a) People are talking about the ads, which is better than people not talking about the ads. b) That one was kind of funny. c) Microsoft has struggled, in certain circles, with an image of being an unstoppable, impersonal juggernaut. Perhaps they are trying to combat this impression. d) For the most important point, see (a). I don't even watch tv, and I've seen both of Microsoft's new ads.
When you say people are talking about the ad, you mean that a small subclass of the american culture - namely wealthy blog reading whites - are in some percentage, watching the ad. In fact as of right now, about 780k people have watched the ad on youtube across the many different times it has been uploaded. Which isn't a very large number when you consider that the us population is around 300 million.
May I offer the reminder that merely being seen is not the purpose of an ad. The purpose of an ad is to provoke a buying impulse, either now or in the future. How, might I ask, does this ad come close to accomplishing this?
Actually I don't think the purpose of every ad is to provoke a buying impulse. A lot of ads just shoot for brand or company awareness, which I have to agree with Jeromie on, is their goal here. They want attention and people talking about them. And they want to hit Apple's main users/target audience, which is exactly what they are doing.
a) I don't think people talking about the ads being horrible and Microsoft looking like a bunch of idiots resembling John Hodgman with their pathetic attempts at humor is better than people not talking about them.
b) I really don't think that was funny - at the very least, it wasn't funny in a way that will appeal to a wide range of people.
c) I think these ads make Microsoft look EXACTLY like an impersonal juggernaut which is completely disconnected from what people actually want. Again, they look exactly like "PC."
d) I still think if you've seen these ads, that's a bad thing. Because I believe on the whole they make MS look bad, not good.
I'm sorry if I sound really blunt or belligerent here, I just get passionate about this kindof thing. My angst is towards MS marketing, not anyone here.
I agree with Costa, they're not necessarily going for a buying impulse here. I think like Jeromie said, they're trying to change the perception of the company - they're trying to kick "PC." And I think they're failing miserably.
By the way Evan, I hope you know I was kidding. I would never shoot you.
seems like MS read your blog on why would they use Bill Gates and Seinfeld for an ad. they're yesterdays newspaper... see. I identify with the grandmother :0 VS
If you enjoyed this post, please consider clicking the Yes! button above. If you have something to share, please consider leaving a comment. Either one will make my day! Justin
I feel like I'm being had.
ReplyDeletePlease don't shoot me, but I kind of liked that one. :)
ReplyDeleteBANG!
ReplyDeleteWhat is going on:
ReplyDeletea) People are talking about the ads, which is better than people not talking about the ads.
b) That one was kind of funny.
c) Microsoft has struggled, in certain circles, with an image of being an unstoppable, impersonal juggernaut. Perhaps they are trying to combat this impression.
d) For the most important point, see (a). I don't even watch tv, and I've seen both of Microsoft's new ads.
When you say people are talking about the ad, you mean that a small subclass of the american culture - namely wealthy blog reading whites - are in some percentage, watching the ad. In fact as of right now, about 780k people have watched the ad on youtube across the many different times it has been uploaded. Which isn't a very large number when you consider that the us population is around 300 million.
ReplyDeleteGood point Rob, but who other than wealthy blog-reading whites buys Apple as opposed to machines with running primarily Microsoft products?
ReplyDeletePS Jeromie, I also don't watch TV and I have seen both of their ads. I think that IS a big point.
ReplyDeleteMay I offer the reminder that merely being seen is not the purpose of an ad. The purpose of an ad is to provoke a buying impulse, either now or in the future. How, might I ask, does this ad come close to accomplishing this?
ReplyDeleteActually I don't think the purpose of every ad is to provoke a buying impulse. A lot of ads just shoot for brand or company awareness, which I have to agree with Jeromie on, is their goal here. They want attention and people talking about them. And they want to hit Apple's main users/target audience, which is exactly what they are doing.
ReplyDeletea) I don't think people talking about the ads being horrible and Microsoft looking like a bunch of idiots resembling John Hodgman with their pathetic attempts at humor is better than people not talking about them.
ReplyDeleteb) I really don't think that was funny - at the very least, it wasn't funny in a way that will appeal to a wide range of people.
c) I think these ads make Microsoft look EXACTLY like an impersonal juggernaut which is completely disconnected from what people actually want. Again, they look exactly like "PC."
d) I still think if you've seen these ads, that's a bad thing. Because I believe on the whole they make MS look bad, not good.
I'm sorry if I sound really blunt or belligerent here, I just get passionate about this kindof thing. My angst is towards MS marketing, not anyone here.
I agree with Costa, they're not necessarily going for a buying impulse here. I think like Jeromie said, they're trying to change the perception of the company - they're trying to kick "PC." And I think they're failing miserably.
By the way Evan, I hope you know I was kidding. I would never shoot you.
seems like MS read your blog on why would they use Bill Gates and Seinfeld for an ad. they're yesterdays newspaper... see. I identify with the grandmother :0
ReplyDeleteVS
you seen this yet? http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115019&intsrc=news_ts_head
ReplyDeleteI did! I'm shocked but I think it's the right move. We'll see how they do in phase 2...
ReplyDelete