As we discussed in class, Mac's anti-PC commercials denounce the latter by emphasizing problems associated with it, while promoting its own (mac's) 'effective' features. As most people would agree and numbers suggest, Apple greatly benefits from this negative ad campaign, but does it jeopardize or perhaps even compromise its reputation by doing so?
As studies in political advertising suggest, negative advertising can cause a backlash, provoking negative responses against the source of the campaign itself. So is it just possible that Apple may be risking by evoking unfavorable reactions in the PC users? Since PCs still sell better than Macs, could it mean that no one takes these anti-commercials seriously? Do people really purchase Mac computers for their functional, that is, inherent value pointed out in these ads or their fetishist status? More and more one can hear frustrated PC users criticizing these commercials.
When Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code premiered in one of the former Soviet Union countries, a small group of religious activists protested in front of the movie theater attracting the mass media. When the situation worsened and journalists started to investigate it closely, it turned out that the group consisted of hired activists who were paid by the movie theater company to protest against this film, thus making it intriguing and more interesting for the local population. This increased the box office numbers and showed how negative advertising may actually bring profit to the seemingly 'condemned' side.
No comments:
Post a Comment