-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Computers vie for vote
Archive
Comments
Story
In one of the most politically-charged environments of the last 50 years, it’s hard not to notice everything having some political slant. But recent Apple and Microsoft commercials have taken an interesting political stance in the sense that they have begun to attack not only each others’ ethos, but also the others’ ad campaigns as well.
While this is not a recent innovation in the realm of campaign politics, marketing campaigns rarely attack competitors by name. In a recent Apple ad in the same vein as their Mac and PC predecessors, the ad attacks the marketing spots of Microsoft for political tactics, including misleading the consumer by not even mentioning Vista by name. The interesting thing is that this attack goes on in the ad for Apple. It’s like a McCain ad that attacks Obama – nothing is actually said about the object the ad is for but about its opposition.
If you haven’t seen the Apple ads, they have a stuffy-looking man in a suit saying, “I’m a PC” and a laid-back looking guy (played by Hollywood up-and-comer Justin Long) saying, “I’m a Mac.” The trivialities of systemic personification extend from there.
Are people really defining themselves with a “personal brand” that revolves around what kind of computer they use? In Microsoft’s newest ad campaign, where an array of people proclaim their devotion to the brand (noting they are undoubtedly being paid) this has to be the case. But the message seems to be that the kind of computer that one uses defines who he or she is.
“I’m a Mac.”
“I’m a PC.”
I don’t care.
What’s the difference? You’re both computers. You’re both trying to sell me something. You’re both operating systems that work on a point and click interface. In reality, the difference is so small that these ads are essentially talking about the same thing. Somehow, the two corporations have been pigeonholed as opposites of each other – much like Republicans and Democrats – when, at the root, they are mere inches from each other on whatever scale you use.
The political system is no different. If we really get down to brass tacks, the differences in the issues hashed over by our candidates – especially our presidential candidates – are, in reality, so slight, so minute, that what we’re really voting for at this point is a label.
While these PC v. Mac ads bicker over difference in an invisible aesthetic – never really showing the actual product or its usefulness in any context – the consumer is left to identify with the aesthetic only. There are few newcomers to computer technology in our system, but these ads still say nothing at all about their representative products’ innovations or adaptations.
Essentially, the ad says, “you only have two choices.” The Apple ad tries to convince you not to buy Microsoft. Why? Because the end result must be that you buy Apple.
It reveals something slight about our system. While monopolies are outlawed, it seems to be only so that competition thrives. For, without the basis of producer competition, the entire industrial complex locks up in one winning, ultra-dominant concern. This is true of computer and political campaigns.
By extension, it shows the monopoly of ideology and the lack of other voices in conversation.
While here it is just a commentary on the possibilities of things we can buy, in the political mainstream it represents a domination of ideology. The difference is just as subtle: in a market-driven, mediated culture, political campaigns and debates are structured around the same line of thought – you only have two choices, and they are basically the same.
DALE W. EISINGER
Culture Editor
