What's not to get? The silliness is making people talk about it (whether they love it or hate it) which is the goal of every advertising campaign. The people that are contributing funds and then also going under the bucket understand the power of making a spectacle of yourself (but in this case, not in a pathetic way) and issuing challenges to do the same. And it's working.
So again... what's not to get?
Thompson
That's what I don't get. Why is it working. I'd never thing dumping cold water on my head would start a movement.
This was a horribly misguided ad as it did actually attack potential customers. Luckily for Apple that ad was a very long time ago in personal computing history.
OK, it's been a day, shouldn't Samsung's CEO be following Cook's lead?
That's what I don't get. Why is it working. I'd never thing dumping cold water on my head would start a movement.
1. Sammy's CEO would just dump ice shavings on his head.
2. No one knows why viral vids go viral. I'm calling out grumpy cat, keyboard cat and lol cat to do this. The internets would explode!
OK, it's been a day, shouldn't Samsung's CEO be following Cook's lead?
That's what I don't get. Why is it working. I'd never thing dumping cold water on my head would start a movement.
Silliness caught on camera attracts eyeballs, commentary (pro and con), and media attention. Mix in a good product (or in this case, a cause) and you've got a powder keg. Now throw in a public challenge and you have lit the fuse. It's pretty simple to understand, really. Expect more charities to follow this formula via social media in the future.
Jerry Lewis understood this years ago (long before social media came on thee scene) and was the perfect silly front man for his annual MDA telethon. We all dialed in just to see what crazy antics he would pull, and we stayed when our heartstrings were plucked too. Then he challenged us all to contribute or even participate by throwing parties of our own. Same deal, different stage.
Silliness caught on camera attracts eyeballs, commentary (pro and con), and media attention. Mix in a good product (or in this case, a cause) and you've got a powder keg. Now throw in a public challenge and you have lit the fuse. It's pretty simple to understand, really. Expect more charities to follow this formula via social media in the future.
Jerry Lewis understood this years ago (long before social media came on thee scene) and was the perfect silly front man for his annual MDA telethon. We all dialed in just to see what crazy antics he would pull, and we stayed when our heartstrings were plucked too. Then he challenged us all to contribute or even participate by throwing parties of our own. Same deal, different stage.
Thompson
So why doesn't all silliness and/or good causes go viral?
edit: I don't think you're getting what I don't get about this particular campaign going viral.
The PC guy represents the WinPC machine, not the customer.
That's a very minor distinction, but the implication Apple was making with those commercials was clear: If you use a WinPC, you're dorky and nerdy. If you use a Mac, you're cool.
Apple personified the machines with two actors creating a relationship where the machine and user are identified as one and the same.
So why doesn't all silliness and/or good causes go viral?
edit: I don't think you're getting what I don't get about this particular campaign going viral.
Well, OK, now I understand that you want to distinguish this particular instance from others of this nature. I would think that if the silliness isn't so fantastic that it goes viral on its own, then you need a celebrity to give it a boost in the beginning. As with Jerry Lewis, and as with this cause.
Celebrity + acting silly on camera + championing a good cause + challenging everyone to do the same = Great formula.
Let me guess: you were the kid that never stopped asking your parents why, even when the question was - for all intents and purposes - answered. Right? (And that's not a bad thing.)
Let me guess: you were the kid that never stopped asking your parents why, even when the question was - for all intents and purposes - answered. Right? (And that's not a bad thing.)
I haven't stopped asking why. For better or for worse, it's an integral part of having a scientific mind.
Apple personified the machines with two actors creating a relationship where the machine and user are identified as one and the same.
The personification was to the machine. The user could choose what kind of machine to identify with, but the user is not their machine. That's a huge reason why the campaign was such a success, unlike the Lemmings ad.
The personification was to the machine. The user could choose what kind of machine to identify with, but the user is not their machine.
I still have to disagree. To me, the intent of those commercials was to say it was cool to be a Mac person and not a PC person. It's why the PC guy was dressed in a boring suit and tie, with the plain hair style and glasses, with the awkward social skills. Contrast that with Justin Long, a reasonably recognizable actor, who had a more relaxed and modern style. Yes, Apple was not specifically saying the user is their machine, but the way the commercials were presented, the linkage between user and machine was clear.
