Microsoft's fight against Apple ads seen as waste of money - Page 2

Asolutely. And Apple simply reminded them of that change. MS was airing ads that weren't factual from a retail perspective. It's up to you to determine when, and if, MS would have envetually changed those ads of their own accord without any phonecalls.

But that's really irrelevant now. The original article is discussing the effectiveness of the ads from the perspective of the company they are intended to promote. MS' ads helping the competition (and therefore indirectly the consumer) is really beside the point. Of course consumers benefited. But this really didn't help MS when the dust settled. It only brought Apple more sharply into the public consciousness in a most complimentary way.

If you want to argue from a consumer's perspective, then certainly, the MS ads helped Apple, and the results filtered down to the consumer.

I suggest you learn how to write if you ever want to be taken seriously.

There ads are basically telling everyone this:

"If your cheap, buy a PC".

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.

Kia is using the same ad strategy now.

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.

You'all in the UK not used to down-home speak?

How so? You need to explain?
The $$ spent graph speaks for itself.

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.

She's the hottest thing since Ellen Feiss.
Why doesn't Apple resurrect her?

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?

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!

Exactly. Here's some cash; please buy our clunkers.

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.

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.

Very nice analysis!

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 Apples 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.

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?

Did you bother to look at the GRAPH? Do you know how to read a graph?
Click it on page 1 pleez.

You stated $300 Mil- you made that up. WTF is up with that?

Microsoft is getting stung on two fronts:

Apple in the OS Market and Sony in the Gaming Market.

If you study the sales and defects in the Gaming Market over the past 18 months you'll notice that Sony has steadily eroded that huge lead and popularity of the XBox360 over the PS3.

With the release of the new PS3 and price cut, Microsoft responds with a price cut to match. Microsoft is going to see more red in valuation as Sony surpasses XBox360 total sales come calendar year 2010.

Apple is going to accelerate it's market share of the OS industry and expand the profits plus volumes in the Phone markets, at Microsoft's expense.

yep, it's an evil tactic, those Apple stores. You go in to get an ipod and there's a workshop going on about editing home movies with imovie, etc. You start sort of listening while you wait for the sales guy to get your ipod from the stock room, and then end up sticking around. You go home and start thinking about all those vacation movies, the kids dance recitals, etc. Think "I should do something with those". you try it on that old PC but it's not nearly as cool and easy as it looked in that workshop. And you know, that old computer should probably be replaced anyway. And then Bing, the income tax refund comes in. And off you go back to the Apple store. Happened to two of my brothers. just like that.


1. You don't know that Apple wasn't planning that drop and refresh anyway. they don't pre-announce such things. The prices of component parts is always dropping so they could do it without effecting their profit. Plus the good will of doing it during their big Back to School and not 3 weeks after is huge

2. the lawyers contacted Microsoft over a false advertising issue, as a courtesy. Instead of just going straight to court where Apple would have won. Had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the ads. which given the sales numbers for the summer actually shows that the ads were not so effective after all.


BTW you are totally WRONG.

the 15" Macbook Pro started at $1999 and was lowered to $1699. that's $300. Not to mention the small bump in processor speed and doubling the standard RAM

as for the pricing issue, when did the component makers lower their prices. that is THE factor in when a computer company can lower theirs. Might it have been after MacWorld. Hmmmm. Why don't you go find out. And then when it turns out it was way back in Nov/Dec you can try saying the price drop was all about those idiot Laptop Ads.

And out of curiosity. are you Crispin, Porter or Bogusky. or are you just the mailroom guy. Cause the way you keep pushing how great and effective the ads are, you must at least work for the company

Well put.

for me it was iTunes on Windows.

I moved a Windows XP PC from a Mac in June, 2002, after using my PowerMac 6100/60 since July of 1994. Around January 2006 I finally installed iTunes in order to see what all the fuss was about. I was impressed with its look and feel, and wondered how much better it might be on a Mac. Mind you, all those OS X themes for XP had their effect as well. Made me wonder what the "real thing" might be like. So off I went to a local Apple dealer and was given a pretty extensive demo of Tiger on an iMac. I was impressed, to say the least.

I drove home with my heart set on a Mini. But I ended up waiting a bit and put some more $$ together for an Intel-based iMac. And I haven't looked back since.

Even the most minor Apple product, like iTunes, can (and does) act as a "gateway drug." You start out with some iPod or Safari weed, and then you move up to full-on Macbook Pro crack.

False Advertising laws require an ad to be pulled immediately if it is no longer factually correct. The ad in question was not pulled for almost 6 weeks. Way bad. Double way bad when you consider that they had other ads in the collection that never mentioned prices in any way that they could have put back into rotation while they fixed that one.

They are lucky they got a courtesy call and not just the papers for a lawsuit

I think that it's safe to assume that by saying that something is "effective" is .... a positive... ie a "good" thing".

You clearly state that you think Apple reduced their notebook prices in response to Microsoft's advertising. You also imply that somehow that is just one measure of how "effective" that advertising is.

What was Microsoft trying to achieve with their ad campaign?
To stop people switching to the Mac?
or to get Apple to reduce their prices?

