In response to Jaycelyn's article...

In her article, Jaycelyn talks about the Apple ad campaign, specifically about the "Get a Mac" campaign, starring the personifications of the Mac and PC. She asks:

Do you think that Apple's ad campaigns make their products sound better than they are? Or do you think that the iPhone is better than say the Droid and the Mac is better than a PC?

Personally, I'm quite biased when it comes to computers. I have a Macbook Pro, and couldn't imagine having anything else. I deal with PCs regularly, but do not like it as much. When it comes to mp3 players/music players, once again I pick Apple. Windows introduced the Zune, but there was little success there. However, when it comes to smart phones, I own a Droid X. I bought it off my mother's coworker who was going to be getting a new phone and wanted to sell his old one. Given the choice, I might have chosen an iPhone, but now that I've used a Droid, I wouldn't switch back.

In reference to the Apple ads, Jaycelyn also mentioned how the company uses the ads to showcase the new features that their products have. That's a really smart use of their advertising budget. Not only are they putting their product out there, but they are giving you the selling points in a fun, comedic way, and also putting down their rival in a non-insulting way. I say non-insulting because they aren't directly calling PCs names or anything like that.

On to Jaycelyn's first question: I do believe that Apple's commercials do make the products seem better than they are. No where in those commercials do they mention the high initial cost and repair cost or how easily materials like aluminum and glass scratch, dent, or shatter. I don't believe that Apple is being dishonest in their ads, but I do believe that they show their products as a virus-proof, life changing piece of technology. Many Mac users boast about how their computer, and Macs in general are virus proof and can never get viruses, and that the solution to your slow, apparently virus-ridden PC is to "get a Mac". The reason that there aren't many Mac viruses is because people who make viruses are going to target the operating system that the majority of people have. There is no point in only targeting a small fraction of the population. Mac viruses are more and more common these days because more people have Macs.

What do you think about the Mac vs PC argument? Are the Apple ads really sugar coating the products?

Good vs Bad attention in Marketing

Two weeks ago, I talked about Facebook marketing and its effectiveness. This week, I came across an article talking about good vs. bad attention.

In the article, author Christopher Carfi defines the two types of attention generated by marketing. Like good and bad profits, there are two opposite types of attention. Good attention is gained through "going above and beyond" and "delighting someone, surprising them, amusing them, or triggering an empathetic emotion". This positive response can also lead to good profits, which stem from the same place. Bad attention is "interruptive... bad and inefficient". The author uses pop up ads as an example.

Ads like this are used all the time. The only time anyone ever clicks on them is by accident. So how much are companies spending to place these ads on the side of webpages, in the hopes that someone will click them? When an pops up saying, "Congratulations, you've won!" or "You're the 1,000,000th visitor!" everyone knows not to click those. In reality, we've all developed blinders to that type of ad. People find those ads annoying, and we make sure not to click them at all. This type of ad gains bad attention.

Getting back to the Facebook ads, I believe they fall under the same category. People are frustrated by the stupid attempts at targeted ads that Facebook employs, or at least I am. So why do companies bother with these ads at all? Do the Facebook ads garter negative attention for the advertisers? Are they worth the money?