Microsoft has released the latest installment of Laptop Hunter, the company’s advertising campaign which endeavors to find customers a laptop that meets their requirements all the while keeping within a certain budget.
This next advert focuses on Giampaulo, a “technically-savvy” young man who seeks portability, battery life and power for under $1,500. Giampaulo eventually settles on a HP (again, really?) with 4 GB of RAM, a GeForce 9600M GT, Windows Vista (Home Premium) and a 500 GB hard drive. Again, the buyer briefly considers an Apple computer before deciding that while the MacBook was “so sexy” he didn’t believe in paying for the brand as opposed to the performance.
This ad addresses the problem I had before (about Lauren visiting the Apple store first) and offers a logical reason for not buying an Apple machine. Giampaulo doesn’t believe in paying a huge price for a certain brand and makes it clear that he doesn’t WANT to buy one, and probably wouldn’t even if he had the money.
That said, while this ad hits the spot for me with the PC/Mac price argument, I can’t help but notice Microsoft has yet to advertise something manufactured by the company. Sure, point out that Macs are more expensive, and PCs are a much smarter option if you’re working from a specific budget or want something customizable, but if the Microsoft is counting this as part of the same campaign as those Bill Gates/Jerry Seinfeld ads (which also didn’t advertise anything), the company is spending $300 million shouting about hardware it can’t lay claim to. Sure, for every PC purchases, the average consumer will purchase a copy of Windows, but if I remember correctly, Microsoft has a new OS in the pipeline, surely it would do well to save its money advertising something it’s spent a lot of time, money and effort in creating?
Keeping the Mac vs. PC arguments to a minimum (if you can), do you think Microsoft would be best off spending its $300 million on products it can actually take credit for or do you think it’s pushing something that will ultimately up the sales of Windows is just smart marketing? Leave your thoughts below.
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
This is the right approach. Windows users are losers who live in trailer parks. Of course money is important.Reply
Think of how many cigarette packs they can buy with the savings.
XD if you look at the comments in the youtube channel its funny!Reply
Eh, i'm up for any ad that stops the Apple brainwashing. People need to know that Macs aren't more technologically advanced than PC's.Reply
But, i do agree that HP, Dell, etc should be the ones advertising this. Meanwhile MS should focus on advertising the features that makes their OS more desirable.
I remember a Mac ad from a year or more back advertising their "unique" feature that would automatically backup your system every day without prompting, thus saving the users data in case of a system failure. Where was MS? They should have been advertising System Restore the next day.
But i digress. Yes, their marketing strategy is questionable.
I live in a trailer park? Thank you for opening my eyes! My Ubuntu Notebook had pulled the shades over my eyes, and I forgot all about the dump I had been living in.Reply
I liked the add and I think that it works. Why plaster the add with the Windows logo when you can bash apple and sell product at the same time. I am also in the same boat as the guy in the add. I wanted a Mac Book but when I looked at the price tag I decided to go for a sony VAIO instead.
I wouldn't acknowledge Apple as a threat to begin with. They have a small market share and it actually shrank in 2008. Their numbers are skewed to begin with because of academic "requirements" to purchase one in some universities. You always know when someone has got over that hump around here because there is a flood of the things that they "wanted so bad" for sale.Reply
Microsoft's ads would be a lot more impressive if they weren't so obviously scripted - and if they were advertising a product that was stable, reliable, and reasonably priced. Microsoft products are unstable, unreliable, and priced outrageously (not to mention the dizzying array of "flavors" of their flagship operating system - how is Joe Consumer supposed to guess which one he really needs?).Reply
i would say more students are "required" to purchase pcs than macs. especially for med school, law, and engineering. be careful before using blanket statements like that roofus.Reply
They are relating to the majority of computer users. If you buy a PC you are buying M$. The adds don't have to advertise a particular product to be successful. Everyone of you remembers the Bill/Jerry adds because they were funny and didn't push a product down your throats.Reply
I honestly don't think this will cause Apple execs to raise too many eyebrows. Apple long ago decided they don't WANT to be a larger company on the scale of Microsoft, and they don't want tens of millions of people using their computers. Otherwise, they'd have to increase their support staff multi-fold in order to handle all of the users (hence, less money in the big guy's pockets). They seem to be completely happy and content in the fact that there is a subculture of Apple zombies who will buy anything with the logo on it with no questions. Most of us are bright enough to realize that buying a computer with half the processing power for twice the price isn't a good deal, so we can be happy in knowing we're not getting the shaft for the sake of a Titanium case and glowing piece of fruit on the cover. Let the others enjoy their fruit.Reply
gwellinThey are relating to the majority of computer users. If you buy a PC you are buying M$. The adds don't have to advertise a particular product to be successful. Everyone of you remembers the Bill/Jerry adds because they were funny and didn't push a product down your throats.Reply
Fair enough but I still maintain it wasn't worth the $10 million they paid Seinfeld.