lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com (Lynda Botez) (10/27/89)
Well, it looks like people will be buying alot of Amiga's for Christmas this
year. They are advertising the machine like crazy. As you know, people are
very influenced by television promotions.
So far, I've only seen advertisements for the MacIntosh from Apple Computer (a
rather poor commercial, by the way). Of course, businesses don't buy
computers for Christmas.
Lynda
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!lbotez
INET: lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.commattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (10/29/89)
In article <21482@gryphon.COM> lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com (Lynda Botez) writes: >Well, it looks like people will be buying alot of Amiga's for Christmas this >year. They are advertising the machine like crazy. As you know, people are >very influenced by television promotions. > >So far, I've only seen advertisements for the MacIntosh from Apple Computer (a >rather poor commercial, by the way). Of course, businesses don't buy >computers for Christmas. > >Lynda > >UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!lbotez >INET: lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com (Jeremy Mereness had a similar post earlier on this group, talking about a magazine spread in Time for the Amiga and wondering where the IIgs one was.) Of course, every Apple II owner knows (from the accounting sheets Apple ships in the box, I guess) that Apple really gets a fantastic rate of return on Apple II advertising and chooses not to do it anyway because they're trying to kill the Apple II. Why spend the money in the most effective way possible when it just serves the needs of the shareholders? The point here, of course, is that everyone's *assuming* that spending lots and lots of money on Apple II advertising would return lots and lots of Apple II sales, and I don't know that to be the case at all. I know that there seems to be a good rate of return on Macintosh advertising, but I have no idea whether Apple's money in Apple II advertising is a good investment or not. And nobody else outside Apple's PR department probably knows, either, so please quit assuming the worst. It really takes a toll on Apple people reading this group to not be cut *any* slack. I'm sure the shareholders would find it just dandy to find a huge Apple II advertising budget if it didn't have a decent rate of return. They'd probably ask the executive staff why they spent the money, and they'd reply "We didn't want to hurt the feelings of the installed base." If I had to watch out for the feelings of the installed base, I'd do it with things like 5.0; major new functionality inexpensively or free. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (10/29/89)
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: >I'm sure the shareholders would find it just dandy to find a huge Apple II >advertising budget if it didn't have a decent rate of return. They'd probably >ask the executive staff why they spent the money, and they'd reply "We didn't >want to hurt the feelings of the installed base." If I had to watch out for >the feelings of the installed base, I'd do it with things like 5.0; major new >functionality inexpensively or free. Still, I'd like to see the installed base get a little more numbersome. Perhaps if the installed base did some creative investing? Yow! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | Jeremy Mereness | Support | Disclaimer: | | jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my | | r746jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software | opinions, alone. | | a student at Carnegie Mellon U. | | Void where prohibited. | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/29/89)
In article <36007@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: >>So far, I've only seen advertisements for the MacIntosh from Apple Computer (a >>rather poor commercial, by the way). Of course, businesses don't buy >>computers for Christmas. >(Jeremy Mereness had a similar post earlier on this group, talking about a >magazine spread in Time for the Amiga and wondering where the IIgs one was.) >Of course, every Apple II owner knows (from the accounting sheets Apple ships >in the box, I guess) that Apple really gets a fantastic rate of return on >Apple II advertising and chooses not to do it anyway because they're trying >to kill the Apple II. Why spend the money in the most effective way possible >when it just serves the needs of the shareholders? Really! :-) >The point here, of course, is that everyone's *assuming* that spending lots and >lots of money on Apple II advertising would return lots and lots of Apple II >sales, and I don't know that to be the case at all. I know that there seems to >be a good rate of return on Macintosh advertising, but I have no idea whether >Apple's money in Apple II advertising is a good investment or not. And nobody Well, I might suggest that if Apple did market the II line, then they'd find themselves getting beatup by comparisons to other computers (like Amiga) on a cost/feature basis which could possibly make sales for the II line not as good as they are. Of course, I *might* say that, but I can hardly prove it so I'll just leave it up in the air. Of course, if they did advertise, then maybe they'd try and get a II that could compete against the others out, or maybe they'd put a Cray II into an Apple box. We are dreaming here aren't we? We aren't? Owell..... >else outside Apple's PR department probably knows, either, so please quit >assuming the worst. It really takes a toll on Apple people reading this group >to not be cut *any* slack. Yeah, I find that a bit bad also. It should be marketing that should be getting 'no slack', but they probably stay as far away from this newsgroup as possible. -kareth.
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (10/30/89)
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: >Still, I'd like to see the installed base get a little more >numbersome. Perhaps if the installed base did some creative investing? > >Yow! > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >| Jeremy Mereness | Support | Disclaimer: | >| jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my | >| r746jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software | opinions, alone. | >| a student at Carnegie Mellon U. | | Void where prohibited. | >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apple wants to see the installed base increase as well. If they didn't, they wouldn't be selling the machines. (It really is close to this simple, gang; I don't understand where all these conspiracy theories keep coming from.) I'm not convinced, though, that major national advertising is the best way Apple can spend their money to increase the installed base. Everyone was just assuming it was, and I pointed out that this is far from obvious. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com (Lynda Botez) (10/30/89)
Matt Deatherage writes: >... please quit assuming the worst. It really takes a toll on Apple people >reading this group to not be cut *any* slack. come-on, Matt, get real. We apple II folks love you guys. You're the only ones at Apple who pay any attention to us. We're borderline fanatics who love our computers; we're the guardians of Apple IIdom... and you're the white knights. >The point here, of course, is that everyone's *assuming* that spending lots >and lots of money on Apple II advertising would return lots and lots of Apple >II sales, and I don't know that to be the case at all. Sigh. I'm really amazed to see you making this statement. Of course, you're no marketing person, but being a former advertising agency employee, I can assure you that advertising creates sales. Sales brings in more capital gain; more sales brings in more software support and more money to pay your salary (hey, maybe even give you a raise). The fact that Apple Computer isn't bothering to advertise the GS at ALL makes some of us wonder about the future of the Apple II. Last year there were Apple II commericals on TV. [I saw one... -:)]. Also, who's talking about "lots and lots of money"? How about "some" money? We'd like to see the "installed base" [hey, that's us!] increase. The more Apple II users, the more support we get. I get the feeling that Apple is totally surprised at the popularity of the Apple II, and while they throw us a "bone" every so often (System 5.whatever, Apple Overlay card, etc.); they don't make much of an effort to overtly promote the machine. Lynda UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!lbotez INET: lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com