Regardless of how you feel about Bogusky or his agency, the article makes some pretty silly claims about the relationship between Apple and Microsoft:
"Nothing is doing more to carve away at Microsoft’s reputation—and contribute to its loss of market share—than the assault launched by Apple two years ago in the form of the “Mac vs. PC” spots featuring The Daily Show satirist John Hodgman… Gartner media research analyst Andrew Frank credits Apple—whose annual media spend is less than half of Microsoft’s nearly $1 billion budget—with single-handedly rebranding Microsoft “as a kind of self-conscious and self-absorbed nerd that is out of touch with the normal lives and needs of its users.”Let's see if I have this straight. Apple produces some clever (and often funny) ads and spends a couple of million dollars to put them on television. And that is what has defined Microsoft as uncool?
What about the years-late and buggy release of Vista? Or the monopoly issues here and overseas? Or crazy Steve Ballmer's antics on stage and threats to Google and Apple? Or bloated software that is expensive to upgrade? Or the blue screen of death? Or .NET? Or the very unhip Zune—supposedly the iPod killer? What about Windows security, viruses, and spyware? Where exactly do those things fit in the creation of Microsoft's reputation? I think they're giving Steve Jobs a little too much credit.
Apple does a great job telling its brand story. And Microsoft, well, what exactly is their story, if not the above? For their sake, I hope that CP+B is smart enough to see that Microsoft, not Apple, is the biggest threat to Microsoft's image. Note to FC writer Danielle Sacks (and Microsoft): brand stories are built almost entirely by the things a company does every day, not a competitor's ads.
***UPDATE: Danielle Sacks was kind enough to reply by email that she takes issue with what I've written above. She marked the email private, so I won't post it here, but her criticism of what I wrote above deserves to be heard. Here's the gist of her response to me: I left out some of what she wrote about Crispin's failures, the comparisons to Jesus were to illustrate how over the top the agency world is in its Bogusky worship, and she does write about Microsoft's missteps and failures. She writes it was incredibly irresponsible and sloppy to leave these out of my criticism of the article.
My response: I stand by my description of the article in its over-the-top reverence for Bogusky. It may have been presented to show how ridiculous the ad world's worship of this "mechanic of cool" (her words from the article) is, however I can't find anything in the article that makes that point. It reads like hero worship whether it was intended that way or not (and I'm not the only one who has noted this—see the links below). I apologize for my inability to infer the intended nuance and humor.
As for the parts of the article I left out, I linked directly to the article so anyone who reads this post can go back to the source. Yes, my description is simpler than the article. After all, it's difficult to reference everything written in a nine page article with a six paragraph blog post. Danielle did reference a few of Microsoft's failures, but the exact words used in the article are: "Nothing is doing more to carve away at Microsoft's reputation—and contribute to its loss of marketshare—than the assualt launched by Apple..." This is what I think she got wrong. And if the experts she quotes believe this, then they are wrong too. Just about everything Microsoft has done has a bigger impact on Microsoft's brand image, than what Apple is doing.
Readers, please take a look at the original article linked above and add a comment if you agree or disagree with my characterization. I'd be interested in knowing if you think I got it wrong too.
Read more:
Bob Bly criticizes the article here (read the comments, they're fun).
Spike at Brains on Fire is a little less critical, here.
AdFreak's take is here.
Here are a few ideas on what CP+B can do.
Hi Rob - I think you're bang on the mark. In my experience, advertising rarely tells me how to think about a business, it simply reinforces an opinion I've already had, hardens an existing bias or unearths an unconscious attitude.
Apple's ads work because the viewer (who is usually predisposed towards Apple and against Microsoft) sees the exchange between played out skilfully and with sly humour. They don't tell us something we don't think we already know.
Funnily enough, I had read the Fast Company article before reading your post and your criticism had a similar effect on me as the one I've just described i.e. It skilfully put words on something that had been niggling away at me whilst I read the original article.
Well done on an excellent blog overall and a particularly sharp post.
Posted by: Gerard Tannam | May 24, 2008 at 01:17 AM
Good debate. I have to agree, though, that the Apple campaign has played a substantial role in rebranding M. The general public doesn't keep a close eye on M's stumbles, nor the stumbles of any other corporation unless the stumbles are large enough to make the nightly news in a five-day news cycle -- Enron, Exxon, etc. Analysts pay attention to M., techies certainly do, M's competitors do, marketers in general do, but not the average Joe. The only thing they know about Microsoft is they see the brand every time they boot up their computers and they see "PCs" being teased to death on commercials every night in prime time. One legitimate question that could poke a hole in my argument is whether the general public associates "PCs" with Microsoft. Perhaps not.
Posted by: Jim Bender | June 05, 2008 at 08:03 AM