Balmer is a genius at mis direction /he gets us to look away from his bloatware window7/vista crap monopoly
by inventing fake issues .
THE msft ADS INCREASED SALES FOR ALL LAPTOPS
INCLUDING APPLE
because MSFT sells A TON OF SW TO APPLE PEOPLE .
MSFT sells to both sides of the aisle .
So why would balmer boy seem to attack apple ?? or did he ??
andf why has msft never responded to those 60 od apple ads till now ???
MSFT needs a strong apple to hide its only money making cash cow > that 91 % of p/c users are forced to buy/live with . because its an UNFAIR MONOPOLY IF NOT FOR TINY APPLE .
Balmer is a billionaire many times over he is not stupid .
But making us think he is a jerk idiot turns our attention away from the truth /
MSFT MaKES MONEY ON ALMOST on all OS'S .
duh
I suggest you learn how to write if you ever want to be taken seriously.
I said it was an effective ad- that's all. And that can mean many things. It appears that MS is driving the price point home- that's all. Keeps more people from switching in a bad economy.
You also said the NY Times article was unbiased, which it clearly isn't. The ads were effective in getting Apple to target them, and they did sway public perception for a little while, but it doesn't seem like they have remained effective. Nor have they resulted in any tangible benefit to Microsoft.
Meet Rock. He told us he wanted 4 wheels, 4 doors and an engine... For less than $10k. We said you find we'll buy it.
Rock: "These Mercedes, your just paying for the brand. No real quality here. I think all your really paying for is the style and appearance." "Oh wow, a Rio. 4 doors, an engine, it's cheap.. I'll take it".
Congratulations Rock, your a cheap bastard with no sense of quality.
I said it was an effective ad- that's all. And that can mean many things. It appears that MS is driving the price point home- that's all. Keeps more people from switching in a bad economy.
To the contrary, according to the article, it appears that either they aren't driving the "price point" home, or that doing so isn't effective.
Which isn't really surprising. Most people viewing these ads are well aware that these are contrived scenarios designed to positively spin the product of the company paying for the ads. And why wouldn't they be aware? This is what all ads do. The only reason that the Lauren ads were popular is that young males, who make the most noise on the internet, thought she was "hot". They weren't interested in her PC or its OS, they were interested in her as an object of sexual desire.
To the contrary, according to the article, it appears that either they aren't driving the "price point" home, or that doing so isn't effective.
Which isn't really surprising. Most people viewing these ads are well aware that these are contrived scenarios designed to positively spin the product of the company paying for the ads. And why wouldn't they be aware? This is what all ads do. The only reason that the Lauren ads were popular is that young males, who make the most noise on the internet, thought she was "hot". They weren't interested in her PC or its OS, they were interested in her as an object of sexual desire.
That's why the new HP ad with her in it doesn't show her head.
To the contrary, according to the article, it appears that either they aren't driving the "price point" home, or that doing so isn't effective.
Which isn't really surprising. Most people viewing these ads are well aware that these are contrived scenarios designed to positively spin the product of the company paying for the ads. And why wouldn't they be aware? This is what all ads do. The only reason that the Lauren ads were popular is that young males, who make the most noise on the internet, thought she was "hot". They weren't interested in her PC or its OS, they were interested in her as an object of sexual desire.
To the contrary, according to the article, it appears that either they aren't driving the "price point" home, or that doing so isn't effective.
Which isn't really surprising. Most people viewing these ads are well aware that these are contrived scenarios designed to positively spin the product of the company paying for the ads. And why wouldn't they be aware? This is what all ads do. The only reason that the Lauren ads were popular is that young males, who make the most noise on the internet, thought she was "hot". They weren't interested in her PC or its OS, they were interested in her as an object of sexual desire.
Again you contradict yourself. I only said it was effective then you say it's not -only to followed by a statment about how popular she is on the web because she is so hot. So obviously it is effective for whatever reasons there may be.
2) The article's measure of 'effectiveness' is primarily regarding employee morale in the company. Frankly, it made me cringe thinking about what a sad internal state of affairs must prevail at Microsoft, if a Lauren-type ad and their senior managers getting some media attention is the source of corporate morale upliftment.
Good call. Setting aside the effectiveness of the "I'm a Mac" ads on consumers,
it does seem clear that they have damaged the self esteem of employees at
Microsoft. They seem to have internalized the neuroses of the "I'm a PC"
Again you contradict yourself. I only said it was effective then you say it's not -only to followed by a statment about how popular she is on the web because she is so hot. So obviously it is effective for whatever reasons there may be.