I still have to disagree. To me, the intent of those commercials was to say it was cool to be a Mac person and not a PC person. It's why the PC guy was dressed in a boring suit and tie, with the plain hair style and glasses, with the awkward social skills. Contrast that with Justin Long, a reasonably recognizable actor, who had a more relaxed and modern style. Yes, Apple was not specifically saying the user is their machine, but the way the commercials were presented, the linkage between user and machine was clear.
I would say that Apple was portraying the machines themselves as cool vs uncool. But given that people often associate themselves with the things they own and use, and Apple knows this, I would agree that they were purposely walking that thin line. And they walked it perfectly.
I still have to disagree. To me, the intent of those commercials was to say it was cool to be a Mac person and not a PC person. It's why the PC guy was dressed in a boring suit and tie, with the plain hair style and glasses, with the awkward social skills. Contrast that with Justin Long, a reasonably recognizable actor, who had a more relaxed and modern style. Yes, Apple was not specifically saying the user is their machine, but the way the commercials were presented, the linkage between user and machine was clear.
The intent is to get people to buy Macs. The cunningness of the ad is to get people who see themselsevs as cool or who want to be seen as cool to not associate with these uncool machines. The Lemmings ad and most of Samsung's ads attack the potential customer, not the product. That makes all the difference, just like on this forum where one can say, "Your comment is <insert a pejorative>," but can't say, "You are <insert same pejorative>." It's a clear distinction.
I still have to disagree. To me, the intent of those commercials was to say it was cool to be a Mac person and not a PC person. It's why the PC guy was dressed in a boring suit and tie, with the plain hair style and glasses, with the awkward social skills. Contrast that with Justin Long, a reasonably recognizable actor, who had a more relaxed and modern style. Yes, Apple was not specifically saying the user is their machine, but the way the commercials were presented, the linkage between user and machine was clear.
John Hodgman is the PC. He's also recognizable. The commercials were not referring to users.
The intent is to get people to buy Macs. The cunningness of the ad is to get people who see themselsevs as cool or who want to be seen as cool to not associate with these uncool machines. The Lemmings ad and most of Samsung's ads attack the potential customer, not the product. That makes all the difference, just like on this forum where one can say, "Your comment is ," but can't say, "You are ." It's a clear distinction.
There may be a clear distinction between calling the machine uncool, and not the person, but the message is also clear and the same - Use a Mac and don't be uncool. Samsung's ad is use a Samsung device and don't be a wall hugger. The iPhone users themselves aren't innately wall huggers, but it's the device that makes you one.
Being uncool is a result of owning a Windows just as being a wall hugger is a result of owning an iPhone. The concept and the message is the same.
The PC guy represents the WinPC machine, not the customer.
That's a very minor distinction, but the implication Apple was making with those commercials was clear: If you use a WinPC, you're dorky and nerdy. If you use a Mac, you're cool.
Apple personified the machines with two actors creating a relationship where the machine and user are identified as one and the same.
You're quite correct, and it was bad of Apple to do so. However, the ads are very funny and light-hearted, as Solip has mentioned, I think, so most people give them a pass.
The personification was to the machine. The user could choose what kind of machine to identify with, but the user is not their machine.
I still have to disagree. To me, the intent of those commercials was to say it was cool to be a Mac person and not a PC person. It's why the PC guy was dressed in a boring suit and tie, with the plain hair style and glasses, with the awkward social skills. Contrast that with Justin Long, a reasonably recognizable actor, who had a more relaxed and modern style. Yes, Apple was not specifically saying the user is their machine, but the way the commercials were presented, the linkage between user and machine was clear.
Which is why a lot of people sided more with PC guy - his vulnerability made him loveable, whereas Mac guy could easily be seen as a smarmy hipster git.
The intent is to get people to buy Macs. The cunningness of the ad is to get people who see themselsevs as cool or who want to be seen as cool to not associate with these uncool machines. The Lemmings ad and most of Samsung's ads attack the potential customer, not the product. That makes all the difference, just like on this forum where one can say, "Your comment is ," but can't say, "You are ." It's a clear distinction.
There may be a clear distinction between calling the machine uncool, and not the person, but the message is also clear and the same - Use a Mac and don't be uncool. Samsung's ad is use a Samsung device and don't be a wall hugger. The iPhone users themselves aren't innately wall huggers, but it's the device that makes you one.
