Kenazz Communications

In early April, Brandweek interviewed David Webster, the general manager of brand marketing at Microsoft. This interview focused on Microsoft’s new ad campaign. Generally speaking, the campaign addresses Mac’s ubiquitous three-year Mac vs PC campaign. (Article: Mac Daddy by Todd Wasserman)

The interview with Webster highlighted the intended themes of the PC ad campaign: celebrate the diversity of the PC user,  it’s easier for one to find a PC that’s perfect for the person than a MAC, PCs are more affordable and, most importantly (it seems) that people are more like the PC in the Mac ads than the Mac guy.

Personally, and I don’t speak from my Macintosh preference, but the campaign won’t have that effect on the long term. Webster points out in the article that preference for Mac over PC has increased by 10 percent – not a bad figure.  But will it last?

Looking at these ads, I wondered – as did the article’s author – “Why chase Apple?” I’m suspicious of the success of the campaign. I continued to wonder what long term damage this might do the Microsoft brand. Curious as to what each ad campaign said about the respective brands, I did a little content analysis. Here’s what I found:

The more I look at the Microsoft campaign the more it seems that they are playing into apple’s hands. Essentially, calling Mac cool and aesthetically pleasing fits with Apple’s efforts. Additionally, I get the message that Macs are for children from a number of their recent ads. Does Microsoft want to brand the PC as a toy? Sure, it shows that PCs can be for your life, just as the Mac ads do, but I think they walk a very thin line here.

I do find the diversity angle appealing, but it seems that Microsoft abandoned that. Those ads were a direct response to the Mac ads, and I’m not sure that resonated well. The ads stopped running in less than a year.

The angle I think might do the most damage to the brand is the “PCs are cheap” approach. Starbucks is expensive, as is Bloomingdales, any mall clothing store, and a number of other products.  They do well BECAUSE they are expensive. I’m not convinced that the consumer wants to always “go cheap” with high priced electronic products. Sure, that will sell, but eventually things branded as “cheap” can also get a reputation for poor quality. That brand attribute is probably the worst stigma a company thought to have a buggier operating system than it’s competitor should want.

I have no immediate solutions for Microsoft’s problem. However, I do recognize their campaign as somewhat fragmented. While researching ads I came across three or four different message types for PC commercials. Apple’s ads were significantly more uniform in their message and delivery.  I don’t think this campaign benefits the long-term health of Microsoft. I think the 10 percent increase in preference was a temporary gain. I’m not confident that it will last if they keep the campaign as is.

I do think Microsoft (and their ad agency, which uses Macintosh) should stop chasing Apple. They need to pick a niche and go with it.