This guy must be a major Apple fanboy. The unbiased NY Times article states that the latest Microsoft ads have been very effective when you consider what they've spent vs Apple. Apple even lowered the Mac prices in responce to MS ads and had their lawyer contact MS to stop the ads. That's not effective?
This guy Wolf is speaking out of his A$&!
Here is the article ( I posted it for you all previously on Monday):
MS was misrepresenting Apple's prices. That's a legal issue.
And I'm sure MS went to all that trouble, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to help Apple sell more Macs and turn out a record quarter in a recession, while turning out a history-making lousy quarter themselves.
The MS ads were very effective. For Apple. May MS continue with these ads.
The recent Microsoft campaigns have been the most ill-conceived and misdirected campaigns from a major company I've ever seen. There is something seriously wrong at the heart of MS; and I suspect it is Ballmer.
yes yes
but noooooooo
!!!!!
Balmer is a geniuus at mis direction /he gets us to look away from his bloatware window7/vista crap monopoly
by inventing fake issues .
THE msft ADS INCREASED SALES FOR ALL LAPTOPS
INCLUDING APPLE
because MSFT sells A TON OF SW TO APPLE PEOPLE .
MSFT sells to both sides of the aisle .
So why would balmer boy seem to attack apple ?? or did he ??
andf why has msft never responded to those 60 od apple ads till now ???
MSFT needs a strong apple to hide its only money making cash cow > that 91 % of p/c users are forced to buy/live with . because its an UNFAIR MONOPOLY IF NOT FOR TINY APPLE .
Balmer is a billionaire many times over he is not stupid .
But making us think he is a jerk idiot turns our attention away from the truth /
MS was misrepresenting Apple's prices. That's a legal issue.
And I'm sure MS went to all that trouble, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to help Apple sell more Macs and turn out a record quarter in a recession, while turning out a history-making lousy quarter themselves.
The MS ads were very effective. For Apple. May MS continue with these ads.
Wrong - they were only misrepresenting Apple's price$ after Apple responded by lopping $100 off Macs.
Please stick to facts no matter how much it hurts you to.
May MS continue with these ads- I personally wouldn't mind another $100 markdown as I'm in the market to buy this fall .
The recent Microsoft campaigns have been the most ill-conceived and misdirected campaigns from a major company I've ever seen. There is something seriously wrong at the heart of MS; and I suspect it is Ballmer.
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 /
Balmer is a billionaire many times over he is not stupid .
Well, he may not technically be "stupid", but I don't think he's "super smart" either. Most of his success, and fortune, is due to the fact that he was BG's college buddy, and little else. But for that lucky circumstance, he probably wouldn't be flipping burgers, but he wouldn't be running a mega-corporation, either.
But, I definitely think MS should keep him at the helm for as long as he wants to stay.
Actually, as I recall from reading that article, it said that while it at first appeared that MS's adds were effective, that the rebound of Apple's sales indicates that all that was going on was that economic conditions had made it temporarily look as though the ads were effective. In other words, the belief that they were effective was simply a confusion of cause and effect.
Yes, I just read the whole article and that seems to be the conclusion. That it first appeared that the Microsoft ads were having an effect, BUT, that it really was the economy and not the ads.
So poor teckstud is incorrect that they had an effect, if he's using that article as his proof.
Yes, I just read the whole article and that seems to be the conclusion. That it first appeared that the Microsoft ads were having an effect, BUT, that it really was the economy and not the ads.
So poor teckstud is incorrect that they had an effect, if he's using that article as his proof.
When you consider the fact that Apple has spent nearly double what MS has spent yet gained so little market share, which is more due to Vista's failure, then the deduction to be made is that Apple's ads have been highly ineffective. That is the fact. Prove me otherwise, poor Leonard.
Apple even lowered the Mac prices in responce to MS ads and had their lawyer contact MS to stop the ads.
You really believe that if a competitor lowers their prices... and therefore sells more units.... thats a good thing?
Quote:
That's not effective?
Yes. It's not effective!
Spending 300+ million dollars and roughing up internet fanboys .... is not effective.
Causing your opponent to complain because you have made a mistake in an ad... is not effective.
Telling ordinary folk that they can buy a PC for $700 instead of $1000.... might be effective but for HP and Dell etc....its not effective.
