Microsoft's brand problems stand in stark regard to Apple's success with branding - lack of a coherent overall product strategy, releasing too many products, releasing too soon, changing tone and strategy too often - failing to make up their mind and focus. In response they seem often to try and compensate by racheting up the enthusiasm levels, with limited success. It's hard to trust a company pushing their newest product on you with maniacal enthusiasm - the emotional environment that attitude creates makes it virtually impossible to really enjoy a product, to feel comfortable and relaxed and as if the product truly belongs to you. This is something Apple has been really successful with, and it's absolutely crucial if Microsoft is to host a truly creative user community which can match Apple's.
The big problem as I see it is it's a situation which naturally leads to desperation for a quick solution. But desperation and rushing are actually what Microsoft needs to avoid. And I'm not convinced in the slightest that Microsoft has recognised or addressed these issues, because they seem to be moving so fast and hoping for such rapid responses with their current efforts. Unfortunately the costs for trying too hard/too fast are pretty high - you taint the brand image indefinitely, as it's pretty hard to change that initial impression - certainly hard to even try without seeming like a company that has no self-identity but . With the amount of resources and innovation they're putting into their current efforts, it'd be a shame to see them blow it. I think they would have done better taking their time and letting momentum build slower.
I'm reminded of the story of how the Lotus guys (the car company) managed to convince the James Bond franchise managers to place a Lotus in a Bond film. At the time the Bond guys were being bombarded with requests from car companies, because being featured in their films was so lucrative. The Lotus guys went the other way - they took the car they wanted to push, stripped off all the signage which indicated it was a Lotus, and left it outside of the Bond franchise HQ. As they hoped, the Bond guys came out, saw the car, thought it looked amazing, but because they couldn't work out what car it was, they became obsessed with it and determined to find out. Lotus used quietness and confidence to rise above the fray of car manufacturers all trying to out-shout each other.
The true proof of confidence is relaxation. Without it, a company is always on the defensive.
Did you watch the Surface Ads - they look pretty damn confident of their product. Their strategy for the last 18 months has also been consistent, "Tablets are great for portability, but the iPad is not a knowledge workers tool, it's a media-consumption devices for most people - the Surface gives you the portability, and the knowledge worker flexibility"
Sorry, but trying to say that Microsoft satisfies the consistency criteria because of its behaviour over the last 18 months is absurd. 18 months is nothing - the timespans that matter in this game are more like 18 years.
Microsoft over the last 13 years has flopped around from one idea to another. Their attitude has been build first, worry about identity second. They've rushed around, trying something, failing, rushing into another thing. Even within the space of one push they lack consistency. The Surface ads might be well-made but they're completely all over the place in tone, attitude and feature emphasis. Think about it: there was the liquid metal one, then the dancing clicking one, then this one. The first was hardcore/intense, the second one was exuberant/dizzying, the third was calm/productive. What's the common link? Where's the consistency in their messaging?
Think about Apple's strategy in contrast. Their product strategy, company image, attitude and presentation has basically been one smooth progression from the iPod to the iPhone 5S. The image they've presented has been the epitome of stability and consistency. It's not that they don't make mistakes or make strategy shifts - it's just that Apple astutely realises that it's best to make these changes subtly.
It's only techy people like us who notice shifts in emphasis (specs don't matter > A7 64-bit processor). Everyone else loves it. They're not saying the same things over and over again - their messages and emphasis changes over time, but the change is gradual and smooth. Each product, each launch, each ad builds on top of the last.
It's not to say that there aren't recurrent themes in Microsoft's messaging - but the difference between the two is night and day. And what's the result? Apple makes vast amounts of money - all without seeming to lift a finger convincing people to buy their products. They're reaping the fruits of taking the time to work out their strategy early on, and sticking to that strategy.
That's the problem for Microsoft - this is a game where it's your behaviour over years, not months, that matters most. Until they really learn and absorb that lesson they are extremely vulnerable I think.
Fair enough - I agree that Microsoft has been shifting it's messaging quite a bit - but I think a lot of that has to do with Apple being a functional organization (singular vision directed on downwards) and Microsoft is a Divisional Organization (multiple business lines). Where the single vision is communicated (Windows Everywhere) - it's not always appropriate -(Consumers care about experience, not product lines)
Sorry, but trying to say that Microsoft satisfies the consistency criteria because of its behaviour over the last 18 months is absurd. 18 months is nothing - the timespans that matter in this game are more like 18 years.
You can't compare MS to Apple regarding those products on the basis that you believe an 18 year time-span is what matters in this game. Because the ipod, the iphone, the ipad and the macbook air aren't even 10 years-old.
But I agree with you on your main point: MS is highly inconsistent regarding its branding and that's a problem for consumer identification and reliance perception.
The 18 year figure was just illustrative of the fact that I thought he was an order of magnitude off. I didn't mean that a company needs to remain consistent for 18 years exactly - but it is years of consistency that count, the more the better.
As far as Apple's performance - the iPod range is 12 years old at this point. Apple has been producing consistently branded Macbooks since 2006, this line is clearly continuous with the iBooks which go back to 1999. The iPhone range is 6 years old at this point. Consumer OS X is 12 years old - they've only just dropped the cat name motif, and Mavericks is still recognisably a progression from 10.0. Etc.
