It’s a few years since the Switcher ads ended, but the rate of Mac converts is higher than ever, Apple has successfully completed the Intel transition, and market share is on the rise. So what does Apple decide to do? Start a new advertising campaign, this time with twice as many people per ad, for double the fun. Apple’s idea for the “Get a Mac” advertisements was surely to get more of the general public to know more about Macs, and to consider them as options when they’re next in the market for a new computer (that is, January). But are they really effective? Overall, there are a few general virtues of running OS X that Apple wants trying to drill into the heads of PC users which are spread across multiple ads, such as the ability to run Office. Some of the other messages are that Macs are good at “life stuff”, they work easily out of the box, and they don’t get malware.
Part of the essence of the advertisments is conveyed before a word is spoken. Justin Long, the Mac, is dressed very casually, often with a t-shirt or a hoodie, and jeans, with hands in his pockets and mussed hair, the stereotypical twenty-something, fresh out of college. John Hodgman, the PC, is dressed in a suit and tie, with big glasses and neatly combed hair, a cubicle worker through and through. The first and foremost point of the different attire and image is to distinguish between the Mac and the PC, but the consumer might also think that it means the Mac is less mature, or that PCs are better for work. However, someone dressed in jeans and a t-shirt does not make me think “Oh, he must be good at making photo albums or designing web sites.” If anything, Long’s appearance could send the viewer a message that Mac users have worse jobs than PC users, or that Macs are for those kids that won’t get off the viewer’s lawn. Since the ads are targeted towards people who don’t actively choose a PC over a Mac, rather, those who have a PC because they don’t know what else to get, and could easily be swayed to the light side, it’s pretty foolish of Apple to instantly bias the viewer against the Mac (unless they’re trying to have the viewer relate to Long, but the problem with that is most people young and hip like Long already have strong preferences for either Windows or OS X.)
The mixed message continues in the content of the advertisments. One of the biggest things Apple is trying to get across is that Macs can run Microsoft Office, which makes a big difference for a lot of people, since that’s probably the bulk of what they use their PC for. Given that, how does saying “I [Mac] do work stuff too… I’ve been running Microsoft Office for years” in one commercial and “You [PC] are a wizard with numbers” or “You should see what this guy [PC] can do with a spreadsheet, it’s insane” in others help? A prospective buyer might think that the Mac version of Office isn’t as good as the Windows version, or that it even can’t calculate numbers or use spreadsheets! There are much better ways to get the message across that Macs can run Office too, such as by telling the public that Office was originally for the Mac (which doesn’t really matter, since the Windows version is still better, but at least it’s not shooting yourself in the foot.)
Conceding points to Windows computers doesn’t make any sense at all. In two advertisments, Long blatantly states that PC’s are better at some things than Macs are, and in many others, the message is that PCs and Macs are equal. Why not say that some Macs are cheaper than PCs, or tell the consumer that Microsoft’s next operating system will likely require them to get a new computer? I’d much rather Apple have not made any of the wishy-washy advertisments, and spent the millions of dollars to make better computers to brag about in later advertisements.
Another multi-advertisement implication is that Macs don’t have viruses or spyware. It’s a good point, something that many people know, but could certainly make a difference for those who don’t. The advertisements’ target market isn’t a “geeky” user, who would know more about viruses, and has likely made a conscious choice to buy a PC over a Mac. Rather, it’s an average person, who probably has a PC at home to do some work on, and might not know about Macs, or might just not think about them when purchasing. However, an average consumer certainly has anti-virus software on their computer, and a lot of them haven’t had problems, so their view is probably that viruses are just bad things that they can prevent by consistently updating their anti-virus software. Obviously, Mac users don’t have to do that, which does save considerable time and money, but the ads don’t specifically state that, so the issue is moot. Of course, quite a few consumers have had problems with viruses, and could have had to take their PC in to be repaired, or reinstall their operating system. To those who have lost important data to malware, the sting is that much greater. However, the only time those who have had problems with viruses are really susceptible is very soon after the problem. Those who have lost data now keep backups, those who experienced other kinds of problems now run better anti-virus software, or keep it updated more often. The virus issue isn’t a reason to switch unless the consumer has had problems recently, it’s just an advantage to a choice spurred by other reasons.