Apple still being able to still increase their sales, during a massive recession... doesn't seem to be.... effective.
DISCLAIMER: I am quite certain that Microsoft's four ad campaigns have managed to persuade some people not to switch to a Mac. But the point is ... how many?
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.
It's really simple. Microsoft's BEST strategy would be to make a better product. Windows 7 appears to be better than Vista, and the Zune HD appears to be better than every other Zune that came before it. I am certain that the next $300 million Microsoft spends on advertising will likely be more... effective.
Yes, I just read the whole article and that seems to be the conclusion. That it first appeared that the Microsoft ads were having an effect, BUT, that it really was the economy and not the ads.
So poor teckstud is incorrect that they had an effect, if he's using that article as his proof.
The fact remains that the gist of the article favore MS for now in the ad war.
And not for nothing -are the prices going to go back up once the econmy improves? Doubt it. The perception that Apple is overpriced was effecrtive in those ads- whether you agree with them or not.
The difference between MS/Apple and Pepsi/Coke is that Pepsi/Coke have roughly the same market & market penetration and are ~ the same size companies.
MS with their market size vs. Apple, simply makes them look like they are really scared of the "little" guy.
If Balmer would simply keep his pie hole shut about Apple, it would make him look like much less of an idiot.
Besides, MS should be pushing to sell Windows to Mac users. I imagine they get far more $$ from the sale of a retail version of Windows than they do for an OEM install.
You really believe that if a competitor lowers their prices... and therefore sells more units.... thats a good thing?
Yes. It's not effective!
Spending 300+ million dollars and roughing up internet fanboys .... is not effective.
Causing your opponent to complain because you have made a mistake in an ad... is not effective.
Telling ordinary folk that they can buy a PC for $700 instead of $1000.... might be effective but for HP and Dell etc....its not effective.
Apple still being able to still increase their sales, during a massive recession... doesn't seem to be.... effective.
DISCLAIMER: I am quite certain that Microsoft's four ad campaigns have managed to persuade some people not to switch to a Mac. But the point is ... how many?
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.
It's really simple. Microsoft's BEST strategy would be to make a better product. Windows 7 appears to be better than Vista, and the Zune HD appears to be better than every other Zune that came before it. I am certain that the next $300 million Microsoft spends on advertising will likely be more... effective.
Read the article -Apple spends $300 million. MS only $160 at most.
This guy must be a major Apple fanboy. The unbiased NY Times article states that the latest Microsoft ads have been very effective when you consider what they've spent vs Apple. Apple even lowered the Mac prices in responce to MS ads and had their lawyer contact MS to stop the ads. That's not effective?
You think Apple lowered their prices $300 simply in response to these ads?
It may have played a very small part, but more likely market prices of building a computer have gone down. Also, market demand/prices for computers (everything really) in general have gone down, due to the economy.
The fact remains that the gist of the article favore MS for now in the ad war.
And not for nothing -are the prices going to go back up once the econmy improves? Doubt it. The perception that Apple is overpriced was effecrtive in those ads- whether you agree with them or not.
Well, I guess you can read into it whatever you like...
You think Apple lowered their prices $300 simply in response to these ads?
It may have played a very small part, but more likely market prices of building a computer have gone down. Also, market demand/prices for computers (everything really) in general have gone down, due to the economy.
Do I find it somewhat too coincidental that Apple lowered the prices after MS broadcast the ads , then contacted them to cease broadcasting them cause they were no longer valid? - Yes I do.
When Coca Cola advertise, it is for brand awareness / reminders. That's why the ads are so surreal, so you remember them. Other Coke adverts are heart warming, etc, so you associate good times with Coke (no, not that coke!). Same with car adverts, since when did a car advert, or a perfume advert, actually say what was good with their product? It's all aspirational stuff. You can be a better more attractive person with this car/perfume.
When Apple advertise, it's tongue in cheek education. You can do this, that and the other easily! People remember that you can do those things on the Mac when they next look at computers, and for some, it helps them get over the sticker price difference, when they remember the problems they had with their previous PC (which would have been XP at the time). We're just about coming up to the Vista switchers, those that got Vista, and hated it. Apple should probably advertise something to remind people that they've been burned with Windows in the past, and they shouldn't go and get burned again. Mainly because Windows 7 probably won't burn them if they get that far...