Comments
Microsoft's brand problems stand in stark regard to Apple's success with branding - lack of a coherent overall product strategy, releasing too many products, releasing too soon, changing tone and strategy too often - failing to make up their mind and focus. In response they seem often to try and compensate by racheting up the enthusiasm levels, with limited success. It's hard to trust a company pushing their newest product on you with maniacal enthusiasm - the emotional environment that attitude creates makes it virtually impossible to really enjoy a product, to feel comfortable and relaxed and as if the product truly belongs to you. This is something Apple has been really successful with, and it's absolutely crucial if Microsoft is to host a truly creative user community which can match Apple's.
The big problem as I see it is it's a situation which naturally leads to desperation for a quick solution. But desperation and rushing are actually what Microsoft needs to avoid. And I'm not convinced in the slightest that Microsoft has recognised or addressed these issues, because they seem to be moving so fast and hoping for such rapid responses with their current efforts. Unfortunately the costs for trying too hard/too fast are pretty high - you taint the brand image indefinitely, as it's pretty hard to change that initial impression - certainly hard to even try without seeming like a company that has no self-identity but . With the amount of resources and innovation they're putting into their current efforts, it'd be a shame to see them blow it. I think they would have done better taking their time and letting momentum build slower.
I'm reminded of the story of how the Lotus guys (the car company) managed to convince the James Bond franchise managers to place a Lotus in a Bond film. At the time the Bond guys were being bombarded with requests from car companies, because being featured in their films was so lucrative. The Lotus guys went the other way - they took the car they wanted to push, stripped off all the signage which indicated it was a Lotus, and left it outside of the Bond franchise HQ. As they hoped, the Bond guys came out, saw the car, thought it looked amazing, but because they couldn't work out what car it was, they became obsessed with it and determined to find out. Lotus used quietness and confidence to rise above the fray of car manufacturers all trying to out-shout each other.
The true proof of confidence is relaxation. Without it, a company is always on the defensive.
Did you watch the Surface Ads - they look pretty damn confident of their product. Their strategy for the last 18 months has also been consistent, "Tablets are great for portability, but the iPad is not a knowledge workers tool, it's a media-consumption devices for most people - the Surface gives you the portability, and the knowledge worker flexibility"
Great Ads.
Sorry, but trying to say that Microsoft satisfies the consistency criteria because of its behaviour over the last 18 months is absurd. 18 months is nothing - the timespans that matter in this game are more like 18 years.
Microsoft over the last 13 years has flopped around from one idea to another. Their attitude has been build first, worry about identity second. They've rushed around, trying something, failing, rushing into another thing. Even within the space of one push they lack consistency. The Surface ads might be well-made but they're completely all over the place in tone, attitude and feature emphasis. Think about it: there was the liquid metal one, then the dancing clicking one, then this one. The first was hardcore/intense, the second one was exuberant/dizzying, the third was calm/productive. What's the common link? Where's the consistency in their messaging?
Think about Apple's strategy in contrast. Their product strategy, company image, attitude and presentation has basically been one smooth progression from the iPod to the iPhone 5S. The image they've presented has been the epitome of stability and consistency. It's not that they don't make mistakes or make strategy shifts - it's just that Apple astutely realises that it's best to make these changes subtly. It's only techy people like us who notice shifts in emphasis (specs don't matter > A7 64-bit processor). Everyone else loves it. They're not saying the same things over and over again - their messages and emphasis changes over time, but the change is gradual and smooth. Each product, each launch, each ad builds on top of the last.
It's not to say that there aren't recurrent themes in Microsoft's messaging - but the difference between the two is night and day. And what's the result? Apple makes vast amounts of money - all without seeming to lift a finger convincing people to buy their products. They're reaping the fruits of taking the time to work out their strategy early on, and sticking to that strategy.
That's the problem for Microsoft - this is a game where it's your behaviour over years, not months, that matters most. Until they really learn and absorb that lesson they are extremely vulnerable I think.
Fair enough - I agree that Microsoft has been shifting it's messaging quite a bit - but I think a lot of that has to do with Apple being a functional organization (singular vision directed on downwards) and Microsoft is a Divisional Organization (multiple business lines). Where the single vision is communicated (Windows Everywhere) - it's not always appropriate -(Consumers care about experience, not product lines)
Here is the last few years of Apple Ads.
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfv6Ah_MVJU (PC Ad)
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQw3mVWXncg (iPod Ad)
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMcrw8WTWSs (Genius Ad)
They have been hitting their stride recently:
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoVW62mwSQQ (iPhone Camera)
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu1jHtf_oUc (iPhone Facetime)
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDUKt_XgfJ4 (iPhone Music)
Interesting, one of the supposedly "Worst reviewed" ads really spoke to me
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=170fh2mvog0 (Designed in California)
I hope we see more like the last one. That's the sort of thing that I think a company should aspire to.
When Microsoft was confident, many years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EcLdwYqwko
You can't compare MS to Apple regarding those products on the basis that you believe an 18 year time-span is what matters in this game. Because the ipod, the iphone, the ipad and the macbook air aren't even 10 years-old.
But I agree with you on your main point: MS is highly inconsistent regarding its branding and that's a problem for consumer identification and reliance perception.
The 18 year figure was just illustrative of the fact that I thought he was an order of magnitude off. I didn't mean that a company needs to remain consistent for 18 years exactly - but it is years of consistency that count, the more the better.
As far as Apple's performance - the iPod range is 12 years old at this point. Apple has been producing consistently branded Macbooks since 2006, this line is clearly continuous with the iBooks which go back to 1999. The iPhone range is 6 years old at this point. Consumer OS X is 12 years old - they've only just dropped the cat name motif, and Mavericks is still recognisably a progression from 10.0. Etc.