It proves highly difficult to showcase all the features of an Apple computer or laptop in a 30-second television advertisement. Take for example the new MacBook Pro, with “2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo,” “2 GB memory,” “200GB hard drive,” “NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256 MB,” and its many other features or technological advancements (Apple Online Store). Because these physical hardware components can also be found in non-Apple computers, the war for consumers and the advertisements that target these, are to be found on a different level. Instead of focusing on the hardware aspect of computing, the advertisements bring to the forefront the operating system, of the software that runs the powerful hardware under the Apple box. Instead of focusing on which offers the most gizmos and technical-sounding features, Apple gets to brass tacks and pigeon-holes Microsoft’s Windows operating system as clunky, antiquated, and most importantly, unreliable. Apple, on the other hand, portrays itself as the laid-back operating system that gets things done smoothly, effortlessly, and is aesthetically pleasing all at same time. Apple, in essence, is the alternative that works, is hip, and more technologically advanced. The “Get a Mac” approach appears to have paid off, in part because Apple’s market share has grown from a level of under 2% to approximately 8% since the advent of these advertisements (Bulik).
The “Get a Mac” advertising campaign began in earnest in May of 2006 and features two actors, Justin Long and John Hodgman, against a white backdrop (Macworld). It is important to pay attention to the calculation behind this seeming simplicity—two men and nothing else—because it reiterates the “getting-to-brass-tacks” attack approach of the advertisement. In these 30-second spots, the viewer is weighing the man (and the operating system he symbolizes) against one another, and nothing else. Which operating system can get the job done (the best)? In each “Get a Mac” television advertisement, the answer is self-evident, as portrayed by the actors.
In the advertisements, Justin Long stands for Apple (or “Mac”) and John Hodgman represents Microsoft’s Windows (or “PC”). The actor portraying Windows is always dressed in a suit and all wound up for a reason or another; the actor portraying Apple’s operating system is dressed in modern and relaxed clothing, giving off the impression of being laid-back and cool, for he is always keeping his composure as Windows brings to light problem after problem it is currently experiencing. The actor portraying Windows is a middle-aged, slightly obese white male; the actor portraying Apple is skinny, hip, 20-something years old, hands in his pockets, not geeky but technologically savvy.
A common theme in these “Get a Mac” advertisements is that the creators direct sharp, well-pointed jabs at what are perceived to be Windows’ biggest flaws: security, viruses, blue screens of death, driver problems, the need to reboot, and inoperability at given times. As the advertising campaign has progressed, the attacks have gotten sharper; whereas before Apple might let Windows do all of its self-destructing and crumbling for the audience, the advertisements have become more scathing and darkly humorous such as “Don’t give up on Vista!” posted to a podium and having Windows attend clinical psychological counseling to help it understand why exactly it underperforms so badly.
The “Get a Mac” campaign, which compels its viewers to “get a (new) life” when it comes to computing, arguably operates under the same principles that Thomas Frank detected for Pepsi, in the context of the Cola Wars. In all practicality, both Microsoft and Apple operating systems can perform word processing, create spreadsheets, browse the Internet, and many other functions. The clearest and most significant way in which Apple could make headway in terms of market share and attracting new business is to differentiate itself and attack all the flaws Microsoft’s operating system has, and has had for many years. In Thomas Frank’s “Carnival and Cola: Hip Versus Square in the Cola Wars,” we come across a quote that closely matches the Apple advertising campaign strategy: “one of the best ways to separate our product from the competition was to differentiate our users” (Frank 170). Applied to the Apple-Microsoft war, it is clear that the objective of Apple’s advertising campaign is to say “Microsoft Windows users are squares, clunky, antiquated, and held bondage to tradition” while “Apple users are slick, hip, cutting edge, and technologically savvy.” In essence, Apple is demanding of its viewers to break out of their false consciousness which holds that Microsoft’s Windows is the be-all and end-all just because, for example, most people already use Windows or they’ve been accustomed to using the operating system at work, at school, or on friends’ computers. Frank saw the importance of appealing to a potential consumer’s personality, and clinching to an overarching trait to stand for the product (Frank 170); Apple not only provided itself and Microsoft’s Windows with a personality, but is also able to convey to viewers that the Apple operating system serves a utilitarian purpose, in a way Windows cannot. Apple is conveying to viewers that the shackles of Windows, regardless of whether they have grown comfortable with it over the years, should be broken in favor of Apple’s operating system because it gets the job done best and is a more sophisticated piece of software than the clunky Windows upgrades like 95, 98, XP, and Vista which contain the same problems and issues, merely with some marginally improved aesthetics. Just like Pepsi was considered the official soft drink of young America (Frank 172), so too Apple has redefined itself as the operating system of cool and technologically savvy America.