But what makes it a success from Microsofts point of view? Microsofts record dip in profit, or Apple's record profit for a non-holiday quarter?
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.
Wrong - they were only misrepresenting Apple's price$ after Apple responded by lopping $100 off Macs
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.
Comments
This guy must be a major Apple fanboy. The unbiased NY Times article states that the latest Microsoft ads have been very effective when you consider what they've spent vs Apple. Apple even lowered the Mac prices in responce to MS ads and had their lawyer contact MS to stop the ads. That's not effective?
This guy Wolf is speaking out of his A$&!
Here is the article ( I posted it for you all previously on Monday):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/bu...edia/30ad.html
MS was misrepresenting Apple's prices. That's a legal issue.
And I'm sure MS went to all that trouble, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to help Apple sell more Macs and turn out a record quarter in a recession, while turning out a history-making lousy quarter themselves.
The MS ads were very effective. For Apple. May MS continue with these ads.
The recent Microsoft campaigns have been the most ill-conceived and misdirected campaigns from a major company I've ever seen. There is something seriously wrong at the heart of MS; and I suspect it is Ballmer.
yes yes
but noooooooo
!!!!!
Balmer is a geniuus 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
MS was misrepresenting Apple's prices. That's a legal issue.
And I'm sure MS went to all that trouble, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to help Apple sell more Macs and turn out a record quarter in a recession, while turning out a history-making lousy quarter themselves.
The MS ads were very effective. For Apple. May MS continue with these ads.
Wrong - they were only misrepresenting Apple's price$ after Apple responded by lopping $100 off Macs.
Please stick to facts no matter how much it hurts you to.
May MS continue with these ads- I personally wouldn't mind another $100 markdown as I'm in the market to buy this fall .
The recent Microsoft campaigns have been the most ill-conceived and misdirected campaigns from a major company I've ever seen. There is something seriously wrong at the heart of MS; and I suspect it is Ballmer.
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
Balmer is a billionaire many times over he is not stupid .
Well, he may not technically be "stupid", but I don't think he's "super smart" either. Most of his success, and fortune, is due to the fact that he was BG's college buddy, and little else. But for that lucky circumstance, he probably wouldn't be flipping burgers, but he wouldn't be running a mega-corporation, either.
But, I definitely think MS should keep him at the helm for as long as he wants to stay.
Actually, as I recall from reading that article, it said that while it at first appeared that MS's adds were effective, that the rebound of Apple's sales indicates that all that was going on was that economic conditions had made it temporarily look as though the ads were effective. In other words, the belief that they were effective was simply a confusion of cause and effect.
Yes, I just read the whole article and that seems to be the conclusion. That it first appeared that the Microsoft ads were having an effect, BUT, that it really was the economy and not the ads.
So poor teckstud is incorrect that they had an effect, if he's using that article as his proof.
Yes, I just read the whole article and that seems to be the conclusion. That it first appeared that the Microsoft ads were having an effect, BUT, that it really was the economy and not the ads.
So poor teckstud is incorrect that they had an effect, if he's using that article as his proof.
When you consider the fact that Apple has spent nearly double what MS has spent yet gained so little market share, which is more due to Vista's failure, then the deduction to be made is that Apple's ads have been highly ineffective. That is the fact. Prove me otherwise, poor Leonard.
Apple even lowered the Mac prices in responce to MS ads and had their lawyer contact MS to stop the ads.
You really believe that if a competitor lowers their prices... and therefore sells more units.... thats a good thing?
That's not effective?
Yes. It's not effective!
Spending 300+ million dollars and roughing up internet fanboys .... is not effective.
Causing your opponent to complain because you have made a mistake in an ad... is not effective.
Telling ordinary folk that they can buy a PC for $700 instead of $1000.... might be effective but for HP and Dell etc....its not effective.
Apple still being able to still increase their sales, during a massive recession... doesn't seem to be.... effective.
DISCLAIMER: I am quite certain that Microsoft's four ad campaigns have managed to persuade some people not to switch to a Mac. But the point is ... how many?
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.
It's really simple. Microsoft's BEST strategy would be to make a better product. Windows 7 appears to be better than Vista, and the Zune HD appears to be better than every other Zune that came before it. I am certain that the next $300 million Microsoft spends on advertising will likely be more... effective.
