The Difference Between Metaphor and Affinity

Microsoft’s latest ad campaign shows people of all occupations, colors, and creeds proudly exclaiming “I’m a PC.” The implication, of course, is that John Hodgeman’ dorky character from the Mac ads isn’t an accurate representation of the type of people who use Windows.

But here’s the problem. Hodgeman’s chubby, white, bespectacled, clumsily dressed self isn’t supposed to represent PC users. He’s supposed to represent the PCs themselves.

Think I’m splitting hairs? Watch any of the many Mac ads and see if they ever break the mold. The hipster is never a Mac user; he is always a Mac. The doofus is never a PC user; he is always the personification of the machine itself.

But does it really make a difference? Yes, because the new Windows ads rely on the implication that they are combating an unfair stereotyping. A stereotyping of people.

Microsoft’s new campaign implicitly says to the viewer: “Using a PC doesn’t mean being boring and myopic like the fat guy in the Mac ad! It means being an interesting, unique person like yourself, doing the interesting, unique things that you do when you are at your very best.”

This kind of utopian appeal to everyone’s best possible self is hard to argue with. Could a PC be used by all those interesting people, to help them do all those interesting things? Of course.

But the Mac ads were never suggesting otherwise. Their message is actually much more precise and practical. They’re saying: “Choose your tools carefully. Our tools are better.”

And in order to make that point, they have personified those tools…not the users.

The Mac campaign does not imply that PC users are boring people. It implies that they are interesting people with crappy computers.

And, for people who can work through the thought process outlined above… that makes the Windows ads stupid beyond belief.

Right?