rickag said:
I am not alone believing that Hodgeman represents a PC and Long represents a Mac.
No one is denying this. The point I am making is you're failing or refusing to see tacit suggestion of this representation. Hodgeman both was a PC but he also representation a PC. Likewise, Long both was a Mac but also represented Mac. Their role as a PC/Mac was explicit; it was the representation of the PC/Mac that was tacit, and it was that which Microsoft was taking on.
rickag said:
Did you miss my statements that people do in fact misinterpret Apple's ads? Did you also miss my statements that Apple should move onto different ads? I only defend the Apple ads in context to the current Microsoft ads, after all this thread is really about the Microsoft ads. In the Apple ads Hodgeman and Long represent computers, however, it seems Microsoft is trying the same thing, yet, one of the PCs says, pointing to cows, "there are my employees. This alone shows that people in these ads, who claim,"I'm a PC", don't in fact represent PCs making the ads disjointed.
Again, you're failing to see the implication of Apple ads, and hence your confusion at Microsoft's rebuttal.
Apple were defining PCs as computers people use for spreadsheets, word processing, and other office based work. Apple were suggesting that this was uncool/boring. The WHOLE POINT of Microsoft's ad was to show that Apple's ad was a misrepresentation of PCs. PC's are NOT just spreadsheet machines. PC users and what PCs are used for are so diverse that representing in the way Apple did was inaccurate.
Microsoft WERE NOT trying to take on Apple's representation of PC's/Window (which is accurate);
they were rebutting the tacit suggestion that PC users and the things PC's do is purely one dimensional office-based work. This is why they featured designers, architects, lawyers, graffiti artists and all of the other people in the ad. That is why Microsoft's ads were so good... by showing the diversity of the PC user base they undermine Apple's one dimensional representation of PC's as machines that only do charts and graphs. Why did Apple not mention that fact that PCs also do design, architecture, music, video (and in many cases the software in these areas in Windows only!) The reason they didn't is because it would undermine their goal of portraying PC as uncool computers.
So long as you fail to see this, you will keep arriving at ridiculous conclusions.
rickag said:
Topher15 said:
A far more parsimonious explanation is that Apple were implying that PCs are uncool, and that Mac's were cool, and that each character was a representation of that status. This is literally staring you at the face. It was not a coincidence that the guy they got to represent a PCs was presenting in the way he was. Do you really think the ads would have worked if Brad Pitt was PC and George Clooney was Mac?
Of course not and this statement makes no sense.
Why does it make no sense. And lets be specific in your explanation.
rickag said:
So you agree that Apple was representing PCs as dorky and Mac's as cool. Good. So now you should understand the purpose of Microsoft's ads: PCs (both their users and what they are used for) are far to diverse to be called dorky, or uncool, or boring. The ad refuted that representation of PCs by showing the types of people who use PCs.
rickag said:
but the point of some of Apple's ads was to show that while PCs can indeed do graphics,
A point, which as I mentioned above, Apple completely neglected to mention! Why? Because it would undermine their intended goal. Apple's point was not "both do creative stuff, but Mac's do it better." It was "if you do creative you use Mac's, and if you do office work then you use PCs." And because Apple regard creative as fun and cool, by creating the creative/productivity dichotomy, they were creating a tacit cool/uncool representation of Mac/PCs.
Apple neglected to tell its viewers that PCs can do the same creative stuff for a very good reason: you don't advertise that your rivals can do X when X is the selling point of your own product! The reason Apple emphasised the PCs use of productivity based work was to distance PCs from the creative department.
rickag said:
Apple computers(ie: Mac OS X) does it easier and better.
I wouldn't say it necessarily does it better. You would not be able to identify which OS a piece of design work (or any work) was produced in. I agree that OS X does things a lot
easier with features like Expose, but there is not basis for saying it does it better.
rickag said:
No, some people do interpret the ads this way, many don't. Like all the switchers Apple had gained during the ads. No, what the Apple ads mean, is that if you would like to do, what you call fun stuff, an Apple computer can be easier to use. Granted, some people like you, henrymonroe and others have misinterpreted the ads that doesn't negate what the Apple ads intend and for the most part show.
I've already explained above why this is wrong. You're the one failing to see the intention of these ads. If Apple were really trying to say both PCs and Mac's do creative stuff, but Mac's do it better, then they would not have relied so heavily on the false dichotomy that they created; they would not have pushed PCs towards the office based environment which they explicitly did.
rickag said:
As to whether Windows can do creative stuff as well, I'll reserve judgement, but will say that everyone I know that has switched tells me this. And everyone who observes my wife organizing and editing her photos is amazed and expresses the desire that they could do this as easily on their windows machine.
It can. In fact in many cases PCs are better because the pro software is PC only! Particularly areas like architecture, CAD, CGI and music.
In any case, the point is not that Mac's do it easier than PCs,
its that in the ads Apple failed to mention that PCs to it at all!
rickag said:
The people in the ads are clearly stating,"I'm a PC", yet they don't represent a PC, they represent themselves which undercuts the very theme of the ads. Think about it, we have a wide variety of people that are using PCs, but the ads don't stress that the PC itself is what is best for their needs/wants. This is a fundamental difference in these ads and the Apple ads.
Boy o boy.... Thanks for demonstrating your inability to understand the ads.
The goal was to refute the one dimensional representation of PCs created by Apple, and they did it well. Apple represented PCs as machines to do boring office based work, so Microsoft response was to take on that misrepresentation directly and show how PCs were far to diverse for that sole representation.
In Apple's ads Hodgeman both
was a PC and he
represented and PC. In Microsoft's ads none of the people were PCs, instead they were taking on Hodgemans representation of a PC; they said "I'm a PC" to show that they represent the type of person who would use a PC, thus dismantling Apple's Hodgeman-esq one dimensional representation of a PC.
rickag said:
Just because a variety of people are using a PC doesn't mean it is the best tool, which I would think that would be a major point of any ad campaign.
1. Obviously
2. That was not the point of this ad campaign