On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Chris Dunford<[email protected]> wrote:
> All it means is that the advertising campaigns appear to have been > effective, which is all that I said it meant. There was considerable talk > here that MS's ads were no good, but it seems that they were. No big deal. The ads were good at showing that folks who have little or no computing experience and who want a cheap computer, the main point of the ads, and are willing to place their entire confidence in the hands of a big box store salesperson, the secondary point of the ads, will likely end up getting a Windows machine. For those who shop in that manner, the ads will work. Ads on TV for soon to be released movies also work, and those films that are thus exposed to the (primarily youthful) public ALWAYS lead the list of the highest grossing movies in the immediate aftermath. Most of those films suck eggs, but that is not what matters, is it? I am not equating Windows machines with egg sucking movies, but I am saying that advertising is advertising, movies are movies and computers are computers. In the case of either movies or computers, the quality of and satisfaction with the product does not necessarily parallel the hype and results of the advertising. Steve ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
