The G-20 summit is nigh, and apparently, so is the apocalypse. While summit leaders will discuss how to stabilize the global economy in Pittsburgh, protesters and rioters are already lining the streets to wreak havoc on the assembly. According to CBS News, some businesses are already boarding up their windows.
I found five different news outlets reporting on this. In addition to NPR and CBS, local affiliate WRAL and the London Times have reported on the story. Oh, and don't forget Reuters. Everyone seems to be focusing on the actual on-goings of the summit, except for CBS, who is reporting pretty much solely on the violence expected at the summit. Ah, sensationalism at its finest.
I found that the radio report on the summit seemed very even-handed and optimistic, whereas the CBS television report was more focused on the dramatic imagery of the violent protest from the last G-20 in Chicago. The text reports all seemed to be very even-handed as well. I suppose the radio report allowed for interviews and such, and the television report was focused on the violence because they could get a visceral reaction from the viewer that way. All of them seemed to use fairly standard journalist language, and since this is reporting on an event, most of them didn't use a lot of quotes or interviews. The TV report actually had the most interviews with Pittsburgh police and security officials, whereas the rest of the reports seemed to be "fluff".
I don't mean "fluff" as in the typical use of "Oh! Look! Some Grandma Downtown just made the world's largest bowl of chili!" Quite frankly, fluff stories to me are ones that don't drum up any talk, thought, or controversy and just plainly report on happenings. I know, I know: how conventional, right? But to me, this summit happening doesn't interest me... but the result of it will. I found these stories to be fairly redundant and packed with the same details over and over. *Yawn* WHERE'S MY VIOLENCE AND SEX, DAMMIT?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
How To Dismantle Microsoft's Entire Marketing Campaign
When it comes down to it, whether you hate or love Apple, they have possibly the best marketing team out there. When you enter an Apple Store, it's like walking into some sci-fi set from Blade Runner. Likewise, their ads are always simple, yet effective, and pack a powerful punch. Today, I'll be talking about a specific ad from the "Get a Mac" series, called "Bean Counter".
You've no doubt seen the infamous Get a Mac ads. They're everywhere and have been around since 2006. In fact, the Get a Mac ads were doing such big damage to Microsoft's revenue, M$ had to fire back with an ad campaign of its own. The dubious "Laptop Hunter" ads had average Americans going shopping for a laptop; and of course, they all ended up buying Windows-based laptops over Apple's MacBooks. The idea is that they can find exactly what they want for cheaper than an Apple computer, and in doing so, they get it for free because Microsoft pays them for it. Of course, the ad campaign cost Microsoft over $300 million.
And that's where Apple fires back. I've actually enjoyed the volleying back and forth (though a primary rule in advertising is for the dominant party never to acknowledge the little guy). With a whole slew of new commercials, Apple completely derailed Microsoft's huge ad campaign. The point of the "Bean Counter" ad is that while they're spending millions on fighting Apple's ads, they could be using that money to actually fix the multitude of problems with Vista. In the commercial, PC is played by John Hodgman. He wears a dull suit, big glasses, and reeks of the old past. Mac is played by Justin Long and is young and hip. PC uses his computer for spreadsheets and number-crunching, Mac uses his computer for blogging, web-surfing, making videos, and music.
The stark contrast is what has worked so well for the Get a Mac campaign in the past, and now that Microsoft is actually fighting back, Apple isn't taking it lying down. They've fought back with ads like Bean Counter (above) and Elimination (below). The ads appeal to anyone who has been frustrated with Windows at any point. The one below seems more of a direct attempt to grab new customers, whereas the one above seems solely to be directed at Microsoft in an attempt to piss them off even more and take a dump all over their expensive ad campaign. The demographic I expect to be most influenced by this commercial would be the 18-34 range, since that is the age displayed by the "cool" Mac in the commercial, whereas the PC is older, probably in his 40s or 50s and is "out of touch".
The ads show no signs of slowing down, and I plan on enjoying the back and forth as it escalates. Oh, and here's the "Elimination" ad I mentioned before:
You've no doubt seen the infamous Get a Mac ads. They're everywhere and have been around since 2006. In fact, the Get a Mac ads were doing such big damage to Microsoft's revenue, M$ had to fire back with an ad campaign of its own. The dubious "Laptop Hunter" ads had average Americans going shopping for a laptop; and of course, they all ended up buying Windows-based laptops over Apple's MacBooks. The idea is that they can find exactly what they want for cheaper than an Apple computer, and in doing so, they get it for free because Microsoft pays them for it. Of course, the ad campaign cost Microsoft over $300 million.
