From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: More thoughts on ads..
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:26:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.202415.16256@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>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.
>
>
>	Those were not TV campaigns in any meaningful way.  I don't 
>	think it would be wholly unrealistic to argue that the TV ads 
>	were next to meaningless next to the media saturation that
>	Windows and Intel aimed at.  Windows, well, got it mostly 
>	for free. Intel has one or more two-page spreads every month in
>	most ofthe computer magazines.  Intel also has concentrated it's
>	Intel Inside campaign in a sort of insidious advertising rebate
>	plan that eliminates the price difference between the Intel
>	parts andtheAMD/Cyrix parts by paying some of their advertising
>	costs.  (Something much more anti-competitive, IMHO, than Microsoft
>	has everdone).

I never SAID that it was the sole advertising medium for Intel or
Windows (DUH!).  It is part of a COMPREHENSIVE advertising campaign
which integrates all aspects of advertising.

>
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>	1.  I strongly doubt if "college educated" is really the majority
>	of the foot-ball watchers demographics.

According to Neilson, for college football games it is.  I can dig up
the chapter and verse if you like...


>       Furthermore, I doubt that
>	this is mostly irrelavent: college educated != computer literate, 
>	by any stretch of the imagination.  I imagine that more computer
>	literate people could be reached by advertising on scifi shows or
>	more general non-sports related_entertainment_.  Probably for a 
>	lot less than IBM spent on the Fiesta Bowl.

Literacy isn't an issue in this case, receptivity is.  These are the
people who actually USE computers in business.  Programmers and
associated geeks (like myself) are a small fraction of the PC market.
Remeber, up until last year, the IBM PS/2 was the largest selling PC in
the world.  I didn't buy one, none of my friends bought one.  But
american business bought MILLIONS of them.  These folks who are buying
these computers are geeks but the people who authorize the geeks to buy
them are the suits who watch college football.  That makes using this
sporting event a useful tool to reach that target audience.

Targeting SF audiences is for programs like Star Trek: The Screen Saver,
not OS/2...

>
>	2.  Even ignoring this, they could have hit a lot more
>	of a concentrated audience by advertising in computer 
>	magazines or hitting the college campus promotional route. 
>	Magazines dedicated to computers *ensure* that the audience
>	is at least somewhat interested in the subject.  There is
>	a much greater chance of hitting receptive minds in a
>	self-selected audience than there is in trying your luck
>	and spending a fortune on a football game.

Business people don't read PC-Magazine, they read Newsweek and Forbes.
That is why you see OS/2 ads there...  You also see them in computer rags,
but not exclusively.

>
>
>>>A few ads in a some computer magazine (say, a two or three page insert
>>>a la DesqView/X)--or all ofthe computer magazines--would deliver a much
>>>higher hit rate than any radio or TV ad. 
>>
>>Not true at all if the target market is the general home audience, the
>>folks who have been buying Windows like crazy.
>
>
>	OS/2 is not targeted at the home audience.  Most still have
>	8088 and '286 machines that OS/2 wont run on at all.  The rest,
>	for the most part have 386 machines with 2 or 4 megs of 
>	RAM and a 40 to 60 megabyte harddisk.  These people run DOS
>	and Windows, and would be very unhappy trying to run OS/2.

I don't think that "most" have 286's or even 8088 machines anymore.  You
can hardly BUY these anymore.  Even at Price Club or Sams (discount
houses) you can only buy a 386sx or better.  But I agree that this is
not targeted at the home audience for the most part.

>
>	The audience that IBM is targeting, that is, the people with
>	the equipment *already* to run OS/2 are already aware of it,
>	the are simply not trusting of it.  They need 1) name confidence
>	(the mess of 1.x versions makes people wary of OS/2, and the
>	media "OS/2 is doomed" isn't helping) 2) reason to bother with is.
>	
>	Advertising on the Fiesta Bowl, unless it was *very cheap* 
>	(unlikely) was a stupid waste of funds that could have gone elsewhere.

Well, I disagree.  The Fiesta Bowl targeted the folks that IBM wanted to
target: men in a position to buy OS/2 for businesses.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>	As far as these folks are concerned:
>
>	1.  OS/2's superior crash protection is irrelavent.  If the
>	program crashes (windows) they simply reboot and have it running 
>	again in one to two minutes.  Auto-save prevents most losses
>	of work, so nothing much is lost even if it does go down.  
>	Plus, Windows doesn't crash much for the non-DOS using
>	"average" user.  DOS hardly crashes at all (and the difference
>	between DOS crashing and OS/2 killing a task because it 
>	went awry is minor--in both cases, you have to start 
>	from the last autosave).

But in a business environment where constant rebooting and relogging
into various networks is a pain and unproductive, then crash protection
is a big deal.  Where you need to have a high degree of reliance on
mission-critical applications, crash protection is a big deal.

>
>	2.  As far as these folks are concerned, the WPS is a clumsy,
>	confusing jumble next to the simple drool-and-click Program
>	Manager.  Want to run Word?  Click click double-click.  Nothing
>	to it.  The "average" user hardly does any file management, so
>	that's not a big deal (and even if it is, just click click 
>	double-click the file manager).  

It's funny how you impose YOUR feelings onto those you don't know.  The
WPS in usability testing scores consistantly higher in ease of use, ease
of learning, and ease of teaching.  There was a PC Magazine article
about this last year.  What they found was that DOS users took to the
WPS much faster than the did to the Win3 interface.

>
>	Remember--these folks find *Windows'* interface confusing, 	
>	and it's about as drool-proof as you can get.  
>
>	3.  Run software more efficiently??  You'll have to cite me
>	an example.  I can't think of a one.

Allows you to run Qmodem and download in the background while editing a
file in Word without dropping characters in either.

>
>
>	The best thing IBM could do for OS/2 is put off any ad
>	spending until 2.1 is ready, then really blitz the
>	_relavent_ media with very critical of "others" 
>	ads.  Apple's PowerBook ads are a good example, and
>	Apple's "This is makingit easier?" ads are/were very
>	effective.

Again, a good example of TV advertising in the service of computers.

>
>	There is no way a "general" audience can compete in
>	bang-for-the-buck with a SIG audience.  The Fiesta
>	Bowl was "general"--magazines, campus tours, computer
>	shows--are all SIG audiences.

You're assuming that the Fiesta Bowl was a "general" audience and not a
target one.  It was a target audience, just one which you don't seem to
think is worth targeting.


	-Phil
-- 
(--)======================================================================(--)
 ||                                                                        ||
 ||  As evey cell in Chile will tell / The cries of the tortured men       ||
 ||  Remember Allende in the days before / Before the army came            ||
 ||  Please remember Victor Jarra / In the Santiago Stadium / Es verdad    ||
 ||              Those Washington Bullets Again!      --The Clash          ||
 ||                                                                        ||
(--)== prs9k@virginia.edu === Phil Scarr === Department of Neurosurgery ==(--)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy