That new Mac ad.

[-Jrabbit]

See? You're embarrassing yourself.
Stick to things you know.

[Asher]

I know that insulting your target audience is not a good method to expand your marketshare.

[Asher]

I also know it's a very bad idea to have one of your spots brag about how there are "no significant viruses" for the platform, because that's painting a bullseye on your platform.

[-Jrabbit]

I know that insulting your target audience is not a good method to expand your marketshare.

Well, duh. And I know that jumping in a lake is not a good method to increase your oxygen intake.

If that sentence applied to this situation, you might have a point. Now go back to work.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Well, duh. And I know that jumping in a lake is not a good method to increase your oxygen intake.

If that sentence applied to this situation, you might have a point. Now go back to work.

You don't see it insulting for the portly workaholic geek to represent a product that 95% of people spent thousands of dollars on?

This is why the wrongness of this campaign has eluded you.

There's two problems with it:
1) The representation of the PC as a portly geek, which is either
a) fitting to the user
b) insulting to the user
2) The representation of the Mac as an insufferable hipster forcing his tastes on other people

They're two fairly obvious fundamental flaws to me. The problem is, the people who make these ads tend to be Mac users so these points escape them. That is, they're not viewing it from their target audience's perspective.

[-Jrabbit]

First, to effectively advertise a product, it makes great common sense to be an enthused user of said product.

Let's see. Chiat/Day produced the 1984 ad -- universally recognized as a classic success. People refer to it now, over 20 years after its production -- and it only ran once, during the Super Bowl. They also produce the current Apple campaign. The agency uses the platform as an integral part of their workflow, and they are fully immersed in the Apple corporate culture.

Asher is an avowed Apple hater. His blood pressure rises when he sees an actual apple with a bite taken out of the upper right quadrant.

Now who's viewpoint on the effective branding of Apple's new platform is likely to be more valid?

QED, troll. Pwnd.

[SlowwHand]

Run out of breath?

[-Jrabbit]

Edit issue. Fixed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Let's see. Chiat/Day produced the 1984 ad -- universally recognized as a classic success.

Irrelevant.

and they are fully immersed in the Apple corporate culture.

So surely they are to blame, then, for Apple's pathetic marketshare. After all, they were the advertising campaign entrusted with marketing a supposedly superior product, aren't they?

Maybe once you Mac-using ad-people get off how great you are you can see that the ads are ineffective, for the reasons I've outlined above. Apple's sales bump is due to their transition to the new Intel platform, which many Mac users waited for, and also because of likely iPod bump. The ads are, when using common sense, not helping.

This thread is the perfect example. Look at the reaction of PC users. The only person who is saying it's a good ad is a Mac user. Shocking, innit?

QED, troll. Pwnd.

You have to be kidding me. You haven't addressed a single issue raised and instead talked about a completely different (admittedly classic) campaign.

[-Jrabbit]

Don't make assumptions, troll. I'm typing this on my HP laptop.

Examining the deeper meaning of the minutiae of the campaign (casting, scripts, etc.) is irrelevant to evaluating its effectiveness. The simple facts are that Apple sales are up, Apple awareness is up, and people -- even you -- are talking about the ads.

The fact that you -- decidedly NOT part of the target audience -- are not impressed by this ad campaign, is both expected and predictable. Your belief that it somehow makes your opinions right is typical of your pompous, self-important approach to, AFAIK, all things.

But your taking the time to spout vitriol on the subject just further illustrates my point: it is, in fact, an effective campaign.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Don't make assumptions, troll. I'm typing this on my HP laptop.

With a MacGaming icon next to your name, your preferences don't need to be assumptions.

Examining the deeper meaning of the minutiae of the campaign (casting, scripts, etc.) is irrelevant to evaluating its effectiveness. The simple facts are that Apple sales are up, Apple awareness is up, and people -- even you -- are talking about the ads.

They're talking about them for all the wrong reasons. It's reinforcing the idea that Mac users, and apparently the people who market them, are out of touch with reality. Is it any wonder they're relegated to crumbs of marketshare?

This same company is the one who apparently screwed up Apple's chances in the first place.

The fact that you -- decidedly NOT part of the target audience -- are not impressed by this ad campaign, is both expected and predictable.

No one but Mac users are impressed with the ad campaign. Not just me. Thus, the problem.

it is, in fact, an effective campaign.

If you made a campaign with child porn people would be talking about it too. That doesn't make it effective.

Apple doesn't need simple brand name recognition. People know who they are. What they need to do is shed their elitist/snobbish image that's inhibiting widespread adoption, and they're reinforcing it. I am shocked beyond words that Mac-using advertising people, who are elitist/snobbish (see your second post), are unable to comprehend this.

[-Jrabbit]

They're talking about them for all the wrong reasons. It's reinforcing the idea that Mac users, and apparently the people who market them, are out of touch with reality. Is it any wonder they're relegated to crumbs of marketshare?

A lot of PC companies have come and gone without ever reaching 5% market share (the commonly used figure) that Apple has. Each share point in the PC market is worth roughly $750 million. Not exactly chump change. This is an alternative platform. They're not deluded enough to think they can overtake PC world. They just want continued growth. And they're getting it.

If you made a campaign with child porn people would be talking about it too. That doesn't make it effective.

Actually, it depends on your goal. Effectiveness is measured in terms of achieving goals, Asher.

[Wiglaf]

Macs want that image

Much like Bose radios, they are overpriced and marketed for the elite/snob/etc consumer


Asher

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
A lot of PC companies have come and gone without ever reaching 5% market share (the commonly used figure)

By "commonly used" you mean old figure. It's half of that.

This is an invalid comparison on its face. PC companies don't have very different products, Apple supposedly had a clearly superior system. They couldn't compete. Part of the reason is the loathing many people have for the smarmy Mac users, the other part of the reason is Apple's quirky and doesn't understand normal people...aren't.

[-Jrabbit]

Nice work fleeing from the actual discussion, Asher.