And that's where Apple fires back. I've actually enjoyed the volleying back and forth (though a primary rule in advertising is for the dominant party never to acknowledge the little guy). With a whole slew of new commercials, Apple completely derailed Microsoft's huge ad campaign. The point of the "Bean Counter" ad is that while they're spending millions on fighting Apple's ads, they could be using that money to actually fix the multitude of problems with Vista. In the commercial, PC is played by John Hodgman. He wears a dull suit, big glasses, and reeks of the old past. Mac is played by Justin Long and is young and hip. PC uses his computer for spreadsheets and number-crunching, Mac uses his computer for blogging, web-surfing, making videos, and music.
The stark contrast is what has worked so well for the Get a Mac campaign in the past, and now that Microsoft is actually fighting back, Apple isn't taking it lying down. They've fought back with ads like Bean Counter (above) and Elimination (below). The ads appeal to anyone who has been frustrated with Windows at any point. The one below seems more of a direct attempt to grab new customers, whereas the one above seems solely to be directed at Microsoft in an attempt to piss them off even more and take a dump all over their expensive ad campaign. The demographic I expect to be most influenced by this commercial would be the 18-34 range, since that is the age displayed by the "cool" Mac in the commercial, whereas the PC is older, probably in his 40s or 50s and is "out of touch".
The ads show no signs of slowing down, and I plan on enjoying the back and forth as it escalates. Oh, and here's the "Elimination" ad I mentioned before:
This Is Your Brain On Rachael Leigh Cooke
First, allow me to say that this :30 PSA is enough to make me never want to invite Rachael Leigh Cooke over to cook. Or do anything in my kitchen, for that matter.
The PSA was sponsored by the infamous Office of National Drug Control Policy. You know, those guys who do the PSAs about pot where the dog is so very disappointed with the kid smoking a joint. Or the one where the kid is flattened like a pancake because of weed. Or the one where the kid smokes pot and then has to take off like a thousand t-shirts. Yeah, you know them. Well, unlike their other attempts, this one is actually a PSA that's not against weed, it's against the worst drug of them all: heroin.
This is my favorite anti-drug PSA of all time for a number of reasons. First, Rachael Leigh Cooke is hot. Second, it is quite possibly the most effective PSA I've seen. The way they start out slow and cliché then ramp up the intensity always leaves me silent and stunned when I'm done watching. It has quite the emotional appeal: just look how angry she is when she's smashing the kitchen to pieces. The metaphor of the egg at first falls flat, but as she begins to shatter everything around her and calls out what she is shattering (Friends, dreams, future, etc.) you start to see the picture. The intensity displayed by Cooke is what sells the whole thing.
All PSA writers should take note: this is how you communicate a message to someone. The short message: Don't Do Heroin. The long message: You Will Royally F%$k Up Your Life If You Do Heroin. I had never really ever considered doing heroin, but after seeing this, I'm sure as hell never even letting the thought cross my mind. Age-wise, I think this PSA can appeal to all age groups. Mindset-wise, I believe this PSA will appeal to people like me who usually roll their eyes and scoff at the cutesy/clever-but-really-not-clever slogans that anti-drug PSAs try to use (I'm looking at you, cartoon dog), because it's not trying to be clever or witty about the message. This is as in-your-face as it gets, and it's very effective.
Oh, and it helps to have a super hot actress as your spokesperson.
The PSA was sponsored by the infamous Office of National Drug Control Policy. You know, those guys who do the PSAs about pot where the dog is so very disappointed with the kid smoking a joint. Or the one where the kid is flattened like a pancake because of weed. Or the one where the kid smokes pot and then has to take off like a thousand t-shirts. Yeah, you know them. Well, unlike their other attempts, this one is actually a PSA that's not against weed, it's against the worst drug of them all: heroin.
This is my favorite anti-drug PSA of all time for a number of reasons. First, Rachael Leigh Cooke is hot. Second, it is quite possibly the most effective PSA I've seen. The way they start out slow and cliché then ramp up the intensity always leaves me silent and stunned when I'm done watching. It has quite the emotional appeal: just look how angry she is when she's smashing the kitchen to pieces. The metaphor of the egg at first falls flat, but as she begins to shatter everything around her and calls out what she is shattering (Friends, dreams, future, etc.) you start to see the picture. The intensity displayed by Cooke is what sells the whole thing.
All PSA writers should take note: this is how you communicate a message to someone. The short message: Don't Do Heroin. The long message: You Will Royally F%$k Up Your Life If You Do Heroin. I had never really ever considered doing heroin, but after seeing this, I'm sure as hell never even letting the thought cross my mind. Age-wise, I think this PSA can appeal to all age groups. Mindset-wise, I believe this PSA will appeal to people like me who usually roll their eyes and scoff at the cutesy/clever-but-really-not-clever slogans that anti-drug PSAs try to use (I'm looking at you, cartoon dog), because it's not trying to be clever or witty about the message. This is as in-your-face as it gets, and it's very effective.
Oh, and it helps to have a super hot actress as your spokesperson.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
