipad_first_ impressions.html
Hill, A. (2011). Paranormal media: Audiences, spirits, and magic in popular culture. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Holahan, J. (2002, January 4). Ministers on Harry: Delightful or dangerous? Lancaster New Era,
p. A-1.
Hollenbeck, G. (2009, August 8). Films themes, message cause divide. St. Petersburg Times, p.
4.
Honeycutt, J. M., Mapp, C. M., Knasser, K. A., & Banner, J. M. (2009). Interpersonal
communication and imagined interactions. In D. W. Stacks & M. B. Salwen (Eds.), An
integrated approach to communication theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 323-335). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Ishizuka, K. (2003, January 1). Pastor shreds Harry Potter books: Minister says book promotes
witchcraft and pagan religion. School Library Journal, p. 22.

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD12

Kennedy, S. (2012, September 14). Preaching to the converted iPhone 5 lands without the wow.
The Australian, p. 3.
Kosmin, B. A., & Keysar, A. (2009). American religious identification survey (ARIS 2008):
Summary report, March 2009. Retrieved from http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/
weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
Learmonth, M. (2010). For struggling retail sector, iPad might just be the cinch that saved
Christmas; plan is to lure shoppers who may then buy other things. Advertising Age,
81(38), 1.
Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Norman, D. A., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Explorations in cognition. San Francisco, CA: W. H.
Freeman.
Richmond, S. (2012, April 25). Why Apples growth is set to continue. The Telegraph. Retrieved
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9226494/Why-Apples-growth-is-setto-continue.html
Scott, L. M. (1991). For the rest of us: A reader-oriented interpretation of Apples 1984
commercial. Journal of Popular Culture, 25(1), 67-81.
Selker, T. (2008). Touching the future. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 14-16.
Soltis, J. F. (1966). Seeing, knowing, and believing: The language of visual perception. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Stahl, W. A. (1995). Venerating the black box: Magic in media discourse on technology. Science,
Technology, & Human Values, 20(2), 234-258.
Stollznow, K. (2008). Merchandising God: The Pope tart. Skeptical Inquirer, 32(3), 45-51.
Sutter, J. D., & Gross, D. (2010). Apple unveils the magical iPad. CNN. Retrieved from
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/tech/apple.tablet_1_ipad-ibook-tablet
Tambiah, S. J. (1990). Magic, science, and religion, and the scope of rationality. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Topolsky, J. (2010). Magic Trackpad review. Engadget. Retrieved from
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/30/apple-magic-trackpad-review/
Tylor, E. B. (1920). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology,
philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom (6th ed.) New York, NY: Putnam.

ADVERTISING, RHETORIC, AND THE IPAD13

Van De Bogart, W. (2012, February 13). Tablets are coming, tablets are coming. The Nation
Thailand. Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Tablets-areComing-Tablets-are-Coming-30175708.html
Voss, J. L., Federmeier, K. D., & Paller, K. A. (2012). The potato chip really does look like Elvis!
Neural hallmarks of conceptual processing associated with finding novel shapes
subjectively meaningful. Cerebral Cortex 22(10), 2354-2364.
White, G. (2000, August 12). Harrys world: Bewitching or bewitched? Fantasy series reaps both
applause, censure from religious readers, leaders. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. 1B.