Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft's "I'm a PC" Ad Airs
- Thread starter davepelz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have seen the UK version of the ads. Where did you think I got these screenshots from?
Do you *always* take things so literally? It's not exclusively about the glasses or the weight, it's about making him look like a dork/loser/nerd, via either weight, glasses, demeanor, mannerisms, etc. Stop bearing around the bush.
Heck the UK ads have been deemed a failure and backfired (and I believed pulled from TV?) because people immediately caught on to the elitism, smugness and arrogance that they portray, so they turned people off, and instead made them side with poor PC guy and think negatively of Apple. Too funny.
Well yeah, wouldn't everyone want to make an ad that just makes everybody go out and blindly buy whatever product? Can't argue against that. But that's just not realistic. Nobody has ever been able to come up with such a thing. That doesn't mean anything.
And these ads are clearly not made to make people go out and buy stuff. MS obviously has more than enough of that. They're branding ads, plain and simple. Like the Think Different ads were at one point. They didn't even mention the Mac a single time, yet that was another excellent campaign.
I think the genius of these ads is precisely that they're not directly responding to Apple by attacking back. They're just taking back the "PC" brand and making it appealing in their own terms, without mentioning Apple or Macs once. Yet by doing that they automatically annulled Apple's ads, making them look arrogant and smug, and making everyone think of the "I'm a PC" campaign any time "I'm a PC" is ever mentioned again. Pure gold.
You may think they're boring, bland, stupid, whatever. You're entitled to your opinion. But the fact is, they have the entire world abuzz, and from a marketing perspective they're pure genius, just look at the reaction from the experts on the subject (which I previously posted a sample of). If these were just a "textbook approach to marketing" I don't think that would be happening much.
Finally, you say that the Carls Jr ads were great, because they made people talk; got their attention. You're contradicting yourself! These ads have gotten people talking way more than those ever did!
Right. Although I think this was in part because of the association to their Peep Show characters, where Webb (Mac) plays a smug jerk while Mitchell (PC) plays a friendly and good-natured guy.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&newsID=17241
Here another review. The guy is a Mac hater, but his point about the roles of the actors in the UK ads is spot on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/05/comment.media
Again, you are wrong.
And there is no point in arguing with you. You've made up your mind that some how Hodgeman represents the user which is totally wrong.
You think Justin Long compares to a supermodel? He's an ordinary guy wearing ordinary clothes with a scruffy beard. He is not athletic as your previous post implied, he is not a supermodel, where do you get this stuff?
Again, what does a supermodel advertising Pepsi have to do with anything here. Oh, that's right you think Justin Long is an athletic supermodel.
Have you not read my signature, yet? You blindly call me a zealot, which is also wrong. You're ad hominem attacks only further degrade your arguments.
That still doesn't prevent other people from ridiculing the ads, as has been done by people that may not be marketing geniuses, or post on marketing blogs.
Yes that's the point, but who cares? The ads have brought criticism and justifiably so. The ads aren't original, aren't clever or entertaining, nor have humor to make them memorable.
Someone has to, the ads as they stand don't.
Yes, it is. Almost as hilarious as your implication that Justin Long is an athletic supermodel.
That is the best criticism I've read yet. Completely sums up the effect of the ads.
Not a single person I know, either friends or coworkers have mentioned the ads. If I bring it up they only look quizzically at me like what are you talking about. I think you confuse the blog world with the rest of the world.
Most people, and by and large the typical consumer, considers computers a necessary evil. They suffer the use of them as a means to an end. Sometimes giving up, with their computer siting idly by, in another room never or rarely used. Which the Microsoft commercials do not address.
I do think there's a visual implication in the Mac ads, between the chill and slick young college looking student, and the uptight jealous middle aged ''geek'' in the suit.
There is a visual implication, no doubt about it. But I still think they're good ads.
I mean, all ads are **** anyways when you realize they're taking advantage of everything we culturally see as 'good' in order to sell their product. That is ****, but that's also their purpose, and if I had to choose an ad to watch, it might be the series of Mac ads.
There is a visual implication, no doubt about it. But I still think they're good ads.
I mean, all ads are **** anyways when you realize they're taking advantage of everything we culturally see as 'good' in order to sell their product. That is ****, but that's also their purpose, and if I had to choose an ad to watch, it might be the series of Mac ads.
I guess we'll just settle on agreeing that the ads fall in line with basic marketing principals, but disagree on the effectiveness. Justin Long singlehandedly kept me from switching to Mac for several years. His character came across as a smug d-bag telling me that I was stupid to use anything but what the 'cool' people used. Was this Apple's intention? No. But the contrast between Hodgeman and Long made me like PC's more. Microsoft's ads are gambling on the fact that I'm not the only person out there who feels that way.
As to pop culture, you're right, I was wrong. Mea culpa.
And rickag, you're absolutely right that most people consider computers a necessary evil. I'd argue that neither Microsoft nor Apple really has a chance of convincing those people to buy their product. What they're selling is both too technical and too expensive to ever truly target the mass market (as, for example, Campbell Soup does). What they can, and are attempting to do is convince the people who influence the purchasing decisions of friends & family.
rickag
Lets say for the sake of argument that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Does that not tell you something thing? If the way these ads come across to me, henrymonroe, and others is completely wrong, then clearly these ads did not do their intended job. If the goal is message X but everyone interprets it as message Y then there is a serious problem with that marketing.
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! While the explicit goal was to demonstrate the difference between OS X (which the ads presented as doing fun creative stuff) and Windows (which the ads presented as virus ridden spreadsheet machine), each platform was presented in the way it was (dorky vs. cool) to give a visual representation of that point.
