Microsoft vs. Apple: A Conflict Seen Through Political Exhaustion Theory
If you own a television and live in the United States, you've no doubt seen the numerous commercials that have come out from Apple that show the cool Apple guy who says "Hi, I'm a Mac" and the nerdy, plump guy who calls himself a "PC". This was a series of ads that Apple designed to show that Macs are cooler than PCs, and to convince people that PCs are too hard for the average user to understand, so go ahead and buy a Mac.
Well, this seems to have been causing a dent in Microsoft's bottom line, so they started to run a series of ads that use the exact same kind of rhetoric in hopes of countering Apple's continuous successes with this campaign. To the tech crowd, often the response has been "it's about time" to "how desperate". What is interesting is that no one has actually looked at the long term effects of this kind of rhetorical battle.
Now, I've done some work on narratives and counter-narratives, so if dealt with in just that capacity, it would seem that whichever side winds up with the stronger narrative ends up being the winner of the conflict. However, there is one further variable that needs to be discussed, and there's a rich literature already done on it. I brought it up in a conversation the other day, and it made me realize that people are only capable of accepting what's immediately in front of their faces; thinking through things strategically rather than tactically is something people do not do (we look for immediate results, not long term effects).
Well, political exhaustion is something no one ever seems to discuss outside of political elections. I think it's actually the problem that's being seen here, but no one wants to recognize it because there's no "political" situation that they can match it to. Therefore, they don't make the connection.
Political exhaustion posits the very simple idea that if attack ads continue to wage during a campaign, you end up with fewer people participating in voting. So, the other side doesn't gain more votes, but the side that was attacked loses votes, so fewer and fewer people participate.
Well, it might not come as a surprise to people, but Microsoft was starting to lose business due to the Apple attacks, and thus decided to turn the tide by starting their own attack ads. Well, guess what? In February, Apple's sales dropped 16 percent, meaning that Microsoft's attack ads were doing exactly what political attack ads do. In other words, people aren't deciding between Macs and PCs because of the ads; they're deciding against both Macs and PCs because of the ads. The only reason people are continuing to buy PCs and Macs are because they aren't influenced by the ads at all, they are so in need of a computer that they'll forgo the argumentation and just buy one anyway, or other factors besides wanting to buy one or the other. All that these attack ads have succeeded in doing is convincing people NOT to buy the other product. But because both sides are now in full gear (Apple responded with their own response to Microsoft, causing the next round of Microsoft ads), we're guaranteed to see continuous, diminishing returns.
This would be a really good time to be a third option.
Stumble It!
Well, this seems to have been causing a dent in Microsoft's bottom line, so they started to run a series of ads that use the exact same kind of rhetoric in hopes of countering Apple's continuous successes with this campaign. To the tech crowd, often the response has been "it's about time" to "how desperate". What is interesting is that no one has actually looked at the long term effects of this kind of rhetorical battle.
Now, I've done some work on narratives and counter-narratives, so if dealt with in just that capacity, it would seem that whichever side winds up with the stronger narrative ends up being the winner of the conflict. However, there is one further variable that needs to be discussed, and there's a rich literature already done on it. I brought it up in a conversation the other day, and it made me realize that people are only capable of accepting what's immediately in front of their faces; thinking through things strategically rather than tactically is something people do not do (we look for immediate results, not long term effects).
Well, political exhaustion is something no one ever seems to discuss outside of political elections. I think it's actually the problem that's being seen here, but no one wants to recognize it because there's no "political" situation that they can match it to. Therefore, they don't make the connection.
Political exhaustion posits the very simple idea that if attack ads continue to wage during a campaign, you end up with fewer people participating in voting. So, the other side doesn't gain more votes, but the side that was attacked loses votes, so fewer and fewer people participate.
Well, it might not come as a surprise to people, but Microsoft was starting to lose business due to the Apple attacks, and thus decided to turn the tide by starting their own attack ads. Well, guess what? In February, Apple's sales dropped 16 percent, meaning that Microsoft's attack ads were doing exactly what political attack ads do. In other words, people aren't deciding between Macs and PCs because of the ads; they're deciding against both Macs and PCs because of the ads. The only reason people are continuing to buy PCs and Macs are because they aren't influenced by the ads at all, they are so in need of a computer that they'll forgo the argumentation and just buy one anyway, or other factors besides wanting to buy one or the other. All that these attack ads have succeeded in doing is convincing people NOT to buy the other product. But because both sides are now in full gear (Apple responded with their own response to Microsoft, causing the next round of Microsoft ads), we're guaranteed to see continuous, diminishing returns.
This would be a really good time to be a third option.
Labels: Economics
Stumble It!
posted by Duane @ 7:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home