If we analyze a couple of “Get a Mac” advertisements, we can pick out key elements that advance the notion that Apple performs superbly and is garnering a tidal wave of support from a new generation of loyal Apple customers. For example, the “Podium” advertisement, one of the more recent ads, features Microsoft’s Windows speaking at a podium through a microphone that distorts and adds noise to his voice. According to Windows, people are leaving him behind because the operating system isn’t “working the way [the users] want it to” and users are even resorting to downgrading from Vista to XP. Windows then states that if his users are having problems with getting peripheral hardware to work with Vista, the problem isn’t Vista, but rather the peripheral, and Vista users should just purchase new peripherals and keep the operating system (even though it is the root of the problem). This is key because here Windows is portrayed not only as incompetent and overbearing, but also as delirious in its demand that its users stick to what doesn’t work and deal with the problems it causes on their own. The “Get a Mac” advertisement creators also feed the Windows guy a line that states “Mac's New Leopard operating system has new features??? I say IGNORE THEM!” This line is important because it goes along with the consciousness-raising Apple is trying to get at—that is, getting Windows users to see the facts and not stick to the old merely because it is old and tried. In other words, “give Apple a chance and you will not regret it” is the tagline. In furtherance of Apple’s redefining and positioning itself within the Apple-Microsoft operating system war, we also notice that Windows is being portrayed as “green with envy.” If we look closely, the banner on the podium is green, and the pin on his suit jacket is also green. The “green” message (as opposed to red, white, and blue) here is clear: Microsoft Windows is jealous of Apple’s operating system, and Microsoft Windows itself KNOWS that it is inferior to Apple. Which begs the question, if Microsoft knows it is inferior, Microsoft users should come around and give Apple a try. Lastly, Microsoft Windows mangles a well-known rhetorical question from an American hero, President John F. Kennedy, by stating “Ask not what Vista can do for you, ask what you can buy for Vista!” Not only is Microsoft Windows being irrational and being blinded by himself, he is also being unpatriotic or un-American to an extent by mixing and twisting a fallen President’s words with what viewers would perceive as a irrationality to the extreme.
In the “Misprint” advertisement, Windows is scathingly ridiculed and portrayed as a sour loser because Apple beat it at its own game. In this advertisement, Microsoft Windows dials up “PC World,” a magazine which primarily covers Windows personal computers. Here, in a bitter twist of irony for Windows, he is having to call the editors of the magazine over their finding that “the fastest Windows Vista notebook we tested this year is a Mac,” which proves to be utterly incomprehensible to Microsoft’s Windows. Windows states that it is “impossible” and “[going] against the laws of nature” and bewildered asks himself “how can a Mac run Vista faster than a PC?” Lastly, out of desperation, Windows comically and pathetically tries to disguise its voice as Apple's and lies about the article. This shows Microsoft Windows' desperation, and like a ship sinking at sea, grasping at straws in a vain attempt to save itself. Whereas most of the attacks centered on the Windows operating system of PCs, Apple opens up a new wound by attacking the hardware of PCs as well, in essence besieging PCs from all sides: software, hardware, and appearance. According to Vance Packard, consumers do not merely “buy products,” instead, they “purchase the promise [associated] with the specific product” and the image associated with a given product (Packard 8-9). The link with this advertisement is much similar, Apple not only gives you performance in terms of hardware and a good user (and operable) experience in terms of operating system, it not only is cool, hip, and cutting edge, the promise that Apple promises to its customers vastly exceeds that of Microsoft. These two examples of “Get a Mac” advertisements serve to show the confluence of a) the personality of a product, b) the external appearance of a product, and c) the actual performance of the product.
Apple Online Store. "Select your MacBook Pro." Apple Store. 2008. < store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&node=home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro >.
Bulik, Beth S. "Mac Owners Just Like, Well, the Mac Guy." Advertising Age. 2008. < www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.902771769469113&bhcp=1 >.
Frank, Thomas. The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Moren, Dan. "Analysis: The many of faces of Apple advertising." Macworld. 2007. < www.macworld.com/article/131075/2007/12/appleads.html >.
Packard, Vance. “The Depth Approach.” The Hidden Persuaders. New York: Pocket Books, 1984.
11 comments:
As an underdog in the computing world as far as market share is concerned, Macs fight for every sale. I think that you have done a succinct job covering these ads and proving that they have worked in your citation of their growth in market share. I liked that you took a different approach to this campaign and focused the ads themselves rather than the reaction to them. Macs may always have to fight the battle for second place in this market, but maybe with these ads and a little consumer faith they will be fighting a battle for first in the future.
I thought you interpreted the "war" between the brands well. The Mac and Microsoft battle is a constant struggle in technology and it is an important issue to address. Concerning your writing style, I thought at times it was a bit slang-ish and free form. I think maybe if this was corrected a little bit, then it could be accredited a bit more. I think your argument holds help well with personal opinion and factual support.
