Where by "working" they mean "are making Microsoft look like a value proposition and Apple less so". In other words, they make Microsoft look cheap and Apple look premium ... this is not a message Apple is going to be upset by.
The entire campaign has struck me as strange. "Hey, we know you want a cool, desirable Mac, but you can't afford one -- so settle for us, we're cheap!"
Microsoft: Which second-best do you want to settle for today?
In other words, they make Microsoft look cheap and Apple look premium
I think the ads go further than that. They make Macs look elitist - in every ad the person representing someone real that the viewer could relate to to says something like "I'm not cool enough to have a Mac". Once they manage to get that message across to the majority of people that these Macs are elitist and PCs are more down-to-earth it might well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s actually in Microsoft’s favor to cast the choice as “Mac vs. PC.” There’s plenty of room in the market for a premium brand and a value brand. The endless Mac vs. PC flame war has been tremendously profitable for both companies, and it keeps other competitors from gaining a foothold.
If Microsoft looks like a good value, the idea of a free OS or a browser-based OS can’t penetrate the consciousness of the mass market.
/Ubuntu/ is down-to-earth, not Microsoft. Even look at their UI. Microsoft has been going for slick/future/gloss while Ubuntu wants to keep stuff warm/friendly/earthy.
they make Microsoft look cheap and Apple look
premium ... this is not a message Apple is going to be upset by.
Wrong. Apple should be upset and is upset because the market for "premium" computers is a lot smaller than the market for non-premium computers. With this ad, Microsoft is making that premium market even smaller for Apple.
Us geeks can laugh about the ads all day. But for Microsoft, it's a hit.
If WalMart did an ad campaign to steal potential Gucci customers, Gucci should be very worried.
I'm always surprised how many people think that the introductory solitary sentence "Wrong" is an appropriate response to a comment. Particularly so when the original comment is hypothesizing about someone's opinion of something (whether Apple will be "upset" by these ads).
Not to say the comment is "Wrong." It seems like a decent hypothesis that Apple's marketing strategy is to broaden its customer base, and that Microsoft's ads are hindering that strategy. I do think, though, that part of the reason behind the incivility of online discussions is the tendency of members to express opinions in the form of terse, unqualified statements of fact.
>> "If WalMart did an ad campaign to steal potential Gucci customers, Gucci should be very worried."
How successful would such a campaign be? I'd say not very at all. If I were Gucci, and Walmart were doing a campaign, I wouldn't be worried in the least.
Some people buy based on price, others buy based mainly on quality. Neither will be particularly interested in the other.
And some people buy based on the brand name of a product being a status symbol. In my mind Gucci is a brand often purchased for that reason. The quality may or may not be higher (admittedly, it often is), but that is secondary to the fact that only those who have "arrived" can afford to purchase that brand. Even on the higher quality products with the elite brand names, often the quality is not high enough to justify the difference in price. But if you are buying it as a status symbol, you probably aren't focusing on quality much anyway.
A better question is: how successful would the campaign have to be in order to get Gucci worried? I'd say not a lot because Gucci has a very small market vs. Walmart. If Walmart can get even a small slice, that amounts to relatively large $ revenue loss given Gucci's pricing.
Neither will be particularly interested in the other.
That is what a good campaign does: flips customers from one category to another.
Wal-Mart is already an anti-brand among the market segment that would buy Gucci. Target may have a better chance, but Wal-Mart is too solidly right-wing, rural, downscale, and outright unpleasant to shop in to really threaten an upscale brand. I don't know Gucci (I'm not upscale enough for it) but most upscale brands are also more durable, while Wal-Mart's products are invariably designed to be cheap and fall apart in a few months so you can go back to Wal-Mart and buy another.
Wal-Mart is already an anti-brand among the market segment that would buy Gucci.
Kinda like Microsoft is an anti-brand to Apple fanboys. But both Apple and Gucci's customer base have a slice of customers that are on the edge and not necessarily fanboys.
A campaign like Microsoft's is often targeted at a very specific segment of the customers who are convertible(ie. not the Apple fanboys).
I only know this from my marketing analysis class where we studied similar case studies.
"Kinda like Microsoft is an anti-brand to Apple fanboys. But both Apple and Gucci's customer base have a slice of customers that are on the edge and not necessarily fanboys."
These are two fundamentally different markets here. Computers (even Macs) are cheap enough that they aren't as stratified as fashion. A Mac might cost twice as much as a PC (though it really doesn't), but clothing can vary by entire orders of magnitude in price. If Gucci loses customers it will be to a rival premium brand or a midscale brand, not bottom-of-the-barrel Wal-Mart.
The auto industry is similarly stratified, and I understand it a little better than fashion, so let's discuss that. The strata (pre-GM/Chrysler meltdown) were about like this:
*
*
Aston Martin Maybach
Bentley Rolls-Royce
--------------------------
BMW Mercedes-Benz Lexus
--------------------------
Audi
--------------------------
Cadillac, Acura
-------------------------- | ------------------
Lincoln | VW, Honda, Toyota
-------------------------- | occupy all three
Mercury, Buick, Chrysler, | strata
upscale Ford/Chevrolet |
(Eddie Bauer Explorer, |
Corvette) |
-------------------------- |
Ford, Chevrolet |
*
*
These strata are probably wrong but they're illustrative. I
think Audi might be moving closer to the top tier, and I wasn't sure where Rolls Royce belonged but I made a decent guess.
No one says "I'm going to stop driving my Maybach and get a Ford Focus" unless they go bankrupt from buying too many luxury cars. Audi or even Acura could pick off Lexus/BMW/Mercedes drivers though. And someone who stretched too far and got an Audi might get a VW next time. But you're not going to have the lowest tier directly challenge the highest tier. In the PC market, Apple and Microsoft are already adjacent tiers, because there's no room in the market for any tiers above or below them. But the PC market is a lot flatter than other markets.
Don't fall into the trap of labeling people "fanboys".
I do agree though. It follows that once you realize how fantastic most Apple products are, it's likely Microsoft will look like utter garbage in comparison. Just like once you've driven a Ferrari, driving a Ford Focus will probably be a pretty rubbish experience.
"... while Wal-Mart's products are invariably designed to be cheap and fall apart in a few months so you can go back to Wal-Mart and buy another."
Maybe I don't shop enough at Wal-mart's, but I've not experienced that. They do sell some low-cost/low-quality items, but they also have name-brand items, but typically cheaper than, say, Safeway or Walgreen's.
If you're sure it's the same item, that's fine. Then again, they also sell cheaper versions of the same brand (Levi's for instance) that are pretty crap.
I actually went to Wal-Mart yesterday. There are things they do right (logistics) but in general, I don't buy a product at Wal-Mart unless I'm absolutely certain it's completely identical to a product I can get somewhere else, and that I know is durable.
'The entire campaign has struck me as strange. "Hey, we know you want a cool, desirable Mac, but you can't afford one -- so settle for us, we're cheap!"'
Know. Your. Audience.
Where are these commercial being run? America. Now, I bet they'd crash and burn in Western Europe and I'm virtually certain they'd crash in Japan, but in America, they work.
Also, it should be pointed out that it is not just that they are cheap, but that they "do everything I want" (which is all the Apple could do) and that they are much cheaper, not just a little cheaper. "Does everything I want" for $2000, or "Does everything I want" for $900 is not a bad sales pitch.
(Incidentally, I'm not trying to be anti-American, nor do I think this is anti-American per se. Being cheap is neither good nor bad; it has advantages, it has disadvantages. Being able to be sold something "premium" just because it's "premium" isn't necessarily a good place to be, either. It is simply that American culture will take cheap over almost any other attribute.)
Being an European (albeit probably not the standard one), I don't really sense the "cheapness". The ad to me is just saying: "why pay more if you can get something that does what you want for a lot less?" (which I agree on, and it's basically the reason I don't own a Mac).
The issue as I see it, is more about being practical and not just falling for trends or overpriced quality. It's like buying expensive branded clothes or non-branded ones. Is someone who doesn't buy Nike, Versace, Gucci, whatever brands being cheap or simply being consequent with their real needs?
Business experiences. I would point out I labeled them opinions, but they would match the business experiences I've seen. Getting a true survey would be difficult. It is also quite unlikely that all cultures have the same preferences on the price/quality tradeoffs, and Americans are pretty heavily loaded on the "price" side. (I believe Wal-Mart is having some success overseas, but they had explosive growth in the US for a reason, and I'm talking pre-recession.)
