The product may be superior to that of some competitors, but the price does not convey that. In addition, the distribution is mainstream through the same channels most of its competitors use. The promotions lack a distinct look and feel as well, with the messages not varying much from those of HP's main competitors. There is certainly nothing of the level of differentiation found in Apple's spots, which have their own distinct look and feel.
Success
Both companies have enjoyed considerable success in the personal computing industry. It is likely that Apple's promotions are more effective, but this assessment could reflect that the goals of Apple's promotions are clear. Apple seeks to create a strong brand image and with that brand loyalty. By those measures, Apple has been exceptionally successful. The success manifests more in Apple's other products than in the computer industry, where its market share is relatively stable. Apple also focuses on product attributes as a secondary message. This message appears to appeal to the company's existing fan base if nobody else. The company has a tertiary message that seeks to convey directly the ways in which its products are differentiated. This message, even if not entirely effective, is very clear and appealing.
For Hewlett Packard, the company has the #1 market share in computers, despite mixed messages in its advertisements. As with Apple, much of its brand image is related to its other products; while HP is a dominant computer maker its business products and peripherals are more noted for their quality than its computers are. HP dilutes its differentiation with price promotions, indicating that it has not differentiated its computers to the same degree that Apple -- which does not discount -- has attained. The utility message that HP attempts to convey is moderately appealing, but ultimately a computer is a device that can be used to perform hundreds...
This implies that HP's message is somewhat weak in part because it focuses on specific details and takes a long time to make its point.
Overall, Apple's advertisements appear to be substantially more effective that HP's. The company's objectives are clear and it appears that the company meets or exceeds its objectives. HP's objectives are less clear, and the degree to which its ads meet those objectives is also unclear. If market share is the true indicator of effectiveness, then HP's ads are more effective. However, Apple is as concerned with brand loyalty as it is market share, and on that score Apple does outperform HP considerably. Apple products are also more highly differentiated, which better matches the company's strategy. HP may seek a differentiated position in the market, but its marketing program does not support this in any way, and most of HP's differentiation may rub off from its other products and its traditional excellence in the industry. The marketing program certainly does little to support differentiation.
Works Cited:
Apple.com. (2011). Retrieved April 5, 2011 from http://www.apple.com/mac/
"Happy Baby." (2010). YouTube/HP. Retrieved April 5, 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5s1QNfXGn4
Kahney, L. (2002). Apple: It's all about the brand. Wired. Retrieved April 5, 2011 from http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2002/12/56677
No author. (2010). Acer and HP grow market share in Q4, Apple holds steady. Electronista. Retrieved April 5, 2011 from http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/01/13/gartner.report.places.apple.in.5th.place/
Shopping.hp.com. (2011). Retrieved April 5, 2011 from http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/store_access.do-template_type=landing&landing=notebooks
