That new Mac ad.

[Asher]

You abandonded the discussion when you refused to discuss the reasons why this ad campaign is ineffective.

You keep trumpeting nonrelated issues (the ad company's past, sales are up due to external circumstances, etc).

[lord of the mark]

Ok, so we're at the mall, cause POTM needs new sneakers, and some other stuff.

We pass the Apple store. I hope she wont notice it, but of course she does.

She spends like 20 minutes playing with "Photo-booth" She finds the way the icons enlarge when you run the mouse over them very cool. And the design of all the products, and the layout of the store.

I think when shes off to college, shes probably going to want a Mac.

Shes already said shed like an Ipod of some kind, maybe a Nano. Budding young hipster.

[Solver]

Duh, that's just a case of Apple making a good first impression based on the good looks of their OS. Install Ubuntu with AixGL and Beryl, and you'll also have a non-tech user salivating over how good it looks. Heck, that seems to be even how Microsoft wants to get users to upgrade, whatnot with Vista looking visually great, and having the video & memory requirements of Doom3.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Asher
You abandonded the discussion when you refused to discuss the reasons why this ad campaign is ineffective.

The discussion is about WHETHER the ad campaign is effective. And it is.

You keep discussing why you don't like it. Neither I nor Apple expects people like you to like the ads.

You keep trumpeting nonrelated issues (the ad company's past, sales are up due to external circumstances, etc).

Chiat/Day's history with Apple is totally relevant to demonstrate their understanding of the corporate culture.

YOU are the one who is claiming that external factors (the chipset change) is the "real" reason that sales are up. In fact, it's the reason that growth may be sustainable. But that is irrelevant to the question of whther the ads are effective.

In point of fact, this major change in hardware architecture is the reason that a major ad campaign was needed. Sustaining sales growth (of anything) without the impetus and momentum of effective marketing communications is virtually impossible. (Conversely, growth cannot be maintained without a worthwhile product.) You need both.

Again: by any rational measure, the campaign is effective.
-Apple sales are up.
-Brand awareness is up.
-Product awareness is up.

[Asher]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by -Jrabbit
The discussion is about WHETHER the ad campaign is effective. And it is.

Chiat/Day's history with Apple is totally relevant to demonstrate their understanding of the corporate culture.

So it is just as fair to compare their longterm results are woefully ineffective, given Apple's market position.

Again: by any rational measure, the campaign is effective.
-Apple sales are up.
-Brand awareness is up.
-Product awareness is up.

Brand and Product awareness? Come on. If that's what these commercials are for, that's a joke. Everyone today knows who Apple is and that they sell Macs. ANY commercial that says the product name qualifies those categories, so they're useless.

Sales? I take it you failed your science courses in high school. Sales were up before this campaign took place, and they still are after. Coincidentally, Apple announced a "wicked fast" new platform at the same time. Gee, I wonder why sales are up.

You cannot point to higher sales, a condition that even existed before the ads, and use that to say "the ads work". If you had any single fundamental understanding of scientific theory, you'd know why.

And yes, I know marketing is not a science...but the study of marketshare changes is most certainly done within the realm of scientific theory, not the whims of people who think a brilliant commercial involves talking raisins.

[Asher]

Here's a simple example for you:

Let's say Apple's sales per quarter were as follows:

Q1 2005: $200
Q2 2005: $190
Q3 2005: $210
Q4 2005: $220
Q1 2006: $230
Marketing campaign introduced here
Q2 2006: $240
Q3 2006: $250

Then your argument still holds:

Again: by any rational measure, the campaign is effective.
-Apple sales are up.
-Brand awareness is up.
-Product awareness is up.

What a strong argument that is. Indisputable, even.

[Verto]

All the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" ads are stupid.

Some of them are trying to get the right message across - "I'm a Mac, and I can use MS Office just fine", "I'm a Mac, and I connect to the same tubes of Internets that PCs do", etc, but the way the commercials try to accomplish that goal is stupid.

[Asher]

BUT THEY ARE EFFECTIVE!!! SALES ARE UP!!!@!! LOOK!!!

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
It's an image campaign, guys. It doesn't pretend to actually explore the differences on a factual level; these are just used as fodder for image branding.

The ads are not aimed at converting techy computer users. They are aimed primarily at the the existing user base and at the computer-challenged. The idea is to reassure them that an Apple will be do what they need, be easy to use, and won't break down. So they will buy one.

This is most evident in the casting of the ads -- the casually competent Apple guy vs. the cluelessly earnest PC guy. (In fact, the whole "what's the point" analysis reaction from dyed-in-the-wool PC users would be a source of great amusement to the campaign writers, who know darn well that folks of your ilk won't be convinced by anything they say. So they mock you.)

And usually the general impression I get (other than generally being annoyed at the ads) is that the Mac is somehow superior in some area and the PC inferior.

But this specific ad that I mention is quite the opposite. Instead of exposing a weakness in the PC and a strength in the Mac, it seems to espouse the superiority of the PC: My first reaction to the ad is that the PC is used by *more* people for *more* things. Everyone wants to use a PC! It's always busy! The Mac is left alone in a corner for whenever someone wants to use "iLife", whatever that is. For your every day stuff like listening to music or blogging, use a PC!

And I just find it an odd message for Apple to be sending out.

Generally, I find the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" ads to be annoying, but usually its clear that they are promoting the Mac.

[Lorizael]

Hm. Would it be legal for Microsoft to hire the Mac and PC guys away from Apple and do commercials with them in the same style that subtly supported Windows and PCs instead?

[Aeson]

Who is more annoying... "Mac" or "dude, you're getting a dell"?

[Asher]

Both are marketing stupidity that would be defended by Jrabbit.

Advertising people are soooooooooooo out of touch.

[Asher]

FWIW, the boring PC guy has an amusing blog:

http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Asher
Actually, by and large the reaction to these ads have not been what Apple expected. People are put off by the smugness and arrogance of the Mac dude and are slightly amused by the antics of John Hodgeman.

I like the PC guy more also. But they appear more as a comedy duo than actually selling anything.

[-Jrabbit]

@Asher - Your analysis is, as expected, as inadequate as your knowledge of marketing communications.

Actually, I can point to the higher sales. New poducts are not self-sustaining. They require effective marketing communiations fot that. why do you think Microsoft spent millions to get the rights to a Rolling Stones song ("Start Me Up") instead just waiting for 97.5% of the world to upgrade on their own?

Early sales growth is driven by Early Adopters and Lead Users. This is a small part of your user base. To sustain the growth from those bankable sales over time, you need to spread the word.