I buy many products from food, clothing, gardening, and house supplies that practically advertises the "off-brand" "cheaper" point. I like my cheap crap t-shirt from walmart. In a consumer market quality is not always the thing people are looking for. I get frustrated with my 100$ vacuum cleaner plenty but never enough to go buy a 600$ one. I don't think Apple should get upset, I think they should provide some lower end products. Even if the cheap apple computers are running P4's with 256m of memory, putting some products in the price range people are looking to spend would kill this advertising strategy and I will finally be able to convince my mother to get a Mac. (maybe throw a monitor on a mac mini and reduce the hardware a little).
Just a note: the emachine I bought 2 years ago for 200$ is still running great.
I hate mac because I need a mac to test with. If apple allowed us to VM macs, well, they wont be as horrible.
The point is that for the same price as an iMac I can get a pretty damn awesome gaming/compiling machine with 4 cores 8 gigs of ram, 260gig hdd, a nice video card, a giant monitor, and be able to upgrade it. Why would I want a mac?
But in the end, Mac OS is a superior OS compared to Windows XP. Congradulations Apple, you are finally able to compete with a 8 year old operating system. Thumbs up. Vista is actually pretty good, granted that some software is not compatible, but other than that it can work on the high-end PCs. People tend to compare vista's performance on a low-end pc with a high-end mac + mac os. Guess which one will run faster.
I always find these "Macs are over-expensive" arguments pretty ignorant. I suspect they come from people who have never used a modern Mac regularly.
I have a recent Macbook pro sitting in front of me. Granted, you could match it feature-for-feature and probably save a bit of money (not as much as you think, though), but, there's one feature you wouldn't get with any alternative: build quality.
This lovely piece of kit is far and away the best laptop I've ever owned, from a hardware point of view. Not only is it sleek and elegant, but it feels really good and solid (thanks to the single-piece shell). The trackpad is second to none. The keyboard is brilliant. The suspend/resume is flawless. Everything is basically perfect about it (ok, except for the glossy screen).
You can't get that by cobbling together hardware like most other laptop manufacturers seem to. And for a piece of kit that I sit in front of for about 14 hours a day, it's nice to have something that's so finished. No dell or HP or Acer or whatever ever did that for me.
So, no, you can't get the same hardware for cheaper. Because the way the hardware is put together is part of the hardware.
I have a recent Macbook pro sitting in front of me. Granted, you could match it feature-for-feature and probably save a bit of money (not as much as you think, though), but, there's one feature you wouldn't get with any alternative: build quality
I am typing this on a recent $2,200 Macbook Pro equipped with a econo-Sony-style el-cheapo keyboard and 6-bit low-contrast (and, therefore, glossy) TN display capable of only 256K native colors, the same junk Dell puts in their $599 laptops. My wife's white macbook is falling apart, literally - little pieces of plastic just chipping off its shell, I think it was by far the worst laptop we ever owned. My previous MBP used to overheat when pushed to full CPU/GPU speed (just like any other MBP).
As far as hardware is concerned, Macs aren't "premium" - they're quite cheaply built yet beautifully styled objects overpriced beyond funny.
Go for Thinkpads and HP EliteBooks, the latest Dell Precisions/Latitudes are pretty well built too. HP, for instance, is the only laptop manufacturer in the world who still offers 24-bit LCDs as an option, i.e. you can actually use their laptops to look a a photo without connecting an external display. All these machines require Linux, of course, to be HN-approved :-)
That's just a random list of features, "I can get" anything too. What you need to do is link to some online stores where you've built machines with an exact set of features and prices (assuming that initial purchase price is the only consideration anyway, which it wouldn't be).
This AP article [1] (tech.yahoo.com seems to be having problems just now) says that the overall market fell by either 7.1% or 6.5% worldwide, depending on if you ask IDC or Gartner. US shipments were either down 3.1% (IDC) or <1% (Gartner). Also, the article mentions that Apple's market share increased, but doesn't have an estimate of its shipments.
So without knowing how NPD Group is counting, this 1.8% number is not very useful. If it's global, it makes Apple look pretty good. If it's US shipments, it's harder to say.
I don't see anything supporting the assertion that the shifts were due to Microsoft's advertising. Given the recession (and the media's mood regarding it), I'm not at all surprised that consumers are acting a bit more frugal.
Not exactly. The measurement was of "value-perception" -- Yes, consumers are starting to view Macs as luxuries, but there's no evidence of a causal relationship between that shift an Microsoft's advertising. For instance, a similar trend was seen when asking individuals whether or not household goods (microwaves, dishwashers, air conditioning, etc.) were luxuries or necessities. What would Occam say?
I just find it sad that a stupid software monopoly positions itself to speak on behalf of all the PCs.
