Microsoft Aims to Redefine ‘I’m a PC’
Microsoft Aims to Redefine ‘I’m a PC’
Everyone else has had their bit to say about this, so why not me as well, I suppose.
I think what Microsoft doesn’t get about the Apple ads is that when the latter puts John Hodgman on screen and has him say ‘I’m a PC’, it’s not some kind of metaphor for people who use Microsoft products - he’s literally playing the part of the computer, the machine and the software running on it. Apple isn’t saying you’re a dork because you use a PC - Apple is saying your PC is a dork. Oh, no, nothing against you! Apple thinks you’re just great, really, and why don’t you stop by sometime?
This confusion seems to be reflected in Microsoft’s response, which consists of people from all different (and cool) walks of life saying ‘I’m a PC’. No, you’re not. You might be PC users. You’re not a PC, because PCs don’t go SCUBA diving or whatever. Ever notice how the Mac in the commercials doesn’t talk about going SCUBA diving, or doing other ‘real people’ things? He says stuff like ‘I come with iLife and other great software, and I work with your printer.’
Now, the thing is, Apple has done really effective characterisations of the Mac and PC archetypes. If Microsoft had hoped to break the mold that has been set for them, even if they understood what they were doing, they would need an even more effective characterisation to replace it with. John Hodgman is funny. He’s memorable. And more importantly, he’s the same guy every time (never underestimate the power of repetition). What are they trying to replace him with? ‘Oh, well, PCs aren’t all like that… a PC could be anyone, or anything.’ That’s not memorable or impressional. It’s so vague, it may as well be saying nothing at all.
I read an article once - I wish I could remember where - which contrasted how the market leader and the underdog advertise. The leader tends to portray emotions, feelings; they just want to keep their brand at the forefront of your mind. After all, they’re already on top, so why would they need to prove anything? And they never, ever mention the competitor. Think of any Coca-Cola or McDonalds ad you’ve seen: good times are what they’re selling you on. You already know about the product, so it doesn’t even bear mentioning.
Now think of Burger King. X% more beef? Flame broiled, not microwaved like the other guy? Pepsi. Taste tests? And yes, even Apple. Do you think it would be at all necessary for them to mention their competition so directly if they were on top? But they’re not on top. Sometimes, a head-on attack like this can be an effective strategy to slowly erode the leader’s position. But ultimately, it’s not a winning strategy, if you define ‘winning’ as becoming the new market leader.
Now, if the current leader responds to this, it’s a sign of weakness, because as we’ve seen, they shouldn’t need to. The obvious parallel (mentioned in linked article) is New Coke in the 80s. The management of Coca-Cola got scared of Pepsi slowly inching up in numbers with their ‘different’ taste, and decided they had to be different too. We all know how that went over. But despite that collossal blunder, Coca-Cola remained on top. Why? Because Pepsi’s strategy was good, but not good enough to be a danger to Coca-Cola’s majority position. No matter how much they persisted in it, they couldn’t compete against The Real Thing™, because people were just so darn comfortable with The Real Thing™.
And so shall it be for Apple. But I have a feeling that’s okay with Apple. They’re extremely profitable at the moment, and stock people seem to like them. Market share is overrated. Ask yourself this: why would Apple need majority market share? What tangible benefit would it bring them that they don’t already have? And would it be worth the drawbacks?
Anyway, Microsoft is getting scared. Now they’re pulling a Coca-Cola, and responding directly when they don’t need to. This is probably because Microsoft has a corporate culture of paranoia, but that’s an essay for another time (and a more knowledgeable writer).