Did you read the article?
Yes, in its entirety. It would be considered "effective" if they were marketing Lauren. Obviously, it's been effective for her, but, apparently, not so much for them.
That's what happened to me. I went through two HDD-based iPods, an iPod touch 1G, an iPod touch 2G, an iPhone 3GS, and I just recently bought a MacBook Pro and ditched my PC.
Same here. I started with an iPod shuffle as my 'entry drug'. It was nice but not that nice. I later tried a nano, which I liked much more but even that didn't hook me. It was my iPhone that did it. Excellent design. Once I found out that a Mac could boot into Windows, I took the plunge. I now own 3 macs and only have 2 Windows PC's left. One is a media PC (HTPC) and the other is a laptop that is still serviceable.
I almost replaced my Media PC with a Mini this week as well but I wasn't sure if a Mac could be tweaked to deal with overscan on a TV output like HDMI in the same way that the nVidia drivers allow on a Windows PC.
Read the article -Apple spends $300 million. MS only $160 at most.
I read the article! You on the other hand didn't read it properly or else you are just talking tripe. Why change the habit of a forum lifetime?
"According to TNS Media Intelligence, Apple spent $264 million on television ads last year, 71 percent more than Microsoft. In the first six months of 2009, however, Microsoft responded with $163 million worth of commercials, more than twice Apple?s spending."
Ah, sad to see the teckstudian recidivism..... I thought that one could actually begin to have a reasonable conversation based on logic and facts, but apparently not.
Comments
yes yes
but noooooooo
!!!!!
Balmer is a genius at mis direction /he gets us to look away from his bloatware window7/vista crap monopoly
by inventing fake issues .
THE msft ADS INCREASED SALES FOR ALL LAPTOPS
INCLUDING APPLE
because MSFT sells A TON OF SW TO APPLE PEOPLE .
MSFT sells to both sides of the aisle .
So why would balmer boy seem to attack apple ?? or did he ??
andf why has msft never responded to those 60 od apple ads till now ???
MSFT needs a strong apple to hide its only money making cash cow > that 91 % of p/c users are forced to buy/live with . because its an UNFAIR MONOPOLY IF NOT FOR TINY APPLE .
Balmer is a billionaire many times over he is not stupid .
But making us think he is a jerk idiot turns our attention away from the truth /
MSFT MaKES MONEY ON ALMOST on all OS'S .
duh
I suggest you learn how to write if you ever want to be taken seriously.
"If your cheap, buy a PC".
I said it was an effective ad- that's all. And that can mean many things. It appears that MS is driving the price point home- that's all. Keeps more people from switching in a bad economy.
You also said the NY Times article was unbiased, which it clearly isn't. The ads were effective in getting Apple to target them, and they did sway public perception for a little while, but it doesn't seem like they have remained effective. Nor have they resulted in any tangible benefit to Microsoft.
Meet Rock. He told us he wanted 4 wheels, 4 doors and an engine... For less than $10k. We said you find we'll buy it.
Rock: "These Mercedes, your just paying for the brand. No real quality here. I think all your really paying for is the style and appearance." "Oh wow, a Rio. 4 doors, an engine, it's cheap.. I'll take it".
Congratulations Rock, your a cheap bastard with no sense of quality.
I suggest you learn how to write if you ever want to be taken seriously.
You also said the NY Times article was unbiased, which it clearly isn't.
How so? You need to explain?
The $$ spent graph speaks for itself.
I said it was an effective ad- that's all. And that can mean many things. It appears that MS is driving the price point home- that's all. Keeps more people from switching in a bad economy.
To the contrary, according to the article, it appears that either they aren't driving the "price point" home, or that doing so isn't effective.
Which isn't really surprising. Most people viewing these ads are well aware that these are contrived scenarios designed to positively spin the product of the company paying for the ads. And why wouldn't they be aware? This is what all ads do. The only reason that the Lauren ads were popular is that young males, who make the most noise on the internet, thought she was "hot". They weren't interested in her PC or its OS, they were interested in her as an object of sexual desire.
To the contrary, according to the article, it appears that either they aren't driving the "price point" home, or that doing so isn't effective.
Which isn't really surprising. Most people viewing these ads are well aware that these are contrived scenarios designed to positively spin the product of the company paying for the ads. And why wouldn't they be aware? This is what all ads do. The only reason that the Lauren ads were popular is that young males, who make the most noise on the internet, thought she was "hot". They weren't interested in her PC or its OS, they were interested in her as an object of sexual desire.
