Please Apple, Not Another “Switch” Campaign

There is a quote widely attributed to Albert Einstein which goes something as follows (for a supposed quote it comes in many formats):

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing the over and over and expecting different results.

The overly critical will point out that using the above as a definition for insanity will never beat a murder rap but most non-felonious people will agree that there is more than a smattering of wisdom contained within the phrase. After all one would be hard pressed not to laugh at an individual who, day after day, checked to see if an iron was hot enough by licking the surface. Which leaves us wondering if there are more than a few confirmed iron lickers at Apple.

The wonderment people feel is due to a recent posting at Apple’s site asking for stories from people who bought an iPod and then purchased a Mac. For those who remember the ill-fated “switcher” campaign the path forward seems eerily familiar. Presumably Apple will collect the stories, choose a few of the more memorable (or bizarre) individuals and we’ll be treated to another round of television ads of highly questionable value.

It can be argued that questioning Apple’s advertising practices is not the wisest thing to do and this argument has merit. Generally Apple contracts with Chiat-Day (a well respected advertising firm) and the campaign will undoubtedly be overseen by Steve Jobs who is said to be a master at spotting all things not insanely great. A clearly competent marketing firm coupled with a master marketer would seem to be a recipe for a well-received assault on the market. However smart people make mistakes and go insane so it is entirely possible that in spite of Chiat-Day’s prowess and Steve Jobs’ keen eye for quality Apple will repeat the mistakes of the past. At this point re-reading Einstein’s quote might be in order.

This comes at a critical time for Apple, a moment when the company has a chance to capitalize on growing momentum so a Bunyan sized marketing misstep could be a serious setback. At this point one might be tempted to think that another round of white screened computer ads featuring of individuals 99% of the populace can’t empathize with in any meaningful way (or more bluntly: another parade of the odd) couldn’t do too much harm. That notion would be mistaken, while a truly clever marketing campaign can boost sales and solidify positive corporate image a poorly executed or badly conceived effort can lead to product euthanasia.

Just mentioning that a bad campaign can have deleterious effects is easily done, a concrete example will help clarify the magnitude of the situation. In the early nineties McDonalds introduced the McLean Deluxe. The really great thing about the sandwich, or so the marketers told anyone who would listen, is that it had only nine grams of fat. The sandwich achieved such a healthy ratio of meat to fat by using a seaweed derivative. A technological feat McDonalds was only too happy to share with the hamburger consuming public. The sandwich was introduced, flopped fantastically, and was pulled from the menu. Here individuals of sufficient age will remember the entire fiasco, chuckle to themselves at the ineptitude of a corporate giant, and spend a few moments bemused by the idea that McDonalds once thought, nay, was certain that people who dine at McDonalds would eagerly trade taste for fat grams.

That is a natural conclusion but completely mistaken. What actually happened was a massive failure of marketing. McDonalds was aware that their customers were not likely to trade taste for fat so they made sure that particular exchange would not be necessary. They did this by repeatedly testing the McLean Deluxe against other menu items. The long discontinued McLean Deluxe won in a convincing fashion so there was no reason to believe that it would fail in the marketplace. As previously noted the sandwich did fail but it wasn’t the taste that sent it to the big dumpster out back it was the advertising. It was not an issue of money or time invested in the promotion (although one could consider the fact that the sandwich was promoted too much the culprit) the problem was in how the sesame seed riddled meat slab was pushed. By offering the fried slab of flesh as a healthy alternative made with selected seaweed secretions McDonald’s was tacitly saying the sandwich was a compromise between health and taste. The McLean Deluxe might still be gracing menus today if the people in charge of shaping menu choices had called it “Our Greatest Burger Yet” or just shut up. The point being that even a well funded, seemingly well thought out advertising campaign can have disastrous effects.

You can see a more directly relevant example if you look at Apple’s Mac Mini. Reaction overall has been favorable in the mainstream media but if one digs a little by perusing forums or Mac leaning websites they’ll start to find criticisms. People will whine about the notebook sized hard drive, the speed of the processor, the video memory etc. Often they’ll type their screed on some machine that is obviously inferior to a Mini (a G3 tower or 800MHz iBook to cite two examples I am familiar with) and end their missive by noting that they couldn’t possibly get by with just a Mini. Which is odd since they are, in fact, getting by with a lesser machine. Naturally people are going to criticize any Apple product but because Apple is offering the Mini as a low cost solution people are preconditioned to think of the machine as inherently compromised. If Apple would have positioned the Mini as a computer that consumes minimal desk space, minimal electricity, ran silent and offered plenty of power that just happened to cost $499 you might be hearing a different tune (“Wow, they even used notebook hard drives to keep it quiet!”). A small example but a pertinent one.

At this point it becomes apparent that a campaign highlighting individual users might not be the optimal choice. Such an attempt, if done similarly to the earlier “switch” campaign might convince viewers that Apple produces computers designed primarily for people that are standing quite a distance from the mainstream. This belief could seep over to the music arena and slow down demand for the iPod, after all if you see someone on TV completely unlike you opining that they bought a Mac simply because the iPod was so great you might start to look a your iPod with a jaundiced eye thinking “I never realized the iPod was the music player reserved for the “heavily medicated.” Personally I hope Apple is collecting stories just for light bathroom reading among upper management because it would be far better to remain silent than go down the “switcher” road again. Or, put another way, I hope Apple rids themselves of the iron lickers.