Now... If your statement was just for people who were not very familiar with computers, then why specify an age?
Wait... let me guess.. depends on what my definition of "is" is, right?
I specified that the ads were for the people in that age group who were unfamiliar with computers. Most of the people (with some exceptions) who were put on the switch ads were in this category.
I also think the timing wasn't right. OSX was rather immature at that point. Even if it came out as refined as it is today, just the added complexity and uncertainty of starting with a whole new OS makes the decision to switch even more difficult.
If someone had asked me a year ago, "Do you think I should take a look at Apple's now?", Id have told him/her to wait. I only started with OSX at Jaguar.
But Apple will have other opportunities to make switch-type commercials. Switching will likely be a theme or sub-theme in many of their ad compaigns now. Its not like ten years ago when some people were buying a computer for the first time. Now virtually everybody has a Wintel PC. If Apple is to grow, they will need to speak to PC users concerns about changing platforms: user friendlinesss, software availability, speed, compatitbility, etc.
I also think the timing wasn't right. OSX was rather immature at that point. Even if it came out as refined as it is today, just the added complexity and uncertainty of starting with a whole new OS makes the decision to switch even more difficult.
If someone had asked me a year ago, "Do you think I should take a look at Apple's now?", Id have told him/her to wait. I only started with OSX at Jaguar.
But Apple will have other opportunities to make switch-type commercials. Switching will likely be a theme or sub-theme in many of their ad compaigns now. Its not like ten years ago when some people were buying a computer for the first time. Now virtually everybody has a Wintel PC. If Apple is to grow, they will need to speak to PC users concerns about changing platforms: user friendlinesss, software availability, speed, compatitbility, etc.
Immature?? When the switch ads were on TV, wasn't Mac OS X on its 2nd major reivision?? Hardly immature.
What an idiotic assertion: If a company ceases to run an ad campaign, that means the ad campaign has failed.
This means that Budweiser's "Whassup?", "How You Doin?" and "What Are You Doing?" ad campaigns were a complete and total bust. Their talking frogs? Absolute failure. Everybody hated those ad campaigns and Budweiser was very unhappy with them.
Wait, what's that? Those were successful ad campaigns? No, they couldn't have been...Budweiser stopped running them. That proves that they failed....right?
There is NO large company in the world which continues to rely on one ad campaign. The reason that they use the word "campaign" in the first place is that, as in battle, advertising is a series of sorties out into the public mindspace. You can never corral and contain that adspace forever. Advertisements are like an elite armed force striking deep into strongly-held enemy territory. They cannot remain there forever, but they want to leave a lasting impression.
To say that Apple's Switcher's campaign failed paints you as unschooled in advertising.
EDIT: added a few extra Bud commercial names to the list of commercials that would qualify for "failure"
.
Idotic? Thank you for being rude.
Do you really think that Budweiser's ad's are intended to sell beer? What about Coke's or Pepsi's commericals for that matter? Do you really think they are intended to sell soda pop?
When you see a Bud commerical do you have the urge to buy a Bud? I sure the hell don't. What about Pepsi or Coke? Not for me. How about you? How about everyone else who see's those commericals. Funny and entertaining, YES! Product pushers. No. That is why you no longer see Bud's frogs or "Whassup?" commerical. Joke is old already.
The difference between Apple and Bud is that Apple needs to sell its products. Apple is not in the position to simply produce feel good or entertaining ads. Most consumers have no clue about the Macintosh platform. Pointless, irrelevant commericals that do not show the merits of Apple hardware, software, and the Mac OS X are simply a waste of time.
The reasoning behind ads like that is that they push name recognition. Everyone here remembers them. It would seem that everyone here is reminded of Budweiser beer when the frogs are mentioned. The campaign was obviously a success.
Do you really think that Budweiser's ad's are intended to sell beer? What about Coke's or Pepsi's commericals for that matter? Do you really think they are intended to sell soda pop?
Ads exist to sell products. How they go about going it varies.
They're intended to stick the brand name in the heads of the audience, and trigger a pleasant association the next time they run across a Budweiser or Pepsi display.