This is the message Apple wanted to give: Mac's do cool fun stuff, PC's do boring uncool stuff. The visual representation of this point was through the characters. However the tacit suggestion--which may or may not have been an explicit intention--was that cool fun people do music, photos and video and obviously use a Mac for this, whilst boring uncool people do spreadsheets, word processing and other office stuff, and obviously use a PC for this. In other words... Mac's are cool and their users do fun things; PCs are uncool and their users do boring things. The fact is that is the message that is there, even if it was not Apple's intention. I happen think however that it was Apple's intention. They were clearly trying to encise people over to Apple because of the cool factor, and it worked. It was genius. Now Apple is the cool company to be associated with and I'm sure many people pick Mac's (and iPods) for that reason.
As I've said before... I don't dislike the Apple ads; I think they're really good. My criticism is purely on the suggestion of the ads that Mac's are the way to go for creative stuff whereas Windows are the way to go for number crunching. Both do each well. It isn't an argument for why OS X is better than Windows. OS X is better for other reasons.
Lets say for the sake of argument that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Does that not tell you something thing? If the way these ads come across to me, henrymonroe, and others is completely wrong, then clearly these ads did not do their intended job. If the goal is message X but everyone interprets it as message Y then there is a serious problem with that marketing.
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! While the explicit goal was to demonstrate the difference between OS X (which the ads presented as doing fun creative stuff) and Windows (which the ads presented as virus ridden spreadsheet machine), each platform was presented in the way it was (dorky vs. cool) to give a visual representation of that point.
This is the message Apple wanted to give: Mac's do cool fun stuff, PC's do boring uncool stuff. The visual representation of this point was through the characters. However the tacit suggestion--which may or may not have been an explicit intention--was that cool fun people do music, photos and video and obviously use a Mac for this, whilst boring uncool people do spreadsheets, word processing and other office stuff, and obviously use a PC for this. In other words... Mac's are cool and their users do fun things; PCs are uncool and their users do boring things. The fact is that is the message that is there, even if it was not Apple's intention. I happen think however that it was Apple's intention. They were clearly trying to encise people over to Apple because of the cool factor, and it worked. It was genius. Now Apple is the cool company to be associated with and I'm sure many people pick Mac's (and iPods) for that reason.
As I've said before... I don't dislike the Apple ads; I think they're really good. My criticism is purely on the suggestion of the ads that Mac's are the way to go for creative stuff whereas Windows are the way to go for number crunching. Both do each well. It isn't an argument for why OS X is better than Windows. OS X is better for other reasons.
guys guys....stop already.
hasnt this thread gone on long enough?
arent you all bored yet?
what s the point?
youre never gonna agree.
my advice is do something more productinve or constructive.
they made the ad, you watched it. its over. move on with life.
jeeeeez.
im just about to unsubscribe from this zzzzzzzzzz thread.
hasnt this thread gone on long enough?
arent you all bored yet?
what s the point?
youre never gonna agree.
my advice is do something more productinve or constructive.
they made the ad, you watched it. its over. move on with life.
jeeeeez.
im just about to unsubscribe from this zzzzzzzzzz thread.
I am not alone believing that Hodgeman represents a PC and Long represents a Mac.
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.
Of course not and this statement makes no sense.
Agreed, but the point of some of Apple's ads was to show that while PCs can indeed do graphics, Apple computers(ie: Mac OS X) does it easier and better.
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.
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.
I tire of defending the Apple ads, especially in a thread about the Microsoft ads. Yes, people misinterpret the Apple ads which is unfortunate. I have said that Apple should move on, not so much because of this misrepresentation, but because this series is over 2 years old.
But the Microsoft ads have indeed opened themselves up to ridicule as can be plainly seen on the web, either spoofs or articles written about them. 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. 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.
sra. Aguirre said it best,"No. They simply tell me what I already know. A LOT of people use and have a PC. yawn." These 18 words sum up the entire thread. Neat, simple, to the point.
I'm getting to that point. These arguments are starting to get really annoying. Heck I already decided what I think.
And the Mac is a PC too. Simple as that. They mentioned that in there second ad. Its more about choice these days since the Intel switch. I've had a bad experience with the PC on every system (Dell, HP, Compaq laptop), so I'm staying Mac. But if anyone want to go PC, then finally set aside your differences and go!
this thread is zzzzzzzzzzzzz
of course mac is a pc....mac is just a branded pc...... same components inside.
EVERYONE has had a bad experience with every pc on the face of the earth.
no body has switched from mac to pc....no one.
goodbye.
Guys, guys AND girls
but you are SO right....it's boring already.....
guys is a unisex term ....its used for male and female.
feeel me?
I bet you use a PC... only a jankass operating system would make assumptions about what isn't already known by a complete stranger on the internetz. Here, I think I found the .dll file you were looking for: Xerox.
Yeah, I saw Pirates of Silicone Valley back when it came out.
I do believe you shouldn't be taking the "I'm a mac" and "I'm a PC" adverts so literally.
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:
Again, you're failing to see the implication of Apple ads, and hence your confusion at Microsoft's rebuttal.rickag said:
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.
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:
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.rickag said:
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.
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:
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:
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.rickag said:
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!
Boy o boy.... Thanks for demonstrating your inability to understand the ads.rickag said:
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.
1. Obviouslyrickag said:
2. That was not the point of this ad campaign
I quite liked the new MS advert.
I've always disliked the "I'm a mac" style, basically saying that it's stupid to use a pc with windows.
I think they should be focusing more on the actual software packages installed out of the box, showing off how and what you can do with your media, docs and other common uses.
I've always disliked the "I'm a mac" style, basically saying that it's stupid to use a pc with windows.
I think they should be focusing more on the actual software packages installed out of the box, showing off how and what you can do with your media, docs and other common uses.
I'm a PC and I'm a mac. I liked the commercial although I just switched to a macbook and loving it. I like working with both though.