In my world Microsoft has nothing to do with computers: I don't use their stuff. And my Thinkpads+Linux don't present "value proposition" - they're far superior to Macs in every way that matters to me: build quality, their military styling, Linux superiority over OSX, their full size "spill-through" keyboards, 5-button precise touchpads with pointing sticks, huge batteries, etc.
I question their methods. First off, the Microsoft Ads suck. They aren't funny or interesting. I don't say 'ooh! A new batch of Microsoft ads' and run off to their website to check them out like I do with Apple's ads.
Second, their index says the index for Apple has fallen from 70 to 12.4? That's way too big of a shift for such a poorly executed ad campaign. As far as sales goes, haven't they noticed we're in the middle of a recession? Apple has been doing pretty darned well considering the skyrocketing unemployment rate and lack of consumer spending.
The fact that people do say 'ooh! new apple ads' is pathetic.Why would anyone care? it's an ad, if you have the product you don't need to see the ad, it only serves to stroke your ego and confirm your choice (which is an insecure thing to do). If you don't have the product why would you search for the ad rather than any actual information?
People have a long history of watching and enjoying advertisements, and they have become increasingly elaborate over the years. A lot of people watch the Super Bowl as much for the ads as the sporting event. Given the high budget for ads and the current trend of "funny" or "ironic" ads, it's neither surprising nor shameful that people like them.
The "ooh new Apple ads" could be in part because the ads have two excellent comedian/actors who help do the writing, and because most people find the current stance that Microsoft takes against Apple to be somewhat comical. Personally, I enjoy seeing John Hodgeman every chance I get, even if it is in an ad. He's a funny guy.
I wouldn't call it a long history, and as much as an ad is ironic or funny, it is there to sell you something, it's just pretending not to be to get your attention and making you want to watch it. I find it worrying that people would spend $1000s on the basis of watching a funny anecdotal ad.
All ads do, for most people, is focus attention and create a "brand sense." IBM used to meticulously cultivate a very "professional" sense of their brand, for example.
As a basis for product awareness, there is nothing wrong with this. For example, I was drawn to Nikon DSLRs over their competition when I learned saw the Danny Choo Nikon ad (I read a lot of what Danny Choo produces and I like his writing). Once I started researching on my own I found the camera I wanted and bought it (D90, btw). All the ad did was provide a signpost, should I feel ashamed or manipulated? I definitely did research and agonized over the exact camera and model to get, so I don't feel like I was tricked into a bad, shameful purchase. Nor do I feel particularly manipulated by choosing this brand over any other, there were specific features (mentioned in the ads) that I decided I wanted to prioritize.
People want to see some new ads because those ads are entertaining in and of themselves. The entertainment value of an ad doesn't necessarily bear directly on its effectiveness at selling a product, but it can make people want to watch, which encourages exposure (even of those who don't currently own Macs).
So Apple's perceived value dropped and "Microsoft's" perceived value rose?
There are two variables that need to be controlled for here:
1. Apple hasn't made any major product announcements this year. Apple is a company that lives and dies by its carefully controlled press releases and a sense of "newness" and "cutting edgeness".
2. There's no indication that the MS ads in question actually caused this shift. If they're talking to canny consumers, this switch could be around the perception of netbook sales alone. Those are skyrocketing, and a perfectly usable and incredibly portable machine for under $400 (after tax) is a great value.
Still, take this with a grain of salt. People love to provide reports that Apple is suddenly failing or did not deliver on sales promises, with all kinds of conjured "data" to back it up. In the end, Apple has consistently delivered or exceeded on their projections and they've held up their sales significantly better than everyone else in the market during the economic downturn.
So Windows is better, Apple computers are 'pretty but dumb' but you can put Windows on Apple hardware so...? - brain explodes - very Star Trek of you MS.
frankly, I don't think the demographic that is buying Macs (mostly college-aged kids) hasn't changed and won't simply stop buying Macs because of some ad campaign by Microsoft. Windows Vista sucked before it was released, it sucked when it was released, and it still sucks at the point when Microsoft is trying to bury it. Macs offer a very different user experience from Windows, and it's like saying a Chevy is better than a BMW because it's cheaper. They are two entirely different products that both happen to have a screen and a keyboard.
The entire campaign has struck me as strange. "Hey, we know you want a cool, desirable Mac, but you can't afford one -- so settle for us, we're cheap!"
Microsoft: Which second-best do you want to settle for today?