Being uncool is a result of owning a Windows just as being a wall hugger is a result of owning an iPhone. The concept and the message is the same.
Problem is, the Samsung ads come across as snarky and irritating, whereas the PC/Mac ads came across as good-humoured and endearing.
This was a horribly misguided ad as it did actually attack potential customers. Luckily for Apple that ad was a very long time ago in personal computing history.
Soli, I think you're trying too hard to get the "real meaning" of that ad. I prefer to keep it simple, stupid, otherwise known as the "kiss method". To me, at least, that ad isn't "attacking" potential customers, but rather just identifying said group. It's just saying: All consumers have a choice between acting like a lemming, or trying something unique that we believe is better. Your choice.
And, IIRC, That ad was very successful , was it not?
Comments
That's what I don't get. Why is it working. I'd never thing dumping cold water on my head would start a movement.
The PC guy represents the WinPC machine, not the customer.
This was a horribly misguided ad as it did actually attack potential customers. Luckily for Apple that ad was a very long time ago in personal computing history.
What shame? If shame is getting 4x more donations than last year, shame on me.
Sure beats auctions and donation gifts.
Oh boy.
Windows.
1985.
1. Sammy's CEO would just dump ice shavings on his head.
2. No one knows why viral vids go viral. I'm calling out grumpy cat, keyboard cat and lol cat to do this. The internets would explode!
OK, it's been a day, shouldn't Samsung's CEO be following Cook's lead?
That's what I don't get. Why is it working. I'd never thing dumping cold water on my head would start a movement.
Silliness caught on camera attracts eyeballs, commentary (pro and con), and media attention. Mix in a good product (or in this case, a cause) and you've got a powder keg. Now throw in a public challenge and you have lit the fuse. It's pretty simple to understand, really. Expect more charities to follow this formula via social media in the future.
Jerry Lewis understood this years ago (long before social media came on thee scene) and was the perfect silly front man for his annual MDA telethon. We all dialed in just to see what crazy antics he would pull, and we stayed when our heartstrings were plucked too. Then he challenged us all to contribute or even participate by throwing parties of our own. Same deal, different stage.
Thompson
So why doesn't all silliness and/or good causes go viral?
edit: I don't think you're getting what I don't get about this particular campaign going viral.
The PC guy represents the WinPC machine, not the customer.
That's a very minor distinction, but the implication Apple was making with those commercials was clear: If you use a WinPC, you're dorky and nerdy. If you use a Mac, you're cool.
Apple personified the machines with two actors creating a relationship where the machine and user are identified as one and the same.
So why doesn't all silliness and/or good causes go viral?
edit: I don't think you're getting what I don't get about this particular campaign going viral.
Well, OK, now I understand that you want to distinguish this particular instance from others of this nature. I would think that if the silliness isn't so fantastic that it goes viral on its own, then you need a celebrity to give it a boost in the beginning. As with Jerry Lewis, and as with this cause.
Celebrity + acting silly on camera + championing a good cause + challenging everyone to do the same = Great formula.
Let me guess: you were the kid that never stopped asking your parents why, even when the question was - for all intents and purposes - answered. Right? (And that's not a bad thing.)
Thompson
I haven't stopped asking why. For better or for worse, it's an integral part of having a scientific mind.
I haven't stopped asking why. For better or for worse, it's an integral part of having a scientific mind.
Agreed.
It's a major distinction.
The personification was to the machine. The user could choose what kind of machine to identify with, but the user is not their machine. That's a huge reason why the campaign was such a success, unlike the Lemmings ad.
The personification was to the machine. The user could choose what kind of machine to identify with, but the user is not their machine.
I still have to disagree. To me, the intent of those commercials was to say it was cool to be a Mac person and not a PC person. It's why the PC guy was dressed in a boring suit and tie, with the plain hair style and glasses, with the awkward social skills. Contrast that with Justin Long, a reasonably recognizable actor, who had a more relaxed and modern style. Yes, Apple was not specifically saying the user is their machine, but the way the commercials were presented, the linkage between user and machine was clear.
I still have to disagree. To me, the intent of those commercials was to say it was cool to be a Mac person and not a PC person. It's why the PC guy was dressed in a boring suit and tie, with the plain hair style and glasses, with the awkward social skills. Contrast that with Justin Long, a reasonably recognizable actor, who had a more relaxed and modern style. Yes, Apple was not specifically saying the user is their machine, but the way the commercials were presented, the linkage between user and machine was clear.
I would say that Apple was portraying the machines themselves as cool vs uncool. But given that people often associate themselves with the things they own and use, and Apple knows this, I would agree that they were purposely walking that thin line. And they walked it perfectly.
The intent is to get people to buy Macs. The cunningness of the ad is to get people who see themselsevs as cool or who want to be seen as cool to not associate with these uncool machines. The Lemmings ad and most of Samsung's ads attack the potential customer, not the product. That makes all the difference, just like on this forum where one can say, "Your comment is <insert a pejorative>," but can't say, "You are <insert same pejorative>." It's a clear distinction.
It's a major distinction.
I should have clarified. It was a minor distinction in regards to the intent of the ad.
The intent is to get people to buy Macs. The cunningness of the ad is to get people who see themselsevs as cool or who want to be seen as cool to not associate with these uncool machines. The Lemmings ad and most of Samsung's ads attack the potential customer, not the product. That makes all the difference, just like on this forum where one can say, "Your comment is ," but can't say, "You are ." It's a clear distinction.
There may be a clear distinction between calling the machine uncool, and not the person, but the message is also clear and the same - Use a Mac and don't be uncool. Samsung's ad is use a Samsung device and don't be a wall hugger. The iPhone users themselves aren't innately wall huggers, but it's the device that makes you one.
Being uncool is a result of owning a Windows just as being a wall hugger is a result of owning an iPhone. The concept and the message is the same.
The PC guy represents the WinPC machine, not the customer.
That's a very minor distinction, but the implication Apple was making with those commercials was clear: If you use a WinPC, you're dorky and nerdy. If you use a Mac, you're cool.
Apple personified the machines with two actors creating a relationship where the machine and user are identified as one and the same.
You're quite correct, and it was bad of Apple to do so. However, the ads are very funny and light-hearted, as Solip has mentioned, I think, so most people give them a pass.
The personification was to the machine. The user could choose what kind of machine to identify with, but the user is not their machine.
I still have to disagree. To me, the intent of those commercials was to say it was cool to be a Mac person and not a PC person. It's why the PC guy was dressed in a boring suit and tie, with the plain hair style and glasses, with the awkward social skills. Contrast that with Justin Long, a reasonably recognizable actor, who had a more relaxed and modern style. Yes, Apple was not specifically saying the user is their machine, but the way the commercials were presented, the linkage between user and machine was clear.
Which is why a lot of people sided more with PC guy - his vulnerability made him loveable, whereas Mac guy could easily be seen as a smarmy hipster git.
The intent is to get people to buy Macs. The cunningness of the ad is to get people who see themselsevs as cool or who want to be seen as cool to not associate with these uncool machines. The Lemmings ad and most of Samsung's ads attack the potential customer, not the product. That makes all the difference, just like on this forum where one can say, "Your comment is ," but can't say, "You are ." It's a clear distinction.
There may be a clear distinction between calling the machine uncool, and not the person, but the message is also clear and the same - Use a Mac and don't be uncool. Samsung's ad is use a Samsung device and don't be a wall hugger. The iPhone users themselves aren't innately wall huggers, but it's the device that makes you one.
Being uncool is a result of owning a Windows just as being a wall hugger is a result of owning an iPhone. The concept and the message is the same.
Problem is, the Samsung ads come across as snarky and irritating, whereas the PC/Mac ads came across as good-humoured and endearing.
And the people in Apple's "Lemmings" commercial?
This was a horribly misguided ad as it did actually attack potential customers. Luckily for Apple that ad was a very long time ago in personal computing history.
Soli, I think you're trying too hard to get the "real meaning" of that ad. I prefer to keep it simple, stupid, otherwise known as the "kiss method". To me, at least, that ad isn't "attacking" potential customers, but rather just identifying said group. It's just saying: All consumers have a choice between acting like a lemming, or trying something unique that we believe is better. Your choice.
And, IIRC, That ad was very successful , was it not?