That's why the new HP ad with her in it doesn't show her head.
To the contrary, according to the article, it appears that either they aren't driving the "price point" home, or that doing so isn't effective.
Which isn't really surprising. Most people viewing these ads are well aware that these are contrived scenarios designed to positively spin the product of the company paying for the ads. And why wouldn't they be aware? This is what all ads do. The only reason that the Lauren ads were popular is that young males, who make the most noise on the internet, thought she was "hot". They weren't interested in her PC or its OS, they were interested in her as an object of sexual desire.
She's the hottest thing since Ellen Feiss.
Why doesn't Apple resurrect her?
To the contrary, according to the article, it appears that either they aren't driving the "price point" home, or that doing so isn't effective.
Which isn't really surprising. Most people viewing these ads are well aware that these are contrived scenarios designed to positively spin the product of the company paying for the ads. And why wouldn't they be aware? This is what all ads do. The only reason that the Lauren ads were popular is that young males, who make the most noise on the internet, thought she was "hot". They weren't interested in her PC or its OS, they were interested in her as an object of sexual desire.
Again you contradict yourself. I only said it was effective then you say it's not -only to followed by a statment about how popular she is on the web because she is so hot. So obviously it is effective for whatever reasons there may be.
Did you read the article?
2) The article's measure of 'effectiveness' is primarily regarding employee morale in the company. Frankly, it made me cringe thinking about what a sad internal state of affairs must prevail at Microsoft, if a Lauren-type ad and their senior managers getting some media attention is the source of corporate morale upliftment.
Good call. Setting aside the effectiveness of the "I'm a Mac" ads on consumers,
it does seem clear that they have damaged the self esteem of employees at
Microsoft. They seem to have internalized the neuroses of the "I'm a PC"
character.
Good call. Setting aside the effectiveness of the "I'm a Mac" ads on consumers,
it does seem clear that they have damaged the self esteem of employees at
Microsoft. They seem to have internalized the neuroses of the "I'm a PC"
character.
Well it also doesn't hurt when you have Bozo walking around calling the shots!
Wolf calls Microsoft's ads "a variation of cash for clunkers"
Exactly. Here's some cash; please buy our clunkers.
Again you contradict yourself. I only said it was effective then you say it's not -only to followed by a statment about how popular she is on the web because she is so hot. So obviously it is effective for whatever reasons there may be.
Did you read the article?
Yes, in its entirety. It would be considered "effective" if they were marketing Lauren. Obviously, it's been effective for her, but, apparently, not so much for them.
That's what happened to me. I went through two HDD-based iPods, an iPod touch 1G, an iPod touch 2G, an iPhone 3GS, and I just recently bought a MacBook Pro and ditched my PC.
Same here. I started with an iPod shuffle as my 'entry drug'. It was nice but not that nice. I later tried a nano, which I liked much more but even that didn't hook me. It was my iPhone that did it. Excellent design. Once I found out that a Mac could boot into Windows, I took the plunge. I now own 3 macs and only have 2 Windows PC's left. One is a media PC (HTPC) and the other is a laptop that is still serviceable.
I almost replaced my Media PC with a Mini this week as well but I wasn't sure if a Mac could be tweaked to deal with overscan on a TV output like HDMI in the same way that the nVidia drivers allow on a Windows PC.
For every Mac switcher apple gains an average of $1400 in revenue.
For every switcher that Microsoft manages to stop they get a revenue of around $45. (est OEM Windows licence)
$300 million dollars would need about 7 million NON-switchers to pay for the campaigns.
Very nice analysis!
Read the article -Apple spends $300 million. MS only $160 at most.
I read the article! You on the other hand didn't read it properly or else you are just talking tripe. Why change the habit of a forum lifetime?
"According to TNS Media Intelligence, Apple spent $264 million on television ads last year, 71 percent more than Microsoft. In the first six months of 2009, however, Microsoft responded with $163 million worth of commercials, more than twice Apple?s spending."
From a consumer's point- HELL YES!
You didn't say it was a good thing for consumers.
Apple sold more notebooks after they reduced the prices.
You said it was good for Microsoft.
Your argument wasn't strong to begin with. Now it's getting progressively weaker.
You didn't say it was a good thing for consumers.
Apple sold more notebooks after they reduced the prices.
You said it was good for Microsoft.
Your argument wasn't strong to begin with. Now it's getting progressively weaker.
Show me where I said it was good for MS? WTF?