One thing the ads employ pretty gratuitously is humor. Humor is good, right? It probably makes the ads more memorable, and therefore more effective, as well as potentially allowing the campaign to spread by word of mouth to those who haven’t seen the ads. Most aren’t laugh out loud funny, however, some, like Touché, come close. That is, if you’re a Mac user. For the uninitiated, it might be somewhat funny, but not in a way that matters. The virtue of Macs which that ad extols, the ability to run Windows, should be the number one point of the campaign, since Boot Camp and Parallels are pretty new. Who cares if Macs can use Office if they can run every single other program you’re used to running in Windows. Other ads manage to be humorous and drive in another virtue of Macs into the consumer’s head at the same time, so why can’t this one? The ability to run Windows in mentioned in two sentences, and, in trying to make the ad humorous, Apple pretty much gets rid of that point entirely. The only thing a viewer would get out of that ad is a better knowledge of the English language, because of Long’s use of over half the ad to explain the proper usage of the word touché, only to have Hodgman fumble it up again. Come on, Apple, you could have at least sneaked in the fact that every Mac comes with a 250,000 word dictionary. The biggest reason for someone to get a Mac is deemed less important than, say, a magnetic power cord. The consumer still has no idea that running Windows on a Mac is just as fast as on their PC, or that, for more professional users, a Mac Pro is cheaper than a comparable Dell, making it a better Windows computer at a better price. Every time someone who has seen the ad buys a Dell Precision 690 is just another potential customer lost, in hopes of higher literacy rates.
One message the advertisments convey that might have some effect is that Macs are better at “life stuff.” Sure, more people probably make pie charts than home movies, but there’s still a large potential market. However, the extent to which Apple talks about iLife can be conveyed pretty well in one quote, “I’m [Mac] into doing fun stuff, like movies, music, podcasts, stuff like that.” What else does Apple talk about in terms of iLife? Well, they say that iLife is like iTunes, that it can make photo albums (of course, without mentioning you have to pay Apple for them), and that it can make home movies that don’t look like cross-dressers. Three specific points, and a lot of vague references to “life stuff” and “creativity.” Although Apple could have definitely worked more in there, I think the three specific mentions of iLife’s capabilities are definitely the strongest of any ads in enticing consumers to get a Mac.
The first mention of iLife’s capabilities falls a bit short by talking about how integrated all of the iLife suite is (including iTunes). Too bad the Windows user watching the ad doesn’t have any idea of the integration iTunes has with anything. He doesn’t know that you can, with a few clicks, make a song with GarageBand, import it into iTunes, make a slideshow with that song playing in iPhoto, import that slideshow into iMovie, add some effects, then burn that to DVD with iDVD, or publish it to the web with iWeb. Comparing the extent of the integration of the iPod and iTunes on Windows doesn’t come close to conveying the kind of integration which iLife offers. “Hm, iTunes and my iPod can both listen to my music, which must mean I can listen to my music in all those other iApps!” Not exactly a very beneficial thought process in terms of enticing the viewer to switch. Apple should have made one advertisement talking about iTunes and the iPod, and another one solely for iLife.
The other two ads specifically talking about what iLife can do are much more effective, to an extent. I’m sure there are quite a few Windows users who have a movie making application that works perfectly well for them. The same could be true for photo album creating. Who the ads can target, therefore, are people who haven’t yet started to create either movies or photo books, but have an interest, or those who are unsatisfied with the options to do so on Windows. Those are the people who the Get a Mac ads could actually inspire to switch. In conveying the ease of photo album creation, however, Apple completely alienates those who are interested in C++ GUI Programming, which many leading analysts have concluded to be the vast majority of those switching to the Mac, and whose rejection could bring about the end of Apple, iPod or not.
However, besides the C++ programmers, there are other people whom the ads could have the opposite of a desired affect on. Some people don’t want overbearing statements such as “Macs are better at life stuff” without some sort of backing. Can Apple prove that iLife offers a better solution for “life stuff” than any package of applications for Windows? Not a chance. Then, there are the hardcore Windows fanboys who would never switch and love any excuse to flame Apple, who would, in finding ways to diss Apple over the ads, fuel their hatred even more. Other segments of the market Apple ignores entirely, and whom the ads have no affect on. Gamers, for example, don’t particularly enjoy making home movies, and probably know enough about computers to protect themselves from viruses. Surely Apple has room in their advertising budget for Long to headshot Hodgman in a fierce game of Halo or Unreal Tournament, which Hodgman would blame on his graphics card, and Long would go on to say that (some) Macs have fairly good ATI graphics cards.
Overall, the Mac ads are pretty effective. Will they entice more people to switch? Sure. Not a lot more, since 50% of Mac buyers are already switchers. Maybe that number will increase to 55% with the Get a Mac campaign. Apple could definitely have been a lot more effective with the ads, but they do a pretty good job of explaining the major benefits of Macs, while not being too overly presumptuous . They could easily talk about many of the other virtues of the Mac, which could be effective as well, but Apple did a good job of picking out most of the major benefits of being a Mac user. The ads are humorous, but at the expense of what they’re trying to convey, it’d not worth it. I mean, what in Sales Pitch is going to make someone want to switch? (It is pretty funny, though.) Apple certainly got a lot of people angry with the Get a Mac ads as well, but that only added to the overall media coverage. Thankfully, the Get a Mac advertising campaign isn’t over yet, so hopefully Apple can continue to improve on the ads, get more switchers, and rule the computer industry.