Yes, I just read the whole article and that seems to be the conclusion. That it first appeared that the Microsoft ads were having an effect, BUT, that it really was the economy and not the ads.
So poor teckstud is incorrect that they had an effect, if he's using that article as his proof.
The fact remains that the gist of the article favore MS for now in the ad war.
And not for nothing -are the prices going to go back up once the econmy improves? Doubt it. The perception that Apple is overpriced was effecrtive in those ads- whether you agree with them or not.
MS with their market size vs. Apple, simply makes them look like they are really scared of the "little" guy.
If Balmer would simply keep his pie hole shut about Apple, it would make him look like much less of an idiot.
Besides, MS should be pushing to sell Windows to Mac users. I imagine they get far more $$ from the sale of a retail version of Windows than they do for an OEM install.
You really believe that if a competitor lowers their prices... and therefore sells more units.... thats a good thing?
Yes. It's not effective!
Spending 300+ million dollars and roughing up internet fanboys .... is not effective.
Causing your opponent to complain because you have made a mistake in an ad... is not effective.
Telling ordinary folk that they can buy a PC for $700 instead of $1000.... might be effective but for HP and Dell etc....its not effective.
Apple still being able to still increase their sales, during a massive recession... doesn't seem to be.... effective.
DISCLAIMER: I am quite certain that Microsoft's four ad campaigns have managed to persuade some people not to switch to a Mac. But the point is ... how many?
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.
It's really simple. Microsoft's BEST strategy would be to make a better product. Windows 7 appears to be better than Vista, and the Zune HD appears to be better than every other Zune that came before it. I am certain that the next $300 million Microsoft spends on advertising will likely be more... effective.
Read the article -Apple spends $300 million. MS only $160 at most.
Wrong - they were only misrepresenting Apple's price$ after Apple responded by lopping $100 off Macs.
That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter when the commercial was shot... or first broadcast. You said it yourself. "misrepresenting Apple's price$".
Apple complained.
Microsoft re-edited the ad.
Please stick to facts no matter how much it hurts you to.
Ditto!
This guy must be a major Apple fanboy. The unbiased NY Times article states that the latest Microsoft ads have been very effective when you consider what they've spent vs Apple. Apple even lowered the Mac prices in responce to MS ads and had their lawyer contact MS to stop the ads. That's not effective?
You think Apple lowered their prices $300 simply in response to these ads?
It may have played a very small part, but more likely market prices of building a computer have gone down. Also, market demand/prices for computers (everything really) in general have gone down, due to the economy.
You really believe that if a competitor lowers their prices... and therefore sells more units.... thats a good thing?
From a consumer's point- HELL YES!
The fact remains that the gist of the article favore MS for now in the ad war.
And not for nothing -are the prices going to go back up once the econmy improves? Doubt it. The perception that Apple is overpriced was effecrtive in those ads- whether you agree with them or not.
Well, I guess you can read into it whatever you like...
You think Apple lowered their prices $300 simply in response to these ads?
It may have played a very small part, but more likely market prices of building a computer have gone down. Also, market demand/prices for computers (everything really) in general have gone down, due to the economy.
Do I find it somewhat too coincidental that Apple lowered the prices after MS broadcast the ads , then contacted them to cease broadcasting them cause they were no longer valid? - Yes I do.
Why only then? Why not Jan during Macworld?
BTW - it was $100.
When Apple advertise, it's tongue in cheek education. You can do this, that and the other easily! People remember that you can do those things on the Mac when they next look at computers, and for some, it helps them get over the sticker price difference, when they remember the problems they had with their previous PC (which would have been XP at the time). We're just about coming up to the Vista switchers, those that got Vista, and hated it. Apple should probably advertise something to remind people that they've been burned with Windows in the past, and they shouldn't go and get burned again. Mainly because Windows 7 probably won't burn them if they get that far...
From a consumer's point- HELL YES!
But what makes it a success from Microsofts point of view? Microsofts record dip in profit, or Apple's record profit for a non-holiday quarter?
But what makes it a success from Microsofts point of view? Microsofts record dip in profit, or Apple's record profit for a non-holiday quarter?
I said it was an effective ad- that's all. And that can mean many things. It appears that MS is driving the price point home- that's all. Keeps more people from switching in a bad economy.
Wrong - they were only misrepresenting Apple's price$ after Apple responded by lopping $100 off Macs
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.