The difference between an Apple Store and a Microsoft Store

Last week Microsoft opened a retail store. Saw this video of what Ed Cotton calls “faked euphoria” as customers are let in to the blue-screen-of-death-colored wonderland.

Of all the differences between an Apple Store and a Microsoft Store, there is one difference that matters most. One that cannot be ignored—that I believe will prevent Microsoft Stores from succeeding.

The critical difference is that we all work at the Microsoft Store already.

In cubicles all over the globe, Microsoft’s customers and potential customers are already experiencing what the brand has to offer (if you have recent statistics on what percentage of office computers are Dells running Windows, please share). Experiences include:

continue reading…

Dimensions of differentiation

Differentiate. Decommoditize. Zag. Conventional brand strategy wisdom dictates that in order to succeed, a brand must set itself apart from the competition. Examples of differentiation-driven success abound, and in fact most of the support for differentiation seems to be delivered through case study or anecdote.

But what do we mean when we say “be different?” Telling stories about brands that have succeeded by standing apart from their competition may support the point that differentiation works, but it leaves something to be desired when consulting with a client on how they can differentiate their organization. Instead of listing examples, I wonder if it’s possible to think more systematically about the dimensions along which a brand can differentiate.

I use the word “dimensions” because brand consultants (including me) are often guilty of simplifying everything down to a two-dimensional graph, plotting the competition on the axes, and pointing out where a client has room to stand apart. To illustrate, here’s one of my favorite two-axis graphs from xkcd.com, poetically entitled “Fuck Grapefruit.”

(I can hear the conference-room conversation now…

continue reading…

Will Bing be as simple as its name implies?

I’ve just read through some great blog posts and articles on Bing—the name as well as expectations for the upcoming Microsoft “decision engine.” Opinions on the name are all over the map, with (mostly) negative opinions led by naming professionals like those at Snark Hunting and Pollywog. I love the bitter sarcasm over at Snark Hunting, and they make a funny point comparing Bing (“ping” with a “B”) to Zune (“tune” with a “Z”). But one of the earliest lessons I learned about naming (or writing taglines, etc.) is that it’s easy—often too easy—to pick on someone else’s work. Or, to put it more bluntly, to dislike it because it’s not your own.

continue reading…

Microsoft’s still got it all wrong

A few weeks back I posted something I’d written about Microsoft’s recent ad campaign, which in my opinion continues to fail as an effort to win back market and mindshare from Apple.

Now they’ve launched a new ad, which can be viewed here, and again I think they’ve missed the mark. I read one interesting article that goes into detail on the ad as well as reactions from Apple employees and partners,. It quotes one Apple reseller as saying “It certainly looks like a lazy campaign in which the primary focus is on price instead of value.” Couldn’t have put it better myself. My question after watching the ad was “yeah, but did she get home and realize it was a piece of crap?” The ad ends with her happily showing off her new laptop, but it’s still in the box. I want to know how she feels about the purchase a few weeks or months later.

Here’s another interesting article on the campaign.

Let me know what you think of the ad…

—UPDATE (4/13/09)—

A coworker just pointed out this article to me. It’s by Dan Lyons at Newsweek, who argues in favor of Microsoft’s most recent ads. His point is that the ads, beyond highlighting the price gap, carry “a far more damaging subtext: that people who buy Macs aren’t necessarily cool, clued-in hipsters. In fact, they might just be poseurs who paid too much for a computer–slash–fashion accessory.”

I’m glad the article doesn’t conclude that the ads are good because they show that PCs are cheaper. Clinging to low price as a point of differentiation is a last resort that may help in the short term, but could severely damage the brand in the post-recession long term. In fact, these ads strike me as more of a death knell than a new beginning, as Lyons suggests. (Although it would be silly to predict Microsoft’s imminent failure.)

I don’t disagree with everything Lyons writes, but he’s far from convinced me that these ads will positively impact the brand in the long term.