What Apple needs is mindshare. People simply don't consider Macs to be an option when they look for a new computer. They might think Apple's (going) out of business, or intended for graphics - and that's if they think of Apple at all.
The message of the Switch ads is simple: Macs are an option. They get the name out. They associate it with ordinary people trying to do ordinary things, and succeeding. People can pin the failure of the ads on the fact that their dads considered a Mac, but then bought a cheaper PC, but the mere fact that their dads considered a Mac means that the campaign worked. The ads don't show any products because the exact product doesn't matter. The platform matters. Consider it something like the "Intel Inside" campaign: The point isn't to make you run out and buy a Pentium IV. The point is to prewire an association in your mind for the next time you look for a PC.
Switch isn't the whole battle, either. It's part of an initiative that includes the Apple Stores (where people can go to consider Macs for the first time, and see for themselves what they're capable of), the iPod and the iTunes Music Store, the aggressive push into IT via the Xserve and Panther.
Quote:
The difference between Apple and Bud is that Apple needs to sell its products. Apple is not in the position to simply produce feel good or entertaining ads. Most consumers have no clue about the Macintosh platform. Pointless, irrelevant commericals that do not show the merits of Apple hardware, software, and the Mac OS X are simply a waste of time.
Budweiser needs to sell products too, you know. You make it sound almost like the beer ads are intended as some sort of goodwill gesture, or that an ad has to describe a product in detail in order to work. First of all, it doesn't, as any number of ads that simply place the product in the hands of a model in a cocktail dress will attest. (Or, what do the Pentium IV ads say about the Pentium IV? That it has something to do with the internet!) Technical specifications just make people's eyes glaze over; claims about what the product can do just sound like everyone else's.
I'm open to the idea that the Switch ads could have been done better. For one thing, the music is irritating. But I don't see the "in your face" style working. Every switcher testimony I've seen emphasizes the fact that you have to get your hands on a Mac (or an iPod) and use it to really understand what the advantage is. Given that, the only effective ads are the ones that get people to walk up and try a Mac the next time they see one, or the next time they go looking for a computer.
Comments
Originally posted by iSushi
My statement was not that Apple commercials appealed to those in the age group in general, just those who were not very familiar with computers.
Posted by iSushi so long ago he forgot
... It didn't appeal to the younger market. It appealed to 30-, 40-, or 50-somethings ...
Now... If your statement was just for people who were not very familiar with computers, then why specify an age?
Wait... let me guess.. depends on what my definition of "is" is, right?
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Now... If your statement was just for people who were not very familiar with computers, then why specify an age?
Wait... let me guess.. depends on what my definition of "is" is, right?
I specified that the ads were for the people in that age group who were unfamiliar with computers. Most of the people (with some exceptions) who were put on the switch ads were in this category.
If someone had asked me a year ago, "Do you think I should take a look at Apple's now?", Id have told him/her to wait. I only started with OSX at Jaguar.
But Apple will have other opportunities to make switch-type commercials. Switching will likely be a theme or sub-theme in many of their ad compaigns now. Its not like ten years ago when some people were buying a computer for the first time. Now virtually everybody has a Wintel PC. If Apple is to grow, they will need to speak to PC users concerns about changing platforms: user friendlinesss, software availability, speed, compatitbility, etc.
Oh, and some of the people featured were hideously twee . . .
Originally posted by reynard
I also think the timing wasn't right. OSX was rather immature at that point. Even if it came out as refined as it is today, just the added complexity and uncertainty of starting with a whole new OS makes the decision to switch even more difficult.
If someone had asked me a year ago, "Do you think I should take a look at Apple's now?", Id have told him/her to wait. I only started with OSX at Jaguar.
But Apple will have other opportunities to make switch-type commercials. Switching will likely be a theme or sub-theme in many of their ad compaigns now. Its not like ten years ago when some people were buying a computer for the first time. Now virtually everybody has a Wintel PC. If Apple is to grow, they will need to speak to PC users concerns about changing platforms: user friendlinesss, software availability, speed, compatitbility, etc.
Immature?? When the switch ads were on TV, wasn't Mac OS X on its 2nd major reivision?? Hardly immature.