The new reality:

Microsoft Ad = Waste of Money

I believe that this is now taught as "Ballmer's Law of Waste Material" in college marketing courses.

But what about when the Mercedes has the same engine, the same transmission, the same wheels as the Kia? Then you are paying for the brand and sporty look. At least in the PPC days, Apple had that argument, but now all you pay for is a slick case and the OS. The computer hardware is the same.

(I constantly get flack for this argument. Mind you, I hate Windows, especially Vista, and I am running Linux these days. My Quad Core desktop, with screen and Mac OS X only cost 800 bucks. Works just like a real mac does... so why pay the extra 300 bucks for an inferior machine?)

someone else noticed that our little studly is comparing two different years. which means his comments mean nada.


you mean this graph from the original article



that shows that in the previous 4 years Microsoft has spent way more than Apple on advertising.



excuse me but there's only one teckstud on this list yes. so this was you yes.


and again you are comparing Apple's last year to Microsoft's first half of this year. If MS continues the same way, but the end of the year they will have spent basically the same amount that Apple did in '08. and that's talking Apple's total ad money against MS's television only.

so your point ends up not so valid given that Apple's $$$ share and unit share both went up this year.

I made nothing up!

Once again, your powers of either reading ... or comprehension are letting you down.

The graph puts Microsoft's TV ad spend at approx $150 million PLUS in 2008
And the NYT article then states that Microsoft has spent $163 million on TV in the first 6 months of 2009.

That is over $300 million

Further more Microsoft and their agency made a big deal about the upcoming ad campaign, and the media spend, months before the work appeared. Here is one of a hundred different links. http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/786951/Crispin-Porter-scoops-300m-Microsoft-global-task/





With respect, that line could be a response to nearly all of your posts on this forum.

What if they used the laptop hunter concept to sell cars?

Imagine this:

"Hi, I'm Doug. And I want to buy a car. Okay. Let's see. It has to have four wheels. It must have a steering wheel. Definitely a radio. And I want leather. To get the hotties.

Let's check the BMW's. Oh no, heavens, they're way too expensive!

What about the Toyotas? Maybe. Hm.

Oh look here's a Kia. It has everything I want for less. Cool! I even saved $12,000. I'm a Kia.

Um, hotties? Where are you?"

(Add SFX of crickets chirping).





The BMW/APPLE in this case runs better, does more, and crashes less...

NO- that shows APPLE has spent DOUBLE in TV advertising year after year.
Hello? Anybody home?

And that would mean 2 years not one. Simple math- try it.

I'm hoping that you didn't buy an Apple for the "hotties". A girl doesn't care about the computer a guy has, just how he uses it. And if he uses it for porn, forget it.

Yes that's exactly the only reason why I have bought all my Apple products. How did you guess?

Hooray... more teckstud FAIL. Piot is saying that $163 million * 2 for the whole of 2009. Unless Microsoft suddenly stops all TV ads which is incredibly unlikely this is a very reasonable projection. He is not saying 2008's $150 million + the 6 months of 2009's $163 million. And, according to simple math, that's 1 and a half years anyway, not 2.

As to the graphs, you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between spending on TV and spending on advertising as a whole. People talk about advertising as a whole and you call them idiots who can't read a graph and then point to the TV only numbers. People talk about 2009's TV only as compared to 2008's and you call them idiots and then point to TV only numbers for 2008 and before, completely ignoring 2009's drastic increase by Microsoft. (Which is kind of central to the conversation.)

How did you learn our speech?

1 + 0.5 = 2.0? This simple math is hurting my brain!

I didn't notice anything in Piot's original $300m post about that cost being for one year/TV only, he said "$300m campaigns." When I read that, I recognized the $300m number that has always been cited as the cost of MS's ad push.

That said, you make a relevant point about Microsoft's TV-only ad spending being typically much lower than Apple's. But given that MS has spent $168 million on TV ads in just six months -- more than it spent in all of last year, with the 2009 back-to-school and holiday seasons not yet accounted for -- I would be surprised if MS didn't end up spending more than $300m just on TV ads for all of 2009.

i just had to relay this story:

i work with someone who is producing images for phones that uses windows mobile.

all he is provided from microsoft are low-res screen grabs. apparently, the agency guy who is in contact with microsoft can't even get them to provide him with a proper hi-res image. this has happened at least 5 times that i am aware of. it's maddening. it really shows a lack of concern for their end product, and thus, a lack of concern for their customer base.

all the pc trolls should be jumping on windows to get their shit together.

i also had an opportunity to work for apple late last year. super high standards. quality control begins when you sit down at your desk.

Where I come from 1.5 has never, ever been rounded to 1!
Especially when discussing anything financial. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us to where you obtained your new accounting and mathematical principals?
Even better yet is the fact that their 1.5 year still roughly equals just 1 year of Apple advertising.
BTW-What back to school products does MS make? \ How do you know they will spend as much this fall as spring. They may have seen a window of opportunity and ran with it. You have absolutely no way of predicting MS or anybody's advertising unless you head the MS advertising department.