From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: More thoughts on ads..
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:19:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.190812.19767@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.162947.6596@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>It occurs to me that a computer/computer software that is advertised
>>on TV or radio is in pretty bad shape.
>>
>>Observation:  Never has a TV campaign, so aimed, succeeded.
>>
>>Examples:  Commodore Amiga's number of ads
>>          The original PS/2 and OS/2 ads (MASH)
>>          Phillips CDI & Commodores CDTV (flops)
>
>Or then there's Microsoft Windows and it's associated software.  Or the
>Intel Inside campaign.  Yep, it's never succeeded.
>

     I'll admit, I really liked the adds where the view sweeps
through the computer to the 'Vacancy' sign.  That's pretty cool.

>>
>>
>>When you advertise on TV or radio you are spending a lot more to contact
>>a limited number of people.  How many of those listeners/watchers
>>have computers?  How many know jack about them?
>
>Actually when you advertise as IBM did on a major bowl game, you hit
>EXACTLY the market you want: College-educated men between the ages of 24
>and 45.  Unfortunately, IBM dropped the ball with their totally lame
>advertising.

     Actually, I kind of liked the advertisement.  It told a lot
about the OS, probably more than the average word
processor/spreadsheet user knows, but it doesn't hurt to know these
things.

>
>>
>>And "multitasking" is not the thing to advertise.  Most people--99% of them--
>>can multitask adequately under Win3.1 w/4 megs and a 40mb HD (stacker or without).  The thing to push is that OS/2 is in many ways better (but let's not
>>lie about it) and costs no more.  Furthermore, it would be nice to see some
>>ads that showed real performance benchmarks for a 386sx-20 w/8 megs compared
>>to the same system under DOS or Win3.1..
>
>I agree with you here.  The multitasking issue is a bit arcane for these
>folks, what IBM should have stressed was the superior crash protection,
>the improved user interface and the ability to run most existing
>software more efficiently.
>

     I disagree.  There are a lot of advertisements which tell a lot
about a product in terms which many people don't know (car
commercials, as an example).  People hear these things, and think
that they are good (which they are).  The point is, they hear the
*name* of the product.  Then, in the future when they are buying a
computer, they ask if it has OS/2.  This gets the message across to
vendors that people want OS/2 (at least to some).  Also, in the
future IBM can advertise their PS/Valupoints and PS/2's and claim
that they have OS/2.  People will have heard of it, and it will be
an additional selling point (instead of people just going 'What's
OS/2?').
     Also, If somebody out there is waiting for NT, and they see the
commercial, they will know what many of the terms are, and may
decide that they should go with OS/2, since NT has taken so long to
come out (I did this...  of course, I was afraid OS/2 (1.3) wouldn't
run my DOS software, and OS/2 programs cost too much.  This has all
changed.  Besides, I got sick of Windows very quickly).  Boy that
was a long sentence! :-) :-)

>>
>>Then again, maybe benchmarks aren't a good idea.
>
>Benchmarks aren't such a good idea for the TV target audience.
>

     I agree.  That's the last thing I want to see on TV is a bunch
of numbers which mean nothing to me (they would if I wasn't such a
computer geek, anyway).

Timothy Miller

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11496 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3645