Originally posted by drewprops
What an idiotic assertion: If a company ceases to run an ad campaign, that means the ad campaign has failed.
This means that Budweiser's "Whassup?", "How You Doin?" and "What Are You Doing?" ad campaigns were a complete and total bust. Their talking frogs? Absolute failure. Everybody hated those ad campaigns and Budweiser was very unhappy with them.
Wait, what's that? Those were successful ad campaigns? No, they couldn't have been...Budweiser stopped running them. That proves that they failed....right?
There is NO large company in the world which continues to rely on one ad campaign. The reason that they use the word "campaign" in the first place is that, as in battle, advertising is a series of sorties out into the public mindspace. You can never corral and contain that adspace forever. Advertisements are like an elite armed force striking deep into strongly-held enemy territory. They cannot remain there forever, but they want to leave a lasting impression.
To say that Apple's Switcher's campaign failed paints you as unschooled in advertising.
EDIT: added a few extra Bud commercial names to the list of commercials that would qualify for "failure"
.
Idotic? Thank you for being rude.
Do you really think that Budweiser's ad's are intended to sell beer? What about Coke's or Pepsi's commericals for that matter? Do you really think they are intended to sell soda pop?
When you see a Bud commerical do you have the urge to buy a Bud? I sure the hell don't. What about Pepsi or Coke? Not for me. How about you? How about everyone else who see's those commericals. Funny and entertaining, YES! Product pushers. No. That is why you no longer see Bud's frogs or "Whassup?" commerical. Joke is old already.
The difference between Apple and Bud is that Apple needs to sell its products. Apple is not in the position to simply produce feel good or entertaining ads. Most consumers have no clue about the Macintosh platform. Pointless, irrelevant commericals that do not show the merits of Apple hardware, software, and the Mac OS X are simply a waste of time.
Since
Originally posted by Dave K.
Funny and entertaining, YES! Product pushers. No.
The reasoning behind ads like that is that they push name recognition. Everyone here remembers them. It would seem that everyone here is reminded of Budweiser beer when the frogs are mentioned. The campaign was obviously a success.
Originally posted by Dave K.
Do you really think that Budweiser's ad's are intended to sell beer? What about Coke's or Pepsi's commericals for that matter? Do you really think they are intended to sell soda pop?
Ads exist to sell products. How they go about going it varies.
They're intended to stick the brand name in the heads of the audience, and trigger a pleasant association the next time they run across a Budweiser or Pepsi display.
What Apple needs is mindshare. People simply don't consider Macs to be an option when they look for a new computer. They might think Apple's (going) out of business, or intended for graphics - and that's if they think of Apple at all.
The message of the Switch ads is simple: Macs are an option. They get the name out. They associate it with ordinary people trying to do ordinary things, and succeeding. People can pin the failure of the ads on the fact that their dads considered a Mac, but then bought a cheaper PC, but the mere fact that their dads considered a Mac means that the campaign worked. The ads don't show any products because the exact product doesn't matter. The platform matters. Consider it something like the "Intel Inside" campaign: The point isn't to make you run out and buy a Pentium IV. The point is to prewire an association in your mind for the next time you look for a PC.
Switch isn't the whole battle, either. It's part of an initiative that includes the Apple Stores (where people can go to consider Macs for the first time, and see for themselves what they're capable of), the iPod and the iTunes Music Store, the aggressive push into IT via the Xserve and Panther.
The difference between Apple and Bud is that Apple needs to sell its products. Apple is not in the position to simply produce feel good or entertaining ads. Most consumers have no clue about the Macintosh platform. Pointless, irrelevant commericals that do not show the merits of Apple hardware, software, and the Mac OS X are simply a waste of time.
Budweiser needs to sell products too, you know.
I'm open to the idea that the Switch ads could have been done better. For one thing, the music is irritating. But I don't see the "in your face" style working. Every switcher testimony I've seen emphasizes the fact that you have to get your hands on a Mac (or an iPod) and use it to really understand what the advantage is. Given that, the only effective ads are the ones that get people to walk up and try a Mac the next time they see one, or the next time they go looking for a computer.