I like how you introduce the reader to the similarities of these rival machines. They share similar power plants, have comparable memory, and use popular graphics cards from companies like Nvidia. By revealing the innards of the system and showing how similar they really are, you successfully set up a great way to talk about how Macs are then forced to focus on their differences. These differences happen to be the most accessible and easily seen parts of the system, like the operating system. The connection to Frank’s quote about separating the products effectively is to differentiate the users is an idea that Apple has clearly bought into. Because of this, they fail to mention the hardware similarities and instead exploit shortcomings of PCs in about 30 seconds. Clearly the market share has grown for Apple in recent years, but do you think they will be able to sustain exploiting these differences enough to eventually overtake the PC, or will they be forced to one day exploit some of their similarities on top of these differences, in a way to say to the PC “anything you can do I can do better?”
It is very interesting that they focus so much on the operating system in hopes that it will help the computers to sell better since an operating system can run on multiple kinds of computers. I am not surprised at all that these advertisements have paid off for Apple (market share growing from 2% to 8%). The direct and obvious personification of each operating system allows even the computer illiterate to understand the apparent advantages of Apple, he’s relaxed, nice, good looking, and reliable; all traits that are only exaggerated next to PC. The use of the white background is very interesting. Though I have seen several of these commercials, this is the first time I thought of it as “Macworld” and realized how effective it was to have the two men/OS absolutely alone on the screen. I had noticed that the commercials have been getting progressively darker, as you put it. Do you think this has helped or hurt Apple? I enjoyed the commercials when the Mac OS/man was kind and the only jabs at the PC OS/man seemed to be self-created. Now it is starting to seem less and less likely that PC OS/man represents actual the Microsoft and the Mac OS/man seems slightly less likable and a bit meaner.
I definitely see the tie between Pepsi’s campaign to differentiate themselves from the cola giant Coca-Cola and Apple’s campaign to differentiate themselves from Microsoft. Apple truly has become the brand for the youth, while Microsoft continues to be depicted as a brand for uptight business folks. I think you hit the issue right on the head when you compared it to the cola wars. Pepsi went toward the new and updated image while Coca-Cola went with the traditional and longstanding position. Similarly, Microsoft is more focused on its tradition and long history while Apple is creating a youthful and cutting edge appearance and personality for its brand.
Using a lot of specific analysis of the differences between the operating systems your paper did a good job highlighting the reasons why Apple is doing well in the market today. I think you could have spoken more about the demographic range being catered to by Apple which, like the iPod, is essentially a product marketed for the younger generation. The sleekness and "cool" factor is has made Apple the hot computer for people in this age group, particularly because of its ability to deal with music, movies, etc. better than Windows. In conclusion, your paper definitely highlighted the stark contrast between the two styles with a skew that Mac would love for America to see. I don't agree, however, that Windows is," Like a ship sinking at sea, grasping at straws in a vain attempt to save itself. The desperation angle, in my opinion, is generated by Mac to make Windows look forlorn, not felt genuinely by the company with a 90% market share.
These have been really effecive ads, however I think it is worth noting that PC is actually the funny one. People can appeal to his humor, I would think that this hurts Apple in some way. Obviously it is more effective to run these ads then not, but I wonder if this effects the consumers at all.
I like your approach of first analyzing the overall goal of the apple commercials and then moving to analyze specific commercials later in the paper. It makes it easy to understand your points in the beginning, and provides evidence to support your basic ideas. However, I would have liked to see more information describing Apple's standing within the computer market as a whole instead of just comparing it to Microsoft. I think this is one of the oddities of this campaign: Despite the fact that it only attacks one other computer company, the campaign still remains successful. What about HP, dell and other computers? I would have liked to see Apple's standing in the market; it would have given more weight to your argument.
Although I didn't believe that your opening statements were very eye-catching, your analysis of the similarities of the computers processors serves as a good gateway to how the ad campaigns themselves serve to differentiate the computers. I find a little issue with the overwhelmingly pessimistic, almost violent, outlook you take on the ads, however that is more personal preference than anything else. As for your writing style, it rarely varied from the point you were trying to make, and seamlessly integrated theories of other authors, unlike mine. However, i felt that occasionally it became slightly unofficial and talkative as opposed to analytical.
I like how you considered the effectiveness of the ads through the growth in the market share of Apple. Although the advertisements are not necessarily the only reason for Apple's growth in market share over the last couple years, I do believe that the ads at least had some effect. By acknowledging this fact in your paper you were able to make some informative insights into the effectiveness of these Apple ads. It is interesting to see how Apple uses their "Get a Mac" ads to damage the image of Microsoft just as they did years earlier with the "think different" ads I discussed in my paper.
I have seen Apple's new advertisement, and as an actual potential apple consumer, they are very impressive. Apple is not fighting Dell and IBM etc. because they are simply fighting an OS. As one of the only businesses to actually produce both the computer and the OS, they are really the only company attempting to take some of the OS market away from Microsoft. Like many other companies, they take the route of marketing youth. They do this especially well, and therefore are getting that market.
Post a Comment